Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261263065

Popular agile approaches in software development: Review and analysis

Conference Paper · August 2013


DOI: 10.1109/ICCEEE.2013.6633925

CITATIONS READS
28 942

2 authors, including:

Hisham Abushama
University of Khartoum
15 PUBLICATIONS   73 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Software Process Improvement for Small to Medium Enterprises View project

1000 Researchers FCIT View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hisham Abushama on 10 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Popular Agile Approaches in Software
Development: Review and Analysis
Amani Mahdi Mohammed Hisham Mohamed Abushama
Faculty of Mathematical Sciences Faculty of Mathematical Sciences
University of Khartoum University of Khartoum
Khartoum, Sudan Khartoum, Sudan
amnimir@yahoo.com hishamabushama@hotmail.com

Abstract—The selection of a software development method- In third world countries and specially in Sudan, where this
ology is vital activity in any software project. It has a great research is conducted, the choice of a software methodology is
impact on customer satisfaction and business welfare. Normally always a struggle facing companies[7],[8]. Probably is because
the selection is based on experience or in some cases a rational.
In the third world countries and especially in Sudan, where this most of these companies whether are start-up or have humble
research is conducted, the choice of a software methodology is resources such as small to medium enterprises (SMEs).
always a struggle in software companies. Probably is because Also, while software requirements, project time and cost esti-
most of these companies whether are start-up or have humble mated factors could be changed throughout the project lifcycle,
resources such as small to medium enterprises (SMEs). Currently risks are highly considered because changes in these factors
the government of Sudan (the main buyer of local software
products) is pushing the software industry to produce quality affect the development process and quality[1],[2],[3]. Usually,
products and to reduce risks of buying software products from start-up companies and SMEs seeking for rapid and agile way
foreign companies, therefore quality products is real concern for of development accompanied with plug and play engineering
these companies. practices [2] in order to reduce the risks, reasonable resources
Usually, start-up or SMEs software companies seeking for consumption and deliver quality products.
rapid and agile way of development accompanied with plug
and play engineering practices. Agile software development In the last few years, agile methods became the most software
methodologies become lately the way forward quality assurance. development adopted in software industry[4],[6],[9]. The most
Since the last decade, agile methods have increased popularity popular agile methods used are: eXtreme Programming Devel-
and usage among software industries. These methods came to opment Process (XP), Scrum Development Process, Crystal
tackle requirement changes quickly, satisfy customers, support Family of Methodologies (CM), and Dynamic System Devel-
interaction, communication and produce high quality products.
There are a lot of debates in the literature about agile methods opment Method (DSDM) [10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]. These
especially on the most newest and used ones. However, academic methods came to tackle requirement changes quickly, satisfy
research on how these SMEs can select the appropriate method customers, support interaction, communication and produce
still limited. high quality products [4],[12],[16].
The aim of this paper is to filling this gap by systematically re- The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review
viewing the existing literature on the most popular agile software
development methodologies. This paper has three purposes: first, shows appropriateness of agile methods with regard to SMEs
it proposes a definition and discussion of the most popular agile environmental challenges. Based on these challenges, criteria
software development methods. Second, it explores the software are defined and used to show the differences and similarities
SMEs challenges and formulates it into criteria for comparison between these agile methods. The criteria definition meant
purposes. Third, it compares these methods and shows their to help SMEs to choose the appropriate agile method and
similarities and differences against the defined criteria. Based on
this analysis, future research needs are identified and discussed. practice(s) hence to reduce risks and produce quality products.
The paper is organized as follows: section II present a brief
Index Terms—Software Development, Agile Methods, Scrum, description for each agile method introduced, systematic re-
Extreme Programming, Crystal Methods, DSDM. view is conducted in section III to collect all relevant studies
discussed these methods and to explore the software SMEs
I. INTRODUCTION challenges. In section IV, criteria are defined to be used for
The increase demand of software products has impact on the comparisons presented in section V.
the rapid growth of software industry. Today, there are many
new software businesses has started and yet more to come. In II. BACKGROUND
spite of this, there are a lot of software products failures and Agile methods regarded as set of practices and techniques
business bankruptcy stories [1],[2],[3]. Many of which due which have specific principles and values. They share the
to on un appropriateness of the used software processes or property of iterative incremental development that tackles
methods [1],[2],[3]. Normally, software methodology selection requirement changes quickly, satisfy customer and produce
is based on experience or in some cases a rational [4],[5],[6]. quality products [4],[12],[16]. Agile methods have four values
[10],[16]: individuals and interactions over processes and
tools, working software over comprehensive documentation,
customer collaboration over contract negotiation, and respond-
ing to change over following a plan. Theirtarget is to improve
business and innovate new ideas to meet the market demands
by quickly redefining resources when the requirements or
technology changed, fast response to the market changes
or insensitive customer interaction[5],[12]. The most popular
agile methods within industry are XP, Scrum, Crystal Family
and DSDM [10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15].
XP critical assumption is to handle high cost of changes and
deal with the frequent changed requirements [17] through an
iterative life cycle with small releases [18]. Requirements are
divided into several iterations and each iteration ends with
customer acceptance testing and should be released to the
real world within two weeks. Also, customer describes the
features needed to help the team estimate time and resources
[18],[19],[20]. A newer version of XP has released since 2004
improving and modifying more practices that covering wider
areas [21]. In this paper, we consider ”XP2” as it is the new
version of XP.
Scrum Development assumes that the development process
is unpredictable from the first time and requirements could
be changed. It is developed mainly to manage and control
these types of projects and how the team should work in
a changing environment. Scrum works on small to medium
projects, uses the iterative incremental approach to deliver
customer increments through strong and highly experienced
team [17],[19],[22],[23],[24]. TABLE I
SUMMARY OF THE AGILE METHODS UNDER STUDY
Crystal can be defined as a set of four different method-
ologies and each methodology has an assigned color (clear,
yellow, orange, and red) that determines its heaviness. Crystal
clear and Crystal orange are the only methods constructed these methods with the conjunction of SMEs environmental
and used [22],[25],[26]. The suitable methodology that fit challenges. The systematic review is being conducted through
the projects is chosen according to two primary principles the following steps:
[27],[28]: number of people involved during the development
process and the project criticality. Process is done through four A. Research Questions
sequenced phases: staging, review, monitoring, and parallelism Based on the paper aim, research questions are:
[22],[27],[29]. 1. What are the most popular agile methods constructed and
The idea behind DSDM is instead of fixing the project used in software industry?
functionalities then adjusts time and resources needed for these 2. How can systematic review compare and highlight these
functionalities, it is preferred to fix the time and resources then agile methods similarities and differences?
adjusts functionalities suitable to them. DSDM development 3. Can software industry such as SMEs challenges defined and
process consists of five phases [22],[27],[30],[31]: Feasibility formulated in criteria for comparison purposes?
Study phase, Business Study phase, Functional Model Iteration 4. How can the systematic review compare and highlight these
phase, Design and Build Iteration phase, and finally Implemen- agile methods against the defined criteria?
tation phase. It takes the shortest time as possible and each
delivery must contain the most business functionalities needed B. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
[22],[27],[30],[32]. Table II presents all founded studies that discuss agile meth-
Table I summarizes a brief description and the related practices ods. These studies are classified into six categories: most agile
for each agile method under study: methods used in the software industry and challenges, XP2,
Scrum, Crystal family of methodologies, DSDM, and Software
III. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SMEs challenges. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria
The main objective of this systematic review is to identify used, 166 studies are retrieved. 26 are included and the rest
all relevant and available studies that help to define criteria 140 are excluded. However, additional refinement is needed as
that compare and highlight the differences and similarities of there are studies that may related or similar to other studies in
TABLE II
TOTAL STUDIES REACHED FOR EACH CATEGORY

TABLE III
INITIAL INCLUDED AND EXCLUDED STUDIES

TABLE IV
SUMMARY OF FINAL STUDIES USED IN THE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
another category. Table III shows the excluded and included
studies after refinement and table IV summarizes the final
primary studies found with a brief description for each.
IV. DEFINING THE CRITERIA
C. Findings There are many start-up and SMEs working in software
companies around the world. In countries such as Sudan,
Based on the accomplished systematic review, there are two they represent most or all the industry [52],[53]. Chal-
major outcomes resulted: lenges introduced within these companies (see section III)
First, several measurable attribute can be used to compare impact the process, quality and the company reputation
between agile methods such as philosophy, characteristics, [7],[54],[55],[56],[57]. Further to the findings above the au-
features, team involved, project size and the development thors grouped SMEs major challenges into the following
process. Second, there are several challenges within start-up defined criteria:
and SMEs companies such as requirements changes, limited 1.Project Set-up: before project process implementation
budget, limited resources, unapproved customer decisions and starts, physical project environment should be prepared
project time and cost estimation. Also, the choice of the [54],[58]. This mean set-up the location, design, environment
appropriate agile method and practice(s) is always a struggle and prepare the development team. This important of this is to
and impacts the product process and quality. However, there enhance peer review, communication and knowledge sharing.
is no enough attention for these types of challenges. 2.Project Complexity: there are several factors that increase
To this end and according to SMEs major environmental complexity within a project and make the process hard to
challenges, three measurable attributes are introduced (see sec- improve such as requirements, project time and cost estimated,
tion IV) in this paper representing SMEs major environmental limited resources, unapproved customer decisions [8],[59],[60]
challenges. The idea behind this is to aid SMEs selection for and project size. While, requirements are difficult to define in
the appropriate agile method or practice(s). These attributes are the early development stages and mostly could be changed dur-
important in which they have an impact on business success, ing the process [2],[8],[59],[60], this impacts the product pro-
product process and quality, yet, no enough attention given cess and entire quality [61],[62]. Also, Start-up and SMEs with
by researchers to fill-in this gap. The attributes are formulated limited resources (humans and money) may struggle in making
into defined criteria as explained in section IV. proper time and cost estimation [1],[3],[56],[60],[63],[64].
TABLE VI
LEVEL OF MEASURMENTS CRITERIA

TABLE V
CRITERIA DEFINITION

3.Contract Management: Most start-up and SMEs objectives


are to gain reputation in the software industry, stay in the TABLE VII
COMPARISON OF XP2 AGAINST THE PROJECT SET- UP
business market and retain customers [56],[57]. They need a
method or practice(s) help them in issues such as contracts
terms and conditions, scope of work and payment conditions
to avoid issues such as changes in the requirements and needs,
unapproved customer decisions, or delay in the delivery time 2) Scrum: table VIII shows that scrum highly satisfies
[65],[66]. the project set-up through the scrum meetings. For example,
in daily scrum meeting, the method defines the meeting
V. COMPARING AGILE METHODS AGAINST THE location, time, duration and types of questions to be asked
DEFINED CRITERIA and discussed.
Table V shows a brief description with the associated 3) Crystal: As seen in table IX, before start implementing
attributes of each defined criterion used to compare the most the development process, crystal teams must set together in
popular agile methods and table VI shows the level of mea- the same room, office or building in order to communicate
surements criteria. Based on these tables, comparisons are with each other and discuss the process. Therefore, the method
presented as follows: satisfies the set-up of the project.
4) DSDM: DSDM does not satisfy this criterion and there
A. Project Set-up is no practice within the method that defines the project
Each agile method is compared against the project set-up environment, location or design.
attributes as follows:
1) XP2: XP2 is the most agile method that highly satisfied
the project-set-up through three defined practices. In pair pro-
gramming, each two development team members are setting
together at one computer screen to write the code. There is
single code shared and visible for all development team. The
whole team must sit together in one open place and within eye
contact of each other. Also, informative workspace requires the
team to define graphs around the work space that illustrates TABLE VIII
COMPARISON OF SCRUM AGAINST THE PROJECT SET- UP
the project progress and shares the information between them.
Table VII present these practices.
TABLE IX
COMPARISON OF CRYSTAL AGAINST THE PROJECT SET- UP

TABLE XI
COMPARISON OF SCRUM AGAINST THE PROJECT COMPLEXITY

TABLE X
COMPARISON OF XP 2 AGAINST THE PROJECT COMPLEXITY

B. Project Complexity
Each agile method is compared against the project complex- TABLE XII
COMPARISON OF CRYSTAL PROCESS AGAINST THE PROJECT COMPLEXITY
ity attributes as follows:
1) XP2: First, XP2 process highly satisfies changes in
requirements through the user-stories and weekly cycle in
which developers state the customer functionalities with time
and cost estimated. Second, estimated time and cost could scalability of the project or define practices to manage business
be satisfied through slacks that drop tasks with lower priority needs. But in large projects situation, project is divided into
to the next iteration in order to deliver the most business smaller ones then each part implemented as a project (scrum of
functionality to the customer within the time constrained. scrums). Table XI shows these practices against the attributes.
Third, the process does not satisfy the project scalability as it
works only on small to medium fixed projects. Furthermore, it 3) Crystal: As crystal is based on the fact that there is
highly satisfies the uncertain needs and unapproved customer no one fixed method fits all types of projects, it is highly
decisions through real customer involvement and quarterly satisfied the variation of the project size. The agility of
cycle. Also, XP process has two primary values considering crystal is allowing the development team to start by small
the customer: the continual communication and rapid feed- requirements and developers then as the project size increased,
back between customer and development team throughout the more people can be involved and process can be shifted to
progress. Finally, quarterly cycle and slack are both practices a heavier methodology within the family. Development team
that deliver the most business functionalities to the real world is free to decide which practices from other agile methods
and satisfy the customer as well. These practices are presented are most suitable to process. In general, the method handle
in table X. requirements, customer needs, time and cost but while each
2) Scrum: Scrum is focuses on the managerial issues crystal increment takes not less than two months to be released,
and highly satisfies changes in requirements, time and cost managing these factors become more difficult. Moreover, the
estimated through two practices. Product backlog contains method does not mention how to satisfy the business needs as
the core requirements and the sprint contains the details and can be seen in table XII.
tasks within each requirements, time and cost estimated for 4) DSDM: DSDM Highly satisfies of deliver a part of the
each. Over and above, with the scrum meetings such as most complete business functionalities in each release to the
sprint planning meeting, daily scrum meeting and sprint review real world as well as satisfies customer. This is done by com-
meeting, development process is more controlled and easy to bining of the business needs and the customer requirements
track. Customer can present the daily meetings to check the with the technical issues to deliver high quality products. Only
features he/she wants. However, the method does not satisfy essential and core requirements must be implemented in high
TABLE XIII
COMPARISON OF DSDM PROCESS AGAINST THE PROJECT COMPLEXITY

TABLE XIV
COMPARISON OF XP 2 PROCESS AGAINST THE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

level then detailed ones can be implemented and changed later. TABLE XV
With this practice, product requirements become clearer to the COMPARISON BETWEEN THE MOST AGILE METHODS AGINST THE
customer and development team and getting smaller as the CRITERIA

project forward. The method satisfies changes in requirements,


time and cost. However, there are no defined practices to han-
dle the project scalability but in large projects situation, project
is divided into smaller ones then each part implemented as a 3) Crystal: Crystal does not satisfy this criterion. There is
DSDM project. Method practices and attribute are presented no defined practice to manage the contract scope.
in table XIII. 4) DSDM: DSDM does not satisfy this criterion. There
is no defined practice within the method that manages the
C. Contract Management contract.

Each agile method is compared against the contract man- VI. CONCLUSION
agement attributes as follows: This paper tried to address criteria represents challenges
1) XP2: XP2 development is the only agile software or concerns for SMEs, especially those who are not yet on
method defines practices that address all attributes associated disciplined process such as startup companies. This paper
with contracts. As seen in table XIV Negotiate the scope of attempted to guide solutions for these challenges by studying,
the contract is an XP practice that avoids the long scope con- analyzing and critically reviewing popular approaches in soft-
tracts by split them into smaller ones. Scope of core product ware development via a systematic review method. Table XV
requirements with their estimated time and cost are divided summarizes the outcome of this study. Although, this paper
through an on-going scope negotiation until the entire product meant to show shortcomings of agile methods toward SMEs
delivered to the real world. Also, XP pays for the developers challenges as these to be seen as areas for improvement hence
each time they deliver working features to the customer. This opening rooms for further researches to come.
practice motivates the development team, makes the customer
happy and gives developers money for the amount work they
achieved.
2) Scrum: Scrum development does not satisfy this cri-
terion. There is no defined practice within the method that
manages the contract scope of work.
R EFERENCES [33] M. Ahmed, Report on eXtreme Programming Practices, Cloud Software
Factory, Practices Team (A), Project II, Sprint II, n.d.
[1] F. Caffery, P. Taylor and G. Coleman, Adept: A Unified Assessment [34] M. Marchesi, The New XP, n.p., n.d.
Method for Small Software Companies, IEEE Computer Society, 2007. [35] L. Williams, Case study Retrospective: Kent Becks XP versions 1 and
[2] P. Taylor, D. Greer, G. Coleman, K. McDaid and F. Keenan, Prepar- 2, North Carolina State, 2005.
ing Small Software Companies for Tailored Agile Method Adoption: [36] K. Beck, Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, Addison
Minimally Intrusive Risk Assessment, 2007. Wesley Professional, USA, 1999.
[3] R. Argento and V. Hamilton, Lowering business costs: Mitigating risk [37] J. Nawrocki, B. Walter and A. Wojciechowski, Comparison of CMM
in the software delivery lifecycle, IBM, 2009. Level 2 and eXtreme Programming, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg,
[4] D. Cohen, M. Lindvall and P. Costa, Agile Software Development, 2002.
Fraunhofer Center for Experimental Software Engineering, Maryland, [38] J. Ron, Circle of Life, Spiral of Death: Ways to Keep your XP Project
2004. Alive. Ways to Kill Your XP Project, XPUniverse, Raleigh, NC, 2001.
[5] T. Dyba and T. Dingsoyr, What Do We know about Agile Software De- [39] J. Reifer, XP and CMM, IEEE Computer Society, 2003.
velopment?, Fraunhofer Center for Experimental Software Engineering, [40] J. Rasmusson, Introducing XP into Greenfield Projects Lessons Learned,
Maryland, 2009. IEEE Computer Society, 2003.
[6] R. Ramsin, and M. Taromirad, An Appraisal of Existing Evaluation [41] C. Vriens, Certifying for CMM Level2 and ISO9001 with XP@Scrum,
Frameworks for Agile Methodologies, IEEE Computer Society, 2008. IEEE Computer Society, 2003.
[7] I, Richardson and K. Ryan, Software Process Improvement in a Very [42] K. Schwaber and M. Beedle, Agile Software Development with Scrum,
Small Company, 2001. Prentice Hall, 2001.
[8] A. Saranya and S. Kannan, SPI Challenges Of Small And Medium Sized [43] N. Potter and M. Sakry, IMPLEMENTING SCRUM (AGILE) AND
Software Companies Problems And Prospects, IJERT, 2013. CMMI TOGETHER, THE PROCESS GROUP, 2009.
[9] A. Qumer, An evaluation of the degree of agility in six agile methods [44] INTERNATIONAL SCRUM INSTITUTE, Introduction to Scrum A
and its applicability for method engineering, Information and Software Real World Example across various Scrum Phases and Sprints, avail-
Technology, ELSEVIER, 2007. able at http://www.scrum-institute.org/Introduction to Scrum A Real
[10] A. Sillitti and G. Succi, 14 Requirements Engineering for Agile Meth- World Example.php. n.d.
ods, n.d. [45] P.Gorakavi, What You Should Know about Crystal Orange Methodol-
[11] M. Paulk and N. Daivs, On Empirical Research Into Scrum, 2009. ogy, American Society for the Advancement of Project Management
[12] J. Fernandes and M. Almeida, Classification and Comparison of Agile (ASAPM), 2010.
Methods, IEEE Computer Society, 2010. [46] A. Cockburn, Agile Software Development, Addison, Wesley, 2004.
[13] J. Cho and R. Huff, MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR SCRUM AG- [47] [46] Z. Stojanovic, A. Dahanayake and H. Sol, Modeling and Architec-
ILE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, Issues in Information tural Design in Agile Development Methodologies, EMMSAD03, 2003.
Systems, Volume XII, No. 1, pp. 213-223, 2011. [48] A. Cockburn, Crystal Methods, or How to make a methodology fit, 2003.
[14] B. Regis, EVALUATION OF THE MOST USED AGILE METHODS [49] M. Chang, Agile and Crystal Clear with Library IT Innovations,
(XP, LEAN, SCRUM), International Journal of Engineering Science and VALA2010 Conference, 2010.
Technology (IJEST), Bangalore, INDIA, 2012. [50] What is DSDM? And why use it in Analysis and Design teaching?,
[15] H. Landim, A. Albuquerque and T. Macedo, Procedures and conditions Serbia and Montenegro TEMPUS OFFICE, Tempus, 2004.
that influence on the efficiency of some agile practices, IEEE Computer [51] M. Qasaimeh, H. Mehrfard, and A. Hamou-Lhadj, Comparing Agile
Society, 2010. Software Processes Based on the Software Development Project Re-
[16] M. Fowler and J. Highsmith, The Agile Manifesto, Software develop- quirements, IEEE COMPUTER SOCIETY, 2008.
ment, 2001. [52] Yahya Abdullah, Minister of Communication and Information Technol-
[17] P. Abrahamsson, J. Warsta, M. Siponen, and J. Ronkainen, New Di- ogy in Sudan, interview, July 19, 2012.
rections on Agile Methods: A Comparative Analysis, VTT Electronics, [53] Eng Mubarak Mohamed Ahmed, Director General of National Informa-
Finland, 2003. tion Center in Sudan, interview, July 19, 2012.
[18] M. Paulk, Extreme Programming from a CMM Perspective, Software [54] L. Williams, Risk Management, 2004.
Engineering Institute, IEEE, 2001. [55] B. Boehm and R. Turner, Management Challenges to Implementing Ag-
[19] AN INTRODUCTION TO AGILE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, ile Processes in Traditional Development Organizations, IEEE Computer
SERENA, Inc, 2007. Society, 2004.
[20] S. Shahzad, Learning From Experience: The Analysis of an Extreme [56] Y. Shen, Software Engineering Challenges in Small Companies, UNI-
Programming Process, 2009 Sixth International Conference on Infor- VERSITY OF HELSINKI, 2008
mation Technology: New Generations, Graz, Austria, 2009. [57] P. Ulkuniemi and N. Helander, Marketing challenges in the software
[21] D. Sato, D. Bassi and A. Goldman, ”Extending Extreme Programming- component business, 2006.
With Practices From Other Agile Methodologies”, 2007. [58] A. Johansen and O. Torp, EFFEIECNT PTOJECT START-UP, 2004.
[22] P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, J. Ronkainen, and J. Warsta, agile software [59] Risk management guide for small to medium businesses, CPA Australia,
development methods: review and analysis, VTT Electronics, 2002. 2010.
[23] A. Marcal, B. Freitas, M. Furtado, T. Maciel, A. Belchior, Blending [60] H. BAUMEISTER, Customer Relationship Management for SMEs,
Scrum practices and CMMI project management process areas, Springer, 2002.
Verlag London Limited, 2008. [61] A. Kannenberg and H. Saiedian, Why Software Requirements Traceabil-
[24] K. Schwaber, SCRUM Development Process, Advanced Development ity Remains a Challenge, The Journal of Defense Software Engineering,
Methods, 2004. 2009.
[25] L. Williams, A Survey of Agile Development Methodologies, 2007. [62] J. Aranda, S. Easterbrook, and G. Wilsn, Requirements in the wild: How
[26] A. Eberlein, F. Muarer and F. Paetsch, Requirements Engineering small companies do it, 2007.
and Agile Software Development, Proceedings of the Twelfth IEEE [63] A. Quispe, M. Marques, L. Silvestre, S. Ochoa and R. Robbes, Re-
International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for quirements Engineering Practices in Very Small Software Enterprises:
Collaborative Enterprises (WETICE03), 2003. A Diagnostic Study, 2010.
[27] D. Strode, The Agile Methods: An Analytical Comparison of Five Agile [64] H. Wood and K. Gidado, Project Complexity in Construction, 2009.
Methods and an Investigation of Their Target Environment, 2007. [65] R. Elsey, ContractManagement Guide, THE CHARTERED TNSTITUE
[28] M. Griffiths, Agile Suitability Filters, 2007. OF PURCHASING AND SUPPLY, 2007.
[29] R. Ramsin, Agile Methodologies: Crystal, sharif university of technol- [66] K. Beck and D. Cleal, Optional Scope Contracts, 1999.
ogy, department of computer engineering, 2012.
[30] R. Davies, DSDM explained, Agile Alliance member, 2004.
[31] D. Norfolk, Understanding DSDM, PC Network Advisor, Issue no. 67,
2008.
[32] B. Voigt, Dynamic System Development method, Zurich, Switzerland,
2004.

View publication stats

Potrebbero piacerti anche