Indian Journal of Science and Technology

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Compatibility of Agile Software Development Methods and CMMI


Affiliations
1 Department of Computer Engineering, Boroujen Branch, Islamic Azad University, Boroujen, Iran, Islamic Republic of
2 Department of Software Engineering and Information System, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
 

Agile software development methods by focusing on the different values, have established a new approach for software development compare to the traditional methods. While traditional methods emphasizes on the following disciplined processes and rigid practices, agile methods focused on individuals and their collaborations. Previously, CMMI was introduced as process improvement model in the traditional methods and now it is known as symbol of those methods. Nevertheless, compatibility of these two different approaches has been a serious question and there are several conflicting reports about their compatibility. The main purpose of this study was scrutinizing this issue. Generic practices and specific practices in CMMI were selected as criteria for checking compatibility of CMMI and agile methods. The results showed that CMMI and agile are compatible in several process areas. However, there are serious incompatibilities in the others. In level 3 and level 4 of CMMI, two and one incompatible process areas have been seen respectively. Also, agile does not support most of the generic practices in CMMI level 4 and 5. The results also showed that these incompatibilities return to the notion of organization and its role in software development.

Keywords

Agile Methods, CMMI, Agile Software Development, Traditional Software Development
User

  • Anderson D J (2005). Stretching agile to fit CMMI level 3: The story of creating MSF for CMMI process improvement at Microsoft Corporation, Paper presented at the AGILE Conference 2005, Denver, CO.

  • Anderson D J (2012). Lessons in Agile Management: On the Road to Kanban, Blue Hole Press, USA.

  • Babuscio J (2009). How the FBI learned to catch bad guys one iteration at a time, Paper presented at the Agile Conference, AGILE 2009, Chicago, IL.

  • Baker S W (2005). Formalizing agility: An agile organization’s journey toward CMMI accreditation, Denver, CO, 185–192.

  • Baker S W (2006). Formalizing agility, part 2: How an agile organization embraced the CMMI, Minneapolis, MN, 154.

  • Beck K and Andres C (2004). Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, 2nd Edn., Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston.

  • Boehm B, and Turner R (2004). Balancing agility and discipline: Evaluating and integrating agile and plan-driven methods, 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2004, Edinburgh, 718–719.

  • Chromatic (2013). Extreme Programming Pocket Guide, 1st Edn., O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA.

  • Chung M W, and Drummond B (2009). Agile @ yahoo! from the trenches, Paper presented at the Agile Conference, AGILE 2009, Chicago, IL, 113–118.

  • Cohan S and Glazer H (2009). An agile development team’s quest for CMMI® maturity level 5, Paper presented at the Agile Conference, AGILE 2009, Chicago, IL, 201–206.

  • Cohen D, Lindvall M et al. (2004). An Introduction to Agile Methods, Advances in computers, vol 62, 1–66, doi: 10.1016/S0065-2458(03)62001-2.

  • Cohn M (2009). Succeeding with Agile: Software Development using Scrum, 1st Edn., Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, MA.

  • Conboy K, Coyle S et al. (2011). People over process: Key challenges in agile development, IEEE Software, vol 28(4), 48–57, doi: 10.1109/ms.2010.132.

  • Diaz J, Garbajosa J et al. (2009). Mapping CMMI level 2 to scrum practices: An experience report, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 42, 93–104.

  • Fritzsche M and Keil P (2007). Agile Methods and CMMI: Compatibility or Conflict? e-Informatica Software Engineering, vol 1(1), 9–26.

  • Fulgham C, Johnson J et al. (2011). The FBI gets agile, IT Professional, vol 13(5), 57–59, doi: 10.1109/mitp.2011.88.

  • Galin D, and Avrahami M (2006). Are CMM Program Investments Beneficial? Analyzing Past Studies, Software, IEEE, vol 23(6), 81–87, doi: 10.1109/ms.2006.149.

  • Glazer H (2010). Love and marriage: CMMI and agile need each other, CrossTalk, vol 23(1–2), 29–34.

  • Goldenson D R, and Gibson D L (2003). Demonstrating the Impact and Benefits of CMMI (1 ed., Vol. CMU/SEI-2003-SR-009, pp. 1–38). Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Isntitute (SEI).

  • Laanti M (2010). Agile transformation study at Nokia - One year after, Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Lean Enterprise Software and Systems, LESS 2010, Helsinki.

  • Laanti M, Salo O et al. (2011). Agile methods rapidly replacing traditional methods at Nokia: A survey of opinions on agile transformation. Information and Software Technology,vol 53(3), 276–290, doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2010.11.010.

  • Marçal A S C, De Freitas B C C et al. (2007). Mapping CMMI project management process areas to SCRUM practices, SEW ‘07 Proceedings of the 31st IEEE Software Engineering Workshop, 13–22, Columbia, MD.

  • Pikkarainen M, Haikara J et al. (2008). The impact of agile practices on communication in software development, Empirical Software Engineering, vol 13(3), 303–337, doi: 10.1007/s10664-008-9065-9.

  • Poppendieck M and Poppendieck T (2009). Leading Lean Software Development: Results Are not the Point, Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, MA.

  • Santana C, Gusmão C et al. (2009). Agile software development and CMMI: What we do not know about dancing with elephants, Paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming, XP 2009, Pula, Sardinia, 124–129.

  • Schwaber K (2007). The Enterprise and Scrum, 1st Edn., Microsoft Press, Redmond, Washington.

  • SEI (2010a). CMMI-Dev 1.3, Carnegie Mellon University: Software Engineering Institute (SEI).

  • SEI (2010b). CMMI or Agile: Why Not Embrace Both, Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute (SEI).

  • Sutherland J, Jakobsen C R et al. (2007). Scrum and CMMI level 5: The magic potion for code warriors, Big Island, HI.

  • Turner, R., & Jain, A. (2002). Agile Meets CMMI: Culture Clash or Common Cause? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Second XP Universe and First Agile Universe Conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Methods - XP/Agile Universe 2002, vol 2418, 153–165.

  • VersionOne. State of Agile Survey 2011, Available from http://www.versionone.com/state_of_agile_development_survey/11/

  • Williams L, Brown G et al. (2011). Scrum + engineering practices: Experiences of three microsoft teams, Paper presented at the 5th International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2011, Banff, AB.


Abstract Views: 575

PDF Views: 0




  • Compatibility of Agile Software Development Methods and CMMI

Abstract Views: 575  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Taghi Javdani Gandomani
Department of Computer Engineering, Boroujen Branch, Islamic Azad University, Boroujen, Iran, Islamic Republic of
HazuraZulzalil
Department of Software Engineering and Information System, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia

Abstract


Agile software development methods by focusing on the different values, have established a new approach for software development compare to the traditional methods. While traditional methods emphasizes on the following disciplined processes and rigid practices, agile methods focused on individuals and their collaborations. Previously, CMMI was introduced as process improvement model in the traditional methods and now it is known as symbol of those methods. Nevertheless, compatibility of these two different approaches has been a serious question and there are several conflicting reports about their compatibility. The main purpose of this study was scrutinizing this issue. Generic practices and specific practices in CMMI were selected as criteria for checking compatibility of CMMI and agile methods. The results showed that CMMI and agile are compatible in several process areas. However, there are serious incompatibilities in the others. In level 3 and level 4 of CMMI, two and one incompatible process areas have been seen respectively. Also, agile does not support most of the generic practices in CMMI level 4 and 5. The results also showed that these incompatibilities return to the notion of organization and its role in software development.

Keywords


Agile Methods, CMMI, Agile Software Development, Traditional Software Development

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst%2F2013%2Fv6i8%2F36349