The Missing Framework for Adaptation of Agile Software Development Projects

  • Kevin SuryaatmajaEmail author
  • Dermawan Wibisono
  • Achmad Ghazali
Conference paper
Part of the Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics book series (EBES, volume 11/2)


This paper focuses on the study of the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) implementation of software development project in an insurance company name “Preeminence” in Jakarta, Indonesia. Initial findings in this corporation reveal that several key people who had using Agile SDLC, mentioned they need some accommodation when implementing Agile during a project. Previous studies had introduced the additional process to help a project using Agile. However, studies that explored the importance of experience-based learning process during Agile implementation are noticeably lacking. The needs of the experience-based learning process to explore the learning process as a factor for adaptation of Agile implementation, which hopes to increase the success of a project when using the Agile framework. Methods carried out in this research are based on archival research strategy by examining extant research on Agile adaptation for software projects implementation which published from 1999. Many studies focus on Agile implementation related to content and context to put additional process as an accommodation to easier a project using Agile. However, only a few discussed the process, particularly the learning process which is mean that research gap exists in the area of Agile implementation relates to the learning process.


Software Development Life Cycle Waterfall Agile Scrum Transactive Memory System Soft System Methodology 


  1. Anquetil, N., de Oliveira, K. M., de Sousa, K. D., & Dias, M. G. B. (2006). Software maintenance seen as a knowledge management issue. Information and Software Technology, 49(5), 515–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apshvalka, D., Donina, D., & Kirikova, M. (2009). Understanding the problems of requirements elicitation process: A human perspective. In W. Wojtkowski, G. Wojtkowski, M. Lang, K. Conboy, & C. Barry (Eds.), Information systems development. Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Argyris, C. (1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3), 363–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Argyris, C. (1997). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115–125.Google Scholar
  6. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  7. Asif, Q. B., & Brian, H. (2008). A framework to support the evaluation, adoption and improvement of agile methods in practice. Journal of Systems and Software, 81(11), 1899–1919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ayed, H., Vanderose, B., & Habra, N. (2014). Supported approach for agile methods adaptation: An adoption study categories and subject descriptors. In: ICSE 2014, Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Rapid Continuous Software Engineering (RCoSE 2014). Hyderabad, India, 3 June 2014. New York, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  9. Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2003). Using risk to balance agile and plan-driven methods. IEEE Computer, 36(6), 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bose, L., & Thakur, S. (2013). Introducing agile into a non agile project : Analysis of agile methodology with its issues and challenges. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science, 4(2), 305–311.Google Scholar
  11. Chau, T., Maurer, F., & Melnik, G. (2003). Knowledge sharing: Agile methods vs. tayloristic methods. In: WET ICE 2003, Twelfth IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises. Linz, Austria, 11 June 2003. Washington: IEEE Computer Society.
  12. Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action. A short definitive account of soft system methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers, and students. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Cho, J. J. (2010). An exploratory study on issues and challenges of agile software development with scrum. Ph.D. Utah State University.Google Scholar
  14. Cohn, M. (2010). Succeeding with agile: Software development using Scrum. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Conboy, K. (2009). Agility from first principles: Reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 329–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conboy, S., Coyle, S., Wang, X. F., & Pikkarainen, M. (2010). People over process: Key people challenges in agile development. IEEE Software, 28(4), 48–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Conger, S. (2011). Software development life cycles and methodologies: Fixing the old and adopting the new. International Journal of Information Technologies and Systems Approach, 4(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coyle, S., Conboy, K., & Acton, T. (2013). Group process losses in agile software development decision making. International Journal of Intelligent Information Technologies, 9(2), 38–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Crawford, B., Castro, C., & Monfroy, E. (2006). Knowledge management in different software development approaches. In ADVIS 2006, 4th international conference. Lecture notes in computer science, vol. 4243. Turkey, 18–20 October, 2006. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., & Balijepally, B. G. (2012). A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development. The Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1213–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Esfahani, H. C. (2012). Transitioning to agile: A framework for pre-adoption analysis using empirical knowledge and strategic modeling. Doctoral. University of Toronto. Accessed May 18, 2019, from
  23. Esfahani, H. C., Cabot, J., & Yu, E. (2010). Adopting agile methods: Can goal-oriented social modeling help?. In: RCIS 2010, Fourth International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science. Nice, France, 19–21 May 2010. Washington: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  24. Financial Services Authority of Indonesia. (2015). Indonesian insurance statistic. [online] Accessed October 31, 2017, from statistik/asuransi/Pages/Statistik-Perasuransian-Indonesia-2015.aspx
  25. Gregory, P., Plonka, L., Sharp, H., & Taylor, K. (2014). Bridging the gap between research and practice: The agile research network. In ECRM 2014, 13th European conference on research methodology for business and management studies. London, 16–17 June, 2014. Reading: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited.Google Scholar
  26. Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (pp. 3–27). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  27. Hefke, M., & Trunko, R. (2002). A methodological basis for bringing knowledge. Management to real-world environments. In Practical aspects of knowledge management, 4th international conference. Vienna, 2–3 December, 2002. Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Heje, J. P., & Baskerville, R. (2017). The translation and adaptation of agile methods: A discourse of fragmentation and articulation. Information Technology & People, 30(2), 396–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoda, R., & Noble, J. (2017). Becoming agile: A grounded theory of agile transitions in practice. In IEEE/ACM, 39th international conference on software engineering. Buenos Aires, 20–28 May, 2017 (pp. 141–151). New Jersey: IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hollingshead, A. B. (1998). Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(5), 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hollingshead, A. B. (2001). Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1080–1089.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hyland, & Matlay. (1997). Small businesses, training needs and VET provision. Journal of Education and Work, 10(2), 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ikehara, H. T. (1999). Implications of gestalt theory and practice for the learning organization. The Learning Organization, 6(2), 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 35(1), 37–50.Google Scholar
  35. Krasteva, I., Ilieva, S., & Dimov, A. (2010). Experience-based approach for adoption of agile practices in software development projects. In: CAiSE 2010, 22nd International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (Vol. 6051). Hammamet, Tunisia, 7–9 June 2010. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Lee, S., & Yong, H. S. (2013). Agile software development framework in a small project environment. Journal of Information Processing Systems, 9(1), 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewis, K. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50(11), 1519–1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lewis, K., Lange, D., & Gillis, L. (2005). Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organization Science, 16(6), 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liao, J., Jimmieson, N. L., O’Brien, A. T., & Restubog, S. L. D. (2012). Developing transactive memory systems: Theoretical contributions from a social identity perspective. Group & Organization Management, 37(2), 204–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mannaro, K. (2008). Adopting agile methodologies in distributed software development. Doctoral. Universita’ degli Studi di Cagliari. Accessed May 18, 2019, from
  41. Matlay. (2000). Organisational learning in small learning organisations: An empirical overview. Education and Training, 42(4/5), 202–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McAvoy, J., & Butler, T. (2009). A failure to learn by software developers: Inhibiting the adoption of an agile software development methodology. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 11(1), 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mikulenas, G., Butleris, R., & Nemuraite, L. (2011). An approach for the metamodel of the framework for a partial agile method adaptation. Information Technology and Control, 40(1), 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller, K., & Larson, D. (2005). Agile software development: Human values and culture. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 24(4), 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nielsen, J. (2000). Usability engineering. San Diego, CA: Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  46. Nikitina, N., & Kajko-Mattsson, M. (2014). Guiding the adoption of software development methods. In: ICSSP 2014, Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Software and System Process. Nanjing, China, 26–28 May 2014. New York, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  47. Nonaka, I. (1991). The Knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96–104.Google Scholar
  48. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  49. Ozer, M., & Vogel, D. (2015). Contextualized relationship between knowledge sharing and performance in software development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(2), 134–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Paasivaara, M. (2017). Adopting SAFe to scale agile in a globally distributed organization. In: ICGSE 2017, 12th International Conference on Global Software Engineering. Buenos Aires, Argentina, 22–23 May 2017. Washington: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  51. Parrish, A., Smith, R., Hale, D., & Hale, J. (2004). A field study of developer pairs: Productivity impacts and implications. IEEE Software, 21(5), 76–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pauleen, D. J., & Gorman, G. E. (2011). Personal knowledge management: Individual, organizational and social perspectives. England: Gower Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (1998). Organizational learning mechanisms: A cultural and structural approach to organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(2), 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rajkovic, P., Petkovic, I., Milenkovic, A., & Jankovic, D. (2016). Combining agile and traditional methodologies in medical information systems development process. In: SQAMIA 2016, Fifth Workshop on Software Quality Analysis, Monitoring, Improvement, and Applications. Budapest, Hungary, 29–31 August 2016. Germany: CEUR Workshop Proceedings.Google Scholar
  55. Rasmusson, J. (2006). Agile project initiation techniques - The inception deck & boot camp. In: AGILE 2006, AGILE Conference, 2006. Minneapolis, USA, 23–28 July 2006. Washington: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  56. Rasnacis, A., & Berzisa, S. (2017). Method for adaptation and implementation of agile project management methodology. Procedia Computer Science, 104(2017), 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Richter-von, C., Hagen, D., Ratz, R., & Povalej. (2005). Towards self-organizing knowledge intensive processes. Journal of Universal Knowledge Management, 2, 148–169.Google Scholar
  58. Rohunen, A., Rodriguez, P., Kuvaja, P., Krzanik, L., & Markkula, J. (2010). Approaches to agile adoption in large settings: A comparison of the results from a literature analysis and an industrial inventory. In: PROFES 2010, 11th International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (Vol. 6156). Limerick, Ireland, 21–23 June 2010. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  59. Royce, W. (1970). Managing the development of large software systems: Concepts and techniques. In Proceedings of IEEE WESTCON, 9th international conference on software engineering. Los Angeles, August 1970.Google Scholar
  60. Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M., & Cule, P. (2001). Identifying software project risks: An international study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4), 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. London: Random House.Google Scholar
  62. Sidky, A., Arthur, J., & Bohner, S. (2007). A disciplined approach to adopting agile practices: The agile adoption framework. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering, 3(3), 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. Psychological Inquiry, 14(3/4), 304–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Soundararajan, S., & Arthur, J.D. (2009). A soft-structured agile framework for larger scale systems development. In: ECBS 2009, 16th Annual IEEE International Conference and Workshop on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems. San Francisco, CA, USA, 14–16 April 2009. Washington: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  65. Sureshchandra, K., & Shrinivasavadhani, J. (2008). Adopting agile in distributed development. In: ICGSE 2008, 3rd IEEE International Conference Global Software Engineering. Bangalore, India, 17-20 August 2008. Washington: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  66. The Standish Group. (2015). Chaos report. [online] Accessed October 31, 2017, from
  67. Thomas, R. R. (2004). Learning from HOMER: A case-based help desk support system. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  68. Tiwana, A. (2004). An empirical study of the effect of knowledge integration on software development performance. Information and Software Technology, 46(13), 899–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vidgen, R., & Wang, X. (2009). Coevolving systems and the organization of agile software development. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2003). Organizational learning: A critical review. The Learning Organization, 10(1), 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  72. Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 923–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wegner, D. M., Giuliano, T., & Hertel, P. T. (1985). Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In J. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 253–276). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wittenbaum, G. M., Vaughan, S. I., & Stasser, G. (1998). Coordination in task-performing groups. In R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. J. Posvoc, F. B. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, E. Henderson-King, & J. Myers (Eds.), Social psychological applications to social issues: Theory and research on small groups (Vol. 4, pp. 177–204). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin Suryaatmaja
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dermawan Wibisono
    • 1
  • Achmad Ghazali
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Business and Management, Institut Teknologi BandungBandungIndonesia

Personalised recommendations