The Effect of Complexity and Value on Architecture Planning in Agile Software Development

Waterman, Michael; Noble, James; Allan, George

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38314-4_17

Cited by 6 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The risk of an incremental or emergent architecture is that it may grow in an accidental way that may do not represent the best solution 71 . However, too much emphasis on architecture up‐front increases the risk of costly rework due to uncertain requirements 55,62,71 . Therefore, often a simultaneous use of up‐front and continuous architecture is needed.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Goals and challenges in hybrid software development approaches

Prenner

Unger‐Windeler

Schneider

2021

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of companies that use agile methods increases steadily. However, these companies often do not implement a pure agile approach but combine agile and plan‐based methods to so‐called hybrid development approaches. However, the development of these approaches is rather difficult for the companies, since agile and plan‐based approaches often follow opposite concepts. To benefit from agile and plan‐based approaches at the same time, the companies have to identify and address the conflicts between agile and plan‐based methods. The conflicts depend on the goals that are pursued with the implementation of agile and plan‐based methods. However, there is no overview of the exact goals that are pursued in hybrid approaches and which challenges and conflicts arise with them. Therefore, we conducted a systematic mapping study to gather and analyze the goals and challenges in hybrid development approaches. The mapping study is focused on literature that presents the actual needs and goals of companies and projects. Based on our results, we present the influence factors that cause conflicts in hybrid approaches and discuss how these conflicts can be addressed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Goals and challenges in hybrid software development approaches

Prenner

Unger‐Windeler

Schneider

2021

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature on software design and design theory support this finding. For example Waterman (2013) have found that complexity of the software, that is, when functionality is high software design is more costly in time and effort. Martin (2003) also argues that the more variety in the functions of the software the higher cost to develop in terms of time and resources.…”

Section: P3mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of the Dynamics of the Legitimation Processes of Innovations in Open Source Software: A Qualitative Study of the Rational Deliberations in the Drupal Project

Nouri¹

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the Open Source Software (OSS) literature, there is a lack of studies addressing the legitimation processes of innovations that are born in OSS. This study sets out to analyze the legitimation processes of innovations within the deliberations of the Drupal project. The data set constitutes 52 rational deliberation cases discussing innovations that were proposed by members of the community. Habermas’s Ideal Speech Situations (ISS) is used as the framework to view Drupal’s rational deliberations from; in fact within the 52 cases that are examined in this thesis, there were no violations to the guidelines of the ISS in the deliberations. The Communicative Action Theory, Influence Tactics theory and the theory of Validity Claims are aspects of the framework that is used to code and analyze the conversations. These aspects allow for an effective conceptualization of the dynamics of the Drupal deliberations. This thesis was able to find that legitimation processes of innovations in open source software were influenced by the type, complexity and implications of the innovations on the rest of the community. Also, bug fixes, complex innovations and innovations that have implications on the rest of the software will result in a long (in terms of number of comments) legitimation process. Also, it is empirically backed in this study that in open deliberations that aim at achieving mutual understanding towards a common goal, the communicative action type and the rational persuasion influence tactic are the most common methods for innovators to interact with the community.

show abstract

“…In an interview the lead for the NASA software architecture review board described spending more effort on areas where there are more challenging ASRs and hence more risk [39]. We explored complexity and risk and its impact on up-front effort in an earlier paper [40].…”

Section: B Relationships With Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another factor suggested by Abrahamsson et al as affecting up-front design effort was the business model [6], of which the customer's need for F3 is a part. We described the effects of early value in an earlier paper [40].…”

Section: B Relationships With Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mirakhorli and Cleland-Huang also noted the benefits of reference architectures [39]. The use of frameworks and reference architectures, corresponding to S5 (USE FRAMEWORKS AND TEMPLATE ARCHITECTURES), make agile development more effective because they simplify the design and reduce the architectural (and development) effort required [40], [49]. This simplified design and reduced effort increases the team's ability to use S1 (RESPOND TO CHANGE), reduces F2 (TECHNICAL RISK), and hence reduces the need to use S2 (ADDRESS RISK).…”

Section: B Relationships With Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Much Up-Front? A Grounded theory of Agile Architecture

Waterman¹,

Noble

Allan

2015

2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The tension between software architecture and agility is not well understood by agile practitioners or researchers. If an agile software team spends too little time designing architecture up-front then the team faces increased risk and higher chance of failure; if the team spends too much time the delivery of value to the customer is delayed, and responding to change can become extremely difficult. This paper presents a grounded theory of agile architecture that describes how agile software teams answer the question of how much upfront architecture design effort is enough. This theory, based on grounded theory research involving 44 participants, presents six forces that affect the team's context and five strategies that teams use to help them determine how much effort they should put into up-front design.

show abstract

The Effect of Complexity and Value on Architecture Planning in Agile Software Development

Cited by 6 publications

References 14 publications

Goals and challenges in hybrid software development approaches

Goals and challenges in hybrid software development approaches

An Analysis of the Dynamics of the Legitimation Processes of Innovations in Open Source Software: A Qualitative Study of the Rational Deliberations in the Drupal Project

How Much Up-Front? A Grounded theory of Agile Architecture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About