Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Approach for Prioritizing Agile Practices for Adaptation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Information Systems Development

Abstract

Agile software development approaches offer a strong alternative to the traditional plan-driven methodologies that have not been able to warrant successfulness of the software projects. However, the move toward Agile is often hampered by the wealth of alternative practices that are accompanied by numerous success or failure stories. Clearly, the formal methods for choosing most suitable practices are lacking. In this chapter, we present an overview of this problem and propose an approach for prioritization of available practices in accordance to the particular circumstances. The proposal combines ideas from Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) decision-making technique, cost-value analysis, and Rule-Description-Practice (RDP) technique. Assumption that such approach could facilitate the Agile adaptation process was supported by the case study of the approach illustrating the process of choosing most suitable Agile practices within a real-life project.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, J., and Warsta, J. (2002) Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis, VTT Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Abrahamsson, P., Warsta, J., Siponen, M. K., and Ronkainen, J. (2003) New directions on Agile method: A comparative analysis. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 244–254.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Agile Alliance (2001). Principles behind the Agile Manifesto. Retrieved 14 May, 2009, from: http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html.

  4. Ambler S. W. (2007) Agile Adoption Rate Survey: March 2007. Retrieved 15 May, 2009, from: http://www.ambysoft.com/downloads/surveys/AgileAdoption2007.ppt.

  5. Ambu, W. and Gianneschi, F. (2003) Extreme programming at work. In: M. Marchesi and G. Succi (Eds.), 4th International Conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering, XP 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin: Springer, Vol. 2675, pp. 298–306.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Attarzadeh, I. and Hock, O. S. (2008) New direction in project management success: Base on smart methodology selection. In: Proceedings of Information Technology Symposium 2008, Vol. 1, pp. 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aydin, M. N., Harmsen, F., Slooten, K. V., and Stagwee, R. A. (2004) An Agile Information Systems Development Method in Use. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering, 12(2): 127–138.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Beck K. (2004) Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, 2nd Edition. Addison Wesley Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cockburn, A. (2000) Selecting a Project’s Methodology. IEEE Software, IEEE Computer Society Press, Vol. 7(4), pp. 64–71.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cockburn A. (2004) Crystal Clear: A Human-Powered Methodology for Small Teams. Addison Wesley Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cockburn, A. (2006) Agile Software Development: The Cooperative Game, 2nd Edition. Addison Wesley Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Drobka, J., Noftz, D., and Raghu, R. (2004) Piloting XP on Four Mission-Critical Projects, IEEE Computer, IEEE Computer Society Press, Vol. 21(6), pp. 70–75.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Elssamadisy, A. (2001) XP on a Large Project – A Developer’s View, In Proceedings of XP/Agile Universe, Raleigh, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Firesmith D.G. and Henderson-Sellers, B. (2002) The OPEN Process Framework. An Introduction. London, Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Greer, D. and Ruhe, G. (2004) Software release planning: An evolutionary and iterative approach. Information and Software Technology 46(4): 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Grenning, J. (2001) Launching Extreme Programming at a Process-Intensive Company, IEEE Software, pp. 27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C., and Ralyte, J. (2008) Comparison of Method Chunks and Method Fragments for Situational Method Engineering. Software Engineering ASWEC 2008, IEEE Computer Society, Vol. 18(6), pp. 479–488.

    Google Scholar 

  18. IEEE Std 830-1998 (1998) IEEE recommended practice for software requirements specifications. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos.

    Google Scholar 

  19. ISO/IEC. (2007) ISO/IEC 24744, Software Engineering. Metamodel for Development Methodologies. International Standards Organization/International Electrotechnical Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jeffries, R. E., Anderson, A., and Hendrickson, C. (2000) Extreme Programming Installed, Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Karlsson, J. and Ryan, K. (1997) A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements. IEEE Software 14(5): 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Karlsson, J., Wohlin, C., and Regnell, B. (1998) An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements. Information and Software Technology 39(14–15): 939–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Keenan, F. (2004) Agile Process Tailoring and probLem analYsis (APTLY), In: The Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 45–47.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kroll, P. and MacIsaac, B. (2006) Agility and Discipline Made Easy: Practices from OpenUP and RUP. Addison Wesley Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lan, C., Mohan, K., Peng, X., and Ramesh, B. (2004) How Extreme Does Extreme Programming Have to Be? Adapting XP Practices to Large-Scale Projects. In: Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Press, Vol. 3, pp. 342–250.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lausen, S. (2002) Software Requirements – Styles and Techniques. Pearson Education, Essex.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Layman, L., Williams, L., and Cunninghan, L. (2004) Exploring extreme programming in context: An industrial case study. In: Proceedings of the Agile Development Conference, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 32–41.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Leffingwell, D. and Widrig, D. (2000) Managing Software Requirements – A Unified Approach. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lehtola, L. and Kauppinen, M. (2004) Empirical evaluation of two requirements prioritization methods in product development projects. In: Proceedings of the European Software Process Improvement Conference (EuroSPI 2004), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 161–170.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lindvall, M., Basili, V., Boehm, B., Costa, P., Dangle, K., Shull, F., Tesoriero, R., Williams, L., and Zelkowitz, M. (2002) Empirical findings in Agile methods. Agile Universe, pp. 197–207.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lynch, J. (2009) New Standish Group report shows more project failing and less successful projects. Press release. Standish Group, Boston, MA, Retrieved 21 May, 2009 from: http://www.standishgroup.com/newsroom/chaos_2009.php.

  32. Mikulenas, G. and Butleris, R. (2009) An approach for modeling technique selection criterions. In: The Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Information and Software Technologies, IT 2009, Kaunas University of Technology, pp. 207–216.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mirakhorli, M., Rad, A.K., Aliee, F.S., Mirakhorli, A., and Pazoki, M. (2008) RDP technique: Take a different look at XP for adoption. Software Engineering, In: The Proceedings of the ASWEC Conference, pp. 656–662.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Mirbel, I. (2006) Method chunk federation. In: The Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Namur University Press, pp. 407–418.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mnkandla, E. and Dwolatzky, B. (2007) Agile methodologies selection toolbox. Software Engineering Advances, ICSEA, pp. 72–72.

    Google Scholar 

  36. OMG (2002). Software Process Engineering Metamodel Specification, formal/2002-11-14. Object Management Group.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Qumer, A. and Henderson-Sellers, B. (2006) Measuring agility and adoptability of Agile methods: A 4-dimensional analytical tool. IADIS International Conference Applied Computing, pp. 503–507.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Qumer, A. and Henderson-Sellers, B. (2007) Construction of an Agile Software Product-Enhancement Process by Using an Agile Software Solution Framework (ASSF) and Situational Method Engineering. Computer Software and Applications Conference COMPSAC 2007, Vol. 1, pp. 539–542.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Regnell, B., Höst, M., Natt och Dag, J., Beremark, P., and Hjelm, T. (2001) An industrial case study on distributed prioritization in market-driven requirements engineering for packaged software. Requirements Engineering 6(1): 51–62.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Ruhe, G., Eberlein, A., and Pfahl, D. (2002) Quantitative WinWin – A new method for decision support in requirements negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE’02), ACM Press, New York, pp. 159–166.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Saaty, T. L. (2000) Fundamentals of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Saaty, T. L. (2007) Multi-decisions decision-making: In addition to wheeling and dealing, our national political bodies need a formal approach for prioritization. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46(7–8): 1001–1016.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  43. Silingas, D. and Butleris, R. (2008) Towards implementing a framework for modeling software requirements in MagicDraw UML. Information Technology and Control, Kaunas, Technologija, 38(2): 153–164.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Tutkute L., Butleris R., and Skersys T. (2008) An approach for the formation of leverage coefficients-based recommendations in social network. Information Technology and Control, 37(3): 245–254.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work is supported by the Lithuanian State Science and Studies Foundation according to the High Technology Development Program Project “VeTIS” (Reg. No. B-07042).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems, Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania

    Gytenis Mikulenas & Kestutis Kapocius

Authors
  1. Gytenis Mikulenas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kestutis Kapocius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gytenis Mikulenas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Durham University, Durham, DH1 3LE, United Kingdom

    William Wei Song

  2. , School of Information Technology, Jiangxi University of Finance and Econom, Nanchang, 330013, Jiangxi, China, People's Republic

    Shenghua Xu

  3. Finance & Economics, School of Information Management, Jiangxi University of, Fenglin Rd., Nanchang, 330013, Jiangxi, China, People's Republic

    Changxuan Wan

  4. UFIDA Software Technology College, Jiangxi University of Finance & Economic, Fenglin Rd., Nanchang, 330013, Jiangxi, China, People's Republic

    Yuansheng Zhong

  5. College of Business & Economics, Dept. Information Technology &, Boise State University, Univesity Dr. 1910, Boise, 83725-1615, Idaho, USA

    Wita Wojtkowski

  6. College of Business & Economics, Dept. Information Technology &, Boise State University, Univesity Dr. 1910, Boise, 83725-1615, Idaho, USA

    Gregory Wojtkowski

  7. Fac. Information Technology, Monash University, Clayton, 3800, Victoria, Australia

    Henry Linger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this paper

Cite this paper

Mikulenas, G., Kapocius, K. (2011). An Approach for Prioritizing Agile Practices for Adaptation. In: Song, W., et al. Information Systems Development. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7355-9_41

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7355-9_41

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-7205-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-7355-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation