Advertisement

How Agile Is Hybrid Agile? An Analysis of the HELENA Data

  • John NollEmail author
  • Sarah Beecham
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11915)

Abstract

Context: Many researchers advocate “tailoring” agile methods to suit a project’s or company’s specific environment and needs. This includes combining agile methods with more traditional “plan driven” practices.

Objective: This study aims to assess to what extent projects actually combine agile and traditional practices.

Method: Data from the HELENA survey of nearly 700 projects were examined to assess how many projects combine agile methods and traditional methods, and also to what extent they used different software development practices.

Results: The data show that, overall, two-thirds of the projects in the survey combine agile and traditional methods to some extent. However, projects that combine agile and traditional methods are significantly less likely to use agile practices than projects that solely use agile methods.

Conclusions: We hypothesize that the mindset of an organization, rather than technical necessity, determines whether a project will adopt a hybrid vs. purely agile approach.

Keywords

Agile development methods Empirical Software engineering Hybrid agile development 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported, in part, by Science Foundation Ireland grants 10/CE/I1855 and 13/RC/2094 to Lero - the Irish Software Research Centre (www.lero.ie).

References

  1. 1.
    Aitken, A., Ilango, V.: A comparative analysis of traditional software engineering and agile software development. In: 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 4751–4760, January 2013Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akbar, R., Safdar, S.: A short review of global software development (gsd) and latest software development trends. In: 2015 International Conference on Computer, Communications, and Control Technology (I4CT), pp. 314–317. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beck, K., Gamma, E.: Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison Wesley, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boehm, B., Turner, R.: Using risk to balance agile and plan-driven methods. Computer 36(6), 57–66 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ciolkowski, M., Laitenberger, O., Vegas, S., Biffl, S.: Practical experiences in the design and conduct of surveys in empirical software engineering. In: Conradi, R., Wang, A.I. (eds.) Empirical Methods and Studies in Software Engineering. LNCS, vol. 2765, pp. 104–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-45143-3_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conboy, K.: Agility from first principles: reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Inf. Syst. Res. 20(3), 329–354 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diebold, P., Zehler, T.: The right degree of agility in rich processes. Managing Software Process Evolution, pp. 15–37. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31545-4_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doležel, M.: Possibilities of applying institutional theory in the study of hybrid software development concepts and practices. In: Kuhrmann, M., et al. (eds.) PROFES 2018. LNCS, vol. 11271, pp. 441–448. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03673-7_35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dyba, T., Dingsoyr, T.: What do we know about agile software development? IEEE Softw. 26(5), 6–9 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fowler, M., Highsmith, J.: The agile manifesto. Softw. Dev. 9(8), 28–35 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klünder, J., et al.: HELENA Study: reasons for combining agile and traditional software development approaches in German companies. In: Felderer, M., Méndez Fernández, D., Turhan, B., Kalinowski, M., Sarro, F., Winkler, D. (eds.) PROFES 2017. LNCS, vol. 10611, pp. 428–434. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69926-4_32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuhrmann, M., et al.: Hybrid software development approaches in practice: a European perspective. IEEE Softw. 36(4), 20–31 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuhrmann, M., et al.: Hybrid software and system development in practice: waterfall, scrum, and beyond. In: Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Software and System Process, pp. 30–39. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuhrmann, M., Tell, P., Klünder, J., Hebig, R., Licorish, S., MacDonell, S.: Helena stage 2 results. Technical report, HELENA consortium (11 2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larman, C., Basili, V.R.: Iterative and incremental development: a brief history. Computer 36(6), 47–56 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marinho, M., Luna, A., Beecham, S.: Global Software development: practices for cultural differences. In: Kuhrmann, M., et al. (eds.) PROFES 2018. LNCS, vol. 11271, pp. 299–317. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03673-7_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marinho, M., Noll, J., Richardson, I., Beecham, S.: Plan-driven approaches are alive and kicking in agile global software development. In: International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). ACM/IEEE (2019)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meyer, B.: Making sense of agile methods. IEEE Softw. 35(2), 91–94 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R., Mangalaraj, G.: Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies. Commun. ACM 48(5), 72–78 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paez, N., Fontdevila, D., Oliveros, A.: HELENA study: initial observations of software development practices in Argentina. In: Felderer, M., et al. (eds.) PROFES 2017. LNCS, vol. 10611, pp. 443–449. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69926-4_34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shull, F., Singer, J., Sjøberg, D.I.: Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tell, P., et al.: What are hybrid development methods made of?: an evidence-based characterization. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and System Processes, pp. 105–114. IEEE Press (2019)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    VersionOne Inc: 13th Annual State of Agile Development Survey (2018). https://www.stateofagile.com/#ufh-i-521251909-13th-annual-state-of-agile-report/473508. Accessed 5 August 2019. web page
  24. 24.
    Vinekar, V., Slinkman, C.W., Nerur, S.: Can agile and traditional systems development approaches coexist? an ambidextrous view. Inf. Syst. Manag. 23(3), 31–42 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HertfordshireHatfieldEngland
  2. 2.Lero, the Irish Software Research CentreUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations