Agile development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Log in / create account

Article Discussion Read Edit View history

Please read:

Main page An urgent appeal Contents from Featured content Current events Wikipedia founder Random article Jimmy Wales Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction Agile Help From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia About Wikipedia Community portal This article may be written Software development Recent changes from a fan's point of view, process Contact Wikipedia rather than a neutral point of Activities and steps view. Please clean it up to Toolbox conform to a higher standard of Requirements · Specification Print/export quality, and to make it neutral in Architecture · Design Implementation · Testing tone. (August 2010) Languages Deployment · Maintenance Български This article may require Methodologies Català cleanup to meet Wikipedia's Agile · Cleanroom · Iterative Dansk quality standards. Please RAD · RUP · Spiral Deutsch improve this article if you can. The Waterfall · XP · Lean Español talk page may contain suggestions. Scrum · V-Model · TDD Français (August 2010) Supporting disciplines 한국어 Agile software development is a group of software Italiano Configuration management development methodologies based on iterative and Documentation עברית incremental development, where requirements and solutions Quality assurance (SQA) Latviešu evolve through collaboration between self-organizing, cross- Lietuvių functional teams. The Agile Manifesto[1] introduced the term User experience design Nederlands in 2001. Tools 日本語 Polski Compiler · · Profiler Contents [hide] Português GUI designer · IDE 1 History Română v • d • e 1.1 Predecessors Русский 1.2 Agile Manifesto Slovenščina 2 Characteristics Српски / Srpski 3 Comparison with other methods Srpskohrvatski / Српскохрватски 3.1 Other iterative development methods Suomi 3.2 Cowboy coding Svenska 4 Agile methods 4.1 Method tailoring 5 Measuring agility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development[12/22/2010 2:00:31 AM] Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

6 Experience and reception Türkçe 6.1 Suitability Українська 6.2 Experience reports Tiếng Việt 7 See also 中文 8 References 9 Further reading 10 External links

History [edit]

Predecessors [edit] Incremental software development methods have been traced back to 1957.[2] In 1974, a paper by E. A. Edmonds introduced an adaptive software development process.[3] So-called "lightweight" software development methods evolved in the mid- 1990s as a reaction against "heavyweight" methods, which were characterized by their critics as a heavily regulated, regimented, micromanaged, of development. Proponents of lightweight methods (and now "agile" methods) contend that they are a return to development practices from early in the history of software development.[2] Jeff Sutherland, one Early implementation of lightweight methods include Scrum (1995), Crystal of the developers of Clear, (1996), Adaptive Software Development, the Scrum agile Feature Driven Development, and Dynamic Systems Development Method software development process (DSDM) (1995). These are now typically referred to as agile methodologies, after the Agile Manifesto published in 2001.[4]

Agile Manifesto [edit] In February 2001, 17 software developers[5] met at a ski resort in Snowbird, Utah, to discuss lightweight development methods. They published the "Manifesto for Agile Software Development"[1] to define the approach now known as agile software development. Some of the manifesto's authors formed the Agile Alliance, a non-profit organization that promotes software development according to the manifesto's principles. Agile Manifesto reads, in its entirety, as follows:[1]

We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work we have come to value: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools Working software over comprehensive documentation Customer collaboration over contract negotiation Responding to change over following a plan That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.

Twelve principles underlie the Agile Manifesto, including:[6] Customer satisfaction by rapid delivery of useful software Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Working software is delivered frequently (weeks rather than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development[12/22/2010 2:00:31 AM] Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

months) Working software is the principal measure of progress Sustainable development, able to maintain a constant pace Close, daily cooperation between businesspeople and developers Face-to-face conversation is the best form of communication (co-location) Projects are built around motivated individuals, who should be trusted Continuous attention to technical excellence and good Agile software development poster design Simplicity Self-organizing teams Regular adaptation to changing circumstances In 2005, a group headed by Alistair Cockburn and Jim Highsmith wrote an addendum of project management principles, the Declaration of Interdependence,[7] to guide software project management according to agile development methods.

