ASA: Agile Software Development Self-assessment Method

  • Matheus Florêncio
  • Fernando SambinelliEmail author
  • Marcos Augusto Francisco Borges
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 802)


The migration from classical development to agile methodologies presents itself as a journey with many obstacles. New methods and tools for evaluating teams and organizations that support this process have been developed by the academic community and industry. However, questions have been raised on the inconsistencies for alignment of these methods with respect to the principles contained in the Agile Manifesto. The objective of this work was to investigate these possible inconsistencies and propose solutions in order to solve them. A critical analysis of the main agile evaluation methods and tools was carried out, based on a review of the literature, and misalignments were identified regarding the agile principles of flexibility, simplicity and pursuit for excellence. A new method of evaluation, the Agile Self-Assessment, has been proposed to address these gaps and to add to the capacity for continuous improvement in this process. A prototype tool was also developed that implements the method proposed in this work.


Agile methodologies Agile Manifesto Continuous improvement 


  1. 1.
    Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., Moe, N.B.: A decade of agile methodologies: towards explaining agile software development. J. Syst. Softw. 85, 1213–1221 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R.C., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., Thomas, D.: Agile Manifesto.
  3. 3.
    Johnson, J., Crear, J., Vianna, L., Mulder, T., Lynch, J.: Standish Group 2015 Chaos Report.
  4. 4.
    Fitzgerald, B., Stol, K.J.: Continuous software engineering: a roadmap and agenda. J. Syst. Softw. 123, 176–189 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Al-Zewairi, M., Biltawi, M., Etaiwi, W., Shaout, A.: Agile software development methodologies: survey of surveys. J. Comput. Commun. 5, 74–97 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nafchi, M.Z., Zulzalil, H., Gandomani, T.J.: On the current agile assessment methods and approaches. In: 8th Malaysian Software Engineering Conference (MySEC), Langkawi, Malaysia, pp. 251–254. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gandomani, T.J., Zulzalil, H., Ghani, A.A.A., Sultan, M.A.B., Nafchi, M.Z.: Obstacles in moving to agile software development methods; at a glance. J. Comput. Sci. 9, 620–625 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gandomani, T.J., Zulzalil, H., Ghani, A.A.A., Sultan, M.A.B.: Towards comprehensive and disciplined change management strategy in agile transformation process. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 6, 2345–2351 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Soundararajan, S., Arthur, J.D., Balci, O.: A methodology for assessing agile software development methods. In: Agile Conference (AGILE), Dallas, TX, USA, pp. 51–54. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fontana, R.M., Reinehr, S., Malucelli, A.: Maturing in agile: what is it about? In: Cantone, G., Marchesi, M. (eds.) XP 2014. LNBIP, vol. 179, pp. 94–109. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Williams, L., Rubin, K., Cohn, M.: Driving process improvement via comparative agility assessment. In: 2010 Agile Conference, Nashville, TN, USA, pp. 3–10. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Likert, R., Roslow, S., Murphy, G.: A simple and reliable method of scoring the thurstone attitude scales. J. Soc. Psychol. 5, 228–238 (1934)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sidky, A., Arthur, J., Bohner, S.: A disciplined approach to adopting agile practices: the agile adoption framework. Innov. Syst. Softw. Eng. 3, 203–216 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thoughtworks: Thoughtworks Assessment Model.
  15. 15.
    Qumer, A., Henderson-Sellers, B.: An evaluation of the degree of agility in six agile methods and its applicability for method engineering. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50, 280–295 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Software Engineering Institute: CMMI for Development, Version 1.3 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deming, E.: Out of the Crisis. MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matheus Florêncio
    • 1
  • Fernando Sambinelli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marcos Augusto Francisco Borges
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculdade de TecnologiaUniversidade Estadual de CampinasLimeiraBrazil

Personalised recommendations