Advertisement

Decision Support for Iteration Scheduling in Agile Environments

  • Ákos Szőke
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 32)

Abstract

Today’s software business development projects often lay claim to low-risk value to the customers in order to be financed. Emerging agile processes offer shorter investment periods, faster time-to-market and better customer satisfaction. To date, however, in agile environments there is no sound methodological schedule support contrary to the traditional plan-based approaches. To address this situation, we present an agile iteration scheduling method whose usefulness is evaluated with post-mortem simulation. It demonstrates that the method can significantly improve load balancing of resources (cca. 5×), produce higher quality and lower-risk feasible schedule, and provide more informed and established decisions by optimized schedule production. Finally, the paper analyzes benefits and issues from the use of this method.

Keywords

agile planning iteration planning scheduling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dybå, T., Dingsøyr, T.: Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information & Software Technology 50, 833–859 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ambler, S.W.: Survey says: Agile works in practice. Dr. Dobb’s Journal (2006), http://www.ddj.com
  3. 3.
    Chow, T., Cao, D.B.: A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects. Journal of System and Software 81, 961–971 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Layman, L., Williams, L., Cunningham, L.: Motivations and measurements in an agile case study. Journal of Systems Architecture 52, 654–667 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Manifesto for agile software development, http://www.agilemanifesto.org
  6. 6.
    Declaration of interdependence for agile software project management, http://pmdoi.org
  7. 7.
    Scott, W., Ambler, P.K.: Lean development governance. Technical report, IBM Rational Software (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Qumer, A., Henderson-Sellers, B.: An evaluation of the degree of agility in six agile methods and its applicability for method engineering. Information & Software Technology 50, 280–295 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohn, M.: Agile Estimating and Planning. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dubakov, M., Stevens, P.: Agile Tools: The good, the bad, the ugly. Agile Journal (2008), http://www.agilejournal.com
  11. 11.
    Microsoft office project, sdk (2003), http://msdn2.microsoft.com
  12. 12.
    Rally homepage, http://www.rallydev.com
  13. 13.
    Xplanner homepage, http://xplanner.codehaus.org
  14. 14.
    Ruhe, G., Saliu, M.: The art and science of software release planning. IEEE Software 22, 47–53 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aurum, A., Wohlin, C.: The fundamental nature of requirements engineering activities as a decision-making process. Information & Software Technology 45, 945–954 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karlsson, L., Thelin, T., Regnell, B., Berander, P., Wohlin, C.: Pair-wise comparisons versus planning game partitioning–experiments on requirements prioritisation techniques. Empirical Software Engineering 12, 3–33 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carlshamre, P., Sandahl, K., Lindvall, M., Regnell, B., Dag, J.: An industrial survey of requirements interdependencies in software product release planning. In: RE 2001: Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 84–93. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li, C., van den Akker, J.M., Brinkkemper, S., Diepen, G.: Integrated requirement selection and scheduling for the release planning of a software product. In: Sawyer, P., Paech, B., Heymans, P. (eds.) REFSQ 2007. LNCS, vol. 4542, pp. 93–108. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boehm, B.W., Horowitz, E., Madachy, R., Reifer, D., Clark, B.K., Steece, B., Brown, W.A., Chulani, S., Abts, C.: Software Cost Estimation with Cocomo II. Prentice Hall PTR, Englewood Cliffs (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jung, H.W.: Optimizing value and cost in requirements analysis. IEEE Software 15, 74–78 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van den Akker, M., Brinkkemper, S., Diepen, G., Versendaal, J.: Software product release planning through optimization and what-if analysis. Information & Software Technology 50, 101–111 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Denne, M., Cleland-Huang, J.: The incremental funding method: Data-driven software development. IEEE Software 21, 39–47 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Szoke, A.: A proposed method for release planning from use case-based requirements. In: Euromicro SEAA 2008: Proceedings of the 34th Euromicro Conference, pp. 449–456. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Larman, C.: Agile and Iterative Development: A Manager’s Guide. Pearson Education, London (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ambler, S.W., Jeffries, R.: Agile modeling: effective practices for extreme programming and the unified process. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Unified modeling language version 2.0, http://www.uml.org
  27. 27.
    Schwindt, C.: Resource Allocation in Project Management. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Multilogic homepage, http://www.multilogic.hu
  29. 29.
    Microsoft sharepoint (2007), http://www.microsoft.com/sharepoint/
  30. 30.
    Mathworks homepage, http://www.mathworks.com/
  31. 31.
    Kellner, M., Madachy, R., Raffo, D.: Software process simulation modeling: Why? what? how? Journal of Systems and Software 46, 91–105 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ákos Szőke
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Measurement and Information SystemsBudapest University of Technology and EconomicsBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations