Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 1 of 12

Agile software development


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agile Software Development is a conceptual framework Software development process


for software development that promotes development
iterations, open collaboration, and adaptability throughout Activities and steps
the life-cycle of the project. Requirements · Architecture
Design · Implementation
There are many agile development methods; most minimize
Testing · Deployment
risk by developing software in short amounts of time.
Software developed during one unit of time is referred to as Models
an iteration, which typically lasts from two to four weeks.
Each iteration passes through a full software development Agile · Cleanroom · Iterative · RAD
cycle: including planning, requirements analysis, design, RUP · Spiral · Waterfall · XP · Scrum
coding and testing. Documentation is no different than Supporting disciplines
software design and coding. It too is produced as required
by stakeholders. An iteration may not add enough Configuration management
functionality to warrant releasing the product to market but Documentation
the goal is to have an available release (without bugs) at the Quality assurance (SQA)
end of each iteration. At the end of each iteration, Project management
stakeholders re-evaluate project priorities with a view to User experience design
optimizing their return on investment.

Agile methods emphasize face-to-face communication over written documents. Most agile teams are
located in a single open office to facilitate such communications. One agile management methodology,
scrum, advocates a team size of 5 to 9. Larger teams than 9 should be split into smaller teams to help
make team communication and team collaboration easier.

Team composition in an agile project will usually be cross-functional and self-organising without
consideration for any existing corporate hierarchy or the corporate roles of team members. No matter
what development disciplines are required, at a minimum, every 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. This
availability is critical to agile project success.

Part of the scrum methodology is routine and formal daily face-to-face communication between team
members. This specifically includes the customer representative and with any interested stakeholders as
observers. Known as a daily scrum, team members report to each other what they did yesterday, what
they intend to do today and what their roadblocks are. This formalised face-to-face communication
prevents problems being hidden provided always that someone with corporate influence is listening. For
the Scrum methodology, this would be the Scrum Master. Otherwise it would be the agile project
manager.

Agile methods emphasize working software as the primary measure of progress. Combined with the
preference for face-to-face communication, agile methods usually produce less written documentation
than other methods. In an agile project, documentation, Gantt charts and other project artifacts all rank
equally with working product. However, when stakeholders are asked to prioritise deliverables for

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development 6/4/2008
Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 2 of 12

demonstration at the end of the current iteration, they prefer to see working product. This represents a
strong focus on a return on investment. Stakeholders are encouraged to prioritise iteration outcomes
based on business value. If documentation represents higher business value than working software in any
particular iteration then it will be given a higher priority than working software.

Agile development methods are typically more disciplined than traditional methods.

Contents
„ 1 History
„ 2 Principles behind agile methods — The Agile Manifesto
„ 3 Comparison with other methods
„ 3.1 Contrasted with other iterative development methods
„ 3.2 Contrasted with the waterfall model
„ 3.3 Contrasted with "cowboy coding"
„ 4 Suitability of agile methods
„ 5 Agile Data
„ 6 Agile methods and method tailoring
„ 7 Agile methods and project management
„ 8 Project management tools for agile development teams
„ 9 Agile methods
„ 10 Agile beyond software development
„ 11 Measuring agility
„ 12 Criticism
„ 13 Post-Agilism
„ 14 Experience reports
„ 15 See also
„ 16 References
„ 17 Further reading
„ 18 External links

History
The modern definition of agile software development evolved in the mid-1990s as part of a reaction
against "heavyweight" methods, as 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 are a return to
development practice seen early in the history of software development.[1] Initially, agile methods were
called "lightweight methods." In 2001, prominent members of the community met at Snowbird, Utah, and
adopted the name "agile methods." Later, some of these people formed The Agile Alliance[2], a non-
profit organization that promotes agile development.