Characteristics [edit]

There are many specific agile development methods. Most promote development, teamwork, collaboration, and process adaptability throughout the life-cycle of the project. Agile methods break tasks into small increments with minimal planning, and do not directly involve long-term planning. Iterations are short time frames (timeboxes) that typically last from one to four weeks. Each iteration involves a team working through a full software development cycle including planning,

, design, coding, , and Pair programming, an XP acceptance testing when a working product is demonstrated to development technique used by agile stakeholders. This minimizes overall risk and allows the project to adapt to changes quickly. Stakeholders produce documentation as required. An iteration may not add enough functionality to warrant a market release, but the goal is to have an available release (with minimal bugs) at the end of each iteration.[8] Multiple iterations may be required to release a product or new features. Team composition in an agile project is usually cross-functional and self-organizing without consideration for any existing corporate hierarchy or the corporate roles of team members. Team members normally take responsibility for tasks that deliver the functionality an iteration requires. They decide individually how to meet an iteration's requirements. Agile methods emphasize face-to-face communication over written documents when the team is all in the same location. Most agile teams work in a single open office (called a bullpen), which facilitates such communication. Team size is typically small (5-9 people) to simplify team communication and team collaboration. Larger development efforts may be delivered by multiple teams working toward a common goal or on different parts of an effort. This may require a coordination of priorities across

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development[12/22/2010 2:00:31 AM] Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

teams. When a team works in different locations, they maintain daily contact through videoconferencing, voice, e-mail, etc. No matter what development disciplines are required, each agile team will contain a customer representative. This person is appointed by stakeholders to act on their behalf and makes a personal commitment to being available for developers to answer mid-iteration problem-domain questions. At the end of each iteration, stakeholders and the customer representative review progress and re- evaluate priorities with a view to optimizing the return on investment (ROI) and ensuring alignment with customer needs and company goals. Most agile implementations use a routine and formal daily face-to-face communication among team members. This specifically includes the customer representative and any interested stakeholders as observers. In a brief session, team members report to each other what they did the previous day, what they intend to do today, and what their roadblocks are. This face-to-face communication exposes problems as they arise. Agile development emphasizes working software as the primary measure of progress. This, combined with the preference for face-to-face communication, produces less written documentation than other methods. The agile method encourages stakeholders to prioritize wants with other iteration outcomes based exclusively on business value perceived at the beginning of the iteration. Specific tools and techniques such as , automated or xUnit test, pair programming, test driven development, , domain-driven design, and other techniques are often used to improve quality and enhance project agility.

Comparison with other methods [edit]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2010)

Agile methods are sometimes characterized as being at the opposite end of the spectrum from "plan- driven" or "disciplined" methods. This distinction may be misleading, as agile methods are not necessarily "unplanned" or "undisciplined". Agile teams may employ highly disciplined . A more accurate distinction is that methods exist on a continuum from "adaptive" to "predictive".[9] Agile methods lie on the "adaptive" side of this continuum. Adaptive methods focus on adapting quickly to changing realities. When the needs of a project change, an adaptive team changes as well. An adaptive team will have difficulty describing exactly what will happen in the future. The further away a date is, the more vague an adaptive method will be about what will happen on that date. An adaptive team can not report exactly what tasks are being done next week, but only which features are planned for next month. When asked about a release six months from now, an adaptive team may only be able to report the mission statement for the release, or a statement of expected value vs. cost. Predictive methods, in contrast, focus on planning the future in detail. A predictive team can report exactly what features and tasks are planned for the entire length of the development process. Predictive teams have difficulty changing direction. The plan is typically optimized for the original destination and changing direction can require completed work to be started over. Predictive teams will often institute a change control board to ensure that only the most valuable changes are considered. Formal methods, in contrast to adaptive and predictive methods, focus on theory with a wide array of types of provers. A formal method attempts to prove the absence of errors with some level of determinism. Some formal methods are based on model checking and provide counter examples for code that cannot be proven. Generally, mathematical models (often supported through

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development[12/22/2010 2:00:31 AM] Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

special languages see SPIN model checker) map to assertions about requirements. Formal methods are dependent on a tool driven approach, and may be combined with other development approaches. Some provers do not easily scale. Like agile methods, manifestos relevant to high integrity software have been proposed in Crosstalk . Agile methods have much in common with the "Rapid Application Development" techniques from the 1980/90s as espoused by and others.

Other iterative development methods [edit]

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2010)

Most agile methods share other iterative and incremental development methods' emphasis on building releasable software in short time periods. Agile development differs from other development models: in this model, time periods are measured in weeks rather than months and work is performed in a highly collaborative manner. Most agile methods also differ by treating their time period as a timebox.

