Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparative Analysis of Agile Maturity Models

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Information Systems Development

Abstract

Agility has increased in popularity in software development. It is believed to reduce time to market, improve product quality, and increase customer value. After some years from adoption, organizations start questioning how they are doing in the application of agile values, principles, and practices. Have they really obtained the benefits the agile approach promises? How could they improve their agile processes? For these kinds of situations, several agile maturity models have been suggested. This chapter makes a comparative analysis of eight agile maturity models, based on criteria such as purpose, domain, conceptual and theoretical backgrounds, approach, structure, use, and validation. We also discuss how the models could be further developed.

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 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
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

  • Abrahamsson P, Salo O, Ronkainen J, Warsta J (2002) Agile software development methods – review and analysis. VTT Publications 478

    Google Scholar 

  • Agile Alliance (2002) Agile Manifesto. http://www.agilealliance.org/

  • Ambler S (2010) The agile maturity model (AMM). Dr Dobb’s. http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/224201005;jsessionid=P1KHI0JRB4C5ZQE1GHPCKH4ATMY32JVN

  • Anderson DJ (2005) Stretching agile to fit CMMI level 3 – the story of creating MSF for CMMI® Process Improvement at Microsoft Corporation. In: Proceedings of the agile development conference (ADC’05), pp 193–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker S (2005) Formalizing agility: an agile organization’s journey towards CMMI accreditation. In: Proceedings of the agile development conference (ADC’05), pp185–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck K (1999) Extreme programming explained: embrace change. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker J, Knackstedt R, Pöppelbuss P (2009) Developing maturity models for IT management – a procedure model and its application. Bus Inf Syst Eng 1(3):213–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm B, Turner R (2003) Balancing agility and discipline. In: Balancing agility and discipline – a guide for the perplexed. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogsnes B (2009) Implementing beyond budgeting: unlocking the performance potential. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Bos E, Vriens C (2004) An agile CMM. In: Proc of the 4th conference on extreme programming and agile methods – XP/Agile Universe, pp 129–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Chow T, Cao D-B (2008) A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects. J Syst Softw 81(6):961–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohn M (2010) Succeeding with agile – software development using Scrum. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn M, Ford D (2003) Introducing an agile process to an organization. IEEE Softw 36(6):74–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Conboy K (2009) Agility from first principles: reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Inf Syst Res 20(3):329–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Bruin T, Freeze R, Kulkani U, Rosemann M (2005) Understanding the main phases of developing a maturity assessment model. In: Proceedings of 16th Australasian conference on information systems

    Google Scholar 

  • Doz Y, Kosonen M (2008) Fast strategy: how strategic agility will help you stay ahead of the game. Wharton School Publishing, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  • Fayad M, Laitinen M (1997) Process assessment considered wasteful. Commun ACM 40(11):125–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser P, Moultrie J, Gregory M (2002) The use of maturity models/grids as a tool in assessing product development capability. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international engineering management conference, pp 244–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritzsche M, Keil P (2007) Agile methods and CMMI: compatibility or conflict? e-Inf Softw Eng J 1(1):9–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Galin D, Avrahami M (2006) Are CMM program investments beneficial? Analysing past studies. IEEE Softw 23(6):81–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glazer H, Dalton J, Anderson D, Konrad M, Shrum S (2008) CMMI or agile: why not embrace both! Software engineering process management. Software Engineering Institute. CMU/SEI-2008-TN-003, Pittsburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbsleb J, Goldenson D (1996) A system survey of CMM experience and results. In: Proceedings of 18th ICSE’96, pp 323–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Highsmith J (2002) Agile software development ecosystems. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey WS (2005) PSP: a self-improvement process for software engineers. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey W, Snyder T, Willis R (1991) Software process improvement at Hughes Aircraft. IEEE Softw 8(4):11–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC 15504 (2008) International standard information technology – software process assessment: Part 1 – Part 7. International Organization for Standardization

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen C, Johnson K (2008) Mature agile with a twist of CMMI, In: Proceedings of agile 2008 conference, pp 212–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang J, Kleinb G, Hwange H-G, Haungc J, Hungc S-Y (2004) An exploration of the relationship between software development process maturity and project performance. Inf Manage 41:279–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kähkönen T, Abrahamsson P (2004) Achieving CMMI level 2 with enhanced extreme programming approach. In: Proceedings of the conference on product focused software process improvement, pp 378–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs W, Kroll P (2008) Using evaluation frameworks for quick reflections. Agile J (February 9)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lami G, Falcini F (2009) Is ISO/IEC 15504 applicable to agile methods? In: Proceedings of XP 2009 conference, pp 130–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohan G, Conboy K, Lang M (2010) Beyond budgeting and agile software development: a conceptual framework for the performance management of agile software development teams. In: Proceedings of ICIS 2010 conference

    Google Scholar 

  • Lui K, Chan K (2005) A road map or implementing extreme programming. In: Proceedings of international software process workshop (SPW 2005), Beijing, pp 474–481

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycett M, Macredie R, Patel C, Paul R (2003) Migrating agile methods to standardized development practice. IEEE Comput 36(6):79–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcal A, de Freitas B, Furtado Soares F, Furtado M, Maciel T, Belchior A (2008) Blending Scrum practices and CMMI project management process areas. Innov Syst Softw Eng 4:17–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael B, Lombardi M (2007) ISO 2001 and agile development. In: Proceedings of AGILE 2007 conference, pp 262–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Mettler T, Rohner P (2009) Situational maturity models as instrumental artifacts for organizational design. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference on design science research in information systems and technology (DESTRIST’09)

    Google Scholar 

  • Misra SC, Kumar V, Kumar U (2009) Identifying some important success factors in adopting agile software development practices. J Syst Softw 82(11):1869–1890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nawrocki J, Walter B, Wojciechowski A (2001) Towards the maturity model for extreme programming. In: Proceedings of 27th Euromicro conference, Los Alamitos, pp 233–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Nawrocki J, Walter B, Wojciechowski A (2006) Comparison of CMM level 2 and eXtreme programming. In: Proceedings of software quality (ECSQ 2002), LNCS 2349, pp 288–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Packlick J (2007) The agile maturity map: a goal oriented approach to agile improvement, In: Proceedings of AGILE 2007 conference, pp 266–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel C, Ramachandran M (2009) Agile maturity model (AMM): a software process improvement framework of agile software development practices. Int J Softw Eng 2(1):3–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulk M (2001) Extreme programming from a CMM perspective. IEEE Softw 18(6):19–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulk M, Curtis B, Chrissis M, Weber C (1993) The capability maturity model for software, version 1.1 (No. CMU/SEI-93-TR-24). Software Engineering Institute

    Google Scholar 

  • Petterson F, Ivarsson M, Gorschek T, Öhman P (2008) A practitioner’s guide to light weight software process assessment and improvement planning. J Syst Softw 81(6):972–995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettit R (2006) An “agile maturity model?” Agile J. www.agilejournal.com

  • Pikkarainen M, Mäntyniemi A (2006) An approach for using CMMI in agile software development assessments: experiences from three case studies. In: Proceedings of SPICE 2006 conference, Luxenburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Poon P, Wagner C (2001) Critical success factors revisited: success and failure cases of information systems for senior executives. Decis Support Syst 30(4):393–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poppendijk M, Poppendijk T (2003) Lean software development – an agile toolkit. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Procaccino J, June M, Steven J (2006) Defining and contributing to software development success. Commun ACM 49(8):79–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qumer A, Henderson-Sellers B (2006) Comparative evaluation of XP and Scrum using the 4D analytical tool (4-DAT). In: Irani Z et al (eds) Proceedings of the European and Mediterranean conference on information systems 2006 (EMCIS2006)

    Google Scholar 

  • Qumer A, Henderson-Sellers B (2008) A framework to support the evaluation, adoption, and improvement of agile methods in practice. J Syst Softw 81(11):1899–1919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reifer D (2003) XP and CMM. IEEE Softw 20(3):14–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohunen A, Rodriguez P, Kuvaja P, Krzanik L, Markkula J (2010) Approaches to agile adoption in large settings: comparison of the results from a literature analysis and an industrial inventory. In: Proceedings of PROFES 2010 conference, Springer LNCS 6156, pp 77–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Salo O, Abrahamsson P (2007) An iterative improvement process for agile software development. Softw Proc Improv Pract 12:81–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwaber K (2004) Agile project management with Scrum. Microsoft Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwaber K, Sutherland J (2010) Scrum guide. http://www.scrum.org/storage/scrumguides/Scrum%20Guide.pdf

  • SEI (2006) CMMI® for development, Version 1.2 – Improving processes for better products. Carnegie Mellon. Software Engineering Institute. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/06tr008.pdf

  • Shalloway A, Beaver G, Trott J (2009) Lean-agile software development: achieving enterprise agility. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidky A, Arthur J, Bohner S (2007) A disciplined approach to adopting agile practice: the agile adoption framework. Innov Syst Softw Eng 3(3):203–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson J, Weiner E (1989) The Oxford English dictionary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Stålhane T, Hanssen G (2008) The application of ISO 2001 to agile software development. In: Proceedings of conference on product focused software process improvement, pp 371–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland J, Jakobsen C, Johnson K (2007) CMMI and Scrum – a magic potion for code warriors. In: Proceedings of agile 2007 conference

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner R, Jain A (2002) Agile meets CMMI: culture clash or common cause? In: Extreme programming and agile methods – XP/Agile Universe 2002, Springer LNCS 2418, pp 60–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams L, Layman L, Krebs W (2004) Extreme programming evaluation framework for object-oriented languages, version 1.4. North Carolina State University Department of Computer Science, TR-2004-18

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, University of Jyväskylä, 35(Agora), FI-40014, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Mauri Leppänen

Authors
  1. Mauri Leppänen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mauri Leppänen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh Dept. Computer Science, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

    Rob Pooley

  2. Heriot-Watt University Edinburgh Dept. Computer Science, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

    Jennifer Coady

  3. City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR

    Christoph Schneider

  4. Monash University Fac. Information Technology, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

    Henry Linger

  5. National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

    Chris Barry

  6. National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

    Michael Lang

Maturity Levels and Agile Principles and Practices in the Maturity Models

Maturity Levels and Agile Principles and Practices in the Maturity Models

Ref.

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

Level 6

Ambler (2010)

Rhetorical stage

Certified stage

Plausible stage

Repeatable stage

Measured stage

–

Self-organizing teams, do not respect mgmt

Certification courses

Scaling agile strategies

Produce solutions, not just software, recognize constraints of ecosystems

Information collection for improvement

 

Lui and Chan (2005)

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

–

–

Testing, simple design, refactoring, coding standards

Continuous integration

Pair programming, collective ownership

Metaphor, 40-h week, small release, on-site customer, planning game

  

Nawrocki et al. (2001)

Not compliant

Initial

Advanced

Mature

–

–

 

Acceptance tests, planning game, customer rel. mgmt, product quality assur.

Pair programming

Customer’s and developer’s satisfaction, on-site customer, 40-h day

  

Packlick (2007)

Awareness

Transformation

Breakthrough

Optimizing

Mentoring

–

Understanding of the AGILE goals

Developing practices to satisfy the AGILE goals

Agile practices are used consistently to satisfy the AGILE goals

Improvements in the AGILE goals, creative innovations in improving

High performance teams mentoring other teams, organizational learning

 

Patel and Ramachandran, (2009)

Initial

Explored

Defined

Improved

Mature

–

The organization operates in its own unique way

Project planning Agile req’s engineering Customer and stakeholder orientation

Customer relationship mgmt, frequent deliveries, pair programming, TDT, coding standards

Project mgmt, working hours, self-organizing teams, risk assessment

Continuous improvement, uncertainty mgmt, defect prevention

 

Qumer and Henderson-Sellers (2008)

Agile infancy

Agile initial

Agile realization

Agile value

Agile smart

Agile progress

Introduction to basic agile properties

Good communication and cooperation

Production of executable artifacts

The value of people within and outside organization

The establishment of a learning environment

A lean production environment

Sidky et al. (2007)

Collaborative

Evolutionary

Effective

Adaptive

Encompassing

–

Communication and collaboration

Early and continuous delivery of software

Efficiency of the process High quality working software

Responding to change through multiple levels of feedback

Establishing a vibrant environment to sustain agility.

 

?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this paper

Cite this paper

Leppänen, M. (2013). A Comparative Analysis of Agile Maturity Models. In: Pooley, R., Coady, J., Schneider, C., Linger, H., Barry, C., Lang, M. (eds) Information Systems Development. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4951-5_27

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4951-5_27

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-4950-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-4951-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation