Enacted Routines in Agile and Waterfall Processes

Agile methods form an alternative to waterfall methodologies. Little is known about activity composition, the proportion of varying activities in agile processes and the extent to which the proportions of activities differ from "waterfall" processes. In the current study, we examine the variation in per formative routines in one large agile and traditional lifecycle project using an event sequencing method. Our analysis shows that the enactment of waterfall and agile routines differ significantly suggesting that agile process is composed of fewer activities which are repeated iteratively1.

[1]  Judy L. Wynekoop,et al.  Studying system development methodologies: an examination of research methods , 1997, Inf. Syst. J..

[2]  Tore Dybå,et al.  Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review , 2008, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[3]  Andrew Abbott,et al.  A Primer on Sequence Methods , 1990 .

[4]  J. Brown,et al.  Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation , 1991 .

[5]  Soly Mathew Biju.  Agile Software Development Methods and its Advantages , 2010 .

[6]  Noam Shoval,et al.  Sequence Alignment as a Method for Human Activity Analysis in Space and Time , 2007 .

[7]  Ken Schwaber,et al.  SCRUM Development Process , 1997 .

[8]  Clarke Wilson,et al.  ClustalG: Software for analysis of activities and sequential events , 1999 .

[9]  James E. Tomayko,et al.  Engineering of Unstable Requirements Using Agile Methods , 2002 .

[10]  Clarke Wilson,et al.  Reliability of Sequence-Alignment Analysis of Social Processes: Monte Carlo Tests of Clustalg Software , 2006 .

[11]  Ivar Jacobson,et al.  The Unified Software Development Process , 1999 .

[12]  Manfred J. Sippl,et al.  Biological sequence analysis. Probabilistic models of proteins and nucleic acids, edited by R. Durbin, S. Eddy, A. Krogh, and G. Mitchinson. 1998. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 356 pp. £55.00 ($80.00) (hardcover); £19.95 ($34.95) (paper) , 2008 .

[13]  Peter Aiken,et al.  Information systems development and data modeling: Conceptual and philosophical foundations , 1997 .

[14]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Iteration in Systems Analysis and Design: Cognitive Processes and Representational Artifacts , 2008 .

[15]  Ian Sommerville,et al.  Software process models , 1996, CSUR.

[16]  Dorothy R. Graham,et al.  Incremental development and delivery for large software systems , 1992 .

[17]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Empirical Findings in Agile Methods , 2002, XP/Agile Universe.

[18]  Brian Fitzgerald,et al.  Systems development methodologies: the problem of tenses , 2000, Inf. Technol. People.

[19]  Lucy Suchman.  Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication , 1987 .

[20]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  A Foundation for the Study of IT Effects: A New Look at DeSanctis and Poole's Concepts of Structural Features and Spirit , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[21]  A. Cockburn,et al.  Agile Software Development: The People Factor , 2001, Computer.

[22]  Pekka Abrahamsson,et al.  Empirical Evaluation of Agile Software Development: The Controlled Case Study Approach , 2004, PROFES.

[23]  Sudhir Kumar,et al.  MEGA3: Integrated software for Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis and sequence alignment , 2004, Briefings Bioinform..

[24]  Kuldeep Kumar,et al.  Methodology Engineering R : a proposal for situation-specific methodology construction , 1992 .

[25]  Frank Maurer,et al.  Requirements engineering and agile software development , 2003, WET ICE 2003. Proceedings. Twelfth IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, 2003..

[26]  K. Lyytinen.  A taxonomic perspective of information systems development: theoretical constructs and recommendations , 1987 .

[27]  Bill Curtis,et al.  A field study of the software design process for large systems , 1988, CACM.

[28]  Granville G. Miller.  The Characteristics of Agile Software Processes , 2001, TOOLS.

[29]  Kieran Conboy,et al.  Agility from First Principles: Reconstructing the Concept of Agility in Information Systems Development , 2009, Inf. Syst. Res..

[30]  Colin J. Neill,et al.  The Demise of the Waterfall Model Is Imminent, and Other Urban Myths , 2004, ACM Queue.

[31]  Juha-Pekka Tolvanen,et al.  MetaEdit+: defining and using domain-specific modeling languages and code generators , 2003, OOPSLA '03.

[32]  A. Gunasekaran,et al.  Agile manufacturing: The drivers, concepts and attributes , 1999 .

[33]  Richard T. Vidgen,et al.  Coevolving Systems and the Organization of Agile Software Development , 2009, Inf. Syst. Res..

[34]  Brian T. Pentland,et al.  Sequential Variety in Work Processes , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[35]  W. W. Royce,et al.  Managing the development of large software systems , 1970 .

[36]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Get Ready for Agile Methods, with Care , 2002, Computer.

[37]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Management challenges to implementing agile processes in traditional development organizations , 2005, IEEE Software.

[38]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  Materiality and Change: Challenges to Building Better Theory about Technology and Organizing , 2008, Inf. Organ..

[39]  David Lorge Parnas,et al.  A Rational Design Process: How and Why to Fake It , 1985, TAPSOFT, Vol.2.

[40]  L. Cavalli-Sforza,et al.  PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS: MODELS AND ESTIMATION PROCEDURES , 1967, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[41]  Clarke Wilson,et al.  Activity Patterns of Canadian Women: Application of ClustalG Sequence Alignment Software , 2001 .

[42]  Nicholas Berente,et al.  What Is Being Iterated? Reflections on Iteration in Information System Engineering Processes , 2007 .

[43]  Jan Stage,et al.  Prototyping and Specifying: Principles and Practices of a Mixed Approach , 1995, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[44]  Tore Dybå,et al.  Applying Systematic Reviews to Diverse Study Types: An Experience Report , 2007, First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2007).

[45]  M. Nei,et al.  MEGA4: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. , 2007, Molecular biology and evolution.

[46]  W. Shadish,et al.  Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference , 2001 .

[47]  Susan V. Scott,et al.  10 Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization , 2008 .

[48]  M. Feldman,et al.  Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change , 2003 .

[49]  Nicholas Berente,et al.  Enacted Software Development Routines Based on Waterfall and Agile Software Methods: Socio-Technical Event Sequence Study , 2011, DESRIST.

[50]  Durbin,et al.  Biological Sequence Analysis , 1998 .

[51]  Pekka Abrahamsson,et al.  ‘Lots done, more to do’: the current state of agile systems development research , 2009, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[52]  Bashir Nasr-Azadani.  Estimation of Agile Functionality in Software Development , 2008 .

[53]  Marcin von Grotthuss,et al.  ORFeus: detection of distant homology using sequence profiles and predicted secondary structure , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[54]  A. Abbott.  Sequence analysis: new methods for old ideas , 1995 .

[55]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  A spiral model of software development and enhancement , 1986, Computer.

[56]  Martin Fowler,et al.  The new methodology , 2001, Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences.

[57]  Pete McBreen,et al.  Questioning Extreme Programming , 2002 .

[58]  Alan M. Davis,et al.  A Strategy for Comparing Alternative Software Development Life Cycle Models , 1988, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[59]  Barry Boehm,et al.  Balancing Agility and Dis-cipline: A Guide for the Perplexed , 2003 .

[60]  Nicholas Berente,et al.  Sequencing Design DNA: a Set of Methodological Artifacts for sequencing Socio-Technical Design Routines , 2010, ICIS.

[61]  Pekka Abrahamsson,et al.  New directions on agile methods: a comparative analysis , 2003, 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, 2003. Proceedings..

[62]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  How to Combine Tools and Methods in Practice - a Field Study , 1990, CAiSE.