Balancing Agility and Discipline with XPrince

  • Jerzy Nawrocki
  • Lukasz Olek
  • Michal Jasinski
  • Bartosz Paliświat
  • Bartosz Walter
  • Błażej Pietrzak
  • Piotr Godek
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3943)


Most of the contemporary projects require balance between agility and discipline. In the paper a software development and project management methodology called XPrince (eXtreme PRogramming IN Controlled Environments) is presented. It is a combination of XP, PRINCE2 and RUP. Moreover, some experiments and tools are described that create an important basis for the methodology.


Project Manager Project Plan Requirement Engineering Requirement Engineer Team Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Adolph, S., Bramble, P., Cockburn, A., Pols, A.: Patterns for Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, S.: Examining behavioural retrieval, WISR8, Ohio State University (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beck, K.: Extreme Programming Explained. Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, D., Zigarmi, P.: Leadership and the One Minute Manager (1985)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boehm, B., Turner, R.: Balancing Agility and Discipline. A Guide for Perplexed. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bossi P.: Repo Margining System (visited in, 2004),
  7. 7.
    Brooks, F.: A Mythical Man-Month. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cockburn, A.: Writing Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cockburn, A.: Crystal Clear. A Human-Powered Methodology for Small Teams. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Covey, S.: The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Simon and Schuster, London (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ezran, M., Morisio, M., Tully, C.: Practical Software Reuse. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fowler, M.: Refactoring. Improving the Design of Existing Code. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1997)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Humphrey, W.: A Discipline for Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Humphrey, W.: Introduction to the Team Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    IEEE Guide for Information Technology – System Definition – Concept of Operations (ConOps) Document, IEEE Std. 1362-1998 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karner, G.: Use Case Points – Resource Estimation for Objectory Projects, Objective Systems SF AB (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kroll, P., Kruchten, Ph.: The Rational Unified Process Made Easy. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2, TSO, London (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nawrocki, J., Jasiński, M., Walter, B., Wojciechowski, A.: Extreme Programming Modified: Embrace Requirements Engineering Practices. In: 10th IEEE Joint International Requirements Engineering Conference, RE 2002, Essen (Germany), pp. 303–310. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nawrocki, J., Wojciechowski, A.: Experimental Evaluation of Pair Programming. In: Maxwell, K., Oligny, S., Kusters, R., van Veenendaal, E. (eds.) Project Control. Satisfying the Customer. Proceedings of the 12th European Software Control and Metrics Conference ESCOM 2001, pp. 269–276. Shaker Publishing, London (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nawrocki, J., Olek, L.: UC Workbench – A Tool for Writing Use Cases and Generating Mockups. In: Baumeister, H., Marchesi, M., Holcombe, M. (eds.) XP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3556, pp. 230–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nawrocki, J., Jasinski, M., Olek, L., Lange, B.: Pair Programming vs. Side-by-Side Programming. In: Richardson, I., Abrahamsson, P., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3792, pp. 28–38. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nosek, J.T.: The Case for Collaborative Programming. Communications of the ACM 41(3), 105–108 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Podgurski, A., Pierce, L.: Retrieving reusable software by sampling behavior. ACM TOSEM 2(3), 286–303 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stroulia, E., Leitch, R.K.: Understanding the Economics of Refactoring. In: Proc. of the Fifth ICSE Workshop on Economics-Driven Software Engineering Research, Portland (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Walter, B.: Analysis of Software Refactorings. PhD dissertation, Poznań University of Technology, Poznań, Poland (2004) (in Polish)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    White, S.: Introduction to BPMN (visited in, 2005),
  28. 28.
    Williams, L.: The Collaborative Software Process. PhD Dissertation at the Department of Computer Science, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (2000) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Williams, L., et al.: Strengthening the Case for Pair Programming. IEEE Software 17(4), 19–25 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jerzy Nawrocki
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lukasz Olek
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michal Jasinski
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bartosz Paliświat
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bartosz Walter
    • 1
    • 2
  • Błażej Pietrzak
    • 1
  • Piotr Godek
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Computing SciencePoznań University of TechnologyPoznańPoland
  2. 2.PB PolsoftPoznańPoland

Personalised recommendations