Proposal of a Sustainable Agile Model for Software Development

Abstract

Sustainability is even more important now than ever if we speak in the context of organizational growth, it is necessary that technological products, such as software developments, are certified as green-environmental friendly technology that would mean a competitive advantage for an organization that implements an agile methodology for software development that takes sustainability into account, giving the organization new ways to market their software products as environmentally friendly. This study proposes a model for agile software development, it has taken into account that software development must be based upon reusing old hardware, free nonprivative software and code (open source), as well as virtualization of servers and machines, to create software that can be useful for over a decade, as a result, we expect a reduction of planned obsolescence in hardware, which means taking one step ahead to help solve the problem that the big amount of electronic waste (e-waste) means nowadays worldwide.

Green-Agile Maturity Model: An Evaluation Framework for Global Software Development Vendors

“…The author justifies the development of green software by indicating some key factors of agile methods with relevant industrial practices. Oscar et al [43] argues the importance of sustainability in the context of organizational growth and emphasis that software development processes must be certified as environment friendly by implementing the agile practices. The authors propose an agile model for software development, using the old hardware platform, that could have long term use with considerable reduction of electronic waste.…”

Modeling the Development of Energy Network Software, Taking into Account the Detection and Elimination of Vulnerabilities

“…Galan et al [33] propose a flexible SDLC model that takes into account the need for the reuse of old hardware, free open-source software training, and server and machine virtualization.…”

Models of Sustainable Software: A Scoping Review

“…In the context of RQ1, we identify two types of sustainable software models in the literature: those pertaining to software product (i.e., defining properties and/or components of sustainable software) [7,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33], and those pertaining to software development process (i.e., defining properties and/or steps of a sustainable software development process, or of a software development process leading to the production of sustainable software) . Three among the analyzed works address both these subjects [31][32][33].…”

“…Answering RQ2, we identify two basic purposes of the presented models: providing a reference and guidelines for those participating in various roles in the software development life cycle in order to help them attain the qualities of sustainable software products and processes (we call them reference models) [7,[16][17][18][19]22,23,[25][26][27][28][30][31][32][33][34]36,38,46,49,53], and providing methods, measures, and tools that can be applied to verify whether given software products and processes can be considered as green or sustainable (we call them evaluation models) [17,[19][20][21]24,26,29,30,32,33,35,37,[39][40][41][42][43][44][45]47,48,[50][51][52]54,55]. Six am...…”

“…In an attempt to answer RQ3, we analyzed the identified models and found out that the papers can be categorized into two groups: those addressing environmental sustainability, in almost all cases pursuing the goal of energy efficiency ( [17][18][19][21][22][23][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]54,55]), and those taking a holistic approach, addressing sustainability in its various aspects ([7,16,20,22-33,44,45,47,52-54]). Note that ten items ( [22,23,26,29,32,33,44,47,52,54]) were included in both groups as these models consider more than one sustainability dimension but treat the topic of energy efficiency with special attention, unlike the remaining models of the second group. Figure 4 presents the number of publications from each of these categories published in respective years.…”