Agile software development

Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page Page 1 of 12 12

Agile software development From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agile Software Development is a conceptual framework for software development that promotes development iterations, open collaboration, and adaptability throughout the life-cycle of the project.

There are many agile development methods; most minimize risk by developing software in short amounts of time. Software developed during one unit of time is referred to as an iteration, which typically lasts from two to four weeks. Each iteration passes through a full software development cycle: including planning, requirements analysis, design, coding and testing. Documentation is no different than software design and coding. It too is produced as required by stakeholders. An iteration may not add enough functionality to warrant releasing the product to market but the goal is to have an available release (without bugs) at the end of each iteration. At the end of each iteration, stakeholders re-evaluate project priorities with a view to optimizing their return on investment.

Software Software developmen developmentt process process Activities and steps

Requirements · Architecture Design · Implementation Testing · Deployment Models Agile · Cleanroom · Iterative · RAD

RUP · Spiral · Waterfall · XP · Scrum Supporting disciplines

Configuration management Documentation Quality assurance (SQA) Project management User experience design

Agile methods emphasize face-to-face communication over written documents. Most agile teams are located in a single open office to facilitate such communications. One agile management methodology, scrum, advocates a team size of 5 to 9. Larger teams than 9 should be split into smaller teams to help make team communication and team collaboration easier. Team composition in an agile project will usually be cross-functional and self-organising without consideration for any existing corporate hierarchy or the corporate roles of team members. No matter what development disciplines are required, at a minimum, every agile team will contain a customer representative. This person is appointed by stakeholders to act on their behalf and makes a personal commitment to being available for developers to answer mid-iteration problem domain questions. This availability is critical to agile project success. Part of the scrum methodology is routine and formal daily face- to-face communication between team members. This specifically includes the customer representative and with any interested stakeholders as observers. Known as a daily scrum, team members report to each other what they did yesterday, what they intend to do today and what their roadblocks are. This formalised face-to-face communication prevents problems being hidden provided always that someone with corporate influence is listening. For the Scrum methodology, this would be the Scrum Master. Otherwise it would be the agile project manager. Agile methods emphasize working software as the primary measure of progress. Combined with the preference for face-to-face face -to-face communication, agile methods usually produce less written documentation than other methods. In an agile project, documentation, Gantt charts and other project artifacts all rank equally with working product. However, when stakeholders are asked to prioritise deliverables for



demonstration at the end of the current iteration, they prefer to see working product. This represents a strong focus on a return on investment. Stakeholders are encouraged to prioritise iteration outcomes based on business value. If documentation represents higher business value than working software in any particular iteration then it will be given a higher priority than working software. Agile development methods are typically more disciplined than traditional methods.

Contents   

1 History 2 Principles behind agile methods — The Agile Manifesto 3 Comparison with other methods 3.1 Contrasted with other iterative development methods 3.2 Contrasted with the waterfall model 3.3 Contrasted with "cowboy coding" 4 Suitability of agile methods 5 Agile Data 6 Agile methods and method tailoring 7 Agile methods and project management 8 Project management tools for agile development teams 9 Agile methods 10 Agile beyond software development 11 Measuring agility 12 Criticism 13 Post-Agilism 14 Experience reports 15 See also 16 References 17 Further reading 18 External links   

              

History The modern definition of agile software development evolved in the mid-1990s as part of a reaction against "heavyweight" methods, as typified by a heavily regulated, regimented, micro-managed use of the waterfall model of development. development. The processes originating from this use of the waterfall model model were seen as bureaucratic, slow, demeaning, and inconsistent with the ways that software developers actually perform effective work. A case can be made that agile and iterative development methods are a return to development practice seen early in the history of software development.[1] Initially, agile methods were called "lightweight methods." In 2001, prominent members of the community met at Snowbird, Utah, and adopted the name "agile methods." Later, some of these people formed The Agile Alliance[2], a nonprofit organization that promotes agile development. A number of methods similar to Agile were created prior to 2000. An adaptive software development process was introduced in a paper by Edmonds (1974)[3]. Notable earlier methods include Scrum (1986), Crystal Clear, Extreme Programming (1996), Adaptive Software Development, Feature Driven Development, and Dynamic Systems Development Method(DSDM) (1995).



Kent Beck created Extreme Programming (usually abbreviated as "XP") in 1996 as a way to rescue the struggling Chrysler Comprehensive Compensation (C3) project. While Chrysler eventually canceled that project, the method was refined by Ron Jeffries' Jeffr ies' full-time XP coaching, public discussion on Ward Cunningham's Portland Pattern Repository wiki and further work by Beck, including a book in 1999. [4] Elements of Extreme Programming appear to be based on Scrum and Ward Cunningham's Episodes pattern language.

Principles behind agile methods — The Agile Manifesto See also: Agile Manifesto

Agile methods are a family of development processes, not a single approach to software development. In 2001, 17 prominent figures[5] in the field of agile development (then called "light-weight methods") came together at the Snowbird ski resort in Utah to discuss ways of creating software in a lighter, faster, more people-centric way. They created the Agile Manifesto, widely regarded as the canonical definition of agile development and accompanying agile principles. Some of the principles behind the Agile Manifesto[6] are:           

Customer satisfaction by rapid, continuous delivery of useful software Working software is delivered frequently (weeks rather than months) Working software is the principal measure of progress Even late changes in requirements are welcomed Close, daily cooperation between business people and developers Face-to-face conversation is the best form of communication (Co-location) (Co-location) Projects are built around motivated individuals, who should be trusted Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design Simplicity Self-organizing teams Regular adaptation to changing circumstances

The manifesto spawned a movement in the software industry known as agile software development. In 2005, Alistair Cockburn and Jim Highsmith gathered another group of people — management experts, this time — and wrote an addendum, known as the PM Declaration of Interdependence.

Comparison with other methods Agile methods are sometimes characterized as being at the opposite end of the spectrum from "plandriven" or "disciplined" methods. This distinction is misleading, as it implies that agile methods are "unplanned" or "undisciplined". A more accurate distinction is that methods exist on a continuum from "adaptive" to "predictive".[7] Agile methods lie on the "adaptive" side of this continuum. Adaptive methods focus on adapting quickly to changing realities. When the needs of a project change, an adaptive team changes as well. An adaptive team will have difficulty describing exactly what will happen in the future. The further away a date is, the more vague an adaptive method will be about what will happen on that date. An adaptive team can report exactly what tasks are being done next week, but only which features are planned for next month. When asked about a release six months from now, an



adaptive team may only be able to report the mission statement for the release, or a statement of expected value vs. cost. Predictive methods, in contrast, focus on planning the future in detail. A predictive team can report exactly what features and tasks are planned for the entire length of the development process. Predictive teams have difficulty changing direction. The plan is typically optimized for the original destination and changing direction can cause completed work to be thrown away and done over differently. Predictive teams will often institute a change control board to ensure that only the most valuable changes are considered. Agile methods have much in common with the "Rapid Application Development" techniques from the 1980/90s as espoused by James Martin and others.

Contrasted with other iterative development methods Most agile methods share other iterative and incremental development methods' emphasis on building releasable software in short time periods. Agile development differs from other development models: in this model time periods are measured in weeks rather than months and work is performed in a highly collaborative manner. Most agile methods also differ by treating their time period as a strict timebox.

Contrasted with the waterfall model Agile development has little in common with the waterfall model. As of 2008, the waterfall model is still in common use.[8] The waterfall model is the most predictive of the methods, stepping through requirements capture, analysis, design, coding, and testing in a strict, pre-planned sequence. Progress is generally measured in terms of deliverable artifacts: requirement specifications, design documents, test plans, code reviews and the like. The main problem with the waterfall model is the inflexible division of a project into separate stages, so that commitments are made early on, and it is difficult to react to changes in requirements. Iterations are expensive. This means that the waterfall model is likely to be unsuitable if requirements are not well understood or are likely to change in the course of the project.[9] Agile methods, in contrast, produce completely developed and tested features (but a very small subset of the whole) every few weeks or months. The emphasis is on obtaining the smallest workable piece of functionality to deliver business value early, and continually improving it/adding further functionality throughout the life of the project. In this respect, agile critics incorrectly assert that these features are not placed in context of the overall project, concluding that, if the sponsors of the project are concerned about completing certain goals with a defined timeline or budget, agile may not be appropriate. Adaptations of Scrum [10] show how agile methods are augmented to produce and continuously improve a strategic plan. Some agile teams use the waterfall model on a small scale, repeating the entire waterfall cycle in every iteration.[11] Other teams, most notably Extreme Programming teams, work on activities simultaneously.

Contrasted with "cowboy coding" Cowboy coding is the absence of a defined method: team members do whatever they feel is right. Agile



development's frequent re-evaluation of plans, emphasis on face-to-face communication, and relatively sparse use of documents sometimes causes people to confuse it with cowboy coding. Agile teams, however, do follow defined (and often very disciplined and rigorous) processes. As with all development methods, the skill and experience of the users determine the degree of success and/or abuse of such activity. The more rigid controls systematically embedded within within a process offer stronger levels of accountability of the users. The degradation of well-intended procedures can lead to activities often categorized as cowboy coding.

Suitability of agile methods There is little if any consensus on what types of software projects are best suited for agile methodologies. Many large organizations have difficulty bridging the gap between a more traditional waterfall method and an agile one. Large scale agile software development remains an active research area.[12][13] Agile development has been widely documented (see Experience Reports, below, as well as Beck [4] pg. 157, and Boehm and Turner[14] pg. 55-57) as working well for small (<10 developers) co-located teams. Some things that can negatively impact the success of an agile project are: 



 

Large scale development efforts (>20 developers), though scaling strategies[15] and evidence to the contrary[16] have been described. Distributed development efforts (non-co-located teams). Strategies have been described in Bridging the Distance[17]and Using an Agile Software Process with Offshore Development [18] Command-and-control company cultures Forcing an agile process on a development team

Several successful large scale agile projects have been documented. BT has had several hundred developers situated in the UK, Ireland and India working collaboratively on projects and using Agile methods. While questions undoubtedly still arise about the suitability of some Agile methods to certain project types, it would appear that scale or geography, by themselves, are not necessarily barriers to success. Barry Boehm and Richard Turner suggest that risk analysis be used to choose between adaptive ("agile") and predictive ("plan-driven") methods.[14] The authors suggest that each side of the continuum has its own home ground as follows: Agile home ground:     

Low criticality Senior developers Requirements change very often Small number of developers Culture that thrives on chaos

Plan-driven home ground:


    


High criticality Junior developers Requirements don't change too often Large number of developers Culture that demands order

Agile Data The Agile Data method describes how data professionals can be productive members of agile software development teams. Agile Data's 6 philosophies provide guidance for how data professionals can interact effectively with other team members as traditional approaches to data work don't fit well with agile approaches. More importantly the Agile Data method describes a collection of agile techniques that DBAs can adopt, including Database refactoring, agile data modeling, database regression testing, and continuous database integration.

Agile methods and method tailoring In the literature, different terms refer to the notion of method adaptation, including ‘method tailoring’, ‘method fragment adaptation’ and ‘situational method engineering’. Method tailoring is defined as: A process or capability in which human agents through responsive changes in, and dynamic interplays between contexts, intentions, and method fragments determine a system development approach for a specific project situation. [19]

Potentially, almost all agile methods are suitable for method tailoring. Even the DSDM method is being used for this purpose and has been successfully tailored in a CMM context.[20] Situation-appropriateness can be considered as a distinguishing characteristic characteristic between agile methods and traditional software development methods, with the latter being relatively r elatively much more rigid and prescriptive. The practical implication is that agile methods allow project teams to adapt working practices according to the needs of individual projects. Practices are concrete activities and products that are part of a method framework. At a more extreme level, the philosophy behind the method, consisting of a number of principles, could be adapted (Aydin, 2004).[19] XP makes the need for method adaptation explicit. One of the f undamental ideas of XP is that no one process fits every project, but rather that practices sh ould be tailored to the needs of individual projects. There are no experience reports in which all the XP practices have been adopted. Instead, a partial adoption of XP practices, as suggested by Beck, has been reported on several occasions.[21] A distinction can be made between static method adaptation and dynamic method adaptation.[22] The key assumption behind static method adaptation is that the project context is given at the start of a project and remains fixed during project execution. The result is a static definition of the project context. Given such a definition, route maps can be used in order to determine which structured method fragments should be used for that particular project, based on predefined sets of criteria. Dynamic method adaptation, in contrast, assumes that projects are situated in an emergent context. An emergent context implies that a project has to deal with emergent factors that affect relevant conditions but are not predictable. This also means that a project context is not fixed, but changing during project execution. In such a case prescriptive route maps are ar e not appropriate. The practical implication of dynamic method adaptation is that project managers often have to modify structured fragments or even innovate new



fragments, during the execution of a project (Aydin et al, 2005).[22]

Agile methods and project management Agile methods differ to a large degree in the way they cover project management. Some methods are supplemented with guidelines on project management, but there is generally no comprehensive support. [20]

PRINCE2 has been suggested as a suitable, complementary project management system.[23]

Project management tools for agile development teams A number of project management tools are specifically aimed at agile development. They are designed to help plan, track, analyse and integrate work. These tools play an important role in agile development, as a means of Knowledge Management. Common features include: Version control control integration, progress tracking, easy work allocation, integrated integrated release and iteration planning, discussion forums, and reporting and tracking of software defects Some well-known agile project management websites include: versionone, targetprocess, assembla, rallydev, ppts, Gatherspace and visionproject.

Agile methods Some of the well-known agile software development methods:        

   

Scrum Agile Modeling Agile Unified Process (AUP) Agile Data Method Daily kickoff and review of goals short release cycles Responsive Development Generalism - Use of generic skill sets that are common across the team, not reliance on specific sp ecific skill sets that are scarce Test Driven Development (TDD) Feature Driven Development (FDD) Behavior Driven Development (BDD) Essential Unified Process (EssUP)

Other approaches:     

Software Development Rhythms Agile Documentation Documentation ICONIX Process Microsoft Solutions Framework (MSF) Database refactoring



Agile beyond software development Agile software development depends on some special characteristics possessed only by software, such as object technologies and the ability ability to automate testing. However, related techniques have been created for developing non-software products, such as semiconductors, motor vehicles, or chemicals. For more on them, see Flexible product development.

Measuring agility While many see agility as a means to an end, a number of approaches have been proposed to quantify agility. Agility Index Measurements (AIM)[1] score projects against a number of agility factors to achieve a total. The similarly-named Agility Agility Measurement Index [2], [2] , scores developments against five dimensions of a software project (duration, risk, novelty, effort, and interaction). Other techniques are based on measurable goals [3]. Another study using fuzzy mathematics[24] has suggested that project velocity can be used as a metric of agility. While such approaches have been proposed to measure agility, the practical application of such metrics has yet to be seen.

Criticism Agile development is sometimes criticized as cowboy coding. Extreme Programming's initial buzz and controversial tenets, such as pair programming and continuous design, have attracted particular criticism, such as McBreen[25] and Boehm and Turner.[14] Many of the criticisms, however, are believed by Agile practitioners to be misunderstandings of agile development.[26] In particular, Extreme Programming is reviewed and critiqued by Matt Stephens's and Doug Rosenberg's Extreme Programming Refactored .[27]

Criticisms include:      



 

Lack of structure and necessary documentation Only works with senior-level developers Incorporates insufficient software design Requires too much cultural change to adopt Can lead to more difficult contractual negotiations Can be very inefficient — if the requirements for one area of code change through various iterations, the same programming may need to be done several times over. Whereas if a plan were there to be followed, a single area of code is expected to be written once. Impossible to develop realistic estimates of work effort needed to provide a quote, because at the beginning of the project no one knows the entire scope/requirements Drastically increases the risk of scope creep due to the lack of detailed requirements documentation documentation Agile is feature driven, non-functional quality attributes are hard to be placed as user stories

The criticisms regarding insufficient software design and lack of documentation are addressed by the Agile Modeling method, which can easily be tailored into agile processes such as XP.



Agile software development has been criticized because it may not bring about all of the claimed benefits when programmers of average ability use this method.[28]

Post-Agilism In software engineering, post-Agilism (aka "Fragilism") is an informal movement of practitioners who have chosen to draw from a much wider range of methods and schools of thought on software development, preferring to avoid being constrained by what they consider to be "Agile Dogma" (or "Agile with a capital 'A'") It is argued that the meaning of Agile is ambiguous and being inappropriately applied to a very wide range of approaches like Six Sigma and CMMi. It is also argued that "Agile", "evolutionary", and "lean" (as in Lean software development) do not mean the same thing in practice, even though they are all lumped under the banner of "Agile" - possibly for marketing purposes. Proponents also argue that process-oriented methods, especially methods that rely on repeatable results and that incrementally reduce waste and process variation like Six Sigma, have a tendency to limit an organisation's adaptive capacity (their "slack"), making them less able to respond to discontinuous change - i.e., less agile. It is proposed that "agile", "lean" and "evolutionary" are strategies that need to be properly understood and appropriately applied to any specific context. That is, there is a time to be "agile", a time to be "lean" and a time to be "evolutionary". Much of post-Agile thinking centers around Nonlinear Management, a superset of management techniques that include many Agile practices. Some commentators propose a model of post-Agilism that is effectively constructive anarchy, in that teams should be self-organising to the point where even the core values of the Agile movement are considered too presciptive, and that teams should simply "do whatever works for them".

Experience reports Agile development has been the subject of several conferences. Some of these conferences have had academic backing and included peer-reviewed papers, including a peer-reviewed experience report track. The experience reports share industry experiences with agile software development. As of 2006, experience reports have been or will be presented at the following conferences:    



XP (2000[29], 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006[30]) XP Universe (2001[31]) XP/Agile Universe (2002,[32]2003,[33] 2004[34]) Agile Development Conference (2003,[35] 2004,[36]) (peer-reviewed; proceedings published by IEEE?) Agile (2005,[37] 2006) (peer-reviewed; proceedings published by IEEE)

See also 

Agile web development


   

Page Page 10 10 of 12 12

Software Engineering Extreme programming Collaborative software development model Software Development Rhythms

References 1. ^ Gerald M. Weinberg: We were doing incremental development as early as 1957, in Los Angeles, under the direction of Bernie Dimsdale [at IBM’s ServiceBureau Corporation]. He was a colleague of John von Neumann, so perhaps he learned it there, or assumed it as totally natural. I do remember Herb Jacobs (primarily, though we all participated) developing a large simulation for Motorola, where the technique used was, as far as I can tell, indistinguishable indistinguishable from XP. [. . .] All of us, as far as I can remember, thought waterfalling of a huge project was rather stupid, or at least ignorant of the realities. I think what the waterfall description did for us was make us realize that we were doing something else, something unnamed except for “software development. quoted in Larman, Craig; Victor R. Basili (June 2003). "Iterative and Incremental Computer 36 (No. 6): pp 47-56. doi:10.1109/MC.2003.1204 Development: A Brief History" (pdf). Computer 36 doi:10.1109/MC.2003.1204375. 375. Retrieved on 2007-02-22. (Permission note) 2. ^ Agile Alliance 3. ^ Edmonds, E. A. (1974), “A process for the development of software for non-technical users as an adaptive system”, General Systems XIX: 215-218 4. ^ a b Beck, K. (1999). Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change . Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-321-27865-8. 5. ^ Kent Beck, Mike Beedle, Arie van Bennekum, Alistair Cockburn, Ward Cunningham, Martin Fowler, James Grenning, Jim Highsmith, Andrew Hunt, Ron Jeffries, Jon Kern, Brian Marick, Robert C. Martin, Steve Mellor, Ken Schwaber, Jeff Sutherland and Dave Thomas 6. ^ Agile Manifesto principles 7. ^ Boehm, B.; R. Turner (2004). Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed . Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-321-18612-5. 0-321-18612-5. Appendix A, pages 165-194 165-194 8. ^ Laplante, P.A.; C.J. Neill (February 2004). ""The Demise of the Waterfall Model Is Imminent" and Other Urban Myths". ACM Queue 1 (10). Retrieved on 2006-05-13. 9. ^ Sommerville, Ian [1982] (2007). "4.1.1. The waterfall model", Software engineering, 8th edition, Harlow: Addison Wesley, pp 66f. 10. ^ Ambler, S. (April 2008). ""Scaling Scrum - Meeting Real World Development Needs". Dr. Dobbs . Retrieved on 2008-04-23. 11. ^ As reported by HeavyLogic 12. ^ Agile Processes Workshop II Managing Multiple Concurrent Agile Projects. Washington: OOPSLA 2002 13. ^ "Supersize Me" in Dr. Dobb's Journal, February 15, 2006. 14. ^ a b c Boehm, B.; R. Turner (2004). Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed . Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-321-18612-5. 15. ^ Supersize Me 16. ^ Schaaf, R.J. (2007). "Agility XL", Systems and Software Technology Conference 2007, Tampa, FL 17. ^ Bridging the Distance 18. ^ Using an Agile Software Process with Offshore Development 19. ^ a b Aydin, M.N., Harmsen, F., Slooten, K. v., & Stagwee, R. A. (2004). An Agile Information Systems Development Method in use. Turk J Elec Engin, 12(2), 127-138 20. ^ a b Abrahamsson, P., Warsta, J., Siponen, M.T., & Ronkainen, J. (2003). New Directions on Agile Methods: A Comparative Analysis. Proceedings of ICSE'03 , 244-254 21. ^ Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, J., & Warsta, J. (2002). Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis. VTT Publications 478 22. ^ a b Aydin, M.N., Harmsen, F., Slooten van K., & Stegwee, R.A. (2005). On the Adaptation of An Agile Information Systems Development Method. Journal of Database Management Special issue on Agile Analysis, Design, and Implementation, 16(4), 20-24 23. ^ Agile Alliance at http://agilealliance.org/sys http://agilealliance.org/system/article/file/904/file.pdf tem/article/file/904/file.pdf : PRINCE2 (Projects in Controlled Environments) . . . is a project management method that was specifically designed to be generic and independent of any particular project type or development method. As with DSDM,its use is dramatically dramatically on the increase in both the public and private private sectors. As


24.

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.


a development method and a project management method, the two should be complementary. Some have perceived the dynamic emphasis of DSDM and the control emphasis of PRINCE2 to be be in conflict. However, this is not the case. When DSDM was being developed, those involved had PRINCE firmly in mind. This is reflected in a number of the DSDM principles and techniques – for example, productbased planning, the involved partnership of users and developers, and the strong emphasis on the underlying business case. ^ Kurian, Tisni (2006). "Agility Metrics: A Quantitative Fuzzy Based Approach for Measuring Agility of a Software Process" ISAM-Proceedings of International Conference on Agile Manufacturing'06(ICAM-2006) , Norfolk, U.S. ^ McBreen, P. (2003). Questioning Extreme Programming . Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-20184457-5. ^ sdmagazine ^ Extreme Programming Refactored ^ The Great Pyramid of Agile ^ 2000 ^ 2006 ^ 2001 ^ 2002 ^ 2003 ^ 2004 ^ 2003 ^ 2004 ^ 2005

Further reading 



 



 













Fowler, Martin. Is Design Dead? . Appeared in Extreme Programming Explained , G. Succi and M. Marchesi, ed., Addison-Wesley, Boston. 2001. Riehle, Dirk. A Comparison of the Value Systems of Adaptive Software Development and Extreme Programming: How Methodologies May Learn From Each Other . Appeared in Extreme Programming Explained , G. Succi and M. Marchesi, ed., Addison-Wesley, Boston. 2001. Tomek, Ivan. What I Learned Teaching XP M. Stephens, D. Rosenberg. Extreme Programming Refactored: The Case Against XP . Apress Apress L.P., L.P., Berkeley, California. 2003. (ISBN 1-59059-096-1) D. Rosenberg, M. Stephens. Agile Development with ICONIX Process . Apress L.P., Berkeley, California. 2005. (ISBN 1-59059-464-9) Beck, et al., Manifesto for Agile Software Development Larman, Craig and Basili, Victor R. Iterative and Incremental Development:A Brief History IEEE Computer, June 2003 Abrahamsson, P., Warsta, J., Siponen, M.T., & Ronkainen, J. (2003). New Directions on Agile Methods: A Comparative Analysis. Proceedings of ICSE'03, 244-254. Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, J., & Warsta, J. (2002). Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis. VTT Publications 478. Aydin, M.N., Harmsen, F., Slooten, K. v., & Stagwee, R. A. (2004). An Agile Information Systems Systems Development Method in use. Turk J Elec Engin, 12(2), 127-138 Aydin, M.N., Harmsen, F., Slooten van K., & Stegwee, R.A. (2005). On the Adaptation of An Agile Information Systems Development Method. Journal of Database Management Special issue on Agile Analysis, Design, and Implementation, 16(4), 20-24 Cohen, D., Lindvall, M., & Costa, P. (2004). An introduction to agile methods. In Advances in Computers (pp. 1-66). New York: Elsevier Science. Karlstrom, D., & Runeson P. (2005). Combining agile methods with stage-gate project management. IEEE Software, 22(3), 43-49







Highsmith, J. Agile Software Development Ecosystems . Addison-Wesley Professional, 2002 (ISBN 0-20176-043-6) Waldner, JB. Nanocomputers and Swarm Intelligence. ISTE, 2008, (ISBN 9781847040022)

External links  

     

 



Manifesto for Agile Software Development The Agile Alliance "Why Agile Popped Up on the Radar When it Did" Interview on Lean for Software Methods Risk based selection for agile iterative lifecycle methods "The Demise of the Waterfall Model Is Imminent" and Other Urban Myths Managing Scope Creep using Agile Iterations Levent Gurses. "10 Mistakes in Transitioning to Agile: Slow down the transition in order to go fast", Dr. Dobb's Journal, 2006-11-01. Breaking the Major Release Habit - Why are long iterations a hard habit to break? An extensive list of book reviews on Agile topics, including practices, particular schools of Agile and software development Agile at the Open Directory Project

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_devel Agile_software_development" opment" Categories: Software development process | Software project management | Software development philosophies | Agile software development Hidden categories: Pages needing expert attention | Uncategorized pages needing expert attention | All articles with with unsourced statements | Articles Articles with with unsourced statements | Wikipedia Wikipedia external links cleanup  

This page was last modified on 4 June J une 2008, at 19:14. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c) (3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.

Agile software development

Recommend Documents