Processes versus people: How should agile software development maturity be defined?

被引:35
作者
Fontana, Rafaela Mantovani [1 ,2 ]
Fontana, Isabela Mantovani [3 ]
da Rosa Garbuio, Paula Andrea [1 ]
Reinehr, Sheila [1 ]
Malucelli, Andreia [1 ]
机构
[1] Pontificia Univ Catolica Parana, BR-80215901 Curitiba, PR, Brazil
[2] Fed Univ Parana UFPR, BR-81520260 Curitiba, PR, Brazil
[3] Univ Sao Paulo, Polytech Sch, BR-05508070 Sao Paulo, Brazil
关键词
Maturity; Agile software development; Software process improvement; GROUNDED THEORY; MANAGEMENT; RELEVANCE; ADOPTION; SCRUM;
D O I
10.1016/j.jss.2014.07.030
中图分类号
TP31 [计算机软件];
学科分类号
081202 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Maturity in software development is currently defined by models such as CMMI-DEV and ISO/IEC 15504, which emphasize the need to manage, establish, measure and optimize processes. Teams that develop software using these models are guided by defined, detailed processes. However, an increasing number of teams have been implementing agile software development methods that focus on people rather than processes. What, then, is maturity for these agile teams that focus less on detailed, defined processes? This is the question we sought to answer in this study. To this end, we asked agile practitioners about their perception of the maturity level of a number of practices and how they defined maturity in agile software development. We used cluster analysis to analyze quantitative data and triangulated the results with content analysis of the qualitative data. We then proposed a new definition for agile software development maturity. The findings show that practitioners do not see maturity in agile software development as process definition or quantitative management capabilities. Rather, agile maturity means fostering more subjective capabilities, such as collaboration, communication, commitment, care, sharing and self-organization. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:140 / 155
页数:16
相关论文
共 71 条
[1]  
Aarnink A., 2012, COMMUN IIMA, V12
[2]  
Abbas Noura, 2010, Proceedings of the 2010 Agile Conference (AGILE 2010), P11, DOI 10.1109/AGILE.2010.15
[3]   New directions on agile methods: A comparative analysis [J].
Abrahamsson, P ;
Warsta, J ;
Siponen, MT ;
Ronkainen, J .
25TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, PROCEEDINGS, 2003, :244-254
[4]   Reconciling perspectives: A grounded theory of how people manage the process of software development [J].
Adolph, Steve ;
Kruchten, Philippe ;
Hall, Wendy .
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE, 2012, 85 (06) :1269-1286
[5]   Stretching Agile to fit CMMI level 3:: The story of creating MSF for CMMI® process improvement at Microsoft Corporation [J].
Anderson, DJ .
AGILE 2005, Proceedings, 2005, :193-201
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2004, 155041 ISOIEC
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2008, Building Theories in Software Engineering, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-1-84800-044-512
[8]  
[Anonymous], 2007, Applied multivariate statistical analysis, sixth edition M
[9]  
Baker S, 2006, TLS-TIMES LIT SUPPL, P23
[10]  
Balijepally V, 2011, J ASSOC INF SYST, V12, P375