A number of methods similar to Agile were created prior to 2000. An adaptive software development
process was introduced in a paper by Edmonds (1974)[3]. Notable earlier methods include Scrum (1986),
Crystal Clear, Extreme Programming (1996), Adaptive Software Development, Feature Driven
Development, and Dynamic Systems Development Method(DSDM) (1995).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development 6/4/2008
Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 3 of 12

Kent Beck created Extreme Programming (usually abbreviated as "XP") in 1996 as a way to rescue the
struggling Chrysler Comprehensive Compensation (C3) project. While Chrysler eventually canceled that
project, the method was refined by Ron Jeffries' full-time XP coaching, public discussion on Ward
Cunningham's Portland Pattern Repository wiki and further work by Beck, including a book in 1999.[4]
Elements of Extreme Programming appear to be based on Scrum and Ward Cunningham's Episodes
pattern language.

Principles behind agile methods — The Agile Manifesto


See also: Agile Manifesto

Agile methods are a family of development processes, not a single approach to software development. In
2001, 17 prominent figures[5] 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 created the Agile Manifesto, widely regarded as the canonical definition of
agile development and accompanying agile principles.

Some of the principles behind the Agile Manifesto[6] 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
„ 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.

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".[7] 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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development 6/4/2008
Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 4 of 12

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 strict timebox.

Contrasted with the waterfall model

Agile development has little in common with the waterfall model. As of 2008, the waterfall model is still
in common use.[8] The waterfall model is the most predictive 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.[9]
Agile methods, in contrast, produce completely developed and tested features (but a very small subset of
the whole) every few weeks or months. The emphasis is on obtaining the smallest workable piece of
functionality to deliver business value early, and continually improving it/adding further functionality
throughout the life of the project.

In this respect, agile critics incorrectly 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. Adaptations of Scrum[10] 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.[11] 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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development 6/4/2008
Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 5 of 12

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 agile methodologies.
Many large organizations have difficulty bridging the gap between a more traditional waterfall method
and an agile one.

Large scale agile software development remains an active research area.[12][13]

Agile development has been widely documented (see Experience Reports, below, as well as Beck[4] 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:

„ Low criticality
„ Senior developers
„ Requirements change very often
„ Small number of developers
„ Culture that thrives on chaos

Plan-driven home ground:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development 6/4/2008
Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 6 of 12

„ High criticality
„ Junior developers
„ Requirements don't change too often
„ Large number of developers
„ Culture that demands order

Agile Data
The Agile Data method describes how data professionals can be productive members of agile software
development teams. Agile Data's 6 philosophies provide guidance for how data professionals can interact
effectively with other team members as traditional approaches to data work don't fit well with agile
approaches. More importantly the Agile Data method describes a collection of agile techniques that
DBAs can adopt, including Database refactoring, agile data modeling, database regression testing, and
continuous database integration.

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]
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.
There are no experience reports in which all the XP practices have been adopted. Instead, a partial
adoption of XP practices, as suggested by Beck, has been reported on several occasions.[21]

A distinction can be made between static method adaptation and dynamic method adaptation.[22] 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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development 6/4/2008
Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 7 of 12

fragments, during the execution of a project (Aydin et al, 2005).[22]

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]

PRINCE2 has been suggested as a suitable, complementary project management system.[23]

Project management tools for agile development teams


A number of project management tools are specifically aimed at agile development. They are designed to
help plan, track, analyse and integrate work. These tools play an important role in agile development, as a
means of Knowledge Management.

Common features include: Version control integration, progress tracking, easy work allocation, integrated
release and iteration planning, discussion forums, and reporting and tracking of software defects

Some well-known agile project management websites include: versionone, targetprocess, assembla,
rallydev, ppts, Gatherspace and visionproject.

Agile methods
Some of the well-known agile software development methods:

„ Scrum
„ Agile Modeling
„ Agile Unified Process (AUP)
„ Agile Data Method
„ Daily kickoff and review of goals
„ short release cycles
„ Responsive Development
„ Generalism - Use of generic skill sets that are common across the team, not reliance on specific
skill sets that are scarce
„ Test Driven Development (TDD)
„ Feature Driven Development (FDD)
„ Behavior Driven Development (BDD)
„ Essential Unified Process (EssUP)

Other approaches:

„ Software Development Rhythms


„ Agile Documentation
„ ICONIX Process
„ Microsoft Solutions Framework (MSF)
„ Database refactoring

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development 6/4/2008
Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 8 of 12

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 many see agility as a means to an end, a number of approaches have been proposed to quantify
agility. Agility Index Measurements (AIM)[1] score projects against a number of agility factors to
achieve a total. The similarly-named Agility Measurement Index [2], scores developments against five
dimensions of a software project (duration, risk, novelty, effort, and interaction). Other techniques are
based on measurable goals [3]. Another study using fuzzy mathematics[24] has suggested that project
velocity can be used as a metric of agility.

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

Criticism
Agile development is sometimes criticized as cowboy coding. Extreme Programming's initial buzz and
controversial tenets, such as pair programming and continuous design, have attracted particular criticism,
such as McBreen[25] and Boehm and Turner.[14] Many of the criticisms, however, are believed by Agile
practitioners to be misunderstandings of agile development.[26]
In particular, Extreme Programming is reviewed and critiqued by Matt Stephens's and Doug Rosenberg's
Extreme Programming Refactored.[27]
Criticisms include:

„ Lack of structure and necessary documentation


„ Only works with senior-level developers
„ Incorporates insufficient software design
„ 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
„ Drastically increases 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 such as XP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development 6/4/2008
Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 9 of 12

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.[28]

Post-Agilism
In software engineering, post-Agilism (aka "Fragilism") is an informal movement of practitioners who
have chosen to draw from a much wider range of methods and schools of thought on software
development, preferring to avoid being constrained by what they consider to be "Agile Dogma" (or
"Agile with a capital 'A'")

It is argued that the meaning of Agile is ambiguous and being inappropriately applied to a very wide
range of approaches like Six Sigma and CMMi. It is also argued 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" - possibly for marketing purposes.

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".

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-organising to the point where even the core values of the Agile movement are
considered too presciptive, and that teams should simply "do whatever works for them".

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[29], 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006[30])


„ XP Universe (2001[31])
„ XP/Agile Universe (2002,[32]2003,[33] 2004[34])
„ Agile Development Conference (2003,[35] 2004,[36]) (peer-reviewed; proceedings published by
IEEE?)
„ Agile (2005,[37] 2006) (peer-reviewed; proceedings published by IEEE)

See also
„ Agile web development

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development 6/4/2008
Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 10 of 12

„ Software Engineering
„ Extreme programming
„ Collaborative software development model
„ Software Development Rhythms

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, indistinguishable from XP. [. . .] 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" (pdf). Computer 36 (No. 6): pp 47-56. doi:10.1109/MC.2003.1204375.
Retrieved on 2007-02-22. (Permission note)
2. ^ Agile Alliance
3. ^ Edmonds, E. A. (1974), “A process for the development of software for non-technical users as an adaptive
system”, General Systems XIX: 215-218
4. ^ a b Beck, K. (1999). Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
ISBN 0-321-27865-8.
5. ^ 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
6. ^ Agile Manifesto principles
7. ^ 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
8. ^ Laplante, P.A.; C.J. Neill (February 2004). ""The Demise of the Waterfall Model Is Imminent" and Other
Urban Myths". ACM Queue 1 (10). Retrieved on 2006-05-13.
9. ^ Sommerville, Ian [1982] (2007). "4.1.1. The waterfall model", Software engineering, 8th edition, Harlow:
Addison Wesley, pp 66f.
10. ^ Ambler, S. (April 2008). ""Scaling Scrum - Meeting Real World Development Needs". Dr. Dobbs.
Retrieved on 2008-04-23.
11. ^ As reported by HeavyLogic
12. ^ Agile Processes Workshop II Managing Multiple Concurrent Agile Projects. Washington: OOPSLA 2002
13. ^ "Supersize Me" in Dr. Dobb's Journal, February 15, 2006.
14. ^ a b c 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
16. ^ Schaaf, R.J. (2007). "Agility XL", Systems and Software Technology Conference 2007, Tampa, FL
17. ^ Bridging the Distance
18. ^ Using an Agile Software Process with Offshore Development
19. ^ a b 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. ^ a b 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. ^ a b 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
23. ^ 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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development 6/4/2008
Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 11 of 12

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.
24. ^ 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.
25. ^ McBreen, P. (2003). Questioning Extreme Programming. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-
84457-5.
26. ^ sdmagazine
27. ^ Extreme Programming Refactored
28. ^ The Great Pyramid of Agile
29. ^ 2000
30. ^ 2006
31. ^ 2001
32. ^ 2002
33. ^ 2003
34. ^ 2004
35. ^ 2003
36. ^ 2004
37. ^ 2005

Further reading
„ Fowler, Martin. Is Design Dead?. 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. Appeared in Extreme
Programming Explained, G. Succi and M. Marchesi, ed., Addison-Wesley, Boston. 2001.
„ Tomek, Ivan. What I Learned Teaching XP
„ M. Stephens, D. Rosenberg. Extreme Programming Refactored: The Case Against XP. Apress L.P.,
Berkeley, California. 2003. (ISBN 1-59059-096-1)
„ D. Rosenberg, M. Stephens. Agile Development with ICONIX Process. Apress L.P., Berkeley,
California. 2005. (ISBN 1-59059-464-9)
„ Beck, et al., Manifesto for Agile Software Development
„ Larman, Craig and Basili, Victor R. Iterative and Incremental Development:A Brief History IEEE
Computer, June 2003

„ Abrahamsson, P., Warsta, J., Siponen, M.T., & Ronkainen, J. (2003). New Directions on Agile
Methods: A Comparative Analysis. Proceedings of ICSE'03, 244-254.
„ Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, J., & Warsta, J. (2002). Agile Software Development
Methods: Review and Analysis. VTT Publications 478.
„ 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
„ 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
„ Cohen, D., Lindvall, M., & Costa, P. (2004). An introduction to agile methods. In Advances in
Computers (pp. 1-66). New York: Elsevier Science.
„ Karlstrom, D., & Runeson P. (2005). Combining agile methods with stage-gate project
management. IEEE Software, 22(3), 43-49

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development 6/4/2008
Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 12 of 12

„ Highsmith, J. Agile Software Development Ecosystems. Addison-Wesley Professional, 2002 (ISBN


0-20176-043-6)
„ Waldner, JB. Nanocomputers and Swarm Intelligence. ISTE, 2008, (ISBN 9781847040022)

External links
„ Manifesto for Agile Software Development
„ The Agile Alliance

„ "Why Agile Popped Up on the Radar When it Did"


„ Interview on Lean for Software Methods
„ Risk based selection for agile iterative lifecycle methods
„ "The Demise of the Waterfall Model Is Imminent" and Other Urban Myths
„ Managing Scope Creep using Agile Iterations
„ Levent Gurses. "10 Mistakes in Transitioning to Agile: Slow down the transition in order to go
fast", Dr. Dobb's Journal, 2006-11-01.
„ Breaking the Major Release Habit - Why are long iterations a hard habit to break?
„ An extensive list of book reviews on Agile topics, including practices, particular schools of Agile
and software development

„ Agile at the Open Directory Project

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development"


Categories: Software development process | Software project management | Software development
philosophies | Agile software development
Hidden categories: Pages needing expert attention | Uncategorized pages needing expert attention | All
articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements | Wikipedia external links cleanup

„ This page was last modified on 4 June 2008, at 19:14.


„ All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for
details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)
(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development 6/4/2008