NDT-Agile: An Agile, CMMI-Compatible Framework for Web Engineering

  • Carlos J. Torrecilla-Salinas
  • Tatiana Guardia
  • Olga De Troyer
  • Manuel Mejías
  • Jorge Sedeño
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 770)


Agile and Web Engineering show important synergies, making Agile a common approach for Web development. Besides, several initiatives emerged to support CMMI-DEV within Agile, where CMMI-DEV aims to improve organizations’ software development process. An approach integrating Agile, Web and CMMI-DEV might be of great value, since they might allow Web development teams to use Agile, as well as progress through CMMI-DEV maturity levels. For this purpose, we developed NDT-Agile, an NDT-based Agile framework to achieve the goals of CMMI-DEV in the context of Web Engineering. It was developed by mapping Agile practices to the goals of CMMI-DEV so as to identify existing gaps. Next, we searched for suitable Agile practices to cover the gaps and integrated them into a framework called NDT-Agile, which was validated using an expert-judgment technique: the Delphi method. This paper describes how we integrated Agile and CMMI-DEV into a Web Engineering framework. Besides, it also analyzes its initial evaluation, together with a first tool developed to support it.


Agile Scrum CMMI Web engineering Expert judgment 


  1. 1.
    Beck, K., et al.: Manifesto for Agile Software Development (2001). http://www.agilemanifesto.org. Accessed May 2017
  2. 2.
    Schön, E.M., Thomaschewski, J., Escalona, M.J.: Agile requirements engineering: a systematic literature review. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 49, 79–91 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sutherland, J., Schwaber, K.: The scrum guide: the definitive guide to scrum (2011). http://www.scrum.org/Scrum-Guides. Accessed May 2017
  4. 4.
    Beck, K.: Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anderson, D.J.: Kanban - Successful Evolutionary Change for your Technology Business. Blue Hole Press, Sequim (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pikkarainen, M., et al.: The impact of agile practices on communication in software development. Empirical Softw. Eng. 13, 303–337 (2008). SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    VersionOne. 9th Annual State of Agile Survey (2015). http://www.versionone.com/pdf/state-of-agile-development-survey-ninth.pdf. Accessed May 2017
  8. 8.
    Deshpande, Y., Marugesan, S., Ginige, A., Hanse, S., Schawabe, D., Gaedke, M., White, B.: Web Engineering. J. Web Eng. 1(1), 3–17 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Escalona, M.J., Aragón, G.: NDT: a model-driven approach for web requirements. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 34(3), 370–390 (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mendes, E., Mosley, N.: Web Cost Estimation: An Introduction. Web Engineering: Principles and Techniques, pp 182–202. IGI Global (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    CMMI Product Team: CMMI for Development, Version 1.3, November 2010. Carnegie Mellon University. Technical Report (2010). http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/10tr033.pdf. Accessed May 2017
  12. 12.
    CMMI Institute: Published Appraisal Results (2016). https://sas.cmmiinstitute.com/pars/. Accessed May 2017
  13. 13.
    Goldenson, D.R., et al.: Why make the switch? evidence about the benefits of CMMI. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/assets/evidence.pdf. Accessed May 2017
  14. 14.
    Staples, M., et al.: An exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI. J. Syst. Softw. 80(6), 883–895 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glazer, H., et al.: CMMI or agile: why not embrace both! November 2008. Carnegie Mellon (2008). http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/08tn003.pdf. Accessed May 2017
  16. 16.
    Silva, F.S., et al.: Using CMMI together with agile software development: a systematic review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 58, 20–43 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Torrecilla Salinas, C.J., et al.: Agile, web engineering and capability maturity model integration: a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 71(2016), 92–107 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dalkey, N.C., Helmer, O.: An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag. Sci. 9, 458–467 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kitchenham, B., et al.: Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – a systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 51(7–15), 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diaz, J., Garbajosa, J., Calvo-Manzano, Jose A.: Mapping CMMI level 2 to scrum practices: an experience report. In: O’Connor, Rory V., Baddoo, N., Cuadrago Gallego, J., Rejas Muslera, R., Smolander, K., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2009. CCIS, vol. 42, pp. 93–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04133-4_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lukasiewicz, K., Miler, J.: Improving agility and discipline of software development with the scrum and CMMI. IET Softw. 6(5), 416–422 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marcal, A.S.C., et al.: Blending scrum practices and CMMI project management process areas. ISSE 4, 17–29 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jakobsen, C.R., Johnson, K.A.: Mature agile with a twist of CMMI. In: Proceedings of Agile Conference 2008, AGILE 2008, 04–08 August 2008, Canada. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Torrecilla Salinas, C.J., Sedeño, J., Escalona, M.J., Mejías, M.: An Agile approach to CMMI-DEV levels 4 and 5 in Web development projects. In: Information Systems Development (ISD2016 Proceedings), Katowice, Poland (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Torrecilla Salinas, C.J., Sedeño, J., Escalona, M.J., Mejías, M.: Mapping agile practices to CMMI-DEV level 3 in web development environments. In: Information Systems Development: Transforming Organisations and Society through Information Systems (ISD2014 Proceedings), Varaždin, Croatia (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Torrecilla Salinas, C.J., Escalona, M.J., Mejías, M.: A scrum-based approach to CMMI maturity level 2 in web development environments. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications and Services 2012, Bali, Indonesia, 3–5 December 2012. iiWAS, 12. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paulk, M.C.: Extreme programming from a CMM perspective. IEEE Softw. 18(6), 19–26 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bougroun, Z., et al.: The projection of the specific practices of the third level of CMMI model in agile methods: Scrum, XP and Kanban. In: Proceedings of 2014 3rd International Colloquium in Information Science and Technology (CIST), pp. 174–179 (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Medinilla, A.: Contratos ágiles (2009). http://www.slideshare.net/proyectalis/090603-contratos-giles. Accessed May 2017
  30. 30.
    Highsmith, J.: Agile Project Management: Creating Innovative Products, Second Edition. Addison-Wesley, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schwaber, K.: The Enterprise and Scrum. Microsoft Press, Redmond (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Poppendieck, M., Poppendieck, T.: Lean Software Development. An Agile Toolkit. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cohn, M.: Managing Risk on Agile Projects with the Risk Burndown Chart. http://www.mountaingoatsoftware.com/blog/managing-risk-on-agile-projects-with-the-risk-burndown-chart. Accessed May 2017
  34. 34.
    Downey, S., Sutherland, J.: Scrummetrics for hyperproductive teams: how they fly like fighter aircraft. In: Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science, Maui, Hawaii, USA, 4–7 January 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Torrecilla Salinas, C.J., et al.: Estimating, planning and managing Agile Web development projects under a value-based perspective. Inf. Softw. Technol. 61, 124–144 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cohn, M.: Agile Estimating and Planning. Addison-Wesley, Englewood Cliffs (2005)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Likert, R.: A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 140, 5–55 (1932)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cronbach, L.J.: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3), 297–334 (1951)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Legendre, P.: Species associations: the Kendall coefficient of concordance revisited. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 10(2), 226–245 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Benzécri, J.P.: L’Analyse des Données. L’Analyse des Correspondances, vol. 2 (1973)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    R Core Team: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2016). https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed May 2017
  42. 42.
    Redmine (2016). http://www.redmine.org. Accessed May 2017
  43. 43.
    SCAMPI Upgrade Team: Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) A. Carnegie Mellon University (2011). http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/11hb001.pdf. Accessed May 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos J. Torrecilla-Salinas
    • 1
  • Tatiana Guardia
    • 1
  • Olga De Troyer
    • 2
  • Manuel Mejías
    • 1
  • Jorge Sedeño
    • 1
  1. 1.IWT2 GroupUniversidad de SevillaSevilleSpain
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceVrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations