International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement

Product-Focused Software Process Improvement pp 149-166 | Cite as

Is Water-Scrum-Fall Reality? On the Use of Agile and Traditional Development Practices

  • Georgios Theocharis
  • Marco Kuhrmann
  • Jürgen Münch
  • Philipp Diebold
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9459)

Abstract

For years, agile methods are considered the most promising route toward successful software development, and a considerable number of published studies the (successful) use of agile methods and reports on the benefits companies have from adopting agile methods. Yet, since the world is not black or white, the question for what happened to the traditional models arises. Are traditional models replaced by agile methods? How is the transformation toward Agile managed, and, moreover, where did it start? With this paper we close a gap in literature by studying the general process use over time to investigate how traditional and agile methods are used. Is there coexistence or do agile methods accelerate the traditional processes’ extinction? The findings of our literature study comprise two major results: First, studies and reliable numbers on the general process model use are rare, i.e., we lack quantitative data on the actual process use and, thus, we often lack the ability to ground process-related research in practically relevant issues. Second, despite the assumed dominance of agile methods, our results clearly show that companies enact context-specific hybrid solutions in which traditional and agile development approaches are used in combination.

Keywords

Development practices Agile methods Software process Systematic literature review Comparative study Scrum 

References

  1. 1.
    Badampudi, D., Wohlin, C., Petersen, K.: Experiences from using snowballing and database searches in systematic literature studies. In: International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, pp. 17:1–17:10. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beck, L., Perkins, T.: A survey of software engineering practice: tools, methods, and results. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE–9(5), 541–561 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buschermöhle, R., Eekhoff, H., Josko, B.: SUCCess and failurE of hard- and Software projectS (SUCCESS). BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Carvalho, D.D., Chagas, L.F., Lima, A.M., Reis, C.A.L.: Software process lines: a systematic literature review. In: Mitasiunas, A., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2014. CCIS, vol. 477, pp. 118–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    de O. Melo, C., Santos, V., Katayama, E., Corbucci, H., Prikladnicki, R., Goldman, A., Kon, F.: The evolution of agile software development in Brazil. J. Braz. Comput. Soc. 19(4), 523–552 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Diebold, P., Dahlem, M.: Agile practices in practice: a mapping study. In: International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, EASE 2014, pp. 30:1–30:10. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., Moe, N.B.: A decade of agile methodologies: towards explaining agile software development. J. Syst. Softw. 85(6), 1213–1221 (2012). Special Issue: Agile DevelopmentCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dybå, T., Dingsøyr, T.: Empirical studies of agile software development: a systematic review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50(9–10), 833–859 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fitzgerald, B.: The use of systems development methodologies in practice: a field study. Inf. Syst. J. 7(3), 201–212 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fritzsche, M., Keil, P.: Kategorisierung etablierter vorgehensmodelle und ihre verbreitung in der deutschen software-industrie. Research Report (in German) TUM-I0717, Technische Universität München (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Georgiadou, E.: Software process and product improvement: a historical perspective. Cybern. Syst. Anal. 39(1), 125–142 (2003)MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jackson, M.A.: A system development method. In: Tools and Notions for Program Construction: An Advanced Course, pp. 1–25. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones, C.: Variations in software development practices. IEEE Softw. 20(6), 22–27 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khurana, M., He, Z., Court, I., Ross, M., Staples, G., Wilson, D.: Software quality practices - an empirical study. Softw. Qual. J. 5(2), 75–85 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kitchenham, B., Charters, S.: Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Technical report EBSE-2007-01, Keele University (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Komus, A., Kuberg, M., Atinc, C., Franner, L., Friedrich, F., Lang, T., Makarova, A., Reimer, D., Pabst, J.: Status quo agile 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuhrmann, M., Fernández, D.M.: Systematic software development: a state of the practice report from germany. In: International Conference on Global Software Engineering. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuhrmann, M., Fernández, D.M., Tiessler, M.: A mapping study on the feasibility of method engineering. J. Softw. Evol. Process 26(12), 1053–1073 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuhrmann, M., Konopka, C., Nellemann, P., Diebold, P., Münch, J.: Software process improvement: where is the evidence? In: International Conference on Software and Systems Process. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuhrmann, M., Linssen, O.: Vorgehensmodelle in deutschland: Nutzung von 2006–2013 im überblick. MAW-Rundbrief 39, 32–47 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lagerberg, L., Skude, T., Emanuelsson, P., Sandahl, K., Stahl, D.: The impact of agile principles and practices on large-scale software development projects: a multiple-case study of two projects at ericsson. In: International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pp. 348–356. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee, G., Xia, W.: Toward agile: an integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data. MIS Q. 34(1), 87–114 (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Martínez-Ruiz, T., García, F., Piattini, M., Münch, J.: Modelling software process variability: an empirical study. IET Softw. 5(2), 172–187 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martínez-Ruiz, T., Münch, J., Piattini, M.: Requirements and constructors for tailoring software processes: a systematic literature rewview. Softw. Qual. J. 20(1), 229–260 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Murphy, B., Bird, C., Zimmermann, T., Williams, L., Nagappan, N., Begel, A.: Have agile techniques been the silver bullet for software development at microsoft. In: International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. ACM/IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Papatheocharous, E., Andreou, A.S.: Empirical evidence and state of practice of software agile teams. J. Softw. Evol. Process 26(9), 855–866 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Petersen, K., Wohlin, C.: A comparison of issues and advantages in agile and incremental development between state of the art and an industrial case. J. Syst. Softw. 82(9), 1479–1490 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rahim, M., Seyal, A.H., Rahman, M.A.: Use of software systems development methods an empirical study in brunei darussalam. Inf. Softw. Technol. 39(14–15), 949–963 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Reifer, D.: How good are agile methods? IEEE Softw. 19(4), 16–18 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Reifer, D.: Is the software engineering state of the practice getting closer to the of the art? IEEE Softw. 20(6), 78–83 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rose, G.B.: SSADM - the open methodology. In: IEE Colloquium on an Introduction to Software Design Methodologies, number Ref. No: 1991/181, pp. 6/1–6/5. IET, December 1991Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Salo, O., Abrahamsson, P.: Agile methods in european embedded software development organisations: a survey on the actual use and usefulness of extreme programming and scrum. IET Softw. 2(1), 58–64 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Senapathi, M., Srinivasan, A.: Sustained agile usage: a systematic literature review. In: International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, pp. 119–124. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Senapathi, M., Srinivasan, A.: An empirical investigation of the factors affecting agile usage. In: International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, pp. 1–10. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Solinski, A., Petersen, K.: Prioritizing agile benefits and limitations in relation to practice usage. Softw. Qual. J., 1–36 (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tripp, J., Armstrong, D.: Exploring the relationship between organizational adoption motives and the tailoring of agile methods. In: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 4799–4806 (2014)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    VersionOne. State of agile survey (2006–2014). http://www.versionone.com/agile-resources/more-resources/blogs/
  39. 39.
    Vijayasarathy, L., Butler, C.: Choice of software development methodologies - do project, team and organizational characteristics matter? IEEE Softw. (99), 1 (2015)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    West, D.: Water-Scrum-Fall is the reality of agile for most organizations today. Technical report, Forrester (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgios Theocharis
    • 1
  • Marco Kuhrmann
    • 1
  • Jürgen Münch
    • 2
  • Philipp Diebold
    • 3
  1. 1.The Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Institute and Center for Energy InformaticsUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software EngineeringKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations