Agile software development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation
Jump to search

Software development
Core activities
• Processes Requirements Design
Engineering Construction Testing
Debugging Deployment Maintenance
Paradigms and models
• Agile Cleanroom Incremental
Prototyping Spiral V model Waterfall
Methodologies and frameworks
• ASD DevOps DAD DSDM FDD IID
Kanban Lean SD LeSS MDD MSF
PSP RAD RUP SAFe Scrum SEMAT
TSP OpenUP UP XP
Supporting disciplines
• Configuration management
Documentation Software quality
assurance (SQA) Project management
User experience
Practices
• ATDD BDD CCO CI CD DDD PP SBE
Stand-up TDD
Tools
• Compiler Debugger Profiler GUI
designer Modeling IDE Build
automation Release automation
Infrastructure as code Testing
Standards and Bodies of Knowledge
• BABOK CMMI IEEE standards ISO
9001 ISO/IEC standards PMBOK
SWEBOK ITIL
Glossaries
• Artificial intelligence Computer science
Electrical and electronics engineering
Outlines
 • Compiler Debugger Profiler GUI
designer Modeling IDE Build
automation Release automation
Infrastructure as code Testing
Standards and Bodies of Knowledge
• BABOK CMMI IEEE standards ISO
9001 ISO/IEC standards PMBOK
SWEBOK ITIL
Glossaries
• Artificial intelligence Computer science
Electrical and electronics engineering
Outlines
• Outline of software development
• vte
Agile software development comprises various approaches to
software development under which requirements and solutions evolve
through the collaborative effort of self-organizing and cross-functional
teams and their customer(s)/end user(s).[1] It advocates adaptive
planning, evolutionary development, early delivery, and continual
improvement, and it encourages rapid and flexible response to change.
[2][further explanation needed]

The term agile (sometimes written Agile)[3] was popularized, in this

context, by the Manifesto for Agile Software Development.[4] The values
and principles espoused in this manifesto were derived from and
underpin a broad range of software development frameworks, including
Scrum and Kanban.[5][6]
While there is much anecdotal evidence that adopting agile practices
and values improves the agility of software professionals, teams and
organizations, some empirical studies have disputed that evidence.[7][8]

Contents
 1 T V
A
C
h I E e
o
p
e t f r
A L
m
p
M e f y A
g a
lm
a r i s A g
A i r
io
n a c h g i
g l g
cn
i t i o i l
i e e
a
f i e r l e
l s -
tg
e v n t e s
e o is
s e t f A s o E
s f C lc
o
t , a e d o f x
o t o a
e
n
o i n e a A f t p
f w d l
R
sM
f n d d p g t w M A e
t a e e
o
F
o c f b t i w a e g r
w r Q v ,
g
fa
u
r r a a i l a r t i
a e u P s o
tsu
rR
A e c c v e r e h C le
r d O a h . lf
u
sw
te
H g m e k e v e d o S n
re
e e v l i d r
fia
h
i i e - l v s d e d e c
im
d v e i l o rits
d
e
s l 2 2 3 n 3 t 3 o 3 4 s 4 . 4 e 5 v 5 t 5e 5
6
a
t7
e e r t o c h
n
re
1
t 2 e . . 3 . t . o . o . 4 . . . w. 5 v . e . a . a 6
7
.n
i8
9
v l v y s u o
g
sd
0
e
r1
2
o S1 2 1 a 2 - 3 p 4 1 p 2 a 3 e 1 l 2 i 3 lc1 4
n
2
a
e o i f o m r
d
a
o
n
e
r o l f a r t l o l d
sig
l p e o p e e
o
cfvg
a
y f , a n e e o p o o a
se
o m w c h n a
tim
e
d
t a c d d r p m r m d
p e u y t n
la
isw
w n e a i f m e i o
e
m n s a id
o
a
n
a d c d c a e n n n p
e t t d
tn
rp
g
r e o a t l n t g t
n p i ysi
m
e
e v m p i l t p i
t r o s
e
d
D o m t v m r o
v i n t
n
e
e l u a e e a n
a n vtr
v u n t t c
l c i
p
e
e t i i h t
u i lib
l i c o o i
e p tu
o
o o a n d c
s l ft
p
p n t c s e
e e
a
m
m a i y s
s ld
e
e r o c
l
n
n y n l
ts
t e
External linksHistory[edit]
Iterative and incremental development methods can be traced back as
early as 1957,[9] with evolutionary project management[10][11] and
adaptive software development[12] emerging in the early 1970s.[13]
During the 1990s, a number of lightweight software development
methods evolved in reaction to the prevailing heavyweight methods
(such as waterfall) that critics described as overly regulated, planned,
and micro-managed. These included: rapid application development
(RAD), from 1991;[14][15] the unified process (UP) and dynamic systems
development method (DSDM), both from 1994; Scrum, from 1995;
Crystal Clear and extreme programming (XP), both from 1996; and
feature-driven development, from 1997. Although these all originated
before the publication of the Agile Manifesto, they are now collectively
referred to as agile software development methods.[6] At the same time,
similar changes were underway in manufacturing[16] and aerospace.[17]
In 2001, these seventeen software developers met at a resort in
Snowbird, Utah to discuss these lightweight development methods: Kent
Beck, Ward Cunningham, Dave Thomas, Jeff Sutherland, Ken
Schwaber, Jim Highsmith, Alistair Cockburn, Robert C. Martin, Mike
Beedle, Arie van Bennekum, Martin Fowler, James Grenning, Andrew
Hunt, Ron Jeffries, Jon Kern, Brian Marick, and Steve Mellor. Together
they published the Manifesto for Agile Software Development.[4]
In 2005, a group headed by Cockburn and Highsmith wrote an
addendum of project management principles, the PM Declaration of
Interdependence,[18] to guide software project management according to
agile software development methods.
In 2009, a group working with Martin wrote an extension of software
development principles, the Software Craftsmanship Manifesto, to guide
agile software development according to professional conduct and
mastery.
In 2011, the Agile Alliance created the Guide to Agile Practices
(renamed the Agile Glossary in 2016),[19] an evolving open-source
compendium of the working definitions of agile practices, terms, and
elements, along with interpretations and experience guidelines from the
worldwide community of agile practitioners.
The Manifesto for Agile Software
Development[edit]
Agile software development values[edit]
Based on their combined experience of developing software and helping
others do that, the seventeen signatories to the manifesto proclaimed
that they value:[4]
 • Individuals and Interactions over processes and tools
• Working Software over comprehensive documentation
• Customer Collaboration over contract negotiation
• Responding to Change over following a plan
That is to say, the items on the left are valued more than the items on
the right.
As Scott Ambler elucidated:[20]
• Tools and processes are important, but it is more important to
have competent people working together effectively.
• Good documentation is useful in helping people to understand how
the software is built and how to use it, but the main point of
development is to create software, not documentation.
• A contract is important but is no substitute for working closely with
customers to discover what they need.
• A project plan is important, but it must not be too rigid to
accommodate changes in technology or the environment,
stakeholders' priorities, and people's understanding of the problem
and its solution.
Some of the authors formed the Agile Alliance, a non-profit organization
that promotes software development according to the manifesto's values
and principles. Introducing the manifesto on behalf of the Agile Alliance,
Jim Highsmith said,
The Agile movement is not anti-methodology, in fact many of us want to
restore credibility to the word methodology. We want to restore a
balance. We embrace modeling, but not in order to file some diagram in
a dusty corporate repository. We embrace documentation, but not
hundreds of pages of never-maintained and rarely-used tomes. We plan,
but recognize the limits of planning in a turbulent environment. Those
who would brand proponents of XP or SCRUM or any of the other Agile
Methodologies as "hackers" are ignorant of both the methodologies and
the original definition of the term hacker.
— Jim Highsmith, History: The Agile Manifesto[21]
Agile software development principles[edit]
The Manifesto for Agile Software Development is based on twelve
principles:[22]
1 Customer satisfaction by early and continuous delivery of valuable
software.
2 Welcome changing requirements, even in late development.
3 Deliver working software frequently (weeks rather than months)
4 Close, daily cooperation between business people and developers
5 Projects are built around motivated individuals, who should be
 trusted
6 Face-to-face conversation is the best form of communication (co-
location)
7 Working software is the primary measure of progress
8 Sustainable development, able to maintain a constant pace
9 Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design
10 Simplicity—the art of maximizing the amount of work not done—is
essential
11 Best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-
organizing teams
12 Regularly, the team reflects on how to become more effective, and
adjusts accordingly
Overview[edit]

Pair programming, an agile development technique used by XP.

Iterative, incremental, and evolutionary[edit]
Most agile development methods break product development work into
small increments that minimize the amount of up-front planning and
design. Iterations, or sprints, are short time frames (timeboxes) that
typically last from one to four weeks. Each iteration involves a cross-
functional team working in all functions: planning, analysis, design,
coding, unit testing, and acceptance testing. At the end of the iteration a
working product is demonstrated to stakeholders. This minimizes overall
risk and allows the product to adapt to changes quickly.[23] An iteration
might not add enough functionality to warrant a market release, but the
goal is to have an available release (with minimal bugs) at the end of
each iteration.[24] Multiple iterations might be required to release a
product or new features. Working software is the primary measure of
progress.[22]
Efficient and face-to-face communication[edit]
The principle of co-location is that co-workers on the same team should
be situated together to better establish the identity as a team and to
improve communication.[25] This enables face-to-face interaction, ideally
in front of a whiteboard, that reduces the cycle time typically taken when
questions and answers are mediated through phone, persistent chat,
wiki, or email.[26]
No matter which development method is followed, every team should
include a customer representative ("Product Owner" in Scrum). This
person is agreed by stakeholders to act on their behalf and makes a
personal commitment to being available for developers to answer
questions throughout the iteration. At the end of each iteration,
stakeholders and the customer representative review progress and re-
evaluate priorities with a view to optimizing the return on investment
(ROI) and ensuring alignment with customer needs and company goals.
In agile software development, an information radiator is a (normally
large) physical display located prominently near the development team,
where passers-by can see it. It presents an up-to-date summary of the
product development status.[27][28] A build light indicator may also be
used to inform a team about the current status of their product
development.
Very short feedback loop and adaptation cycle[edit]
A common characteristic in agile software development is the daily
stand-up (a daily scrum in Scrum framework). In a brief session, team
members report to each other what they did the previous day toward
their team's iteration goal, what they intend to do today toward the goal,
and any roadblocks or impediments they can see to the goal.[29]
Quality focus[edit]
Specific tools and techniques, such as continuous integration,
automated unit testing, pair programming, test-driven development,
design patterns, behavior-driven development, domain-driven design,
code refactoring and other techniques are often used to improve quality
and enhance product development agility.[30] This is predicated on
designing and building quality in from the beginning and being able to
demonstrate software for customers at any point, or at least at the end of
every iteration.[31]
Philosophy[edit]
Compared to traditional software engineering, agile software
development mainly targets complex systems and product development
with dynamic, non-deterministic and non-linear characteristics. Accurate
estimates, stable plans, and predictions are often hard to get in early
stages, and confidence in them is likely to be low. Agile practitioners will
seek to reduce the leap-of-faith that is needed before any evidence of
value can be obtained.[32] Requirements and design are held to be
emergent. Big up-front specifications would probably cause a lot of
waste in such cases, i.e., are not economically sound. These basic
arguments and previous industry experiences, learned from years of
successes and failures, have helped shape agile development's favor of
adaptive, iterative and evolutionary development.[33]
Adaptive vs. predictive[edit]
Development methods exist on a continuum from adaptive to predictive.
[34]
Agile software development methods lie on the adaptive side of this
continuum. One key of adaptive development methods is a rolling wave
approach to schedule planning, which identifies milestones but leaves
flexibility in the path to reach them, and also allows for the milestones
themselves to change.[35]

Agile Software Development: BurnUp Chart shows the dynamics of created for
clients value (story points) in project management simulation SimulTrain.

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 has difficulty describing exactly what will happen in the
future. The further away a date is, the more vague an adaptive method
is about what will happen on that date. An adaptive team cannot report
exactly what tasks they will do next week, but only which features they
plan for next month. When asked about a release six months from now,
an adaptive team might be able to report only the mission statement for
the release, or a statement of expected value vs. cost.
Predictive methods, in contrast, focus on analysing and planning the
future in detail and cater for known risks. In the extremes, a predictive
team can report exactly what features and tasks are planned for the
entire length of the development process. Predictive methods rely on
effective early phase analysis and if this goes very wrong, the project
may have difficulty changing direction. Predictive teams often institute a
change control board to ensure they consider only the most valuable
changes.
Risk analysis can be used to choose between adaptive (agile or value-
driven) and predictive (plan-driven) methods.[36] Barry Boehm and
Richard Turner suggest that each side of the continuum has its own
home ground, as follows:[37]
Home grounds of different development methods
 Value-driven Plan-driven
Formal methods
methods methods
Low criticality High criticality Extreme criticality
Senior developers Junior developers(?) Senior developers
Limited requirements,
Requirements Requirements do not limited features see
change often change often Wirth's law[clarification
needed]

Small number of Large number of Requirements that

developers developers can be modeled
Culture that Culture that
Extreme quality
responds to change demands order
Agile vs. waterfall[edit]
One of the differences between agile software development methods
and waterfall is the approach to quality and testing. In the waterfall
model, there is always a separate testing phase after a build phase;
however, in agile software development testing is completed in the same
iteration as programming.
Another difference is that traditional "waterfall" software development
moves a project through various Software Development Lifecycle
(SDLC) phases. One phase is completed in its entirety before moving on
to the next phase.
Because testing is done in every iteration—which develops a small piece
of the software—users can frequently use those new pieces of software
and validate the value. After the users know the real value of the
updated piece of software, they can make better decisions about the
software's future. Having a value retrospective and software re-planning
session in each iteration—Scrum typically has iterations of just two
weeks—helps the team continuously adapt its plans so as to maximize
the value it delivers. This follows a pattern similar to the PDCA cycle, as
the work is planned, done, checked (in the review and retrospective),
and any changes agreed are acted upon.
This iterative approach supports a product rather than a project mindset.
This provides greater flexibility throughout the development process;
whereas on projects the requirements are defined and locked down from
the very beginning, making it difficult to change them later. Iterative
product development allows the software to evolve in response to
changes in business environment or market requirements.[38]
Because of the short iteration style of agile software development, it also
has strong connections with the lean startup concept.
Code vs. documentation[edit]
In a letter to IEEE Computer, Steven Rakitin expressed cynicism about
agile software development, calling it "yet another attempt to undermine
the discipline of software engineering" and translating "working software
over comprehensive documentation" as "we want to spend all our time
coding. Remember, real programmers don't write documentation."[39]
This is disputed by proponents of agile software development, who state
that developers should write documentation if that is the best way to
achieve the relevant goals, but that there are often better ways to
achieve those goals than writing static documentation.[40] Scott Ambler
states that documentation should be "just barely good enough" (JBGE),
[41]
that too much or comprehensive documentation would usually cause
waste, and developers rarely trust detailed documentation because it's
usually out of sync with code,[40] while too little documentation may also
cause problems for maintenance, communication, learning and
knowledge sharing. Alistair Cockburn wrote of the Crystal Clear method:
Crystal considers development a series of co-operative games, and
intends that the documentation is enough to help the next win at the next
game. The work products for Crystal include use cases, risk list, iteration
plan, core domain models, and design notes to inform on
choices...however there are no templates for these documents and
descriptions are necessarily vague, but the objective is clear, just
enough documentation for the next game. I always tend to
characterize this to my team as: what would you want to know if you
joined the team tomorrow.
— Alistair Cockburn.[42]
Agile software development methods[edit]

Software development life-cycle support[43]

Agile software development methods support a broad range of the
software development life cycle.[43] Some focus on the practices (e.g.,
XP, pragmatic programming, agile modeling), while some focus on
managing the flow of work (e.g., Scrum, Kanban). Some support
activities for requirements specification and development (e.g., FDD),
while some seek to cover the full development life cycle (e.g., DSDM,
RUP).
Notable agile software development frameworks include:

Framework Main contributor(s)

Adaptive software development
Jim Highsmith, Sam Bayer
(ASD)
Scott Ambler, Robert Cecil
Agile modeling
Martin
Agile unified process (AUP) Scott Ambler
Disciplined agile delivery Scott Ambler
Dynamic systems development
method (DSDM)
Kent Beck, Robert Cecil
Extreme programming (XP)
Martin
Feature-driven development (FDD) Jeff De Luca
Mary Poppendieck, Tom
Lean software development
Poppendieck
Lean startup Eric Ries
Kanban Taiichi Ohno
Rapid application development
James Martin
(RAD)
Ken Schwaber,Jeff
Scrum
Sutherland
Scrumban
Scaled Agile Framework - SAFe
Agile software development practices[edit]
Agile software development is supported by a number of concrete
practices, covering areas like requirements, design, modeling, coding,
testing, planning, risk management, process, quality, etc. Some notable
agile software development practices include:[44]

Main
Practice
contributor(s)
Acceptance test-driven development (ATDD)
Agile modeling
Agile testing
Backlogs (Product and Sprint) Ken Schwaber
Dan North, Liz
Behavior-driven development (BDD)
Keogh
Continuous integration (CI) Grady Booch
Cross-functional team
Daily Stand-up / Daily Scrum James O Coplien
Domain-driven design (DDD) Eric Evans
Iterative and incremental development (IID)
Low-code development platforms
Pair programming Kent Beck
James Grenning,
Planning poker
Mike Cohn
Refactoring Martin Fowler
Retrospective
Scrum events (sprint planning, sprint review
and retrospective)
Specification by example
Story-driven modeling Albert Zündorf
Test-driven development (TDD) Kent Beck
Timeboxing
User story Alistair Cockburn
Velocity tracking
Method tailoring[edit]
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 determine a system
development approach for a specific project situation through responsive
changes in, and dynamic interplays between contexts, intentions, and
method fragments.
— Mehmet Nafiz Aydin et al., An Agile Information Systems
Development Method in use[45]
Situation-appropriateness should be considered as a distinguishing
characteristic between agile methods and more plan-driven software
development methods, with agile methods allowing product development
teams to adapt working practices according to the needs of individual
products.[46][45] Potentially, most agile methods could be suitable for
method tailoring,[43] such as DSDM tailored in a CMM context.[47] and
XP tailored with the Rule Description Practices (RDP) technique.[48] Not
all agile proponents agree, however, with Schwaber noting "that is how
we got into trouble in the first place, thinking that the problem was not
having a perfect methodology. Efforts [should] center on the changes
[needed] in the enterprise".[49] Bas Vodde reinforced this viewpoint,
suggesting that unlike traditional, large methodologies that require you to
pick and choose elements, Scrum provides the basics on top of which
you add additional elements to localise and contextualise its use.[50]
Practitioners seldom use system development methods, or agile
methods specifically, by the book, often choosing to omit or tailor some
of the practices of a method in order to create an in-house method.[51]
In practice, methods can be tailored using various tools. Generic
process modeling languages such as Unified Modeling Language can be
used to tailor software development methods. However, dedicated tools
for method engineering such as the Essence Theory of Software
Engineering of SEMAT also exist.[52]
Large-scale, offshore and distributed[edit]
Agile software development has been widely seen as highly suited to
certain types of environments, including small teams of experts working
on greenfield projects,[37][53]:157 and the challenges and limitations
encountered in the adoption of agile software development methods in a
large organization with legacy infrastructure are well-documented and
understood.[54]
In response, a range of strategies and patterns has evolved for
overcoming challenges with large-scale development efforts (>20
developers)[55][56] or distributed (non-colocated) development teams,[57]
[58]
amongst other challenges; and there are now several recognised
frameworks that seek to mitigate or avoid these challenges.
• Scaled agile framework (SAFe),[59] Dean Leffingwell et al
• Disciplined agile delivery (DAD), Scott Ambler et al
• Large-scale scrum (LeSS), Craig Larman and Bas Vodde
• Nexus (scaled professional Scrum),[60] Ken Schwaber
• Scrum at Scale,[61] Jeff Sutherland, Alex Brown
• Enterprise Scrum,[62] Mike Beedle
• Setchu (Scrum-based lightweight framework),[63] Michael Ebbage
• Xscale[64]
• Agile path[65]
• Holistic Software Development [66]
There are many conflicting viewpoints on whether all of these are
effective or indeed fit the definition of agile development, and this
remains an active and ongoing area of research.[55][67]
When agile software development is applied in a distributed setting (with
teams dispersed across multiple business locations), it is commonly
referred to as distributed agile development. The goal is to leverage the
unique benefits offered by each approach. Distributed development
allows organizations to build software by strategically setting up teams in
different parts of the globe, virtually building software round-the-clock
(more commonly referred to as follow-the-sun model). On the other
hand, agile development provides increased transparency, continuous
feedback and more flexibility when responding to changes.
Regulated domains[edit]
Agile software development methods were initially seen as best suitable
for non-critical product developments, thereby excluded from use in
regulated domains such as medical devices, pharmaceutical, financial,
nuclear systems, automotive, and avionics sectors, etc. However, in the
last several years, there have been several initiatives for the adaptation
of agile methods for these domains.[68][69][70][71][72]
There are numerous standards that may apply in regulated domains,
including ISO 26262, ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO/IEC 15504. A
number of key concerns are of particular importance in regulated
domains:[73]
• Quality assurance (QA): Systematic and inherent quality
management underpinning a controlled professional process and
reliability and correctness of product.
• Safety and security: Formal planning and risk management to
 mitigate safety risks for users and securely protecting users from
unintentional and malicious misuse.
• Traceability: Documentation providing auditable evidence of
regulatory compliance and facilitating traceability and investigation
of problems.
• Verification and Validation (V&V): Embedded throughout the
software development process (e.g. user requirements
specification, functional specification, design specification, code
review, unit tests, integration tests, system tests).
Experience and adoption[edit]
Although agile software development methods can be used with any
programming paradigm or language in practice, they were originally
closely associated with object-oriented environments such as Smalltalk
and Lisp and later Java. The initial adopters of agile methods were
usually small to medium-sized teams working on unprecedented
systems with requirements that were difficult to finalize and likely to
change as the system was being developed. This section describes
common problems that organizations encounter when they try to adopt
agile software development methods as well as various techniques to
measure the quality and performance of agile teams.[74]
Measuring agility[edit]
The best agile practitioners have always emphasized thorough
engineering principles. As a result, there are a number of best practices
and tools for measuring the performance of agile software development
and teams.
Internal assessments[edit]
The Agility measurement index, amongst others, rates developments
against five dimensions of product development (duration, risk, novelty,
effort, and interaction).[75][76] Other techniques are based on measurable
goals[77] and one study suggests that velocity can be used as a metric of
agility.[78] There are also agile self-assessments to determine whether a
team is using agile software development practices (Nokia test,[79]
Karlskrona test,[80] 42 points test).[81]
Public surveys[edit]
One of the early studies reporting gains in quality, productivity, and
business satisfaction by using agile software developments methods
was a survey conducted by Shine Technologies from November 2002 to
January 2003.[82]
A similar survey, the State of Agile, is conducted every year starting in
2006 with thousands of participants from around the software
development community. This tracks trends on the benefits of agility,
lessons learned, and good practices. Each survey has reported
increasing numbers saying that agile software development helps them
deliver software faster; improves their ability to manage changing
customer priorities; and increases their productivity.[83] Surveys have
also consistently shown better results with agile product development
methods compared to classical project management.[84][85] In balance,
there are reports that some feel that agile development methods are still
too young to enable extensive academic research of their success.[86]
Common agile software development pitfalls[edit]
Organizations and teams implementing agile software development
often face difficulties transitioning from more traditional methods such as
waterfall development, such as teams having an agile process forced on
them.[87] These are often termed agile anti-patterns or more commonly
agile smells. Below are some common examples:
Lack of overall product design[edit]
A goal of agile software development is to focus more on producing
working software and less on documentation. This is in contrast to
waterfall models where the process is often highly controlled and minor
changes to the system require significant revision of supporting
documentation. However, this does not justify completely doing without
any analysis or design at all. Failure to pay attention to design can cause
a team to proceed rapidly at first but then to have significant rework
required as they attempt to scale up the system. One of the key features
of agile software development is that it is iterative. When done correctly
design emerges as the system is developed and commonalities and
opportunities for re-use are discovered.[88]
Adding stories to an iteration in progress[edit]
In agile software development, stories (similar to use case descriptions)
are typically used to define requirements and an iteration is a short
period of time during which the team commits to specific goals.[89]
Adding stories to an iteration in progress is detrimental to a good flow of
work. These should be added to the product backlog and prioritized for a
subsequent iteration or in rare cases the iteration could be cancelled.[90]
This does not mean that a story cannot expand. Teams must deal with
new information, which may produce additional tasks for a story. If the
new information prevents the story from being completed during the
iteration, then it should be carried over to a subsequent iteration.
However, it should be prioritized against all remaining stories, as the
new information may have changed the story's original priority.
Lack of sponsor support[edit]
Agile software development is often implemented as a grassroots effort
in organizations by software development teams trying to optimize their
development processes and ensure consistency in the software
development life cycle. By not having sponsor support, teams may face
difficulties and resistance from business partners, other development
teams and management. Additionally, they may suffer without
appropriate funding and resources.[91] This increases the likelihood of
failure.[92]
Insufficient training[edit]
A survey performed by VersionOne found respondents cited insufficient
training as the most significant cause for failed agile implementations[93]
Teams have fallen into the trap of assuming the reduced processes of
agile software development compared to other methodologies such as
waterfall means that there are no actual rules for agile software
development.[citation needed]
Product owner role is not properly filled[edit]
The product owner is responsible for representing the business in the
development activity and is often the most demanding role.[94]
A common mistake is to have the product owner role filled by someone
from the development team. This requires the team to make its own
decisions on prioritization without real feedback from the business. They
try to solve business issues internally or delay work as they reach
outside the team for direction. This often leads to distraction and a
breakdown in collaboration.[95]
Teams are not focused[edit]
Agile software development requires teams to meet product
commitments, which means they should focus only on work for that
product. However, team members who appear to have spare capacity
are often expected to take on other work, which makes it difficult for
them to help complete the work to which their team had committed.[96]
Excessive preparation/planning[edit]
Teams may fall into the trap of spending too much time preparing or
planning. This is a common trap for teams less familiar with agile
software development where the teams feel obliged to have a complete
understanding and specification of all stories. Teams should be prepared
to move forward only with those stories in which they have confidence,
then during the iteration continue to discover and prepare work for
subsequent iterations (often referred to as backlog refinement or
grooming).
Problem-solving in the daily standup[edit]
A daily standup should be a focused, timely meeting where all team
members disseminate information. If problem-solving occurs, it often can
only involve certain team members and potentially is not the best use of
the entire team's time. If during the daily standup the team starts diving
into problem-solving, it should be set aside until a sub-team can discuss,
usually immediately after the standup completes. [97]
Assigning tasks[edit]
One of the intended benefits of agile software development is to
empower the team to make choices, as they are closest to the problem.
Additionally, they should make choices as close to implementation as
possible, to use more timely information in the decision. If team
members are assigned tasks by others or too early in the process, the
benefits of localized and timely decision making can be lost.[98]
Being assigned work also constrains team members into certain roles
(for example, team member A must always do the database work),
which limits opportunities for cross-training.[98] Team members
themselves can choose to take on tasks that stretch their abilities and
provide cross-training opportunities.
Scrum master as a contributor[edit]
Another common pitfall is for a scrum master to act as a contributor.
While not prohibited by the Scrum methodology, the scrum master
needs to ensure they have the capacity to act in the role of scrum
master first and not working on development tasks. A scrum master's
role is to facilitate the process rather than create the product.[99]
Having the scrum master also multitasking may result in too many
context switches to be productive. Additionally, as a scrum master is
responsible for ensuring roadblocks are removed so that the team can
make forward progress, the benefit gained by individual tasks moving
forward may not outweigh roadblocks that are deferred due to lack of
capacity.[99]
Lack of test automation[edit]
Due to the iterative nature of agile development, multiple rounds of
testing are often needed. Automated testing helps reduce the impact of
repeated unit, integration, and regression tests and frees developers and
testers to focus on higher value work.[100]
Test automation also supports continued refactoring required by iterative
software development. Allowing a developer to quickly run tests to
confirm refactoring has not modified the functionality of the application
may reduce the workload and increase confidence that cleanup efforts
have not introduced new defects.
Allowing technical debt to build up[edit]
Focusing on delivering new functionality may result in increased
technical debt. The team must allow themselves time for defect
remediation and refactoring. Technical debt hinders planning abilities by
increasing the amount of unscheduled work as production defects
distract the team from further progress.[101]
As the system evolves it is important to refactor as entropy of the system
naturally increases.[102] Over time the lack of constant maintenance
causes increasing defects and development costs.[101]
Attempting to take on too much in an iteration[edit]
A common misconception is that agile software development allows
continuous change, however an iteration backlog is an agreement of
what work can be completed during an iteration.[103] Having too much
work-in-progress (WIP) results in inefficiencies such as context-
switching and queueing.[104] The team must avoid feeling pressured into
taking on additional work.[105]
Fixed time, resources, scope, and quality[edit]
Agile software development fixes time (iteration duration), quality, and
ideally resources in advance (though maintaining fixed resources may
be difficult if developers are often pulled away from tasks to handle
production incidents), while the scope remains variable. The customer or
product owner often push for a fixed scope for an iteration. However,
teams should be reluctant to commit to the locked time, resources and
scope (commonly known as the project management triangle). Efforts to
add scope to the fixed time and resources of agile software development
may result in decreased quality.[106]
Developer burnout[edit]
Due to the focused pace and continuous nature of agile practices, there
is a heightened risk of burnout among members of the delivery team.
[107]

Agile management[edit]
Main article: Agile management
The term agile management is applied to an iterative, incremental
method of managing the design and build activities of engineering,
information technology and other business areas that aim to provide new
product or service development in a highly flexible and interactive
manner, based on the principles expressed in the Manifesto for Agile
Software Development.[108]
Agile X techniques may also be called extreme project management. It
is a variant of iterative life cycle[109] where deliverables are submitted in
stages. The main difference between agile and iterative development is
that agile methods complete small portions of the deliverables in each
delivery cycle (iteration),[110] while iterative methods evolve the entire
set of deliverables over time, completing them near the end of the
project. Both iterative and agile methods were developed as a reaction
to various obstacles that developed in more sequential forms of project
organization. For example, as technology projects grow in complexity,
end users tend to have difficulty defining the long-term requirements
without being able to view progressive prototypes. Projects that develop
in iterations can constantly gather feedback to help refine those
requirements.
Agile management also offers a simple framework promoting
communication and reflection on past work amongst team members.[111]
Teams who were using traditional waterfall planning and adopted the
agile way of development typically go through a transformation phase
and often take help from agile coaches who help guide the teams
through a smooth transformation. There are typically two styles of agile
coaching: push-based and pull-based agile coaching. Agile management
approaches have also been employed and adapted to the business and
government sectors. For example, within the federal government of the
United States, the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) is employing a collaborative project management approach that
focuses on incorporating collaborating, learning and adapting (CLA)
strategies to iterate and adapt programming.[112]
Agile methods are mentioned in the Guide to the Project Management
Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) under the Project Lifecycle
definition:
Adaptive project life cycle, a project life cycle, also known as change-
driven or agile methods, that is intended to facilitate change and require
a high degree of ongoing stakeholder involvement. Adaptive life cycles
are also iterative and incremental, but differ in that iterations are very
rapid (usually 2-4 weeks in length) and are fixed in time and resources.
[113]

Applications outside software development[edit]

 Agile Brazil 2014 conference
According to Jean-Loup Richet (Research Fellow at ESSEC Institute for
Strategic Innovation & Services) "this approach can be leveraged
effectively for non-software products and for project management in
general, especially in areas of innovation and uncertainty." The end
result is a product or project that best meets current customer needs and
is delivered with minimal costs, waste, and time, enabling companies to
achieve bottom line gains earlier than via traditional approaches.[114]
Agile software development methods have been extensively used for
development of software products and some of them use certain
characteristics of software, such as object technologies.[115] However,
these techniques can be applied to the development of non-software
products, such as computers, motor vehicles,[116] medical devices, food,
clothing, and music.[117] Agile software development methods have
been used in non-development IT infrastructure deployments and
migrations. Some of the wider principles of agile software development
have also found application in general management[118] (e.g., strategy,
governance, risk, finance) under the terms business agility or agile
business management.
Under an agile business management model, agile software
development techniques, practices, principles and values are expressed
across five domains.[119]
1 Integrated customer engagement: to embed customers within any
delivery process to share accountability for product/service
delivery.
2 Facilitation-based management: adopting agile management
models, like the role of Scrum Master, to facilitate the day-to-day
operation of teams.
3 Agile work practices: adopting specific iterative and incremental
work practices such as Scrum, Kanban, test-driven development
 or feature-driven development across all business functions (from
sales, human resources, finance[120] and marketing).
4 An enabling organisational structure: with a focus on staff
engagement, personal autonomy and outcomes based
governance.
5 Applications of agile process (along with DevOps and lean
manufacturing), to data analytics, business intelligence, big data,
and data science is called DataOps
Agile software development paradigms can be used in other areas of life
such as raising children. Its success in child development might be
founded on some basic management principles; communication,
adaptation, and awareness. In a TED Talk, Bruce Feiler shared how he
applied basic agile paradigms to household management and raising
children.[121]
Criticism[edit]
Agile practices can be inefficient in large organizations and certain types
of developments.[122] Many organizations believe that agile software
development methodologies are too extreme and adopt a Hybrid
approach [123] that mixes elements of agile software development and
plan-driven approaches.[124] Some methods, such as dynamic systems
development method (DSDM) attempt this in a disciplined way, without
sacrificing fundamental principles.
The increasing adoption of agile practices has also been criticized as
being a management fad that simply describes existing good practices
under new jargon, promotes a one size fits all mindset towards
development strategies, and wrongly emphasizes method over results.
[125]

Alistair Cockburn organized a celebration of the 10th anniversary of the

Manifesto for Agile Software Development in Snowbird, Utah on 12
February 2011, gathering some 30+ people who had been involved at
the original meeting and since. A list of about 20 elephants in the room
('undiscussable' agile topics/issues) were collected, including aspects:
the alliances, failures and limitations of agile software development
practices and context (possible causes: commercial interests,
decontextualization, no obvious way to make progress based on failure,
limited objective evidence, cognitive biases and reasoning fallacies),
politics and culture.[126] As Philippe Kruchten wrote:
The agile movement is in some ways a bit like a teenager: very self-
conscious, checking constantly its appearance in a mirror, accepting few
criticisms, only interested in being with its peers, rejecting en bloc all
wisdom from the past, just because it is from the past, adopting fads and
new jargon, at times cocky and arrogant. But I have no doubts that it will
mature further, become more open to the outside world, more reflective,
and therefore, more effective.
— Philippe Kruchten[126]
See also[edit]
• Workers' self-management
References[edit]
1 ^ Collier, Ken W. (2011). Agile Analytics: A Value-Driven Approach to
Business Intelligence and Data Warehousing. Pearson Education. pp. 121
ff. ISBN 9780321669544. “What is a self-organizing team?”
2 ^ "What is Agile Software Development?". Agile Alliance. 8 June 2013.
Retrieved 4 April 2015.
3 ^ Rally (2010). "Agile With a Capital "A" Vs. agile With a Lowercase "a"".
Archived from the original on 5 January 2016. Retrieved 9 September
2015.
4 ^ Jump up to:
a b c Kent Beck; James Grenning; Robert C. Martin; Mike Beedle; Jim

Highsmith; Steve Mellor; Arie van Bennekum; Andrew Hunt; Ken

Schwaber; Alistair Cockburn; Ron Jeffries; Jeff Sutherland; Ward
Cunningham; Jon Kern; Dave Thomas; Martin Fowler; Brian Marick
(2001). "Manifesto for Agile Software Development". Agile Alliance.
Retrieved 14 June 2010.
5 ^ Which is better – Kanban or Scrum?, 4 March 2016
6 ^ Jump up to:
a b Larman, Craig (2004). Agile and Iterative Development: A Manager's

Guide. Addison-Wesley. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-13-111155-4.

7 ^ Dybå, Tore; Dingsøyr, Torgeir (1 August 2008). "Empirical studies of
agile software development: A systematic review". Information and
Software Technology. 50 (9–10): 833–859. doi:10.1016/
j.infsof.2008.01.006. ISSN 0950-5849.
8 ^ Lee, Gwanhoo; Xia, Weidong (2010). "Toward Agile: An Integrated
Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Field Data on Software
Development Agility". MIS Quarterly. 34 (1): 87–114.
doi:10.2307/20721416. JSTOR 20721416.
9 ^ Gerald M. Weinberg, as quoted in Larman & Basili 2003, pp. 47–56 "We
were doing incremental development as early as 1957 in Los Angeles,
under the direction of Bernie Dimsdale at IBM's Service Bureau
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 ... 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.'"
10 ^ "Evolutionary Project Management (Original page, external archive)".
Gilb. Archived from the original on 27 March 2016. Retrieved 30 April
2017.
11 ^ "Evolutionary Project Management (New page)". Gilb. Retrieved 30 April
2017.
12 ^ Edmonds, E. A. (1974). "A Process for the Development of Software for
Nontechnical Users as an Adaptive System". General Systems. 19: 215–
18.
13 ^ Gilb, Tom (1 April 1981). "Evolutionary development". ACM SIGSOFT
Software Engineering Notes. 6 (2): 17. doi:10.1145/1010865.1010868.
14 ^ Martin, James (1991). Rapid Application Development. Macmillan.
ISBN 978-0-02-376775-3.
15 ^ Kerr, James M.; Hunter, Richard (1993). Inside RAD: How to Build a
Fully Functional System in 90 Days or Less. McGraw-Hill. p. 3.
ISBN 978-0-07-034223-1.
16 ^ Iacocca Institute (1991). "21st Century Manufacturing Enterprise
Strategy: An Industry Led View". Iacocca Institute, Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, PA.
17 ^ Presley, A., J. Mills and D. Liles (1995). "Agile Aerospace
Manufacturing". Nepcon East 1995, Boston.
18 ^ Anderson, David (2005). "Declaration of Interdependence". Archived
from the original on 27 January 2018. Retrieved 4 October 2018.
19 ^ McDonald, Kent (1 November 2016). "How You Can Help Agile Alliance
Help You". Agile Alliance Blog. Retrieved 4 July 2017.
20 ^ "Examining the Agile Manifesto". Ambysoft Inc. Retrieved 6 April 2011.
21 ^ Jim Highsmith (2001). "History: The Agile Manifesto".
agilemanifesto.org.
22 ^ Jump up to:
a b Kent Beck; James Grenning; Robert C. Martin; Mike Beedle; Jim

Highsmith; Steve Mellor; Arie van Bennekum; Andrew Hunt; Ken

Schwaber; Alistair Cockburn; Ron Jeffries; Jeff Sutherland; Ward
Cunningham; Jon Kern; Dave Thomas; Martin Fowler; Brian Marick
(2001). "Principles behind the Agile Manifesto". Agile Alliance. Archived
from the original on 14 June 2010. Retrieved 6 June 2010.
23 ^ Moran, A. (2014). Agile Risk Management. Springer Verlag.
ISBN 978-3319050072.
24 ^ Beck, Kent (1999). "Embracing Change with Extreme Programming".
Computer. 32 (10): 70–77. doi:10.1109/2.796139.
25 ^ Preuss, Deborah Hartmann (13 October 2006). "Study: Co-Located
Teams vs. the Cubicle Farm". InfoQ. Retrieved 23 October 2018.
26 ^ Cockburn, Alistair (2007). "Agile Software Development: The
Cooperative Game". www.pearson.com (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley
Professional. Retrieved 23 October 2018.
27 ^ Cockburn, Alistair (19 June 2008). "Information radiator".
28 ^ Ambler, Scott (12 April 2002). Agile Modeling: Effective Practices for
EXtreme Programming and the Unified Process. John Wiley & Sons.
pp. 12, 164, 363. ISBN 978-0-471-20282-0.
29 ^ Vasiliauskas, Vidas (2014). "Developing agile project task and team
management practices". Eylean. Archived from the original on 15
September 2014. Retrieved 15 September 2014.
30 ^ Jeffries, Ron; Anderson, Ann; Hendrickson, Chet (2001). Extreme
Programming installed. Addison-Weslsy. pp. 72–147.
ISBN 978-0201-70842-4.
31 ^ Lisa Crispin; Janet Gregory (2009). Agile Testing: A Practical Guide for
Testers and Agile Teams. Addison-Wesley.
32 ^ Mitchell, Ian (2016). Agile Development in Practice. Tamare House.
p. 11. ISBN 978-1-908552-49-5.
33 ^ Larman, Craig (2004). Agile and Iterative Development: A Manager's
Guide. Addison-Wesley. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-13-111155-4.
34 ^ Boehm, B.; R. Turner (2004). Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide
for the Perplexed. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
ISBN 978-0-321-18612-6. Appendix A, pages 165–194
35 ^ Larman, Craig (2004). "Chapter 11: Practice Tips". Agile and Iterative
Development: A Manager's Guide. p. 253. ISBN 9780131111554.
Retrieved 14 October 2013.
36 ^ Sliger, Michele; Broderick, Stacia (2008). The Software Project
Manager's Bridge to Agility. Addison-Wesley. p. 46.
ISBN 978-0-321-50275-9.
37 ^ Jump up to:
a b Boehm, B.; R. Turner (2004). Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide

for the Perplexed. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. pp. 55–57.

ISBN 978-0-321-18612-6.
38 ^ "At the Kickoff: Project Development vs Product Development".
AltexSoft Inc. 12 February 2016. Retrieved 31 May 2016.
39 ^ Rakitin, Steven R. (2001). "Manifesto Elicits Cynicism: Reader's letter to
the editor by Steven R. Rakitin". IEEE Computer. 34: 4. “The article titled
'Agile Software Development: The Business of Innovation' ... is yet
another attempt to undermine the discipline of software engineering ... We
want to spend all our time coding. Remember, real programmers don't
write documentation.”
40 ^ Jump up to:
a b Scott Ambler. "Agile/Lean Documentation: Strategies for Agile

Software Development".
41 ^ Scott Ambler. "Just Barely Good Enough Models and Documents: An
 Agile Best Practice".
42 ^ Geoffrey Wiseman (18 July 2007). "Do Agile Methods Require
Documentation?". InfoQ. quoting Cooper, Ian (6 July 2007). "Staccato
Signals:Agile and Documentation". WordPress.com.
43 ^ Jump up to:
a b c Abrahamson P, Salo O, Ronkainen J, Warsta J (2002). Agile

software development methods: Review and analysis (PDF) (Technical

report). VTT. 478.
44 ^ "Guide to Agile Practices". the Agile Alliance. Archived from the original
on 9 February 2014.
45 ^ Jump up to:
a b Aydin, M.N.; Harmsen, F.; Slooten; Stagwee, R. A. (2004). "An Agile

Information Systems Development Method in use". Turk J Elec Engin. 12

(2): 127–138.
46 ^ Morris, David (2015). The Paradox of Agile Transformation: Why trying
too hard to be Agile stops organisations from becoming truly agile. NZ:
University of Auckland. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.32698.08640.
47 ^ Abrahamsson, P., Warsta, J., Siponen, M.T., & Ronkainen, J. (2003).
New Directions on Agile Methods: A Comparative Analysis. Proceedings
of ICSE'03, 244-254
48 ^ Mirakhorli, M.; Rad, A.K.; Shams, F.; Pazoki, M.; Mirakhorli, A. (2008).
"RDP technique: a practice to customize xp". Proceedings of the 2008
international workshop on Scrutinizing agile practices or shoot-out at the
agile corral (APOS '08). ACM. pp. 23–32. doi:10.1145/1370143.1370149.
ISBN 978-1-60558-021-0.
49 ^ Schwaber, K (2006) Scrum is hard and disruptive.
50 ^ Vodde, B (2016) The Story of LeSS. Closing Keynote. Scrum Australia,
Melbourne. April, 2016.
51 ^ Lagstedt, A., and Dahlberg, T. (2018). Understanding the Rarity of ISD
Method Selection – Bounded Rationality and Functional Stupidity. PACIS
2018 Proceedings. 154. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2018/154.
52 ^ Park, J. S., McMahon, P. E., and Myburgh, B. (2016). Scrum Powered
by Essence. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 41(1), pp. 1-8.
53 ^ Beck, K. (1999). Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change.
Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0-321-27865-4.
54 ^ Evans, Ian. "Agile Delivery at British Telecom". Retrieved 21 February
2011.
55 ^ Jump up to:
a b W. Scott Ambler (2006) Supersize Me in Dr. Dobb's Journal, 15

February 2006.
56 ^ Schaaf, R.J. (2007). Agility XL Systems and Software Technology
Conference 2007 Archived 13 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine,
Tampa, FL
57 ^ "Bridging the Distance". Sdmagazine.com. Retrieved 1 February 2011.
58 ^ Fowler, Martin. "Using an Agile Software Process with Offshore
Development". Martinfowler.com. Retrieved 6 June 2010.
59 ^ Leffingwell, Dean. "Scaled Agile Framework". Scaled Agile Framework.
60 ^ Schwaber, Ken. "Nexus Guide: The Definitive Guide to Nexus: The
exoskeleton of scaled Scrum development" (PDF). scrum.org. Retrieved
14 September 2015.
61 ^ Sutherland, Jeff; Brown, Alex (23 July 2014). "Scrum At Scale: Part 1".
Retrieved 14 September 2015.
62 ^ Beedle, Mike. "Enterprise Scrum". Retrieved 25 September 2015.
63 ^ Ebbage, Michael. "Setchu – Agile at Scale". Retrieved 30 September
2015.
64 ^ "XSCALE Alliance". Agiletng.org. Retrieved 26 March 2019.
65 ^ "Agilepath – Collaborate.Innovate.Succeed". Agile-path.com. 18
January 2019. Retrieved 26 March 2019.
66 ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 28 December 2018.
Retrieved 18 September 2019.
67 ^ Agile Processes Workshop II Managing Multiple Concurrent Agile
Projects. Washington: OOPSLA 2002
68 ^ Cawley, Oisín; Wang, Xiaofeng; Richardson, Ita (2010). Abrahamsson,
Pekka; Oza, Nilay (eds.). Lean/Agile Software Development
Methodologies in Regulated Environments – State of the Art. Lean
Enterprise Software and Systems. Lecture Notes in Business Information
Processing. 65. pp. 31–36. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16416-3_4.
hdl:10344/683. ISBN 978-3-642-16415-6.
69 ^ McHugh, Martin; McCaffery, Fergal; Coady, Garret (4 November 2014).
Mitasiunas, Antanas; Rout, Terry; O'Connor, Rory V.; et al. (eds.). An
Agile Implementation within a Medical Device Software Organisation.
Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination.
Communications in Computer and Information Science. 477. pp. 190–201.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13036-1_17. ISBN 978-3-319-13035-4.
70 ^ Wang, Yang; Ramadani, Jasmin; Wagner, Stefan (29 November 2017).
An Exploratory Study on Applying a Scrum Development Process for
Safety-Critical Systems. Product-Focused Software Process
Improvement. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 10611. pp. 324–340.
arXiv:1703.05375. Bibcode:2017arXiv170305375W.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69926-4_23. ISBN 9783319699257.
71 ^ "SafeScrum - SINTEF". Sintef.no. Retrieved 26 March 2019.
72 ^ Thor Myklebust, Tor Stålhane, Geir Kjetil Hanssen, Tormod Wien and
Børge Haugset: Scrum, documentation and the IEC 61508-3:2010
software standard, http://www.sintef.no/globalassets/ec-61508-
documentation-and-safescrum-psam12.pdf
73 ^ Fitzgerald, B.; Stol, K.-J.; O'Sullivan, R.; O'Brien, D. (May 2013). Scaling
agile methods to regulated environments: An industry case study. 2013
35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). pp. 863–
 872. doi:10.1109/ICSE.2013.6606635. hdl:10344/3055.
ISBN 978-1-4673-3076-3.
74 ^ Beck, Kent (2000). Extreme Programming Explained. Addison-Wesley.
pp. 1–24. ISBN 978-0201616415.
75 ^ Datta, Subhajit (2006). "Agility measurement index: a metric for the
crossroads of software development methodologies". ACM-SE 44
Proceedings of the 44th annual Southeast regional conference. p. 271.
doi:10.1145/1185448.1185509. ISBN 1595933158.
76 ^ "David Bock's Weblog : Weblog". Jroller.com. Archived from the original
on 11 January 2006. Retrieved 2 April 2010.
77 ^ Peter Lappo; Henry C.T. Andrew. "Assessing Agility" (PDF). Retrieved 6
June 2010.
78 ^ 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.
79 ^ Joe Little (2 December 2007). "Nokia test, A scrum-specific test".
Agileconsortium.blogspot.com. Retrieved 6 June 2010.
80 ^ Mark Seuffert; Mayberg, Sweden. "Karlskrona test, A generic agile
adoption test". Mayberg.se. Retrieved 5 April 2014.
81 ^ "How Agile Are You? (Take This 42 Point Test)". allaboutagile.com/.
Archived from the original on 5 May 2014. Retrieved 3 April 2014.
82 ^ "Agile Methodologies Survey Results" (PDF). Shine Technologies.
January 2003. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 August 2010.
Retrieved 3 June 2010. “95% stated that there was either no effect or a
cost reduction ... 93% stated that productivity was better or significantly
better ... 88% stated that quality was better or significantly better ... 83%
stated that business satisfaction was better or significantly better”
83 ^ "2013 State of Agile report: Why Agile?". stateofagile.com. 27 January
2014. Archived from the original on 28 August 2014. Retrieved 13 August
2014.
84 ^ Status Quo Agile, Second study on success and forms of usage of agile
methods. Retrieved 1 July 2015
85 ^ Ambler, Scott (3 August 2006). "Survey Says: Agile Works in Practice".
Dr. Dobb's. Retrieved 3 June 2010. “Only 6% indicated that their
productivity was lowered ... No change in productivity was reported by
34% of respondents and 60% reported increased productivity ... 66%
[responded] that the quality is higher ... 58% of organizations report
improved satisfaction, whereas only 3% report reduced satisfaction.”
86 ^ "Answering the "Where is the Proof That Agile Methods Work"
Question". Agilemodeling.com. 19 January 2007. Retrieved 2 April 2010.
87 ^ Shore & Warden 2008, p. 47
88 ^ Beck, Kent (2000). Extreme Programming Explained. Addison-Wesley.
pp. 48–49. ISBN 978-0201616415.
89 ^ Rouse, Margaret. "Sprint (software development) definition".
searchsoftwarequality.techtarget.com. Retrieved 2 October 2015.
90 ^ Goldstein, Ilan (11 October 2011). "Sprint issues – when sprints turn into
crawls". www.axisagile.com.au. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
91 ^ "Project Roles and Responsibility Distribution". agile-only.com.
Retrieved 15 June 2014.
92 ^ Bourne, Lynda. "What Does a Project Sponsor Really Do?".
blogs.pmi.org. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
93 ^ "9th State of Agile Report". Stage of Agile Survey. VersionOne. Archived
from the original on 12 January 2015. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
94 ^ Sims, Chris; Johnson, Hillary Louise (15 February 2011). The Elements
of Scrum (Kindle ed.). Dymaxicon. p. 73.
95 ^ Rothman, Johanna Rothman (25 August 2011). "When You Have No
Product Owner At All". www.jrothman.com. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
96 ^ Fox, Alyssa (8 April 2014). "Working on Multiple Agile Teams".
techwhirl.com/. Retrieved 14 June 2014.
97 ^ "Daily Scrum Meeting". www.mountaingoatsoftware.com. Retrieved 14
June 2014.
98 ^ Jump up to:
a b May, Robert. "Effective Sprint Planning". www.agileexecutives.org.

Archived from the original on 28 June 2014. Retrieved 14 June 2014.

99 ^ Jump up to:
a b Berczuk, Steve. "Mission Possible: ScrumMaster and Technical

Contributor". www.agileconnection.com. Retrieved 14 June 2014.

100 ^ Namta, Rajneesh. "Thoughts on Test Automation in Agile".
www.infoq.com. Retrieved 14 June 2014.
101 ^ Jump up to:
a b Band, Zvi (22 March 2014). "Technical Debt + Red October". Retrieved

8 June 2014.
102 ^ Shore, James. "The Art of Agile Development: Refactoring".
www.jamesshore.com. Retrieved 14 June 2014.
103 ^ "Step 4: Sprint Planning (Tasks)". www.allaboutagile.com. Archived from
the original on 29 June 2014. Retrieved 14 June 2014.
104 ^ George, Claire. "Why Limiting Your Work-in-Progress Matters".
leankit.com. Retrieved 14 June 2014.
105 ^ "Sprint Planning Meeting". www.mountaingoatsoftware.com. Retrieved
14 June 2014.
106 ^ McMillan, Keith. "Time, Resources, Scope... and Quality".
www.adeptechllc.com. Retrieved 15 June 2014.
107 ^ "Current study on limitations of Agile". Procedia Computer Science. 78:
291–297. January 2016. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2016.02.056.
108 ^ Moran, Alan (2015). Managing Agile: Strategy, Implementation,
Organisation and People. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-16262-1.
109 ^ ExecutiveBrief, Which Life Cycle Is Best For Your Project?, PM Hut.
 Accessed 23 October 2009.
110 ^ "Agile Project Management". VersionOne. Retrieved 1 June 2015.
111 ^ "What is Agile Management?". Project Laneways. Retrieved 1 June
2015.
112 ^ USAID. "ADS Chapter 201 Program Cycle Operational Policy".
Retrieved 19 April 2017
113 ^ Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body
of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), Fifth Edition
114 ^ Richet, Jean-Loup (2013). Agile Innovation. Cases and Applied
Research, n°31. ESSEC-ISIS. ISBN 978-2-36456-091-8
115 ^ Smith, Preston G (2007). Flexible Product Development. Jossey-Bass.
p. 25. ISBN 978-0-7879-9584-3.
116 ^ "WIKISPEED – Applying Agile software principles and practices for fast
automotive development". Agile Business Management Consortium. 3
December 2013. Retrieved 11 September 2015.
117 ^ Newton Lee (2014). "Getting on the Billboard Charts: Music Production
as Agile Software Development," Digital Da Vinci: Computers in Music.
Springer Science+Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4939-0535-5.
118 ^ Moran, Alan (2015). Managing Agile: Strategy, Implementation,
Organisation and People. Springer Verlag. ISBN 978-3-319-16262-1.
119 ^ Leybourn, Evan (2013). Directing the Agile Organisation: A Lean
Approach to Business Management. IT Governance Publishing.
ISBN 978-1-849-28491-2.
120 ^ "Pair Trading: Collaboration in Finance". The Agile Director. 11 March
2015. Retrieved 11 September 2015.
121 ^ "Agile programming – for your family".
122 ^ Larman, Craig; Bas Vodde (13 August 2009). Top Ten Organizational
Impediments to Large-Scale Agile Adoption. InformIT.
123 ^ "Introduction to Hybrid project management". 20 July 2016.
124 ^ Barlow, Jordan B.; Justin Scott Giboney; Mark Jeffery Keith; David W.
Wilson; Ryan M. Schuetzler; Paul Benjamin Lowry; Anthony Vance
(2011). "Overview and Guidance on Agile Development in Large
Organizations". Communications of the Association for Information
Systems. 29 (1): 25–44. doi:10.17705/1CAIS.02902.
125 ^ Kupersmith, Kupe. "Agile is a Fad".
126 ^ Jump up to:
a b Kruchten, Philippe (20 June 2011). "Agile's Teenage Crisis?". InfoQ.

Further reading[edit]
• Abrahamsson, P.; Salo, O.; Ronkainen, J.; Warsta, J. (2002).
"Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis".
VTT Publications. 478.
• Ashmore, Sondra; Runyan, Kristin (2014). Introduction to Agile
Methods. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0321929563.
 • Cohen, D.; Lindvall, M.; Costa, P. (2004). "An introduction to agile
methods". In Zelkowitz, Marvin (ed.). Advances in Software
Engineering. Advances in Computers. 62. Academic Press. pp. 1–
66. ISBN 978-0-08-047190-7.
• Dingsøyr, Torgeir; Dybå, Tore; Moe, Nils Brede (2010). Agile
Software Development: Current Research and Future Directions.
Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-12575-1.
• Fowler, Martin (2001). "Is Design Dead?". In Succi, Giancarlo;
Marchesi, Michele (eds.). Extreme Programming Examined.
Addison-Wesley. pp. 3–18. ISBN 978-0-201-71040-3.
• Larman, Craig; Basili, Victor R. (June 2003). "Iterative and
Incremental Development: A Brief History" (PDF). IEEE Computer.
36 (3): 47–56. doi:10.1109/MC.2003.1204375.
• Casagni, Michelle; Benito, Robert; Mayfield, Dr Kathleen M.;
Northern, Carlton (8 September 2013). "Handbook for
Implementing Agile in Department of Defense Information
Technology Acquisition". The Mitre Corporation. MITRE.
• Moran, Alan (2015). Managing Agile: Strategy, Implementation,
Organisation and People. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-16262-1.
• Riehle, Dirk. "A Comparison of the Value Systems of Adaptive
Software Development and Extreme Programming: How
Methodologies May Learn From Each Other". In Succi & Marchesi
2001
• Shore, James; Warden, Shane (2008). The Art of Agile
Development. O'Reilly Media. ISBN 978-0-596-52767-9.
• Stephens, M.; Rosenberg, D. (2003). Extreme Programming
Refactored: The Case Against XP. Apress.
ISBN 978-1-59059-096-6.
External links[edit]
• Agile Manifesto
• Agile Glossary
• The New Methodology Martin Fowler's description of the
background to agile methods
• Ten Authors of The Agile Manifesto Celebrate its Tenth
Anniversary
• AgilePatterns.org
hide
• vte
Software engineering
Fi • Computer programming Requirements engineering Software
el deployment Software design Software maintenance Software
ds testing Systems analysis Formal methods
• Data modeling Enterprise architecture Functional specification
Modeling language Programming paradigm Software Software
Co
archaeology Software architecture Software configuration
nc
management Software development methodology Software
 • vte
Software engineering
Fi • Computer programming Requirements engineering Software
el deployment Software design Software maintenance Software
ds testing Systems analysis Formal methods
• Data modeling Enterprise architecture Functional specification
Modeling language Programming paradigm Software Software
Co
archaeology Software architecture Software configuration
nc
management Software development methodology Software
ep
development process Software quality Software quality
ts
assurance Software verification and validation Structured
analysis Essential Analysis
Or
ie
nt • Agile Aspect-oriented Object orientation Ontology Service
ati orientation SDLC
on
s

De
vel
• Agile EUP Executable UML Incremental model
op
Iterative model Prototype model RAD UP Scrum
m
Spiral model V-Model Waterfall model XP
en
tal
M
od Ot • SPICE CMMI Data model ER model Function model
el he Information model Metamodeling Object model
s r Systems model View model

La
ng
ua • IDEF UML USL SysML
ge
s

So • Victor Basili Kent Beck Grady Booch Fred Brooks Barry

ft Boehm Peter Chen Danese Cooper Ward Cunningham Tom
wa DeMarco Edsger W. Dijkstra Delores M. Etter Martin Fowler
re Adele Goldstine Margaret Hamilton C. A. R. Hoare Lois Haibt
en Mary Jean Harrold Grace Hopper Watts Humphrey Michael A.
gi Jackson Ivar Jacobson Alan Kay Nancy Leveson Stephen J.
ne Mellor Bertrand Meyer David Parnas Trygve Reenskaug
er Winston W. Royce James Rumbaugh Mary Shaw Peri Tarr
s Elaine Weyuker Niklaus Wirth Edward Yourdon

Re
lat
ed • Computer science Computer engineering Project management
fie Risk management Systems engineering
ld
s

• Category Commons
 lat
ed • Computer science Computer engineering Project management
fie Risk management Systems engineering
ld
s

• Category Commons
Auth
ority • BNE: XX5107539 BNF: cb16516550f (data) GND: 4806620-5
contr LCCN: sh2007006411 SUDOC: 152847367
ol
<img src="//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAutoLogin/start?type=1x1"
alt="" title="" width="1" height="1" style="border: none; position: absolute;" />
Categories: Software project managementSoftware development
philosophiesAgile software development

Navigation menu
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Search

Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
 Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Wikibooks
Wikiversity
Print/export
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages
Български
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Français
Magyar
Română
Српски / srpski
Türkçe
31 more
Edit links
This page was last edited on 18 April 2020, at 07:38 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and
Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view