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

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 



This research has been supported by the MeGUS project (TIN2013-46928-C3-3-R), the Pololas project (TIN2016-76956-C3-2-R) and by the SoftPLM Network (TIN2015-71938-REDT) of the Spanish the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. We would also like to thank Dr. Diego Nieto Lugilde, Dr. Pedro Antonio García and Dr. Diego Torrecilla de Amo, from the University of Granada. Finally, we would like to show our gratitude to all experts participating in the Delphi method for their useful contributions.


  1. 1.
    Beck, K., et al.: Manifesto for Agile Software Development (2001). 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). 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). 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). Accessed May 2017
  12. 12.
    CMMI Institute: Published Appraisal Results (2016). Accessed May 2017
  13. 13.
    Goldenson, D.R., et al.: Why make the switch? evidence about the benefits of CMMI. 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). 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). 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)zbMATHGoogle 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. 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)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle 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). Accessed May 2017
  42. 42.
    Redmine (2016). Accessed May 2017
  43. 43.
    SCAMPI Upgrade Team: Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) A. Carnegie Mellon University (2011). Accessed May 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IWT2 GroupUniversidad de SevillaSevilleSpain
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceVrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations