Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Understanding the order of agile practice introduction: Comparing agile maturity models and practitioners’ experience
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0639-4234
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7368-4448
Blekinge Institute of Technology, Faculty of Computing, Department of Software Engineering.
Show others and affiliations
2019 (English)In: Journal of Systems and Software, ISSN 0164-1212, E-ISSN 1873-1228, Vol. 156, p. 1-20Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Context: Agile maturity models (AMMs) suggest that agile practices are introduced in a certain order. However, whether the order of agile practice introduction as suggested in the AMMs is relevant in industry has not been evaluated in an empirical study. Objectives: In this study, we want to investigate: (1) order of agile practice introduction mentioned in AMMs, (2) order of introducing agile practices in industry, and (3) similarities and differences between (1) and (2). Methods: We conducted a literature survey to identify strategies proposed by the AMMs. We then compared the AMMs’ suggestions to the strategies used by practitioners, which we elicited from a survey and a series of interviews from an earlier study. Results: The literature survey revealed 12 AMMs which provide explicit mappings of agile practices to maturity levels. These mappings showed little agreement on when practices should be introduced. Comparison of the AMMs’ suggestions and the empirical study revealed that the guidance suggested by AMMs are not aligned with industry practice. Conclusion: Currently, AMMs do not provide sufficient information to guide agile adoption in industry. Our results suggest that there might be no universal strategy for agile adoption that works better than others. © 2019 Elsevier Inc.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier Inc. , 2019. Vol. 156, p. 1-20
Keywords [en]
Agile maturity model, Agile practice, Introduction strategies, Mapping, Agile adoptions, Agile practices, Empirical studies, Industry practices, Introduction strategy, Literature survey, Maturity levels, Maturity model, Surveys
National Category
Software Engineering
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:bth-18038DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.05.035Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85066489426OAI: oai:DiVA.org:bth-18038DiVA, id: diva2:1325030
Available from: 2019-06-14 Created: 2019-06-14 Last updated: 2019-06-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Nurdiani, IndiraBörstler, JürgenFricker, SamuelPetersen, KaiChatzipetrou, Panagiota

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Nurdiani, IndiraBörstler, JürgenFricker, SamuelPetersen, KaiChatzipetrou, Panagiota
By organisation
Department of Software Engineering
In the same journal
Journal of Systems and Software
Software Engineering

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 45 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf