A Road Map for Implementing eXtreme Programming

Lui, Kim Man; Chan, Keith C. C.

doi:10.1007/11608035_38

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Leppänen (2013) presents a nice overview of these agile maturity tools selected with the following criteria: "Domain" (the domains the models are targeted to), "Purpose" (the purposes the models have been developed for), "Conceptual and Theoretical Bases" (the conceptual and theoretical backgrounds upon which the models have been built), "Approaches and Principles" (the approaches and principles used to construct the models), "Structure" (the architectures of the models), and "Use and Validation" (extent of deployment and validation). Based on these criteria eight tools were selected: The Agile Maturity Model (Ambler, 2010), A Road Map for Implementing eXtreme Programming (Lui & Chan, 2006), Toward Maturity Model for Extreme Programming (Nawrocki et al, 2001), The Agile Maturity Map (Packlick, 2007), Agile Maturity Model (Patel & Ramachandran, 2009), Agile Maturity Model (Pettit, 2006), A Framework to Support the Evaluation, Adoption and Improvement of Agile Methods in Practice (Qumer & Henderson-Sellers, 2008), and The Agile Adoption Framework (Sidky et al, 2007). According to Leppänen (2013) some of them are merely based on conceptual studies, others are developed only in one organization, a third group has gathered more experience from organizations, and some are discussed with practitioners.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

The prospects of a quantitative measurement of agility: A validation study on an agile maturity model

Gren

Torkar

Feldt

2015

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agile Development has now become a well-known approach to collaboration in professional work life. Both researchers and practitioners want validated tools to measure agility. This study sets out to validate an agile maturity measurement model with statistical tests and empirical data. First, a pretest was conducted as a case study including a survey and focus group. Second, the main study was conducted with 45 employees from two SAP customers in the US. We used internal consistency (by a Cronbach's alpha) as the main measure for reliability and analyzed construct validity by exploratory principal factor analysis (PFA). The results suggest a new categorization of a subset of items existing in the tool and provides empirical support for these new groups of factors. However, we argue that more work is needed to reach the point where a maturity models with quantitative data can be said to validly measure agility, and even then, such a measurement still needs to include some deeper analysis with cultural and contextual items.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

The prospects of a quantitative measurement of agility: A validation study on an agile maturity model

Gren

Torkar

Feldt

2015

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Entries marked as "-" on the following tables stand for "unspecified". 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.75 [38] 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.625 [65] 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.75 [49] 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.875 [56] 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.625 [50] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 [51] 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.75 [27] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 [6] 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.625 [54] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 [77] 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.875 [8] 0.5 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.75 [40] 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.875 [70] 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.875 [20] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 [68] 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.75 [47] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 [69] 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.875 [16] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 [72] 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.875 [3] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.375 [71] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 [64] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lean [29] 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.75 [31] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 [11] 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.75 [63] 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.875 [2] 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.625 UCD [73] 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 [10] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 [32] 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.75 [45] 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.875 [55] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Agile and UCD [53] 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.625 [60] 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adopting Agile Software Development Combined with User-Centered Design and Lean Startup: A Systematic Literature Review on Maturity Models

Zorzetti

Moralles

Salerno

et al. 2021

Enterprise Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of Agile in the software development industry in the past two decades revealed that it is lackluster in some aspects, such as in guaranteeing user involvement and assuring that the right software is being built. There are reports that combining Agile with Lean Startup and User-Centered Design (UCD) helps in overcoming these shortcomings while also yielding several other benefits. However, there is not much documentation on how to use this "combined approach" and adapting existing organizations to use it is a challenge in of itself, in which the use of an instrument to guide or assess such transformations is typically pivotal to their success. As such, in this paper we seek to identify maturity models that assess the use of Agile, Lean Startup, and UCD. We conducted a systematic literature review of maturity models for these three methods published between 2001 and 2020. We characterized the maturity models and determined how they see maturity, how they are applied, and how they were evaluated. As an extended version of a previous paper, we augmented our analysis criteria and further classified the models in how they interpret maturity and what strategy they suggest when undergoing an improvement process, in addition to providing new insight on various aspects of the models. We found 35 maturity models, of which 23 were for Agile, 5 for Lean thinking, 5 for UCD, and 2 for Agile and UCD combined. No models for the combination of the three methods were found (nor for Lean Startup), as expected due to the novelty of the approach. Existing models mostly focus on practice adoption and acquiring continuous improvement capabilities, and are typically developed with a specific context in mind. We also note a lack of proper evaluation procedures being conducted on the majority of models, which could be due to the lack of well-established maturity model development methods and guidelines.

show abstract

“…While similar to agile maturity models, agile adoption frameworks do not necessarily provide maturity levels, focus areas or process areas or assessment criteria and are provided by Ambler (2011), Lui andChan (2005), Packlick (2007), Qumer and Henderson-Sellers (2008), and Sidky, Arthur, and Bohner (2007). These research articles instead focus on how to introduce agile into an environment, regardless of the presence of any current software process improvement frameworks.…”

Section: States the "Cmm Tells What To Do In General Terms But Does mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Literature Review of Agile Maturity Model Research

Henriques

Tanner

2017

IJIKM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aim/Purpose: A commonly implemented software process improvement framework is the capability maturity model integrated (CMMI). Existing literature indicates higher levels of CMMI maturity could result in a loss of agility due to its organizational focus. To maintain agility, research has focussed attention on agile maturity models. The objective of this paper is to find the common research themes and conclusions in agile maturity model research. Methodology: This research adopts a systematic approach to agile maturity model research, using Google Scholar, Science Direct, and IEEE Xplore as sources. In total 531 articles were initially found matching the search criteria, which was filtered to 39 articles by applying specific exclusion criteria. Contribution:: The article highlights the trends in agile maturity model research, specifically bringing to light the lack of research providing validation of such models. Findings: Two major themes emerge, being the coexistence of agile and CMMI and the development of agile principle based maturity models. The research trend indicates an increase in agile maturity model articles, particularly in the latter half of the last decade, with concentrations of research coinciding with version updates of CMMI. While there is general consensus around higher CMMI maturity levels being incompatible with true agility, there is evidence of the two coexisting when agile is introduced into already highly matured environments. Future Research: Future research direction for this topic should include how to attain higher levels of CMMI maturity using only agile methods, how governance is addressed in agile environments, and whether existing agile maturity models relate to improved project success.

show abstract

A Road Map for Implementing eXtreme Programming

Cited by 14 publications

References 1 publication

The prospects of a quantitative measurement of agility: A validation study on an agile maturity model

The prospects of a quantitative measurement of agility: A validation study on an agile maturity model

Adopting Agile Software Development Combined with User-Centered Design and Lean Startup: A Systematic Literature Review on Maturity Models

A Systematic Literature Review of Agile Maturity Model Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About