ContentslistsavailableatSciVerseScienceDirect
The
Journal
of
Systems
and
Software
j our na l h o me p a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / j s s
A
decade
of
agile
methodologies:
Towards
explaining
agile
software
development
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Keywords:Agilesoftwaredevelopment Theory
Softwareengineering Informationsystems eXtremeprogramming,XP Scrum
Leansoftwaredevelopment Crystalmethod
Feature-drivendevelopment
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
Eversincetheagilemanifestowascreatedin2001,theresearchcommunityhasdevotedagreatdeal
ofattentiontoagilesoftwaredevelopment.Thisarticleexaminespublicationsandcitationstoillustrate
howtheresearchonagilehasprogressedinthe10yearsfollowingthearticulationofthemanifesto.
Specifically,wedelineatetheconceptualstructureunderlyingagilescholarshipbyperformingananalysis
ofauthorswhohavemadenotablecontributionstothefield.Further,wesummarizepriorresearchand
introducecontributionsinthisspecialissueonagilesoftwaredevelopment.Weconcludebydiscussing
directionsforfutureresearchandurgingagileresearcherstoembraceatheory-basedapproachintheir
scholarship.
© 2012 Elsevier Inc.
1. Introduction
Thearticulationoftheagilemanifestoin20011– alittleovera
decadeago–hasbroughtunprecedentedchangestothesoftware engineeringfield.Indeed,thetransformationthatthemanifesto hasbroughtinitswakeisquiteremarkable.Itishardtothinkof adecadeinthetwentieth centurythathaswitnessedthe intro-ductionofsomanysoftwaremethods,tools,techniques,andbest practices.Whilethisunparalleledgrowthhasbeenreadilyaccepted bymanypractitioners,muchworkhasstilltobeundertakento bringcoherencetothecurrentdiscourseonagility.
Aswithanynascentdiscipline,theearlyyearsofagile devel-opmentweremarkedbyexuberanceofafewandbyscepticism amongmany.Ahostofmethods,adheringtovaryingdegreestothe tenetsofthemanifesto,appearedonthelandscape.Theseinclude eXtremeprogramming(XP), scrum,leansoftware development, feature-drivendevelopment(FDD),andcrystalmethodologies,to namebutafew.Broadlyspeaking,allthesemethodsendeavoured toaddressthecoreprinciplesofthemanifesto.First,therewasa dis-tinctmovetowardscollaborativedevelopment,withpeoplebeing accordedprivilegesoverprocessesthatformerlyconstrainedthem. Second,adominant“lean”mentalitywasadvocatedwithaviewto minimizingunnecessarywork,particularlywithregardtothe cre-ationofwastefuldocumentation.Whilethiswasmisconstruedby manytomean“nodocumentation”,thediscerningrealizedthatthis meantdocumentingonlywhatwasabsolutelynecessaryand noth-ingmore.Third,customers/stakeholderswerenolongerjustatthe fringesofsoftwaredevelopment,butactivelyshapedandguided theevolutionoftheendsoftwareproductorservice.Fourth,there wasanacceptanceofthefactthatuncertaintywasapartandparcel ofsoftwaredevelopment,andthattheinherenttendencytocontrol variationsthroughstatisticalandothermeanswasfutile.
1Seehttp://agilemanifesto.org/.
Aftermuch discussionabout theidiosyncrasiesof themany methodsthatwereproposed,theconversationshiftedtothe rel-ativemeritsofplan-drivenandagilemethods,theneedtohavea balancedapproach,thecircumstancesunderwhicheachwouldbe moreappropriate,andsoforth(forexample,seeBoehmandTurner, 2004).Inrecenttimes,theattentionhasbeenfocusedonissues relatedtomanagingtheactualproject—agileplanning,control,and estimation,streamliningflowofstories(e.g.,Kanban),usinglean six-sigma,andsoforth.Mostoftheseideashavespawneda num-berofpractices thatareclaimedtobeefficacious,butempirical validationofsuchassertionsislacking.
Theearlyresearchonagilefocused,quiteunderstandably,on issuesrelatedtotheadoptionofagilemethods(e.g.,Boehm,2002; Nerur et al., 2005) and on the efficacy of pairs vis-à-vis indi-vidualsinsoftwaredevelopment(NawrockiandWojciechowski, 2001;Williamsetal.,2000).Otherstudieshaveinvestigated var-iousaspectsofteamdynamics-e.g.,trust,self-organization,and communication)(Moe etal.,2009),consequences oftest-driven development(Erdogmusetal.,2005;JanzenandSaiedian,2005), adoptionand post-adoptionissues (Caoetal.,2009;Mangalaraj etal.,2009),challengesofimplementingagileindistributed set-tings (Ramesh et al., 2006), and the like. Despite the copious research on agile software development and its ramifications, one cannot help but sense a lack of a unified framework that bringscoherencetotheseeminglydisparatestreamsofresearch beingpursued.Clearly,more workhastobedonetoarticulate quintessentialprinciplesof agilesoftwaredevelopmentthatare atonceunequivocalandusefulforpractice.Thegoalofthisspecial issueistodrawattentiontothisimperativeandtopresentarticles thatcouldfurtherourunderstandingofthemyriadimplicationsof agilesoftwaredevelopment.
Therestofthearticleisstructuredasfollows.Inthenextsection wepresentanoverviewofresearchonagilesoftwaredevelopment. Specifically,weexaminepublicationsandcitationsrelatedtoagile developmenttodelineatethestructureofthefield.Subsequently, wesummarizepriorresearchonagile,followedbyabriefaccount 0164-1212© 2012 Elsevier Inc.
doi:10.1016/j.jss.2012.02.033
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
According to the agile principles enunciated in the agile manifesto1,motivatedandempoweredsoftwaredevelopers– rely-ingontechnicalexcellenceandsimpledesigns–createbusiness valueby delivering working software tousers at regular short intervals.Theseprincipleshavespawneda numberof practices that are believed todeliver greater value tocustomers. Atthe coreofthesepracticesistheideaofself-organizingteamswhose membersare not only collocated but also workat a pace that sustainstheircreativityandproductivity.Theprinciples encour-agepractices thataccommodatechangeinrequirementsatany stageofthedevelopmentprocess.Furthermore,customers(ortheir surrogates)areactivelyinvolvedinthedevelopmentprocess, facil-itatingfeedback and reflectionthat canleadtomore satisfying outcomes.Theprinciplesarenotaformaldefinitionofagility,but arerather guidelines for deliveringhigh-qualitysoftware in an agilemanner.While individualprinciplesand practicesof agile developmentwerenotentirelynewtothesoftwarecommunity, thewayinwhichtheywereputtogetherintoacogent “theoret-icalandpracticalframework”wascertainlynovel(Williamsand Cockburn,2003).Eversincethemanifestowasarticulated, practi-tionersandresearchershavebeentryingtoexplicateagilityand itsdifferentfacets.Atitscore,agilityentailsabilitytorapidlyand flexiblycreateandrespondtochangeinthebusinessand techni-caldomains(Henderson-SellersandSerour,2005;Highsmithand Cockburn,2001).Otheraspectsofagilityexploredinclude light-nessorleanness(i.e.,havingminimalformalprocesses)(Cockburn, 2007)andrelatedconceptssuchasnimbleness,quickness, dexter-ity,supplenessoralertness(Ericksonetal.,2005).Inessence,these ideassuggesta“light’methodologythatpromotesmanoeuvrability andspeedofresponse”(Cockburn,2007).
Moreformaldefinitionsofagilityhavestartedtoappearinthe recentpast,drawnmainlyfrommanufacturingandmanagement domains,whereagileappearstohave itsroots. For Henderson-SellersandSerour(2005),agilityinvolvesboththeabilitytoadapt to different changes and to refine and fine-tune development processesasneeded.LeeandXia(2010)definesoftware develop-mentagility“asthesoftwareteam’scapabilitytoefficientlyand effectivelyrespondtoandincorporateuserrequirementchanges duringtheprojectlifecycle.”Conboy(2009)providesbyfarthe mostcomprehensivedefinitionofsoftwaredevelopmentagilityby systematicallyexaminingitsvariousfacetsand definitionsfrom relateddisciplines.Hemakesadistinctionbetweenagility, flexibil-ity,andleanness—infact,agilityisconceptualizedtoincludeand gobeyondbothflexibilityandleanness.Whileflexibilityrelatesto theabilityofasystemsdevelopmentmethodto“createchange, orproactively,reactively,orinherentlyembracechangeinatimely manner,throughitsinternalcomponentsanditsrelationshipswith itsenvironment”,leannesscapturesthe“contributiontoperceived customervaluethrougheconomy,quality,andsimplicity.”Thus, Conboy(2009,p.340)definessoftwaredevelopmentagilityasthe continuedreadiness“torapidlyorinherentlycreatechange, proac-tivelyorreactivelyembracechange,andlearnfromchangewhile contributingtoperceivedcustomervalue(economy,quality,and simplicity),through itscollectivecomponentsandrelationships withitsenvironment.”
Whileleannessemphasizescostreductionthrougheliminating wasteandinefficiencies,agilitytreatsleanness– i.e.,costreduction throughwasteelimination–asaqualifiertofocusmoreheavily
acrosscountriesandacrossjournals/conferences. 2.2. Researchonagilesoftwaredevelopment
AliteraturesearchintheISIWebofScience2 identified1551
researchpapers onagilesoftware developmentthat were pub-lished between 2001 and 2010, inclusive. As shown in Fig. 1, thenumberofjournalarticlesaswellasconferencepapers has beensteadilyincreasinguntil 2010.Aplausible explanationfor thedecline inthenumberofconferencepublicationsin2010is that the2010 Agile conferencewas not indexedin ISI Webof Sciencedatabase.The increasein journal articlesindicatesthat theresearchfield ismaturing.Asystematic reviewofempirical researchpublishedbefore2005revealedalackoftheoreticaland methodologicalrigor(DybåandDingsøyr,2008).Thetotal num-berof publications shows that agile developmenthas received muchinterestfromtheacademiccommunity;however,mostof theresearchisinspiredbypracticesemerginginindustry.
Ourliteraturesearchalsopermittedustoexaminetheextent ofagileresearchundertakenindifferentcountries.Fig.2shows thenumberofpublicationsbycountry,darkercoloursindicatinga largervolumeofagilepapers.Notethatalthoughthemajorityof thearticlesoriginateintheUS,CanadaandWesternEurope,agile softwaredevelopmenthasbeenaresearchthemeonallcontinents, inatotalof63countries(seeAppendix1fordetails).
Wealsotriedtoidentifythepopularconferencesandjournals inwhichpublicationsonagileresearchappear.Itcanbeseenfrom Fig.3thattheInternationalConferenceonAgileSoftware Develop-ment(”XP”)basedin Europehasbeenthemainforum foragile research,followedbyAgile3 intheUS.Thisisnotsurprising,as
thetwoconferences focusexclusivelyonissues relatedtoagile softwaredevelopment.Otherpopularavenuesforagileresearch areProfesandEuroSPI–bothofwhichfocusonprocess improve-ment–and theInternationalConference onSoftwareEngineering (ICSE).EuroMicroandtheConferenceonSoftwareEngineering Edu-cationandTraining(CSEE&T)havealsobeenabletoattractsome papersonagile.Finally,theIFIPcommunityandtheInternational Conferenceof GlobalSoftwareEngineering(ICGSE),aswellasthe InternationalSymposiumonEmpiricalSoftwareEngineeringand Mea-surement(ESEM),havedevotedsomeattentiontothistopic.Thus, severalresearchcommunitieshavefocusedonagiledevelopment. Avastmajorityofthepapers(1064outof1302)arefromthetop tenconferences.Theremaining238articlesarespreadoverabout 200otherforums.Thisshowsthatagiledevelopmenthasreceived widespreadattentionacrossvariousscientificcommunities.
Anoverviewofjournalpublications(seeFig.4)revealsthatIEEE Softwarehasthelargestnumberofpapers,followedbythe Jour-nalofSystemsandSoftware,InformationandSoftwareTechnology, andEmpiricalSoftwareEngineering.Theleadingpublisherofagile
2Weusedthefollowingsearch:Topic=(“Agiledevelopment”OR“Agilesoftware development”OR“AgileMethodologies”OR ¨Agilemethods”OR“AgileProject Man-agement”OR“Leandevelopment”OR“Leansoftwaredevelopment”OR“Scrum”OR “ExtremeProgramming”OR“PairProgramming”OR“Test-DrivenDevelopment”) Refinedby:SubjectAreas=(COMPUTERSCIENCEORENGINEERINGOR TELECOMMU-NICATIONSOROPERATIONSRESEARCHMANAGEMENTSCIENCE)ANDDocument Type=(PROCEEDINGSPAPERORREVIEWORARTICLEORBOOKCHAPTER).
3ThesenumbersalsoincludethepreviousAgileDevelopmentConferenceand theXPAgileUniverse,butnotallyearshavehadtheproceedingsindexed.
Fig.1. Publicationsonagilesoftwaredevelopmentfrom2001to2010,totalnumber(top),conferencepapers(middle)andjournalarticles(bottom).
Fig.2. Publicationsonagilesoftwaredevelopmentbycountry.Darkercolourindicatesmorepublications.SeeAppendix1fordetails.
Fig.4.Numberofpapersinscientificjournals.
articlesamongnon-softwareengineeringjournalsistheEuropean JournalofInformationSystems,thankstoaspecialissueonthetopic. Yetanotherpopularoutlet,CommunicationsoftheACM,has pub-lishedfivearticlesonagilesoftwaredevelopment.Thus,weseethat thetopichasgainedtractionnotjustinsoftwareengineeringbut inotherareasaswell.
2.3. Seminalcontributorsandtheirrelationships
There is perhaps no better way to understand a field than toidentifyitsseminal sourcesof information and the relation-shipsamongthem.Indeed,expertsinbibliometricstudies,suchas McCain(1990),WhiteandGriffith(1981),andWhite(1990),have elaboratedontheuseofco-citationanalysistodelineatethe con-ceptualunderpinningsofdisciplines.Specifically,researchershave usedeitherauthors(e.g.,Neruretal.,2008)ordocuments(e.g., Ramos-Rodríguezand Ruíz-Navarro,2004)astheunitsof anal-ysis.Whatever bethecase, theunitof analysis– authororthe articlewrittenbytheauthor–isregardedasaconcept(or con-cepts)thatitpromulgates.Co-citationanalysis,whetheritisbased onco-citationsofauthorsordocuments,restsonthepremisethat jointcitations betweentwo unitsoccurwhen theysharesome conceptualsimilarity.Thisstudy usedauthor co-citation analy-sis (ACA) to unravel dominant conceptual themes in the agile literature.
Theprocedurefollowedisveryconsistentwiththoseoutlinedby McCain(1990)andNeruretal.(2008).Thefirststepwasto iden-tifytheauthorsmostfrequentlycitedintheagileliterature.ISI’s WebofSciencewasusedforthispurpose.Oursearch4yielded452
articles.Thecitedreferencesofeachofthesearticleswerethen usedtogetalistofthemostfrequentlycitedauthors.Fifty-one
4 Samesearchasinendnote2,butlimitedtoarticlesorreviews.
authorswereincludedin ourfinal analysis.A 51×51 matrixof rawco-citationfrequencieswasthencomputedbasedona“cited referencessearch”involvingeachofthe51authors.Specifically, theco-citationfrequencybetweenapairofauthorswasobtained bydeterminingthenumberofmatchingrecordsintheir respec-tivecitedreferences.Theinputtotheclusteranalysisprogramwas acorrelationmatrixderivedfromthe51×51matrixofraw co-citationcounts.ConsistentwithotherACAstudies,we usedthe Ward’smethod.TheresultsareshowninFig.5.
Fig.5showsthekeyconceptualthemesthathaveappearedin theagileliterature.Distancesinthefigureprovideasenseofthe levelofconceptualsimilaritybetweentwoauthors,withshorter distancesimplyinggreaterthematicclosenessintheirwritings.For example,theshortlinkagedistancebetweenFowlerandGamma –bothofwhomhavewrittenaboutpatterns–impliesthattheir worksarehighlyrelated.Asmentionedearlier,theformativeyears ofthefieldsawtheproliferationofresearchrelatedtothe differ-encesbetweenprocess-orientedapproachessuchasCMM/CMMI andagilemethodssuchasXP.Further,therewereextensivedebates ontopicsrelatedtoreconcilingdifferencesbetweenagileand erst-whilepractices,strikingabalancebetweentraditionalandagile, usingarisk-drivenapproachtochoosingpractices,andsoforth. Thepresenceofpair-programmingandtest-drivendevelopmentis nosurprise,sincealotofresearchhasbeendevotedtothese prac-tices.SharpandRobinsondistinguishthemselvesbytheirworkon XP,particularlyinthecontextoforganizationalculture,distributed cognition,andtheroleofphysicalartefactsinagiledevelopment (seeSharpandRobinson,2006,2008;Sharpetal.,2009).The influ-enceofpatterns–bothanalysisanddesignpatterns–basedonthe worksofFowlerandGammaisalsoevidentintheanalysis.Robert Martin’sbookonagilesoftwaredevelopmentshowstheroleof pat-ternsinagiledevelopment;hencethelinkamongMartin,Fowler, andGamma.Thenextsectionidentifiesthevarioustheoretical per-spectivesusedinprioragileresearch.
Tradional soware engineering, CMM, Project Management
Pair Development
Distributed Cognion
Agile methods
Paerns User-centered design, Agile methodologies
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Distances ABRAHAMSSON AMBLER ARISHOLM BACK BASILI BASKERVILLE BECK BOEHM BROOKS CANFORA COCKBURN COHN CONSTANTINE DEMARCO DYBA ERDOGMUS FENTON FITZGERALD FOWLER GAMMA GEORGE GLASS HIGHSMITH HUMPHREY JEFFRIES KITCHENHAM KRUCHTENLARMAN LAYMAN LINDVALL LUI MADEYSKI MARTIN MCDOWELL MEYER MULLER NAWROCKI NOSEK PALMER PAULK POPPENDIECK REIFER ROBINSON SALO SCHWABER SHARP STEPHENS TURK WILLIAMS WOHLIN YIN
Case Study Methodology
Soware esmaon
Fig.5.Keyresearchthemesinagilesoftwaredevelopment.Clusteranalysisof sem-inalauthorsusingtheWard’smethod.
2.4. Theoreticalexplorationofagiledevelopment
Agile development evolved from the personal experiences andcollectivewisdomoftheconsultantsandthoughtleadersof thesoftware community. While mostindividual agile practices haveintuitiveappeal– astheyarebasedongenerallyaccepted managementprinciples– theycertainlylackedtheoretical under-pinnings or empirical support for their stated benefits, when initiallyconceived.Thus,therewasapressingneedfortheoretical perspectivesthatthrowlightonhowthesedisparatepracticesand theirinteractionscouldproducevalued outcomes.Theoretically comprehendingthedistinctionbetweenagilemethodsandtheir traditionalcounterpartswasanotherconcernbeggingforresearch attention.Someearlystudiessoughttoaddresstheseconcerns. For instance, Nerur and Balijepally (2007) illustrate that the shiftsintheapproachtosoftwaredevelopmentreflectedinthe agile methods hasparallels tosimilar shifts in design thinking evidentinseveraldisparatefields,e.g.,architectureandstrategic managementdomains.Theysuggestedthetheoryofholographic organization and its various principles as a theoretical lens to exploreagiledevelopment.
Togetasenseofthevarioustheoreticalperspectivesusedin studiesonagiledevelopmentduringthelastdecade,wedidaquick analysisofthetopicsearchofthe452articlespublishedbetween 2001and 2010that we identifiedearlier for authorco-citation analysis.UsingISI’sWebofSciencewesearchedthroughthe top-icsofthese452articlesusingkeywordsoutlinedinTable1.The varioustheoreticalperspectivesandthenumberofarticles identi-fiedbyISI’sWebofScienceusingthesetermsinthetopicresults areshowcasedinTable1.Anobviouslimitationoftheapproach usedfor identifyingthesearticlesrelatestothekeywordsused (whicharebasedonourunderstandingofthepopular theoreti-calperspectivesfoundinagilestudies)andthesearchprocedure
Table1
Theoreticalperspectivesusedinagileresearch. TheoreticalPerspective Numberof
Articles
Article(s)
Knowledgemanagement 9 DingsøyrandHanssen(2002) HolzandMaurer(2002) SenaandShan(2002) Doran(2004) Fangetal.(2004) Bellinietal.(2005) Crawfordetal.(2006) Salazar-Torresetal.(2008) ChanandThong(2009)
Personality 6 Sfetsosetal.(2006)
Choietal.(2008) Laymanetal.(2008) Sfetsosetal.(2009) Acunaetal.(2009) Hannayetal.(2010) Organizationallearning 1 HolzandMaurer(2002)
Doublelooplearning 1 McAvoyandButler(2007)
Triple-looplearning 1 McAvoyandButler(2007)
Complexadaptivesystems 2 MesoandJain(2006) SochaandWalter(2006)
Socialfacilitation 2 Arisholmetal.(2007)
Balijepallyetal.(2009) AdaptiveStructuration
theory
1 Caoetal.(2009)
Chaostheory 1 LevardyandBrowning(2009)
Complexitytheory 1 Falessietal.(2010)
Coordinationtheory 1 Pikkarainenetal.(2008) Distributedcognition 1 SharpandRobinson(2008) Evolutionarytheoryof
knowledge
1 Northoveretal.(2006)
Fuzzysettheory 1 Mafakherietal.(2008)
Gametheory 1 HazzanandDubinsky(2005)
Graphtheory 1 Zimmer(2003)
Sociotechnical 1 JohannessenandEllingsen(2009)
Teamworkmodel 1 Moeetal.(2010)
Theoryofdiagnosis 1 Trinidadetal.(2008)
adoptedhere(i.e.,searchinginthetopicfieldofISIWebof Sci-encedatabase).However,webelievethisprovidesabroadsenseof thevarioustheoreticalperspectivesusedinagilestudiesandtheir relativepopularity.
AsisevidentfromTable1,knowledgemanagement, personal-ity,andorganizationallearningandrelatedperspectiveshavebeen more popularwith agile researchers.As software development isaknowledgecreationactivity,knowledgemanagementshould beanattractiveperspective whenexploringknowledge genera-tioninsoftware teamsingeneralandagileteamsinparticular. Similarly, personalitytheories(e.g.,Big Fivepersonalitytheory) shouldbeusefulinexploringtheinterpersonaldynamicsof col-locatedagileteamsandprogrammingpairs.Asagileprinciplesof changereadinessandadaptabilityareexpectedtofostera learn-ingenvironmentinagileteams,organizationallearningandrelated perspectiveswouldbealogicalchoiceforresearcherswhen explor-inglearningoutcomesofagiledevelopment.Asisalsoapparent fromTable1,othertheoreticalperspectiveshavebeenusedtoa muchlesserextent.Mostimportantly,amajorityofagilestudies donotseemtobeconcernedaboutanytheoreticalunderpinnings fortheirresearchexploration,whichreinforcesthegeneralpopular perceptionthatagileresearchtendstobea-theoretical.
3. Towardsatheoryofagilesoftwaredevelopment
In thissection, wefirst describethestate-of-theart inagile development,andthenproceedtoplacethisspecialissuein con-text.
fromapplyingsuchmethods inindustry. In addition,thebook, AgileSoftwareDevelopment:CurrentResearchandFutureDirections (Dingsøyr et al., 2010), contains elevenoverviews of the main streamswithinagileresearch,structuredin chaptersexplaining foundationsandbackgroundofagiledevelopment,agilemethods inpractice,andprincipalchallengesandnewfrontiers.
From2003until2011fivespecialissuesandonespecialsection onagilesoftwaredevelopmenthavebeenpublished,including32 articles.ThemostcommonagilemethodsdescribedwereXPand Scrum.Anexaminationofthesespecialissuesrevealedthatmost articlesweredevotedtofurtheringourunderstandingofagile con-cepts.Otherdominanttopicsincludedadoptionand/oradaptation ofagile,reconciliationofthetensionbetweenagileandplan-driven development(i.e.,flexibilityandcontrol),andevaluationof adop-tionissuesinenvironmentsthatarenotinherentlyconduciveto agile.Wewillnowgiveashortsummaryofthesespecialissues andthespecialsection:
In2003,WilliamsandCockburn(2003)editedaspecialissue inComputertitled,“AgileSoftwareDevelopment:It’sabout Feed-backandChange”.Theprimaryemphasisofthespecialissuewas ondetermininghowtoblendagilemethodologieswithplan-driven approachestosoftwaredevelopment.Thesixarticlesincluded cov-eredthehistory of iterative and incremental development,the debateonmixingagileandplan-drivendevelopment,andhowand whentomixthesetwoapproaches.Furthermore,thespecialissue reportedexperienceontheuseofXPandScrum,aswellason intro-ducingagileprocessesintoanorganizationworkinginanISO9000 orCMMIenvironment.
Thesecondspecialissueappeared intheJournalofDatabase Managementin2005(Siau,2005).Inadditiontoareviewofthe stateofresearchonXPandagilemethods,theissuecovered top-icsrelatedtoadoptionofagilemethods,processimprovement,XP, andtheunderlyingassumptionsofagile.
In2009,Abrahamssonetal.(2009)selectedsevenarticlesfor aspecialissueintheEuropeanJournalofInformationSystemsto furtherourunderstandingofvariousphenomenainagilesystem development.The title of thespecial issueeditorial was“‘Lots done,moretodo’:thecurrentstateofagilesystemsdevelopment research”.Thepapersnotonlyaddressedthefundamentalquestion ofwhatconstitutes‘agility’andagilemethods,butalso demon-stratedapproachestobroadeningthescopeoftheapplicabilityof agileconcepts.
Ågerfalk,Fitzgerald,andSlaughteralsoeditedaspecialissuein 2009(Ågerfalketal.,2009).Sevenpaperswerepublishedinthe InformationSystemsResearchunderthebanner,“Flexibleand Dis-tributedISDevelopment:StateoftheArtandResearchChallenges”. Thepapersattemptedtoexploreand/ordefinethecentral con-ceptofagility,theenablersandinhibitorsofagility,thequestion ofhowtobalanceflexibilityandcontrol,thecircumstancesunder whichagilemethodsaremosteffective,andthechallengesofagile indistributedprojects.
YetanotherspecialissuewaspublishedinSoftwarePracticeand Experience2011,whichwaseditedbyGreerand Hamon(2011). Thepapersaddressedarangeofresearchareasincludingthe appli-cationofagilemethodstosafetycriticalsoftwaredevelopment, therelationshipbetweenagiledevelopmentanduserexperience design,andthemeasurementofflowinleansoftwaredevelopment. Finally,in2011,Dybå(2011)editedaspecialsectioninthe Jour-nalofInformationandSoftwareTechnology,basedonbestpapers
3.2. Thisspecialissue
For this special issue, we asked for contributions that crit-ically reflect on the current status of research and practice in agiledevelopment.Inparticular,wewerelookingforcontributions questioningandexploringthetheoreticalunderpinningsofagile andleandevelopmentandtheagilemanifesto.Wereceivedatotal of21submissions,ofwhichfivewereselectedforthespecialissue. Threeofthesearticlesfocusonspecificaspectsofagilepractices – coordination,decisionmakingandpostadaptiveuse– whilethe lasttwoarticlesprovideinsightonbroadtopicsofagile develop-ment– agroundedtheoryofsoftwaredevelopment,andareview ofexperiencereportson“leanandagile”softwaredevelopment. Wedescribethesecontributionsinmoredetailbelow.
Intheirarticle,“Coordinationinco-locatedagilesoftware devel-opmentprojects”,Strode,HuffandHopelinkagiledevelopment totheoryofcoordination,usingamodelwiththreecomponents: synchronization,structureandboundaryspanning.
Decision-making,animportantaspectofsoftwaredevelopment, isthefocus ofDrury,Conboy andPower’sarticle, “Obstaclesto Decision-MakinginAgileSoftwareDevelopmentTeams”.Usinga mixedmethod approach,theyinvestigate decisionsinvolved in iterationplanning,execution,reviewandretrospective,and iden-tifysixobstaclestodecision-making.Theyconnectthefindingsto atheoryofdescriptivedecision-makinganddescribetheeffectsof theseobstacles.
SenapathiandSrinivasanfocusontheuseofagiledevelopment methodsinthepost-adoptionstage,intheirarticle,“Understanding Post-AdoptiveAgileUsage—AnExploratoryCross-CaseAnalysis”. Byadaptingtheoriesfromsystemsdevelopmentanddiffusionof innovations, they develop a model that seeks to explain post-adoptiveusageofagilepractices.
In the article, “Reconciling perspectives: How people man-agetheprocessofsoftwaredevelopment”,AdolphandKruchten developagroundedtheoryofsocialfactorsinsoftware develop-ment.Theyconceptualizesoftwaredevelopmentasanegotiation processthatinvolvesreconcilingperspectives,i.e.,seeking conver-gencebysortingoutdifferentpointsofvieworperspectivesabout asoftwareprocess.Thus,itoffersauniqueperspectiveonhowagile softwaredevelopmentisundertakeninorganizations.
A growing interest is evident at agile conferences on iden-tifying ways to combine principles of lean development with softwaredevelopment.Inthearticle“’Leagile’software develop-ment:An experience reportanalysis of the application of lean approaches in agilesoftware development”,Wang,Conboy and Cawleydistillessonsfrom30experiencereports,insixtypesoflean applications—frompracticesforcontinuousprocessimprovement toflow-baseddevelopmentwiththeKankanapproach.
4. Conclusion
It shouldbeapparentfromthis introductory articlethatthe researchcommunityhaslavishedattentionontheissuesrelated toagilesoftwaredevelopmenteversincetheagilemanifestowas pronouncedin2001.Thisisevidentfromthenumberofscientific publications,thewidespreadinterestinthetopicinvarious sci-entificforums,andthenumberofcountries(63)thathavebeen engagedinagileresearch.Thenumberofspecialissuesdevoted
toagiledevelopmentisalsoanindicationofthekeeninterest dis-playedinsoftwareengineering andotherrelatedfields,notably informationsystems.
Asystematicreviewofempiricalstudiespublisheduntil2005 (DybåandDingsøyr,2008)calledforanincreaseinboththe num-berandqualityofstudies.Thereviewalsofoundthatmoststudies focused oneXtreme programming and very few onthe Scrum developmentprocess, which wasgaining significanttraction in industry.Further,thereviewshowedtheurgentneedfor more studiesinvolvingmatureagiledevelopmentteams,asmost stud-iesuntilthenhadfocusedonprojectsthatwerejuststartingtouse agilemethods.
Hasrecentprogressbroughtusanyclosertoaunified frame-workthatbringscoherencetotheseeminglydisparatestreamsof researchbeingpursued?Ouroverviewofresearchshowsthatthe numberofstudieshasincreasedsignificantlysince2005,andthe increasednumberofjournalarticles,notjusttheincreased num-berofconferenceproceedings,isasignofincreaseinqualityas well.Goingbytheattentionthattheyhavereceived,somesubfields ofagiledevelopmentappeartobemorematurethanothers.For example,therearemeta-studiessummarizingexperimentsonpair programming,withfocusoneffectiveness(Dybåetal.,2007)and onuseinuniversityeducation(Sallehetal.,2011).Ouroverview oftheoriesinuseinexplainingagilesoftwaredevelopmentshows thatarangeoftheories,drawnfrommanyfields,havebeenapplied. Thisspecialissueisafurthercontributionwithfivearticleswith strongfocusontheory.AftertheinitialspurtofstudiesoneXtreme programming,theacademiccommunityseemstohaveturnedits attentiontoscrum.Flow-basedaswellasleansoftware develop-menthasbeenpopularamongindustrypractitioners,buthasnot yetbeenextensivelyresearched,asthearticlebyWangetal.inthis issueshows.
Manyhavecalledfordirectionstoresearchonagile develop-ment.AtAgile2008,Dingsøyr etal.(2008)suggesteda roadmap forresearchonagilesoftwaredevelopment,focusingon provid-ingmoreempiricalresearch,primarilyonexperiencedagileteams andorganizations,connectingbettertoexistingstreamsofresearch inmoreestablishedfields,givingmoreattentionto management-orientedapproaches,andfinallygivemoreemphasistocoreideas inagilesoftwaredevelopmentinordertoincreaseour understand-ing.
Ågerfalketal.(2009)intheirintroductoryarticletothe spe-cialissueonagile/distributedsystemsdevelopment,compiled a top-tenlistoffutureresearchareas.Inthelistdevelopedfromthe inputsof theauthorsof thespecialissuearticles,thefollowing research areas figured at the top: suitability of agile develop-menttonewcontextsuchasopensourcesoftware andsoftware asservice;factorsaffectingtheorganizationaladaptationofagile methodsincludingtailoringtospecificprojects; differentforms ofdistributeddevelopmentandfactorsfacilitatingtheflexibility, efficiencyand effectivenessofsuchwork; waystoextendagile practicesbeyondsoftwareteamsintotheorganizationalrealm;and identifyingboundariestoagiledevelopmentbyapplyingagilityto projectstraditionallyconsideredtobenon-agile.
AttheXP2010conference,FreudenbergandSharp(2010) com-piledalistof“toptenburningquestions”basedonfeedbackfrom practitioners.Amongotherissues,theyidentifiedagileandlarge projects,barriersto self-organization,distributed agile, andthe roleofarchitectureashighprioritytopics.Ataworkshoponnew and emerging ideasatAgile2011, we posedthequestion “what shouldberesearchedless”and“whatshouldberesearchedfurther” toa groupmainlyconsistingofacademics.Amongotherthings, theyopinedthatpairprogrammingineducationalsettingsandthe reuseofcodedidnotrequireanyfurtherattention.Themesthat weredeemedtobeimportantincludedagileacrossprojectsand acrossorganizations,the“core”ofagile,distributedagile,andthe
roleofarchitectureandknowledgemanagementinagile develop-ment.
Weconcurthattheseareexcitingresearchareasthatcan fur-therourunderstandingoftheeffectivenessofagilemethodsand practices,particularlyindifferentproject/organizationalcontexts. However,ourlimitedanalysisofthetheoreticalperspectivesused in prior agile development research suggests that not enough attentionisbeingpaidtoestablishingtheoreticalunderpinnings, wheninvestigatingagiledevelopmentanditsvariouspractices.As JacobsonandSpence(2009)pointout,soundtheoreticalrootshelp usgleantheessentialconcepts,orthe“truths”ofsoftware devel-opmentthat aremethodology-independent. Such theory-driven researchenablesustoseparatetrueinnovationsamongagile prac-ticesfromthereinventionsandremixesofoldapproaches,thereby helpingusadoptsuchinnovationsata fasterratein thefuture. Therefore,weurgeagileresearcherstoembraceamore theory-basedapproachinthefuturewheninquiringintothesepromising researchareasofagiledevelopment.
Clearly,thepioneersaswellassubsequentresearchersofagile developmenthaveestablishedafoundationonwhichtheedifice ofsoftwaredevelopmenttheoryandpracticecanbebuilt.Aswe standonthe“shouldersof[these]giants”andendeavourtoextend thefrontiersofsoftwareengineering,itisimportanttoremember thatthefieldcanmatureandprogressasascientificdisciplineonly ifeffortsaremadetoprovidearobusttheoreticalscaffoldforthe conductofresearchonagiledevelopment.Wehopethatthearticles inthisspecialissueareastepinthisdirection.
Acknowledgements
Weare verygratefultotheprogramcommitteemembersof theresearchatworkstageatAgile2011,whohelpedusin invit-ingauthorstorevisecontributionsforthisspecialissue.Wealso thank the following reviewers: Aybuke Aurum, John McAvoy, Robert Biddle, PhilipL. Bond, NancyBonner, JudithBrown,Lan Cao, Kieran Conboy, ToreDybå, Tor E. Fægri,Felix Garcia, Geir KjetilHanssen,BørgeHaugset,KishenIyengar,PhilippeKruchten, KalleLyytinen,GeorgeMangalaraj,KannanMohan,Maurizio Mori-sio, AndreasOpdahl,Nilay Oza,Rafael Prikladnicki,AsifQumer, BernhardRumpe,SherryRyan,HelenSharp,JasonSharp,Vijay Sug-umaran,AakashTaneja,andVishnuV.Vinekar.
AppendixA. Appendix1
Rank Country Numberofpublications %
1 USA 338 21.7 2 CANADA 110 7.1 3 GERMANY 96 6.2 4 FINLAND 94 6.0 5 UK 94 5.3 6 ITALY 56 3.6 7 CHINA 52 3.3 8 IRELAND 51 3.3 9 AUSTRALIA 48 3.1 10 SWEDEN 43 2.8 11 SPAIN 41 2.6 12 NORWAY 33 2.1 13 BRAZIL 29 1.9 14 AUSTRIA 25 1.6 15 ISRAEL 23 1.5 16 NEWZEALAND 23 1.5 17 POLAND 23 1.5 18 NETHERLANDS 22 1.4 19 CHILE 17 1.1 20 JAPAN 17 1.1 21 DENMARK 16 1.0 22 IRAN 15 1.0 23 INDIA 14 0.9 24 CZECHREPUBLIC 11 0.7
29 PORTUGAL 8 0.5 30 TURKEY 8 0.5 31 FRANCE 7 0.5 32 SWITZERLAND 7 0.5 33 MALAYSIA 6 0.4 34 MEXICO 6 0.4 35 BELGIUM 5 0.3 36 SLOVENIA 5 0.3 37 PAKISTAN 4 0.3 38 ROMANIA 4 0.3 39 TAIWAN 4 0.3 40 BULGARIA 3 0.2 41 CROATIA 3 0.2 42 ESTONIA 3 0.2 43 HUNGARY 3 0.2 44 PHILIPPINES 3 0.2 45 SAUDIARABIA 3 0.2 46 SINGAPORE 3 0.2 47 COLOMBIA 2 0.1 48 OMAN 2 0.1 49 SYRIA 2 0.1 50 THAILAND 2 0.1 51 UARABEMIRATES 2 0.1 52 BOSNIAHERCEG 1 0.1 53 COTEIVOIRE 1 0.1 54 EGYPT 1 0.1 55 ICELAND 1 0.1 56 JORDAN 1 0.1 57 LATVIA 1 0.1 58 LEBANON 1 0.1 59 LITHUANIA 1 0.1 60 MONTENEGRO 1 0.1 61 SERBIA 1 0.1 62 SLOVAKIA 1 0.1 63 ZIMBABWE 1 0.1 References
Abrahamsson,P.,Conboy,K.,Wang,X.,2009.‘Lotsdone,moretodo’:thecurrent stateofagilesystemsdevelopmentresearch.EuropeanJournalofInformation Systems18,281–284.
Abrahamsson,P.,Salo,O.,Ronkainen,J.,Warsta,J.,2002.Agilesoftwaredevelopment methods:reviewandanalysis.VTTTechnicalreport,p.107.
Acuna,S.T.,Gomez,M.,Juristo,N.,2009.Howdopersonality,teamprocessesand taskcharacteristicsrelatetojobsatisfactionandsoftwarequality?Information andSoftwareTechnology51,627–639.
Agarwal,A.,Shankar,R.,Tiwari,M.K.,2006.Modelingthemetricsoflean,agileand leagilesupplychain:anANP-basedapproach.EuropeanJournalofOperational Research173,211–225.
Ågerfalk,P.,Fitzgerald,B.,Slaughter,S.,2009.Introductiontothespecialissue: flexibleanddistributedinformationsystemsdevelopment:stateoftheartand researchchallenges.InformationSystemsResearch20,317.
Arisholm,E.,Gallis,H.,Dyba,T.,Sjoberg,D.I.K.,2007.Evaluatingpairprogramming withrespecttosystemcomplexityandprogrammerexpertise.IEEETransactions onSoftwareEngineering33,65–86.
Balijepally,V.,Mahapatra,R.,Nerur,S.,Price,K.H.,2009.Aretwoheadsbetterthan oneforsoftwaredevelopment?Theproductivityparadoxofpairprogramming. MISQuarterly33,91–118.
Bellini,E.,Canfora,G.,Garcia,F.,Piattini,M.,Visaggio,C.A.,2005.Pairdesigning aspracticeforenforcinganddiffusingdesignknowledge.JournalofSoftware MaintenanceandEvolution-ResearchandPractice17,401–423.
Boehm,B.,2002.Getreadyforagilemethodswithcare.IEEEComputer35,64–69. Boehm,B.,Turner,R.,2004.BalancingAgilityandDiscipline:AGuidetothe
Per-plexed.Addison-Wesley,Boston,MA.
Cao,L.,Mohan,K.,Xu,P.,Ramesh,B.,2009.Aframeworkforadaptingagile develop-mentmethodologies.EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems18,332–343. Chan,F.K.Y.,Thong,J.Y.L.,2009.Acceptanceofagilemethodologies:acriticalreview
andconceptualframework.DecisionSupportSystems46,803–814.
Choi,K.S.,Deek,F.P.,Im,I.,2008.Exploringtheunderlyingaspectsofpair pro-gramming:theimpactofpersonality.InformationandSoftwareTechnology50, 1114–1126.
Cockburn,A.,2007.AgileSoftwareDevelopment:TheCooperativeGame. Addison-Wesley.
Dingsøyr,T.,Dybå,T.,Abrahamsson,P.,2008.APreliminaryRoadmapforEmpirical ResearchonAgileSoftwareDevelopment.In:inProc.ofAgile2008.IEEEPress, pp.83–94.
Dingsøyr, T., Dybå,T., Moe, N.B.,2010. Agile SoftwareDevelopment: Current ResearchandFutureDirections.Springer,Berlin/Heidelberg.
Dingsøyr,T.,Hanssen,G.K.,2002.Extendingagilemethods:postmortemreviews asextendedfeedback.In:Henninger,S.,Maurer,F.(Eds.),AdvancesinLearning SoftwareOrganizations.,pp.4–12.
Doran,H.D.,2004.Agileknowledgemanagementinpractice.In:Melnik,G.,Holz, H.(Eds.),AdvancesinLearningSoftwareOrganizations,Proceedings.,pp.137– 143.
Dybå,T.,2011.SpecialsectiononbestpapersfromXP2010.Informationand Soft-wareTechnology53,507–508.
Dybå,T.,Arisholm,E.,Sjøberg,D.I.K.,Hannay,J.E.,Shull,F.,2007.Aretwoheadsbetter thanone?Ontheeffectivenessofpairprogramming.IEEESoftware24,12–15. Dybå,T.,Dingsøyr,T.,2008.Empiricalstudiesofagilesoftwaredevelopment:a
systematicreview.InformationandSoftwareTechnology50,833–859. Erdogmus,H.,Morisio,M.,Torchiano,M.,2005.Ontheeffectivenessofthe
test-firstapproachtoprogramming.IEEETransactionsonSoftwareEngineering31, 226–237.
Erickson,J.,Lyytinen,K.,Siau,K.,2005.Agilemodeling,agilesoftwaredevelopment, andextremeprogramming.JournalofDatabaseManagement16,88–100. Falessi,D.,Cantone,G.,Sarcia,S.A.,Calavaro,G.,Subiaco,P.,D’Amore,C.,2010.
Peace-fulcoexistence:agiledeveloperperspectivesonsoftwarearchitecture.IEEE Software27,23–25.
Fang,M.,Ying,J.,Wu,M.H.,2004.Effectiveelementsofintegratedsoftware devel-opmentprocesssupportedplatform.In:Shen,W.,Lin,Z.,Barthes,J.P.A.,Li,T. (Eds.),ComputerSupportedCooperativeWorkinDesignI.,pp.368–377. Freudenberg,S.,Sharp,H.,2010.Thetop10burningresearchquestionsfrom
prac-titioners.IEEESoftware27,8–9.
Hannay,J.E.,Arisholm,E.,Engvik,H.,Sjoberg,D.I.K.,2010.Effectsofpersonalityon pairprogramming.IEEETransactionsonSoftwareEngineering36,61–80. Hazzan,O.,Dubinsky,Y.,2005.Socialperspectiveofsoftwaredevelopmentmethods:
thecaseoftheprisonerdilemmaandextremeprogramming.In:Baumeister,H., Marchesi,M.,Holcombe,M.(Eds.),ExtremeProgrammingandAgileProcesses inSoftwareEngineering,Proceedings.,pp.74–81.
Henderson-Sellers,B.,Serour,M.K.,2005.Creatingadual-agilitymethod:thevalue ofmethodengineering.JournalofDatabaseManagement16,1–23.
Highsmith,J.,Cockburn,A.,2001.Agilesoftwaredevelopment.1.Thebusinessof innovation.IEEEComputer34,120–127.
Holz,H.,Maurer,F.,2002.Knowledgemanagementsupportfordistributedagile softwareprocesses.In:Henninger,S.,Maurer,F.(Eds.),AdvancesinLearning SoftwareOrganizations.,pp.60–80.
Jacobson,I.,Spence,I.,2009.Whyweneedatheoryforsoftwareengineering.Dr. Dobb’sJournal.
Janzen,D.,Saiedian,H.,2005.Test-drivendevelopmentconcepts,taxonomy,and futuredirection.Computer38,43–50.
Johannessen,L.K.,Ellingsen,G.,2009.Integrationandgenerification-agilesoftware developmentinthehealthcaremarket.ComputerSupportedCooperative Work-theJournalofCollaborativeComputing18,607–634.
Layman, L.,Williams, L., Slaten,K., Berenson, S., Vouk,M., 2008. Addressing diverseneedsthroughabalanceofagileandplan-drivensoftwaredevelopment methodologiesinthecoresoftwareengineeringcourse.InternationalJournalof EngineeringEducation24,659–670.
Lee,G.,Xia,W.,2010.Towardagile:anintegratedanalysisofquantitativeand qual-itativefielddataonsoftwaredevelopmentagility.MISQuarterly34,87–114. Levardy,V.,Browning,T.R.,2009.Anadaptiveprocessmodeltosupportproduct
developmentprojectmanagement.IEEETransactionsonEngineering Manage-ment56,600–620.
Lyytinen,K.,Rose,G.M.,2006.Informationsystemdevelopmentagilityas organiza-tionallearning.EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems15,183–199. Mafakheri,F.,Nasiri,F.,Mousavi,M.,2008.Projectagilityassessment:anintegrated
decisionanalysisapproach.ProductionPlanning&Control19,567–576. Mangalaraj,G.,Mahapatra,R.,Nerur,S.,2009. Acceptanceofsoftwareprocess
innovations—thecaseofextremeprogramming.EuropeanJournalof Informa-tionSystems18,344–354.
McAvoy,J.,Butler,T.,2007.TheimpactoftheAbileneParadoxondouble-loop learn-inginanagileteam.InformationandSoftwareTechnology49,552–563. McCain,K.W.,1990.Mappingauthorsinintellectualspace:atechnicaloverview.
JournaloftheAmericanSocietyforInformationScience41,433–443. Meso,P.,Jain,R.,2006.Agilesoftwaredevelopment:adaptivesystemsprinciples
andbestpractices.InformationSystemsManagement23,19–30.
Moe,N.B.,Dingsøyr,T.,Dybå,T.,2009.Overcomingbarrierstoself-managementin softwareteams.IEEESoftware26,20–26.
Moe,N.B.,Dingsøyr,T.,Dybå,T.,2010.Ateamworkmodelforunderstandinganagile team:acasestudyofaScrumproject.InformationandSoftwareTechnology52, 480–491.
Nawrocki,J.,Wojciechowski,A.,2001.Experimentalevaluationofpair program-ming.In:12thEuropeanSoftwareControlandMetricsConference,ESCOM, London,UK,pp.269–276.
Nerur,S.,Balijepally,V.,2007.Theoreticalreflectionsonagiledevelopment method-ologies.CommunicationsoftheACM50,79–83.
Nerur,S.,Mahapatra,R.,Mangalaraj,G.,2005.Challengesofmigratingtoagile methodologies.CommunicationsoftheACM48,73–78.
Nerur,S.P.,Rasheed,A.A.,Natarajan,V.,2008.Theintellectualstructureofthe strate-gicmanagementfield:anauthorco-citationanalysis.StrategicManagement Journal29,319–336.
Northover,M.,Boake,A.,Kourie,D.G.,2006.KarlPopper’scriticalrationalisminagile softwaredevelopment.In:Scharfe,H.,Hitzler,P.,Ohrstrom,P.(Eds.),Conceptual Structures:InspirationandApplication.,pp.360–373.
Pikkarainen,M.,Haikara,J.,Salo,O.,Abrahamsson,P.,Still,J.,2008.Theimpactof agilepracticesoncommunicationinsoftwaredevelopment.EmpiricalSoftware Engineering13,303–337.
Ramesh,B.,Cao,L.A.N.,Mohan,K.,Peng,X.U.,2006.Candistributedsoftware devel-opmentbeagile?CommunicationsoftheACM49,41–46.
Ramos-Rodríguez,A.-R.,Ruíz-Navarro,J.,2004.Changesintheintellectual struc-tureofstrategicmanagementresearch:abibliometricstudyoftheStrategic ManagementJournal,1980–2000.StrategicManagementJournal25,981–1004. Salazar-Torres,G.,Colombo,E.,DaSilva,F.S.C.,Noriega,C.A.,Bandini,S.,2008.Design
issuesforknowledgeartifacts.Knowledge-BasedSystems21,856–867. Salleh,N.,Mendes,E.,Grundy,J.,2011.Empiricalstudiesofpairprogrammingfor
CS/SEteachinginhighereducation:asystematicliteraturereview.IEEE Trans-actionsonSoftwareEngineering37,509–525.
Sena,J.A.,Shan,A.B.,2002.Integratingknowledgemanagement,learning mecha-nisms,andcompanyperformance.In:Karagiannis,D.,Reimer,U.(Eds.),Practical AspectsofKnowledgeManagement.,pp.620–631.
Sfetsos,P.,Stamelos,I.,Angelis,L.,Deligiannis,I.,2006.Investigatingtheimpact ofpersonalitytypes oncommunicationand collaboration-viabilityin pair programming—anempiricalstudy.In:Abrahamsson,P.,Marchesi,M.,Succi, G.(Eds.),ExtremeProgrammingandAgileProcessesinSoftwareEngineering, Proceedings.,pp.43–52.
Sfetsos,P.,Stamelos,I.,Angelis,L.,Deligiannis,I.,2009.Anexperimental investi-gationofpersonalitytypesimpactonpaireffectivenessinpairprogramming. EmpiricalSoftwareEngineering14,187–226.
Sharp,H.,Robinson,H.,2006.AdistributedcognitionaccountofmatureXPteams. In:Abrahamsson,P.,Marchesi,M.,Succi,G.(Eds.),ExtremeProgrammingand AgileProcessesinSoftwareEngineering.Springer,Berlin/Heidelberg,pp.1–10. Sharp,H.,Robinson,H.,2008.Collaborationandco-ordinationinmatureeXtreme programmingteams.InternationalJournalofHuman-ComputerStudies66, 506–518.
Sharp,H.,Robinson,H.,Petre,M.,2009.Theroleofphysicalartefactsinagilesoftware development:twocomplementaryperspectives.InteractingwithComputers 21,108–116.
Siau,K.,2005.AretrospectivereviewofJDMfrom2003to2005andadiscussionon publicationemphasisofJDMforthenexttwotothreeyears.JournalofDatabase Management16,1.
Socha,D.,Walter,S.,2006.Isdesigningsoftwaredifferentfromdesigningother things?InternationalJournalofEngineeringEducation22,540–550. Trinidad,P.,Benavides,D.,Duran,A.,Ruiz-Cortes,A.,Toro,M.,2008.Automatederror
analysisfortheagilizationoffeaturemodeling.JournalofSystemsandSoftware 81,883–896.
White,H.D.,1990.Authorco-citationanalysis:overviewanddefense.In:Borgman, C.L.(Ed.),ScholarlyCommunicationandBibliometrics.SagePublications, New-buryPark,pp.84–106.
White,H.D.,Griffith,B.C.,1981.Authorcocitation:aliteraturemeasureof intellec-tualstructure.JournaloftheAmericanSocietyforInformationScience32,163– 171.
Williams,L.,Cockburn,A.,2003.Agilesoftwaredevelopment:it’saboutfeedback andchange.Computer36,39–43.
Williams,L.,Kessler,R.R.,Cunningham,W.,Jeffries,R.,2000.Strengtheningthecase forpairprogramming.IEEESoftware17,19–25.
Zimmer,J.A.,2003.Graphtheoreticalindicatorsandrefactoring.In:Maurer,F.,Wells, D.(Eds.),ExtremeProgrammingandAgileMethods.XP/AgileUniverse2003,pp. 62–72.
TorgeirDingsøyrworkswithsoftwareprocessimprovementandknowledge man-agementprojectsasaseniorscientistatSINTEFInformationandCommunication Technology.Inparticular,hehasfocusedonagilesoftwaredevelopmentthrough anumberofcasestudies,co-authoringofasystematicreviewofempirical stud-ies,co-editingofthebookAgileSoftwareDevelopment:CurrentResearchandFuture Directions,andwasco-organizingchairofthe11thInternationalConferenceonAgile SoftwareDevelopment(XP2010)aswellasco-produceroftheresearchatworkstage atAgile2011.HewrotehisdoctoralthesisonKnowledgeManagementin Medium-SizedSoftwareConsultingCompaniesattheDepartmentofComputerandInformation
Science,NorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology,whereheisnowadjunct associateprofessor.
SridharNerurisanassociateprofessorofInformationSystemsattheUniversityof TexasatArlington.HeholdsanengineeringdegreeinelectronicsfromBangalore University,aPGDM(MBA)fromtheIndianInstituteofManagement,Bangalore, India,andaPhDinbusinessadministrationfromtheUniversityofTexasat Arling-ton.HispublicationsincludearticlesinleadingjournalssuchasMISQuarterly,the StrategicManagementJournal,JournalofInternationalBusinessStudies, Communica-tionsoftheACM,CommunicationsoftheAIS,theDATABASEforAdvancesinInformation Systems,EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems,andInformationSystems Manage-ment.HeservedasanassociateeditoroftheEuropeanJournalofInformationSystems. Hisresearchandteachinginterestsareintheareasofsoftwaredesign,adoptionof softwaredevelopmentmethodologies,cognitiveaspectsofprogramming,dynamic ITcapabilities,andagilesoftwaredevelopment.
VenuGopalBalijepallyisanassociateprofessorofMISintheCollegeofBusiness atPrairieViewA&MUniversity,Texas.HereceivedhisPhDininformationsystems fromtheUniversityofTexasatArlingtonandpost-graduatediplomain manage-ment(MBA),fromtheManagementDevelopmentInstitute,Gurgaon,India.Healso holdsamastersdegreefromIndianInstituteofTechnology,Mumbaianda bache-lor’sdegreefromOsmaniaUniversity,India,bothincivilengineering.Hisresearch interestsincludesoftwaredevelopment,socialcapitalofISteams,knowledge man-agementandITmanagement.HisresearchpublicationsappearinMISQuarterly, JournalofInternationalBusinessStudies,JournaloftheAIS,Communicationsofthe ACM,CommunicationsoftheAIS,andvariousconferenceproceedingssuchasthe AmericasConferenceonInformationSystems,theHawaiiInternationalConference onSystemSciences,andtheDecisionSciencesInstitute.
NilsBredeMoeworkswithsoftwareprocessimprovement,agilesoftware develop-mentandglobalsoftwaredevelopmentasaseniorscientistatSINTEFInformation andCommunicationTechnology.Hisresearchinterestsarerelatedto organiza-tional,socio-technical,andglobal/distributedaspects.Hismainpublicationsinthe fieldofagilesoftwaredevelopmentincludeseverallongitudinalstudieson self-managementandteamwork,andco-editingofthebooksAgileSoftwareDevelopment: CurrentResearchandFutureDirectionsandAgilityAcrossTimeandSpace: Implement-ingAgileMethodsinGlobalSoftwareProjects.Moewasalsoaco-organizingchair ofthe11thInternationalConferenceonAgileSoftwareDevelopment(XP2010)and co-produceroftheresearchatworkstageatAgile2011andAgileIndia2012.He wrotehisthesisforthedegreeofdoctorphilosophiaeonFromImprovingProcesses toImprovingPractice—SoftwareProcessImprovementinTransitionfromPlan-driven toChange-drivenDevelopment.HeiscurrentlyavisitingresearcherattheUniversity ofNewSouthWales,Sydney.
TorgeirDingsøyra,b,∗
SridharNerurc
VenuGopalBalijepallyd
NilsBredeMoea
aSINTEF,NO-7465Trondheim,Norway bNorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology, DepartmentofComputerandInformationScience, SemSælandsvei7-9,NO-7491Trondheim,Norway cDepartmentofInformationSystemsandOperations Management,UniversityofTexasatArlington, Arlington,TX76019,USA dDepartmentofAccounting,Finance&MIS,Prairie ViewA&MUniversity,PrairieView, TX77446-0519,USA ∗Correspondingauthorat:SINTEF,NO-7465 Trondheim,Norway.Tel.:+4793008714. E-mailaddresses:[email protected] (T.Dingsøyr),[email protected](S.Nerur), [email protected](V.Balijepally), [email protected](N.B.Moe) 12February2012 13February2012 Available online 7 March 2012