Cowboy coding [edit]

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2010)

Cowboy coding is a (usually derogatory) term for software development without a defined or structured method: team members do whatever they feel is right.[citation needed] The Agile approach is sometimes confused with cowboy coding due to its frequent re-evaluation of plans, emphasis on face-to-face communication, and relatively sparse use of documentation. However, Agile teams may follow clearly defined, even rigid processes and controls (e.g., deadlines for completion of coding/testing); it is likely the flexibility and adaptability of the overall methodology which causes the confusion. The degradation of such controls or procedures can lead to activities that are often categorized as cowboy coding.[citation needed]

Agile methods [edit]

Well-known agile software development methods include: Agile Modeling Agile (AUP) Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM) Essential Unified Process (EssUP) Extreme Programming (XP) Feature Driven Development (FDD) Open Unified Process (OpenUP) Scrum Velocity tracking

Method tailoring [edit] In the literature, different terms refer to the notion of method adaptation, including ‘method tailoring’, ‘method fragment adaptation’ and ‘situational method engineering’. Method tailoring is defined as:

A process or capability in which human agents through responsive changes in, and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development[12/22/2010 2:00:31 AM] Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dynamic interplays between contexts, intentions, and method fragments determine a system development approach for a specific project situation.[10]

Potentially, almost all agile methods are suitable for method tailoring. Even the DSDM method is being used for this purpose and has been successfully tailored in a CMM context.[11] Situation- appropriateness can be considered as a distinguishing characteristic between agile methods and traditional software development methods, with the latter being relatively much more rigid and prescriptive. The practical implication is that agile methods allow project teams to adapt working practices according to the needs of individual projects. Practices are concrete activities and products that are part of a method framework. At a more extreme level, the philosophy behind the method, consisting of a number of principles, could be adapted (Aydin, 2004).[10] Extreme Programming (XP) makes the need for method adaptation explicit. One of the fundamental ideas of XP is that no one process fits every project, but rather that practices should be tailored to the needs of individual projects. Partial adoption of XP practices, as suggested by Beck, has been reported on several occasions.[12] A tailoring practice is proposed by Mehdi Mirakhorli which provides sufficient roadmap and guideline for adapting all the practices. RDP Practice is designed for customizing XP. This practice, first proposed as a long research paper in the APSO workshop at the ICSE 2008 conference, is currently the only proposed and applicable method for customizing XP. Although it is specifically a solution for XP, this practice has the capability of extending to other methodologies. At first glance, this practice seems to be in the category of static method adaptation but experiences with RDP Practice says that it can be treated like dynamic method adaptation. The distinction between static method adaptation and dynamic method adaptation is subtle.[13] The key assumption behind static method adaptation is that the project context is given at the start of a project and remains fixed during project execution. The result is a static definition of the project context. Given such a definition, route maps can be used in order to determine which structured method fragments should be used for that particular project, based on predefined sets of criteria. Dynamic method adaptation, in contrast, assumes that projects are situated in an emergent context. An emergent context implies that a project has to deal with emergent factors that affect relevant conditions but are not predictable. This also means that a project context is not fixed, but changing during project execution. In such a case prescriptive route maps are not appropriate. The practical implication of dynamic method adaptation is that project managers often have to modify structured fragments or even innovate new fragments, during the execution of a project (Aydin et al., 2005).[13]

Measuring agility [edit]

While agility can be seen as a means to an end, a number of approaches have been proposed to quantify agility. Agility Index Measurements (AIM)[14] score projects against a number of agility factors to achieve a total. The similarly-named Agility Measurement Index,[15] scores developments against five dimensions of a software project (duration, risk, novelty, effort, and interaction). Other techniques are based on measurable goals.[16] Another study using fuzzy mathematics[17] has suggested that project velocity can be used as a metric of agility. There are agile self assessments to determine whether a team is using agile practices (Nokia test,[18] Karlskrona test,[19] 42 points test[20]). While such approaches have been proposed to measure agility, the practical application of such metrics has yet to be seen.

Experience and reception [edit]

One of the early studies reporting gains in quality, productivity, and business satisfaction by using Agile methods was a survey conducted by Shine Technologies from November 2002 to January 2003.[21] A similar survey conducted in 2006 by , the Practice Leader for Agile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development[12/22/2010 2:00:31 AM] Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Development with IBM Rational's Methods Group reported similar benefits.[22] In a survey conducted by VersionOne in 2008, 55% of respondents answered that Agile methods had been successful in 90-100% of cases.[23] Others claim that agile development methods are still too young to require extensive academic proof of their success.[24]

Suitability [edit] Large-scale agile software development remains an active research area.[25][26] Agile development has been widely documented (see Experience Reports, below, as well as Beck[27] pg. 157, and Boehm and Turner[28]) as working well for small (<10 developers) co-located teams. Some things that can negatively impact the success of an agile project are:

