Comparison of Agile Maturity Models

  • Anna Schmitt
  • Sven TheobaldEmail author
  • Philipp Diebold
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11915)


Context: Agile software development is widely used by small teams. Companies want to check their implementation of Agile for different reasons. Many Agile Maturity Models (AMM) exist that support practitioners in assessing and improving their agility. However, practitioners need to be able to make informed decisions on which one to use. Objective: The aim of this work is to enable the comparison of existing AMMs. Method: We identified 14 AMMs in a non-systematic literature review, considering non-scientific sources as well. We propose criteria for their comparison based on our experience and our understanding of practitioners’ needs. Results: We present twelve comparison criteria and show how the identified AMMs differ along those criteria. Conclusion: Practitioners get an overview of existing models and can select a suitable one with the help of the comparison criteria.


Agile Maturity Model Assessment Agile software development Comparison criteria 



This research is funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) as part of a Software Campus project (01IS17047). We also thank Sonnhild Namingha for proof reading this paper.


  1. 1.
    Version One: 12th Annual State of Agile TM Report (2018).
  2. 2.
    Diebold, P., Ostberg, J.-P., Wagner, S., Zendler, U.: What do practitioners vary in using scrum? In: Lassenius, C., Dingsøyr, T., Paasivaara, M. (eds.) XP 2015. LNBIP, vol. 212, pp. 40–51. Springer, Cham (2015). Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Software Engineering Institute: CMMI for Development, Version 1.3 – Improving processes for developing better products and services (2010).
  5. 5.
    Schweigert, T., Nevalainen, R., Vohwinkel, D., Korsaa, M., Biro, M.: Agile maturity model: oxymoron or the next level of understanding. In: Mas, A., Mesquida, A., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2012. CCIS, vol. 290, pp. 289–294. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schweigert, T., Vohwinkel, D., Korsaa, M., Nevalainen, R., Biro, M.: Agile maturity model: a synopsis as a first step to synthesis. In: McCaffery, F., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2013. CCIS, vol. 364, pp. 214–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ozcan-Top, O., Demirörs, O.: Assessment of agile maturity models: a multiple case study. In: Woronowicz, T., Rout, T., O’Connor, Rory V., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2013. CCIS, vol. 349, pp. 130–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leppänen, M.: A comparative analysis of agile maturity models. In: Pooley, R., Coady, J., Schneider, C., Linger, H., Barry, C., Lang, M. (eds.) Information Systems Development, pp. 329–343. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).
  9. 9.
    Kitchenham, B.A., Charters, S.: Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Technical report EBSE-2007-01, School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Keele University (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wohlin, C.: Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2014), no. 38 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Diebold, P., Küpper, S., Zehler, T.: Nachhaltige Agile Transition: Symbiose von technischer und kultureller Agilität. In: Engstler, M., et al. (Hrsg.) Projektmanagement und Vorgehensmodelle, pp. 121–126 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wells, D.: Extreme Programming: A Gentle Introduction (2013).
  13. 13.
    Sutherland, J., Schwaber, K.: The Scrum Guide (2016).
  14. 14.
    Beck, K., et al.: Manifesto for Agile Software Development (2001).
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Patel, C., Ramachandran, M.: Agile maturity model (AMM): a software process improvement framework for agile software development practices. Int. J. Softw. Eng. 2(1), 1–26 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Benefield, R.: Seven dimensions of agile maturity in the global enterprise: a case study. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yin, A., Figueiredo, S., Da Silva, M.M.: Scrum maturity model. In: The Sixth International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Minick, E., Fredrick, J.: Enterprise Continuous Integration Maturity Model (2014).
  21. 21.
    Proulx, M.: Yet Another Agile Maturity Model (AMM) – The 5 Levels of Maturity (2010).
  22. 22.
    Sidky, A., Arthur, J., Bohner, S.: A disciplined approach to adopting agile practices: the agile adoption framework. Innov. Syst. Softw. Eng. 3(3), 203–216 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Humble, J., Russel, R.: The agile maturity model – applied to building and releasing software (2011). ThoughtWorks STUDIOS.
  24. 24.
    Seuffert, M.: Agile Karlskrona Test (2009).
  25. 25.
    Ronen-Harel, S.: ATMM - Agile Testing Maturity Model: Practical View (2010).
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Druckman, A.: Agile Transformation Strategy (2011). Whitepaper.
  28. 28.
    Programmedevelopment: Agile Readiness & Maturity. (website not available anymore)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fraunhofer IESEKaiserslauternGermany
  2. 2.Bagilstein GmbHMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations