Agile Methodology Adoption

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingsChapterpeer-review

Abstract

Discussions on agile software development methodologies have a tendency to develop into an argument between proponents of agile methods and proponents of more traditional process-oriented methodologies. The terminology used in these debates is often unhelpful, and in many cases are inaccurate and biased representations. It needs to be accepted that there are no “silver bullets” providing universal solutions (Jeffries, 2001). Bearing this in mind, the decision to adopt a particular software development methodology is a difficult one, and the decision to choose an agile method is no exception. In theory, as in practice, definitions and descriptions of the various agile methods are presented, yet the factors considered in the decision to adopt, or not adopt, an agile method are not addressed. While agile methodologies try to avoid the excessive use of procedures or tools (Beck & Fowler, 2001), one agile methodology, dynamic systems development method (DSDM), does recommend the use of appropriate tools during the development process (Coesmans, 2003). However, it appears that none of the available agile methodologies suggest a tool to assist decision makers at the project initiation phase, therefore, the debate on agile suitability is usually a debate on agile versus traditional methods (DeMarco & Boehm, 2002), rather than an examination of the suitability of agile methods for a particular project. While the “agile debate” rages, individual projects are not adequately assessed prior to the adoption of a method.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationEncyclopedia of Information Science and Technology
Subtitle of host publicationSecond Edition
PublisherIGI Global
Pages118-123
Number of pages6
ISBN (Electronic)9781605660271
ISBN (Print)9781605660264
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2008

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Agile Methodology Adoption'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this