Case Studies of Industry-Academia Research Collaborations for Software Development with Agile

Guillot, Isabelle; Paulmani, Geetha; Kumar, Vive; Fraser, Shawn N.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-63874-4_15

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Los metodos ágiles para la ejecución de la colaboración entre universidad e industria (Andrade et al, 2017;Guillot, Paulmani, Kumar, y Fraser, 2017;Ramanathan, Ramnath, Herold, y Wierwille, 2013;Sandberg et al, 2011) son declarados en algunos casos de estudio. Los casos reportados pertenecen al sector de software, lo anterior no implica que estos métodos no puedan ser adaptados y aplicados a otras áreas de investigación, desarrollo e innovación.…”

Section: Resultados Del Análisis Cualitativo De Los Documentosunclassified

“…Un método agil, a través de un marco de trabajo SCRUM (Andrade et al, 2017;Guillot et al, 2017) define roles claros para los participantes (Stakeholders, Project Owner, Scrum Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València Prácticas en la gestión de colaboraciones científicas y tecnológicas universidad-industria desde las unidades de investigación universitarias Master, Development Team, Steering Comitee), y define una serie de actividades diarias, y semanales (reuniones, sprints, entre otras) que permiten al equipo trabajar de forma sincronizada y disponer de documentación del proceso que posteriormente podrá ser evaluado a través de modelos como la cuadrícula de autoevaluación del equipo del marco ágil a escala (SAFe) en los casos de estudio presentados por Guillot et al (2017), sin embargo, existen otros modelos para evaluar este tipo de marco de trabajo. Esto permite una comunicación constante entre los miembros del equipo, facilita la adaptación a los cambios, así como el seguimiento y evaluación, a la vez que evita demoras en la ejecución de los proyectos.…”

Section: Resultados Del Análisis Cualitativo De Los Documentosunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Proceedings INNODOCT/20. International Conference on Innovation, Documentation and Education

Simón¹,

Miguel²,

Lengua³

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultados Del Análisis Cualitativo De Los Documentosunclassified

Proceedings INNODOCT/20. International Conference on Innovation, Documentation and Education

Simón¹,

Miguel²,

Lengua³

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Leppanen in a different study states that the most significant problem of the surveys is the predefined practice expectations and difficulty of adapting to various agile software development methods [34]. Some of the surveys on the other hand try to understand agility instead of measuring agility [37]. There are also studies focusing on features related to automation of the surveys [38,39].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Agile Maturity Self-assessment Surveys

Yürüm

Demirörs

Rabhi

2018

Communications in Computer and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agile methodologies are adapted by growing number of software organizations. Agile maturity (also called agility) assessment is a way to ascertain the degree of this adoption and determine a course of action to improve agile maturity. There are a number of agile maturity assessment surveys in order to assess team or organization agility and many of them require no guidance. However, the usability of these surveys are not widely studied. The purpose of this study is to determine available agile maturity self-assessment surveys and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses for agile maturity assessment. An extensive case study is conducted to measure the sufficiency of 22 available agile maturity self-assessment surveys according to the seven expected features: comprehensiveness, fitness for purpose, discriminativeness, objectivity, conciseness, generalizability, and suitability for multiple assessment. Our case study results show that they do not satisfy all of the expected features fully but are helpful in some degree based on the purpose of usage.

show abstract

“…On Academia/Industry collaboration Sandberg and Crnkovic [6] and Guillot et al [8] investigate challenges between those parties and how to solve them with agile methods. Both analyse the adaption of the rather strict scrum methodology on said collaboration in multiple case studies with positive results.…”

Section: Dependability Engineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Continuous Anything for Distributed Research Projects

Volpert¹,

Griesinger²,

Domaschka³

2018

Dependability Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International research projects involve large, distributed teams made up from multiple institutions. These teams create research artefacts that need to work together in order to demonstrate and ship the project results. Yet, in these settings the project itself is almost never in the core interest of the partners in the consortium. This leads to a weak integration incentive and consequently to last minute efforts. This in turn results in Big Bang integration that imposes huge stress on the consortium and produces only nonsustainable results. In contrast, industry has been profiting from the introduction of agile development methods backed by Continuous Delivery, Continuous Integration, and Continuous Deployment. In this chapter, we identify shortcomings of this approach for research projects. We show how to overcome those in order to adopt all three methodologies regarding that scope. We also present a conceptual, as well as a tooling framework to realise the approach as Continuous Anything. As a result, integration becomes a core element of the project plan. It distributes and shares responsibility of integration work among all partners, while at the same time clearly holding individuals responsible for dedicated software components. Through a high degree of automation, it keeps the overall integration work low, but still provides immediate feedback on the quality of the software. Overall, we found this concept useful and beneficial in several EU-funded research projects, where it significantly lowered integration effort and improved quality of the software components while also enhancing collaboration as a whole.

show abstract

Case Studies of Industry-Academia Research Collaborations for Software Development with Agile

Cited by 9 publications

References 12 publications

Proceedings INNODOCT/20. International Conference on Innovation, Documentation and Education

Proceedings INNODOCT/20. International Conference on Innovation, Documentation and Education

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Agile Maturity Self-assessment Surveys

Continuous Anything for Distributed Research Projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About