An approach for prioritizing agile practices for adaptation

Information Systems Development: Asian Experiences

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 485-498

  Mikulenas, Gytenis ^a   Kapocius, Kestutis ^b  

^a KAUNAS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Lithuania)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Agile practices; AHP; Cost value estimation; Prioritization

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION PROCESS; AGILE PRACTICES; AGILE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT; AHP; ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP); PRIORITIZATION; SOFTWARE PROJECT;

HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

EID: 80052506979     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7355-9_41     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (44)

1. Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, J., and Warsta, J. (2002) Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis, VTT Publications.
2. Abrahamsson, P., Warsta, J., Siponen, M. K., and Ronkainen, J. (2003) New directions on Agile method: A comparative analysis. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 244-254.
3. Agile Alliance (2001). Principles behind the Agile Manifesto. Retrieved 14 May, 2009, from: http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html.
4. Ambler S. W. (2007) Agile Adoption Rate Survey: March 2007. Retrieved 15 May, 2009, from: http://www.ambysoft.com/downloads/surveys/AgileAdoption2007. ppt.
5. Ambu, W. and Gianneschi, F. (2003) Extreme programming at work. In: M. Marchesi and G. Succi (Eds.), 4th International Conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering, XP 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin: Springer, Vol. 2675, pp. 298-306.
6. Attarzadeh, I. and Hock, O. S. (2008) New direction in project management success: Base on smart methodology selection. In: Proceedings of Information Technology Symposium 2008, Vol. 1, pp. 1-9.
7. Aydin, M. N., Harmsen, F., Slooten, K. V., and Stagwee, R. A. (2004) An Agile Information Systems Development Method in Use. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering, 12(2): 127-138.
8. Beck K. (2004) Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, 2nd Edition. Addison Wesley Professional.
9. Cockburn, A. (2000) Selecting a Project's Methodology. IEEE Software, IEEE Computer Society Press, Vol. 7(4), pp. 64-71.
10. Cockburn A. (2004) Crystal Clear: A Human-Powered Methodology for Small Teams. Addison Wesley Professional.
11. Cockburn, A. (2006) Agile Software Development: The Cooperative Game, 2nd Edition. Addison Wesley Professional.
12. Drobka, J., Noftz, D., and Raghu, R. (2004) Piloting XP on Four Mission-Critical Projects, IEEE Computer, IEEE Computer Society Press, Vol. 21(6), pp. 70-75.
13. Elssamadisy, A. (2001) XP on a Large Project - A Developer's View, In Proceedings of XP/Agile Universe, Raleigh, NC.
14. Firesmith, D.G. and Henderson-Sellers, B. (2002) The OPEN Process Framework. An Introduction. London, Addison-Wesley.
15. Greer, D. and Ruhe, G. (2004) Software release planning: An evolutionary and iterative approach. Information and Software Technology 46(4): 243-253.
16. Grenning, J. (2001) Launching Extreme Programming at a Process-Intensive Company, IEEE Software, pp. 27-33.
17. Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C., and Ralyte, J. (2008) Comparison of Method Chunks and Method Fragments for Situational Method Engineering. Software Engineering ASWEC 2008, IEEE Computer Society, Vol. 18(6), pp. 479-488.
18. IEEE Std 830-1998 (1998) IEEE recommended practice for software requirements specifications. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos.
19. ISO/IEC. (2007) ISO/IEC 24744, Software Engineering. Metamodel for Development Methodologies. International Standards Organization/International Electrotechnical Commission.
20. Jeffries, R. E., Anderson, A., and Hendrickson, C. (2000) Extreme Programming Installed, Addison-Wesley.
21. Karlsson, J. and Ryan, K. (1997) A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements. IEEE Software 14(5): 67-74.
22. Karlsson, J., Wohlin, C., and Regnell, B. (1998) An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements. Information and Software Technology 39(14-15): 939-947.
23. Keenan, F. (2004) Agile Process Tailoring and probLem analYsis (APTLY), In: The Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 45-47.
24. Kroll, P. and MacIsaac, B. (2006) Agility and Discipline Made Easy: Practices from OpenUP and RUP. Addison Wesley Professional.
25. Lan, C., Mohan, K., Peng, X., and Ramesh, B. (2004) How Extreme Does Extreme Programming Have to Be? Adapting XP Practices to Large-Scale Projects. In: Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Press, Vol. 3, pp. 342-250.
26. Lausen, S. (2002) Software Requirements - Styles and Techniques. Pearson Education, Essex.
27. Layman, L., Williams, L., and Cunninghan, L. (2004) Exploring extreme programming in context: An industrial case study. In: Proceedings of the Agile Development Conference, IEEE Computer Society, pp. 32-41.
28. Leffingwell, D. and Widrig, D. (2000) Managing Software Requirements - A Unified Approach. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River.
29. Lehtola, L. and Kauppinen, M. (2004) Empirical evaluation of two requirements prioritization methods in product development projects. In: Proceedings of the European Software Process Improvement Conference (EuroSPI 2004), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 161-170.
30. Lindvall, M., Basili, V., Boehm, B., Costa, P., Dangle, K., Shull, F., Tesoriero, R., Williams, L., and Zelkowitz, M. (2002) Empirical findings in Agile methods. Agile Universe, pp. 197-207.
31. Lynch, J. (2009) New Standish Group report shows more project failing and less successful projects. Press release. Standish Group, Boston, MA, Retrieved 21 May, 2009 from: http://www.standishgroup.com/newsroom/chaos-2009.php.
32. Mikulenas, G. and Butleris, R. (2009) An approach for modeling technique selection criterions. In: The Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Information and Software Technologies, IT 2009, Kaunas University of Technology, pp. 207-216.
33. Mirakhorli, M., Rad, A.K., Aliee, F.S., Mirakhorli, A., and Pazoki, M. (2008) RDP technique: Take a different look at XP for adoption. Software Engineering, In: The Proceedings of the ASWEC Conference, pp. 656-662.
34. Mirbel, I. (2006) Method chunk federation. In: The Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Namur University Press, pp. 407-418.
35. Mnkandla, E. and Dwolatzky, B. (2007) Agile methodologies selection toolbox. Software Engineering Advances, ICSEA, pp. 72-72.
36. OMG (2002). Software Process Engineering Metamodel Specification, formal/2002-11-14. Object Management Group.
37. Qumer, A. and Henderson-Sellers, B. (2006) Measuring agility and adoptability of Agile methods: A 4-dimensional analytical tool. IADIS International Conference Applied Computing, pp. 503-507.
38. Qumer, A. and Henderson-Sellers, B. (2007) Construction of an Agile Software Product-Enhancement Process by Using an Agile Software Solution Framework (ASSF) and Situational Method Engineering. Computer Software and Applications Conference COMPSAC 2007, Vol. 1, pp. 539-542.
39. Regnell, B., Höst, M., Natt och Dag, J., Beremark, P., and Hjelm, T. (2001) An industrial case study on distributed prioritization in market-driven requirements engineering for packaged software. Requirements Engineering 6(1): 51-62.
40. Ruhe, G., Eberlein, A., and Pfahl, D. (2002) Quantitative WinWin - A new method for decision support in requirements negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE'02), ACM Press, New York, pp. 159-166.
41. Saaty, T. L. (2000) Fundamentals of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications.
42. Saaty, T. L. (2007) Multi-decisions decision-making: In addition to wheeling and dealing, our national political bodies need a formal approach for prioritization. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46(7-8): 1001-1016.
43. Silingas, D. and Butleris, R. (2008) Towards implementing a framework for modeling software requirements in Magic Draw UML. Information Technology and Control, Kaunas, Technologija, 38(2): 153-164.
44. Tutkute L., Butleris R., and Skersys T. (2008) An approach for the formation of leverage coefficients-based recommendations in social network. Information Technology and Control, 37(3): 245-254.