Abstract

The difficulties and even lack of commitment to follow plans within plan-based organizations is a well known phenomenon (see tikyaCiborra et al. 2000; Suchman 1987). For software development companies, this problem has become an increasing dilemma, as typically plan-driven software development assessment standards like the capability maturity model (CMM) or ISO/IEC 15504 have not always been easy to conform processes against. Particularly, in environments where requirements are rapidly changing, more agile approaches such as Scrum and extreme programming (XP) have caught on. In this work, we are reporting from a case study of an organization looking to not move completely from their plan-based processes (as they are but a part of a larger organization operating in a plan-based way), but rather adapt their overarching processes in a way that allows them to use XP to support their everyday work precluded by their current processes. To this end, we present four perspectives that organizations may take when they desire or consider becoming more agile in their development. We use the Nerur et al. (2005) key issues for moving from plan-based to agile software development to compare and analyze our findings. In doing this, we highlight a set of likely criteria necessary to successfully create a combination of the plan-driven and agile approaches.

Keywords

Agile software development extreme programming (XP) plan-driven software development Scrum 

References

  1. Abrahamsson, P., Warsta, J., Sipponen, M. T., and Ronkainen, J. “New Directions on Agile Methods: A Comparative Analysis,” in L. Clarke, L. Dillon, and W. Tichy (eds.), Proceedings of the 25 th International Conference on Software Engineering, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 2003, pp. 244–254.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, K. “Embracing Change with Extreme Programming,” IEEE Computer (32), 1999a, pp. 70–77.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, K. “Extreme Programming Explained,” Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1999b.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, K 2000. “Extreme programming explained: embrace change,” Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, R. C. “Analytic Issues in the Use of Repertory Grid Technique,” Advances in Personal Construct Psychology (1), 1990, pp. 25–48.Google Scholar
  6. Boehm, B. “Get Ready for Agile Methods, with Care,” Computer (351), 2002, pp. 64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Churchman, C. The Design of Inquiring Systems—Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization, New York: Basic Books Inc., 1971.Google Scholar
  8. Ciborra, C. U., Braa, K., Cordelia, A., Dahlbom, B., Failla, A., Hanseth, O., Hepsø, V., Ljungberg, J., Monteiro, E., and Simon, K. A. From Control to Drift: The Dynamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. Cockburn, A., and Highsmith, J. “Agile Software Development: The People Factor,” IEEE Computer, November 2001, pp. 131–133.Google Scholar
  10. Daniels, K., de Chernatony, L., and Johnson, G. “Validating a Method for Mapping Managers Mental Models of Competitive Industry Structures,” Human Relations (499), 1995, pp. 975–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kelly, G. The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Volumes 1 and 2, London: Routledge, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. Law, A., and Charron, R. “Effects of Agile Practices on Social Factors,” in Proceedings of 27 th International Conference on Software Engineering: Workshop on Human and Social Factors of Software Engineering, St. Louis, MO, May 15–21, 2005, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
  13. Mathiassen, L., Pries-Heje, J., and Ngwenyama, O. Improving Software Organizations, Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2002.Google Scholar
  14. Moynihan, T. “An Inventory of Personal Constructs for Information Systems Project Risk Researchers,” Journal of Information Technology (11), 1996, pp. 359–371.Google Scholar
  15. Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R., and Mangalaraj, G. “Challenges of Migrating to Agile Methodologies,” Communications of the ACM (48:5), May 2005, pp. 72–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nonaka, I. “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation,” Organization Science (5:1), 1994, pp. 14–37.Google Scholar
  17. Orlikowski, W. J., and Gash, D. C. “Technological Frames: Making Sense of Information Technology in Organizations,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems (12:2), April 1994, pp. 174–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Olsson, C. M., and Russo, N. “Applying Adaptive Structuration Theory to the Study of Context-Aware Applications,” in B. Kaplan, D. P. Truex, D. Wastell, A. T. Wood-Harper, and J. I. DeGross (eds.), Information Systems Research: Relevant Theory and Informed Practice, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004, pp. 735–741.Google Scholar
  19. Paulk, M. “Analyzing the Conceptual Relationship between ISO/IEC 15504 (Software Process Assessment) and the Capability Maturity Model for Software,” International Conference on Software Quality, Cambridge, MA, 1999 (available online at http://www.telnet.com.tn/Doc/ISO_15504_Maturity_Model_for_Software.pdf).Google Scholar
  20. Paulk, M. “Extreme Programming from a CMM Perspective,” IEEE Software (18:6), November–December 2001, pp. 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Paulk, M., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., and Weber, C. V. The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. Schwaber, K., and Beedle, M. Agile Software Development with Scrum, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.Google Scholar
  23. Shaw, M. L. G., and Thomas, L. F. “FOCUS on Education: An Interactive Computer System for the Development and Analysis of Repertory Grids,” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies (10), 1978, pp. 139–173.Google Scholar
  24. Suchman, L. A. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  25. Tan, F. B., and Hunter, M. G. “The Repertory Grid Technique: A Method for the Study of Cognition In Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly (26:1), 2002, pp. 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Van Loon, H. Process Assessment and ISO/IEC 15504, Berlin: Springer, 2004.Google Scholar
  27. Vriens, C. “Certifying for CMM Level 2 and ISO 9001 with XP@Scrum,” in Proceedings of the Agile Development Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, June 25–28, 2003, pp. 120–124 (available online at http://www.agiledevelopmentconference.com/2003/files/R8Paper.pdf).Google Scholar
  28. Weick, K. E., and Bougon, M. G. “Organizations as Cognitive Maps: Charting Ways to Success and Failure,” in K. E. Weick (ed.), Sensemaking in Organizations, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 2001, pp. 308–329.Google Scholar
  29. Williams, L., and Cockburn, A. “Agile Software Development: Its about Feedback and Change,” IEEE Computer (36:6), June 2003, pp. 39–43.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helene Dahlberg
    • 1
  • Francisco Solano Ruiz
    • 2
  • Carl Magnus Olsson
    • 3
  1. 1.Volvo Technology CorporationGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Elanders ABGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.University of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations