Advertisement

Configuring Hybrid Agile-Traditional Software Processes

  • Adam Geras
  • Michael Smith
  • James Miller
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4044)

Abstract

The traditional versus agile project debate is most often represented in terms of polar positions of the life cycle – the process is either traditional or agile, waterfall or highly iterative. This may be effective in intellectual discussions, but it is highly unlikely to be useful to practitioners, especially those practitioners that are facing traditional project pressures and trying to find the “home ground” for their situation that will increase the likelihood that they will succeed. In this paper, we discuss extensions to Boehm and Turner’s five dimensions for determining a project’s “home ground” – that is, the process configuration that might best fit the situation at hand. We have added dimensions to the basic framework provided by Boehm and Turner and have considered the process configuration question as a process itself and increased its scope to include both management and engineering key practice areas.

Keywords

Software Process User Story Agile Method Agile Practice Agile Process 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Correia, J.: Recommendation for the Software Industry During Hard Times. Gartner Dataquest Report (June 6, 2002) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boehm, B., Turner, R.: Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed. Addison-Wesley, Toronto (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    DSDM Consortium. DSDM Lifecycle. DSDM Consortium (2005) (Accessed 2005), http://www.dsdm.org/tour/process.asp
  4. 4.
    Highsmith, J.: AgileVsSelfAdapting. Alistair Cockburn (2005) (Accessed 2005), http://alistair.cockburn.us/crystal/wiki/AgileVsSelfAdapting
  5. 5.
    Cockburn, A.: Just-In-Time Methodology Construction. Alistair Cockburn (2000) (Accessed 2005), http://alistair.cockburn.us/crystal/articles/jmc/justintimemethodologyconstruction.html
  6. 6.
    Beck, K.: Extreme Programming Explained. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Don Mills (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cockburn, A.: A Methodology Per Project. Alistair Cockburn (1999) (Accessed 2005), http://alistair.cockburn.us/crystal/articles/mpp/methodologyperproject.html
  8. 8.
    Barnett, L., Narsu, U.: Planning Assumption: Best Practices for Agile Development. Forrester Research, Inc., Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Highsmith, J.: Agile Project Management. Addison-Wesley, Toronto (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Highsmith, J.A.: Adaptive Software Development. Dorset House Publishing Co., Inc., New York (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam Geras
    • 1
  • Michael Smith
    • 2
  • James Miller
    • 3
  1. 1.Ideaca Knowledge ServicesCalgary, AlbertaCanada
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of CalgaryCalgary, AlbertaCanada
  3. 3.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of AlbertaEdmonton, AlbertaCanada

Personalised recommendations