Agile software development 1

Agile software development

Agile software development refers to a group of software development methodologies based on iterative
development, where requirements and solutions evolve through collaboration between self-organizing
cross-functional teams. The term was coined in the year 2001 when the Agile Manifesto was formulated.
Agile methods generally promote a disciplined project management process that encourages frequent inspection and
adaptation, a leadership philosophy that encourages teamwork, self-organization and accountability, a set of
engineering best practices that allow for rapid delivery of high-quality software, and a business approach that aligns
development with customer needs and company goals. Conceptual foundations of this framework are found in
modern approaches to operations management and analysis, such as lean manufacturing, soft systems methodology,
speech act theory (network of conversations approach), and Six Sigma.

Introduction
There are many specific agile development methods. Most promote development iterations, teamwork, collaboration,
and process adaptability throughout the life-cycle of the project.
Agile methods break tasks into small increments with minimal planning, and do not directly involve long-term
planning. Iterations are short time frames ("timeboxes") that typically last from one to four weeks. Each iteration
involves a team working through a full software development cycle including planning, requirements analysis,
design, coding, unit testing, and acceptance testing when a working product is demonstrated to stakeholders. This
helps minimize overall risk, and lets the project adapt to changes quickly. Stakeholders produce documentation as
required. An iteration may 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. Multiple iterations may be required to release a
product or new features.
Team composition in an agile project is usually cross-functional and self-organizing without consideration for any
existing corporate hierarchy or the corporate roles of team members. Team members normally take responsibility for
tasks that deliver the functionality an iteration requires. They decide individually how to meet an iteration's
requirements.
Agile methods emphasize face-to-face communication over written documents when the team is all in the same
location. When a team works in different locations, they maintain daily contact through videoconferencing, voice,
e-mail, etc.
Most agile teams work in a single open office (called bullpen), which facilitates such communication. Team size is
typically small (5-9 people) to help make team communication and team collaboration easier. Larger development
efforts may be delivered by multiple teams working toward a common goal or different parts of an effort. This may
also require a coordination of priorities across teams.
No matter what development disciplines are required, each 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. 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
and ensuring alignment with customer needs and company goals.
Most agile implementations use a routine and formal daily face-to-face communication among team members. This
specifically includes the customer representative and any interested stakeholders as observers. In a brief session,
team members report to each other what they did yesterday, what they intend to do today, and what their roadblocks
are. This standing face-to-face communication prevents problems being hidden.
Agile emphasizes working software as the primary measure of progress. This, combined with the preference for
face-to-face communication, produces less written documentation than other methods—though, in an agile project,
Agile software development 2

documentation and other artifacts rank equally with a working product. The agile method encourages stakeholders to
prioritize wants with other iteration outcomes based exclusively on business value perceived at the beginning of the
iteration.
Specific tools and techniques such as continuous integration, automated or xUnit test, pair programming, test driven
development, design patterns, domain-driven design, code refactoring and other techniques are often used to improve
quality and enhance project agility.

History
The modern definition of agile software development evolved in the mid-1990s as part of a reaction against
"heavyweight" methods, perceived to be typified by a heavily regulated, regimented, micro-managed use of the
waterfall model of development. The processes originating from this use of the waterfall 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 mark a return to development practice from
early in the history of software development.[1] Initially, agile methods were called "lightweight methods."
An adaptive software development process was introduced in a paper by Edmonds (1974).[2] Notable early Agile
methods include Scrum (1995), Crystal Clear, Extreme Programming (1996), Adaptive Software Development,
Feature Driven Development, and Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM) (1995). These are now typically
referred to as Agile Methodologies, after the Agile Manifesto published in 2001.
In 2001, 17 prominent figures[3] 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 coined the terms "Agile Software Development" and "agile methods", and they created the Agile Manifesto,
widely regarded as the canonical definition of agile development and accompanying agile principles. Later, some of
these people formed The Agile Alliance,[4] a non-profit organization that promotes agile development.

Principles
Agile methods are a family of development processes, not a single approach to software development. The Agile
Manifesto states:
We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work
we have come to value:
• 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, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.
Some of the principles behind the Agile Manifesto[5] 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)
• Projects are built around motivated individuals, who should be trusted
• Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design
• Simplicity
• Self-organizing teams
Agile software development 3

• 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.
The functioning principles of Agile can be found in lean manufacturing and six sigma. These concepts include error
proofing, eliminating waste, creating flow, adding customer value, and empowering workers. The concepts were first
formally espoused in the 14 principles of the Toyota Way, the two pillars of the Toyota Production System
(Just-in-time and smart automation), the 5S methodology, and Deming’s 14 points. These have been summarized in
the seven points of lean software development..

Comparison with other methods

Agile methods are sometimes characterized as being at the opposite end of the spectrum from "plan-driven" 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".[6]
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 timebox.

Contrasted with the waterfall model

Agile development has little in common with the waterfall model. As of 2004, the waterfall model is still in common
use.[7] The waterfall model is the most structured 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.[8]
Agile software development 4

Agile methods, in contrast, produce completely developed and tested features (but a very small subset of the whole)
every few weeks. The emphasis is on obtaining the smallest workable piece of functionality to deliver business value
early, and continually improving it and adding further functionality throughout the life of the project. If a project
being delivered under the waterfall method is cancelled at any point up to the end, there is nothing to show for it
beyond a huge resources bill. With the agile method, being cancelled at any point will still leave the customer with
some worthwhile code that has likely already been put into live operation.
In this respect, agile critics may 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. Proponents of agile development counter that adaptations of Scrum[9] 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.[10]
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 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 the agile approach. Many large
organizations have difficulty bridging the gap between the traditional waterfall method and an agile one.
Large scale agile software development remains an active research area.[11] [12]
Agile development has been widely documented (see Experience Reports, below, as well as Beck[13] 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:
Agile software development 5

• Low criticality
• Senior developers
• Requirements change often
• Small number of developers
• Culture that thrives on chaos
Plan-driven home ground:
• High criticality
• Junior developers
• Requirements do not change often
• Large number of developers
• Culture that demands order

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 between agile methods and traditional software development methods, with the latter
being relatively 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]
Extreme Programming (XP) makes the need for method adaptation explicit. One of the fundamental ideas of XP is
that no one process fits every project, but rather that practices should be tailored to the needs of individual projects.
Partial adoption of XP practices, as suggested by Beck, has been reported on several occasions.[21] A tailoring
practice is proposed by Mehdi Mirakhorli [22] which provides sufficient roadmap and guideline for adapting all the
practices. RDP Practice is designed for customizing XP. This practice first time proposed as a long research paper
in APSO workshop at ICSE 2008 conference and yet it is the only proposed and applicable method for customizing
XP. Although it is specifically a solution for XP, this practice has the capability of extending to other methodologies.
At first glance, this practice seems to be in the category of static method adaptation but experiences with RDP
Practice says that it can be treated like dynamic method adaptation. The distinction between static method
adaptation and dynamic method adaptation is subtle.[23] 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 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).[23]
Agile software development 6

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]
Both PMP and PRINCE2 has been suggested as a suitable, complementary project management system.[24]
[25]

[25]

Agile methods
Some of the well-known agile software development methods:
• Agile Modeling
• Agile Unified Process (AUP)
• Agile Data Method
• DSDM
• Essential Unified Process (EssUP)
• Extreme programming (XP)
• Feature Driven Development (FDD)
• Getting Real
• Open Unified Process (OpenUP)
• Scrum
• Lean software development

Agile practices
• Test Driven Development (TDD)
• Behavior Driven Development (BDD)
• Continuous Integration
• Pair Programming
• Planning poker
• RITE Method
Note: Although these are often considered methodologies in and of themselves, they are simply practices used in
different methodologies.

Agile beyond software development

Agile software development depends on some special characteristics possessed only by software, such as object
technologies and the 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 agility can be seen as a means to an end, a number of approaches have been proposed to quantify agility.
Agility Index Measurements (AIM)[26] score projects against a number of agility factors to achieve a total. The
similarly-named Agility Measurement Index [27], scores developments against five dimensions of a software project
(duration, risk, novelty, effort, and interaction). Other techniques are based on measurable goals [28]. Another study
using fuzzy mathematics[29] has suggested that project velocity can be used as a metric of agility. There are agile self
assessments to determine whether a team is using agile practices.[30] [31]
Agile software development 7

While such approaches have been proposed to measure agility, the practical application of such metrics has yet to be
seen.

Criticism
Extreme Programming's initial buzz and controversial tenets, such as pair programming and continuous design, have
attracted particular criticism, such as McBreen[32] and Boehm and Turner.[14] Many of the criticisms, however, are
believed by Agile practitioners to be misunderstandings of agile development.[33]
In particular, Extreme Programming is reviewed and critiqued by Matt Stephens's and Doug Rosenberg's Extreme
Programming Refactored.[34]
Criticisms include:
• A methodology is only as effective as the people involved, Agile does not solve this
• Often used as a means to bleed money from customers through lack of defining a deliverable
• Lack of structure and necessary documentation
• Only works with senior-level developers
• Incorporates insufficient software design
• Requires meetings at frequent intervals at enormous expense to customers
• 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
• Can increase the risk of scope creep due to the lack of detailed requirements 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.
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.[35]

Post-Agilism
In software engineering, post-Agilism is an informal movement of practitioners who prefer to avoid being
constrained by what they consider to be "Agile Dogma" (or "Agile with a capital 'A'")
Some have argued that the meaning of Agile is ambiguous and has been applied inappropriately to a very wide range
of approaches like Six Sigma and CMMI (though proponents of some agile methods, such as Scrum, show that the
methods can exist comfortably within a CMMI environment.)[36] Some have argued also 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" and are often used interchangeably by practitioners.
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." Some
agilists agree with this position, promoting the concept of agile methods as one set of tools that should be available
to managers for use in appropriate situations, not as one-size-fits-all methods that should be forced onto all
Agile software development 8

organizations.[37]
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-organizing to the point where even the core values of the Agile movement are considered too prescriptive,
and that teams should simply "do whatever works for them." This position is controversial in the agile community
and breaks from the trend of later agile methods being more structured (fitting better within CMMI environments)
than earlier agile methods.

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[38] , 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006[39] , 2010[40] )
• XP Universe (2001[41] )
• XP/Agile Universe (2002,[42] 2003,[43] 2004[44] )
• Agile Development Conference[45] starting from 2003 to present (peer-reviewed; proceedings published by IEEE)

See also
• Agile web development
• Code refactoring
• Collaborative software development model
• Continuous integration
• Extreme Programming (XP)
• Scrum (development)
• Lean software development
• List of software development philosophies
• Multi-stage continuous integration
• Systems Development Life Cycle
• Software Engineering
• CAP (Client Accelerated Programming)
• Software Craftsmanship

Further reading
• Fowler, Martin. Is Design Dead? [46]. 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 [47]. Appeared in Extreme Programming Explained, G. Succi
and M. Marchesi, ed., Addison-Wesley, Boston. 2001.
• M. Stephens, D. Rosenberg. Extreme Programming Refactored: The Case Against XP. Apress L.P., Berkeley,
California. 2003. (ISBN 1-59059-096-1)
• Larman, Craig and Basili, Victor R. Iterative and Incremental Development: A Brief History IEEE Computer,
June 2003 [48]
Agile software development 9

• Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, J., & Warsta, J. (2002). Agile Software Development Methods: Review
and Analysis. VTT Publications 478.
• Cohen, D., Lindvall, M., & Costa, P. (2004). An introduction to agile methods. In Advances in Computers
(pp. 1–66). New York: Elsevier Science.
• Tong Ka Iok Skills for Agile Development [49]

External links
• Manifesto for Agile Software Development [50]
• The Agile Alliance [51]
• Article Two Ways to Build a Pyramid by John Mayo-Smith [52]
• The New Methodology [53] Martin Fowler's description of the background to agile methods
• Agile Journal [54] - Largest online community focused specifically on agile development
• Agile [55] at the Open Directory Project
• Agiles articles directory [56]
• Agile Cookbook [57]
• Agile Management Software at Project Management Software Directory [58]

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, [. . .] 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 Development:
A Brief History (http:/ / www2. umassd. edu/ SWPI/ xp/ articles/ r6047. pdf)" (pdf). Computer 36 (No. 6): pp 47–56. doi:
10.1109/MC.2003.1204375 (http:/ / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1109/ MC. 2003. 1204375). . Retrieved 2007-02-22. ( Permission note (http:/ / www.
agilealliance. org/ show/ 1404))
[2] Edmonds, E. A. (1974), "A process for the development of software for non-technical users as an adaptive system", General Systems XIX:
215–218
[3] 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
[4] Agile Alliance (http:/ / www. agilealliance. com)
[5] Agile Manifesto principles (http:/ / www. agilemanifesto. org/ principles. html)
[6] Boehm, B.; R. Turner (2004). Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. ISBN
0-321-18612-5. Appendix A, pages 165-194
[7] Laplante, P.A.; C.J. Neill (February 2004). " "The Demise of the Waterfall Model Is Imminent" and Other Urban Myths (http:/ / www.
acmqueue. com/ modules. php?name=Content& pa=showpage& pid=110)". ACM Queue 1 (10): 10. doi: 10.1145/971564.971573 (http:/ / dx.
doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 971564. 971573). . Retrieved 2006-05-13.
[8] Sommerville, Ian (2007) [1982]. "4.1.1. The waterfall model". Software engineering (8th edition ed.). Harlow: Addison Wesley. pp. 66f.
ISBN 0-321-31379-8.
[9] Ambler, S. (April 2008). " "Scaling Scrum - Meeting Real World Development Needs (http:/ / www. drdobbsonline. net/ architect/
207100381)". Dr. Dobbs. . Retrieved 2008-04-23.
[10] As reported (http:/ / heavylogic. com/ agile. php) by HeavyLogic (http:/ / heavylogic. com)
[11] Agile Processes Workshop II Managing Multiple Concurrent Agile Projects. Washington: OOPSLA 2002
[12] "Supersize Me" in Dr. Dobb's Journal, February 15, 2006.
[13] Beck, K. (1999). Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-321-27865-8.
[14] 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 (http:/ / www. sdmagazine. com/ documents/ s=10020/ sdm0603g/ 0603g. html)
[16] Schaaf, R.J. (2007). "Agility XL", Systems and Software Technology Conference 2007 (http:/ / www. sstc-online. org/ Proceedings/ 2007/
pdfs/ RJS1722. pdf), Tampa, FL
[17] Bridging the Distance (http:/ / www. sdmagazine. com/ documents/ s=7556/ sdm0209i/ sdm0209i. htm)
[18] Using an Agile Software Process with Offshore Development (http:/ / www. martinfowler. com/ articles/ agileOffshore. html)
Agile software development 10

[19] 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] 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] http:/ / portal. acm. org/ citation. cfm?id=1370143. 1370149& coll=ACM& dl=ACM& CFID=69442744& CFTOKEN=96226775,
[23] 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
[24] Agile Alliance at (http:/ / agilealliance. org/ system/ 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 on the increase in both the public and private sectors. As 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 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, product-based planning, the involved partnership of users and
developers, and the strong emphasis on the underlying business case.
[26] http:/ / jroller. com/ page/ bokmann?entry=improving_your_processes_aim_high
[27] http:/ / doi. acm. org/ 10. 1145/ 1185448. 1185509
[28] http:/ / www. smr. co. uk/ presentations/ measure. pdf
[29] 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.
[30] Nokia test, Scrum specific (http:/ / agileconsortium. blogspot. com/ 2007/ 12/ nokia-test. html)
[31] Karlskrona test, generic agile adoption (http:/ / www. piratson. se/ archive/ Agile_Karlskrona_Test. pdf)
[32] McBreen, P. (2003). Questioning Extreme Programming. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-84457-5.
[33] sdmagazine (http:/ / www. sdmagazine. com/ documents/ s=1811/ sdm0112h/ 0112h. htm)
[34] Extreme Programming Refactored (http:/ / www. softwarereality. com/ ExtremeProgrammingRefactored. jsp), Matt Stephens and Doug
Rosenberg, Publisher: Apress L.P.
[35] The Great Pyramid of Agile (http:/ / worsethanfailure. com/ Articles/ The-Great-Pyramid-of-Agile. aspx)
[36] Sutherland, Jeff. "Scrum and CMMI Level 5: The Magic Potion for Code Warriors." Proc. European Systems and Software Engineering
Process Group Conference (EUROPEAN SEPG). June 2007.
[37] See "Managing Agile Projects." Ed. Kevin Aguanno. Oshawa, Ontario: Multi-Media Publications Inc., 2005. ISBN 1-895186-11-0.
[38] 2000 (http:/ / ciclamino. dibe. unige. it/ xp2000/ )
[39] 2006 (http:/ / virtual. vtt. fi/ virtual/ xp2006/ )
[40] 2010 (http:/ / www. xp2010. org/ )
[41] 2001 (http:/ / www. xpuniverse. com/ 2001/ xpuPapers. htm)
[42] 2002 (http:/ / www. xpuniverse. com/ 2002/ schedule/ schedule)
[43] 2003 (http:/ / www. xpuniverse. com/ 2003/ schedule/ index)
[44] 2004 (http:/ / www. xpuniverse. com/ 2004/ schedule/ index)
[45] Agile Development Conference (http:/ / www. agile200x. org/ )
[46] http:/ / www. martinfowler. com/ articles/ designDead. html
[47] http:/ / www. riehle. org/ computer-science/ research/ 2000/ xp-2000. html
[48] http:/ / www2. umassd. edu/ SWPI/ xp/ articles/ r6047. pdf
[49] http:/ / www. agileskills. org/
[50] http:/ / www. agileManifesto. org/
[51] http:/ / www. agilealliance. org/
[52] http:/ / www. informationweek. com/ news/ software/ development/ showArticle. jhtml?articleID=6507351
[53] http:/ / martinfowler. com/ articles/ newMethodology. html
[54] http:/ / www. agilejournal. com/
[55] http:/ / www. dmoz. org/ Computers/ Programming/ Methodologies/ Agile/
[56] http:/ / www. softdevarticles. com/ modules/ weblinks/ viewcat. php?cid=45
[57] http:/ / agilecookbook. com/
[58] http:/ / pm-software. org/ en/ pm-software/ agile. html
Article Sources and Contributors 11

Article Sources and Contributors

Agile software development  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=321216728  Contributors: A Train, Aamahdys, Aardvark92, Aaronbrick, Abukhader, Aditya2k, Aeuoah, Agile
blog, Agiledev, Aguanno, Alansohn, Aliaghatabar, Alienus, Allan McInnes, Amit Singh, Ancheta Wis, AndrasSzilard, Andreas Kaufmann, Android79, Anonymous Dissident, Ans, Apjordan,
Aternity, Auderobinson, AutumnSnow, Badgettrg, BaldPark, BartVB, Bdasgupta@gmail.com, Beetstra, Beland, Benjamin.booth, Bevo, Bmcmichael, Bosef1, Boson, Bovineone,
Brendanoconnor, Brick Thrower, Brighterorange, Bunchofgrapes, CL, Capricorn42, Carewolf, CatWikiEdit, Catgut, Cawel, Ceyockey, Chicken Wing, Chmod007, Chonglongchoo,
ChristianEdwardGruber, Chunkylover199, Ciotog, Cliffu, Cochiloco, Cpm, Cruccone, Ctobola, Cybercobra, D'n, Daen, Damon Poole, Dandv, Daniel.Cardenas, Danr7, DarkseidX, Davelane103,
David Biddulph, David Newton, David Waters, David.alex.lamb, Deathphoenix, Demiane, Designatevoid, Dethomas, Dingsoyr, Dirk Riehle, Dlazerka, Dogcow, Dordal, DouglasGreen,
Download, Dprust, Draicone, Ed Poor, Edward, Ejvyas, Elf, Emvee, Eric B. and Rakim, Ericholmstrom, Euryalus, Exir Kamalabadi, Explicit, Ezani, Fastily, FatalError, Feigling, First.thesecond,
FrancoGG, Frecklefoot, Fred Bradstadt, Friday, Furrykef, G5reynol, Gary a mason, Gazpacho, GeorgeBills, Ggiavelli, Gogo Dodo, Graham Jones, Greyskinnedboy, Gronky, Gruffi, Gurubrahma,
H10130, HalJor, Halmir, Harry4000, Hede2000, Heirpixel, HelloAnnyong, Hmains, Hooperbloob, Hu, Hu12, Hzhbcl, Ianneub, Iterator12n, J.delanoy, JPalonus, Jafet, JamesShore, Jdpipe,
Jeffreydca, Jerzy, Jferman, Jjdawson7, Jmabel, Jmilunsky, Jon.strickler, Jonathan Drain, Jonkpa, Josh Parris, JoshRyan, Joshb, Joshkuo, Jovial Air, Jtowler, Julesd, Juliancolton, Jóna Þórunn,
Kazvorpal, Kbdank71, Kbh3rd, Kenyon, KerryBuckley, Ketiltrout, Kevinevans, Kgasso, Khalid hassani, Klazorik, Klemen Kocjancic, Knutux, Kswaters, Kundu.anupam, Kuru, Laterality, Latha
P Nair, Laughing Man, Lefty, Leopedia2, Liao, Lightmouse, Ligulem, Littlesal, Liujiang, LizardWizard, Ljhenshall, Lsisson, Lumberjake, Lumos3, MER-C, Markwaldin, Martin Hampl,
Martinig, MartinsB, Mathmo, Matiasp, MaxGuernseyIII, MaxSem, Mbroooks, Mcsee, Mdd, Merenta, Michael Hardy, Michael Slone, Michig, Mike Field, Mindmatrix, Mixwell, Mmainguy,
Mmpubs, Morendil, Mr Stephen, MrOllie, NathanLee, Natl1, NawlinWiki, Nearly Human, Neufusion, Niteowlneils, Nixeagle, Nnivi, Obiomap1, Oicumayberight, Okipage8p, Okivekas,
Orangeumbrella, PCock, Papeschr, Patrickegan, Peashy, Penneys79, Petri Krohn, Pgr94, Phansen, Porao, Possum, Postdlf, Pratheepraj, Prestonpdx, PseudoSudo, Qst, RG2, RHaworth, Raand,
Ramsyam, Rddill, Rebroad, Renffeh, Rentaferret, Riana, Rich Farmbrough, Rich257, Rockpocket, Rodney Boyd, Ron Richard, Rothley, Rursus, SamJohnston, Sampi, Samwilson, Sardanaphalus,
Sarefo, ScottWAmbler, Sean Whitton, SebastianBreier, Semperf, Sgroupace, Shepard, Shinmawa, Shoessss, Silvonen, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, Skarebo, Smalljim, SolBasic,
SpaceFlight89, Specter01010, Spellmaster, Srayhan, Sri2001, Srinicenthala, SteveLoughran, Stevegallery, Strazhce, Stumps, Sulfis, Swguy, Swillcox, Swtechwr, Tagishsimon, TakuyaMurata,
Tarinth, Tarjei Knapstad, Teckmx5, Teknobo, Tempshill, Tgwizard, TheCoffee, Thejoshwolfe, Themshow, Thingg, Thinkpod, Tiago simoes, Tisni, Tomb, Tsilb, UdayanBanerjee, Umofomia,
Urrameu, Vald, Van der Hoorn, Vasemwant, Vyyjpkmi, WDavis1911, WTF-tech, Walter Görlitz, Wiki3 1415, William Pietri, Windowsvista2007, Wiretse, Wjbean, Xyad, Yath, YoavShapira,
ZAD-Man, Zane McFate, Zenofile, Zigger, 864 anonymous edits

License
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
http:/ / creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-sa/ 3. 0/