Agile process tailoring and problem analysis (APTLY)

Keenan, Frank

doi:10.1109/icse.2004.1317417

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The second peak is mainly given by contributions of Ralyté et al (e.g., [31][32][33]) and contributions that discuss opportunities for particular applications of ME concepts, for example, the FEASIBILITY OF METHOD ENGINEERING ones of [34][35][36][37]. We also find contributions that directly discussed the emerging agile methods and how ME could serve agile development (e.g., [21,38,39]). The third peak was in 2007 and points to a stronger effort of the ME community, reflected in the activities of an IFIP 8.1 working group on ME and related publications such as [40,15,41,42], while we could find only three publications in 2011 and in 2012.…”

Section: Contributions Over Time (Rq 1)mentioning

confidence: 84%

A mapping study on the feasibility of method engineering

Kuhrmann

Méndez

Tießler

2014

J. Softw. Evol. and Proc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software processes have become inherently complex to cope with the various situations we face in project environments. In response, the research area of method engineering arose in the 1990s aiming at the systematization of process construction and application. Although the research area has gained much attention and offered a plethora of contributions so far, we still have little knowledge about which basic concepts are finally established and what their feasibility is. To overcome this shortcoming, we need a systematic investigation of the publication flora in method engineering. To reach this aim, we contribute a systematic mapping study and investigate, inter alia, which contributions were published over time and which research type facet they address to distill a common understanding about available method engineering concepts and their maturity. On the basis of the review of 83 publications, our results show that even if a high number of contributions is available, most of those contributions only repeat and discuss formerly introduced concepts, whereas reports on empirically sound evidence on the feasibility are still missing. Although the research area constitutes a many contributions, yet missing are a common understanding of method engineering and empirically sound investigations that would allow for practical application and experience extraction. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Contributions Over Time (Rq 1)mentioning

confidence: 84%

A mapping study on the feasibility of method engineering

Kuhrmann

Méndez

Tießler

2014

J. Softw. Evol. and Proc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is well acknowledged that a pre-defined software development methodology, whether plan-based or agile, is unlikely to be able to be used or adopted off-the-shelf for any specific software project (Kumar and Welke, 1992;Lindvall and Rus, 2000;Keenan, 2004;Fitzgerald et al, 2006). It has been suggested (Mahanti, 2006) that "there is no agile methodology that can be universally applied and they all have to be tailored to integrate into existing processes".…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cockburn (2002) suggests that "each situation calls for a different methodology". Keenan (2004) suggests that "projects differ in their scale, scope, and technical challenge, the same process will not suit all circumstances." All the agile methods (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

FRAMEWORK AS SOFTWARE SERVICE (FASS) - An Agile e-Toolkit to Support Agile Method Tailoring

Qumer¹,

Henderson‐Sellers²

2010

Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software and Data Technologies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a real software application development environment, a pre-defined or fixed methodology, whether planbased or agile, is unlikely to be successfully adopted "off-the-shelf". Agile methods have recognised that a method should be tailored to each situation. The purpose of this paper is to present an agile e-toolkit software service to facilitate the tailoring of agile processes in the overall context of agile method adoption and improvement. The agile e-toolkit is a web-based tool to store and manage agile practices extracted from various agile methods and frameworks. The core component of the e-toolkit is the agile knowledge-base or repository. The agile knowledge-base contains agile process fragments. Agile consultants or teams can then use agile process fragments stored in the agile knowledge-base for the tailoring of situation-specific agile processes by using a situational method engineering approach. The e-toolkit software service has been implemented using a service-oriented cloud computing technology platform (Software as a Service-SaaS). The agile e-toolkit specifications and software application details have been summarized in this paper.

show abstract

“…The software community also recognizes that not all types of software need the same treatment. Different processes, methods, techniques, and tools are used depending on the type of software [6] [7,8]. Safety-critical software has different requirements than computer games, and hence the development process has to be adapted accordingly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk-Based Trade-Off Between Verification and Validation – An Industry-Motivated Study

Henningsson

Wohlin

2005

Product Focused Software Process Improvement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within industry the demand for short lead-time and reduced effort consumption is in focus. For an associated industry partner the lead-time and effort focus has meant turning the interest towards the Verification and Validation (V&V) process. The industry cooperation motivating this study aims at providing a tailored and applicable V&V process, where the order of verification and validation may be changed as well as the amount of V&V activities conducted. Through the industry cooperation as well as industrial and academic experience, a method has been formulated that address how to select a suitable V&V process depending on the functionality being developed. The method describes how a suitable process is created and selected, where the appropriate process is identified based on functionality and coupling between the system entities being developed. It is concluded that the method provides support, structure and clarification to address the possibilities to a trade-off between verification and validation. Key range Processes Motivation [1-2 : 1-3] P4, P3, P2, P8 Key representing easy internal validation, with low coupling, possibility to go for low V&V, or focusing on finalizing the product through high verification. [1-2 : 3-5] P1, P2 Key representing easy internal validation, with high coupling, high verification is recommended. [3-4 : 1-2] P6, P3 Key representing challenging validation, with low coupling, high validation early is recommended, possible lower verification [3-4 : 2-4] P6, P3, P5 Key representing challenging validation, with intermediate coupling, early and high validation recommended, but also high verification. [4-5 : 4-5] P5 Key indicating tough validation and high coupling, early and high validation is recommended.

show abstract

Agile process tailoring and problem analysis (APTLY)

Cited by 15 publications

References 8 publications

A mapping study on the feasibility of method engineering

A mapping study on the feasibility of method engineering

FRAMEWORK AS SOFTWARE SERVICE (FASS) - An Agile e-Toolkit to Support Agile Method Tailoring

Risk-Based Trade-Off Between Verification and Validation – An Industry-Motivated Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About