An evaluation of the degree of agility in six agile methods and its applicability for method engineering

Qumer, A; Henderson-Sellers, B

An evaluation of the degree of agility in six agile methods and its applicability for method engineering

Qumer, A

Henderson-Sellers, B

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Information and Software Technology, 2008, 50 (4), pp. 280 - 295
Issue Date:: 2008-03-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2007005371OK.pdf		231.9 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Qumer, A https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6239-6280	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Henderson-Sellers, B	en_US
dc.date.issued	2008-03-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Information and Software Technology, 2008, 50 (4), pp. 280 - 295	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0950-5849	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/8978
dc.description.abstract	While agile methods are in use in industry, little research has been undertaken into what is meant by agility and how a supposed agile method can be evaluated with regard to its veracity to belong to this category of software development methodological approaches. Here, an analytical framework, called 4-DAT, is developed and applied to six well-known agile methods and, for comparison, two traditional methods. The results indicate the degree of agility to be found in each method, from which a judgement can be made as to whether the appellation of "agile" to that method is appropriate. This information is shown to be useful, for example, when constructing a methodology from method fragments (method engineering) and when comparing agile and traditional methods. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Information and Software Technology	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.infsof.2007.02.002	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Software Engineering	en_US
dc.title	An evaluation of the degree of agility in six agile methods and its applicability for method engineering	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	4	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	50	en_US
utslib.for	080309 Software Engineering	en_US
utslib.for	080608 Information Systems Development Methodologies	en_US
utslib.for	0803 Computer Software	en_US
utslib.for	0806 Information Systems	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Computer Science
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology/School of Software
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - GBDTC - Global Big Data Technologies
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - HCTD - Human Centred Technology Design
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	4	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	50	en_US

Abstract:

While agile methods are in use in industry, little research has been undertaken into what is meant by agility and how a supposed agile method can be evaluated with regard to its veracity to belong to this category of software development methodological approaches. Here, an analytical framework, called 4-DAT, is developed and applied to six well-known agile methods and, for comparison, two traditional methods. The results indicate the degree of agility to be found in each method, from which a judgement can be made as to whether the appellation of "agile" to that method is appropriate. This information is shown to be useful, for example, when constructing a methodology from method fragments (method engineering) and when comparing agile and traditional methods. © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/8978