Large-scale development efforts (>20 developers), though scaling strategies[29][dead link] and evidence to the contrary[30] have been described. Distributed development efforts (non-co-located teams). Strategies have been described in Bridging the Distance[31][dead link] and Using an Agile Software Process with Offshore Development[32] Forcing an agile process on a development team[33] Mission-critical systems where failure is not an option at any cost (software for surgical procedures). Several successful large-scale agile projects have been documented.[where?] BT has had several hundred developers situated in the UK, Ireland and India working collaboratively on projects and using Agile methods.[citation needed] and Richard Turner suggest that risk analysis be used to choose between adaptive ("agile") and predictive ("plan-driven") methods.[28] The authors suggest that each side of the continuum has its own home ground as follows: Agile home ground:[28] Low criticality Senior developers Requirements change often Small number of developers Culture that thrives on chaos Plan-driven home ground:[28] High criticality Junior developers Requirements do not change often Large number of developers Culture that demands order Formal methods: Extreme criticality Senior developers Limited requirements, limited features see Wirth's law Requirements that can be modeled Extreme quality

Experience reports [edit] Agile development has been the subject of several conferences. Some of these conferences have

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development[12/22/2010 2:00:31 AM] Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

had academic backing and included peer-reviewed papers, including a peer-reviewed experience report track. The experience reports share industry experiences with agile software development. As of 2006, experience reports have been or will be presented at the following conferences:

XP (2000,[34] 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,[35] 2010 (proceedings published by IEEE) [36] ) XP Universe (2001[37])[dead link] XP/Agile Universe (2002,[38][dead link] 2003,[39][dead link] 2004[40])[dead link] Agile Development Conference[41] (2003,2004,2007,2008) (peer-reviewed; proceedings published by IEEE)

See also [edit]

Agile web development Code refactoring Collaborative software development model Continuous integration Extreme Programming (XP) Scrum (development) Lean software development Lean Startup List of software development philosophies Multi-stage continuous integration Systems Development Life Cycle Software Craftsmanship

References [edit]

1. ^ a b c Beck, Kent; et al. (2001). 06. "Manifesto for Agile Software 17. ^ Kurian, Tisni (2006). "Agility Metrics: A Development" . Agile Alliance. Retrieved Quantitative Fuzzy Based Approach for 2010-06-14. Measuring Agility of a Software Process" 2. ^ a b Gerald M. Weinberg, as quoted in ISAM-Proceedings of International Larman, Craig; Basili, Victor R. (June Conference on Agile 2003). "Iterative and Incremental Manufacturing'06(ICAM-2006), Norfolk, Development: A Brief History". Computer U.S. 36 (6): 47–56. 18. ^ Joe Little (2007-12-02). "Nokia test, A doi:10.1109/MC.2003.1204375 . Scrum specific test" . ISSN 0018-9162 . "We were doing Agileconsortium.blogspot.com. Retrieved incremental development as early as 2010-06-06. 1957, in Los Angeles, under the direction 19. ^ Mark Seuffert, Piratson Technologies, of Bernie Dimsdale [at IBM's Sweden. "Karlskrona test, A generic agile ServiceBureau Corporation]. He was a adoption test" . Piratson.se. Retrieved colleague of John von Neumann, so 2010-06-06. perhaps he learned it there, or assumed it 20. ^ "How agile are you, A Scrum specific as totally natural. I do remember Herb test" . Agile-software-development.com. Jacobs (primarily, though we all Retrieved 2010-06-06. participated) developing a large simulation 21. ^ "Agile Methodologies Survey Results" for Motorola, where the technique used (PDF). Shine Technologies . 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development[12/22/2010 2:00:31 AM] Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

was, as far as I can tell .... All of us, as far Retrieved 2010-06-03. "95% [stated] that as I can remember, thought waterfalling of there was either no effect or a cost a huge project was rather stupid, or at reduction . . . 93% stated that productivity least ignorant of the realities. I think what was better or significantly better . . . 88% the waterfall description did for us was stated that quality was better or make us realize that we were doing significantly better . . . 83% stated that something else, something unnamed business satisfaction was better or except for 'software development.'". significantly better" 3. ^ Edmonds, E. A. (1974). "A Process for 22. ^ Ambler, Scott (August 3, 2006). "Survey the Development of Software for Non- Says: Agile Works in Practice" . Dr. Technical Users as an Adaptive System". Dobb's. Retrieved 2010-06-03. "Only 6 General Systems 19: 215–18. percent indicated that their productivity 4. ^ Larman, Craig (2004). Agile and was lowered . . . No change in productivity Iterative Development: A Manager's was reported by 34 percent of Guide. Addison-Wesley. p. 27. respondents and 60 percent reported ISBN 9780131111554 increased productivity. . . . 66 percent 5. ^ , Mike Beedle, Arie van [responded] that the quality is higher. . . . Bennekum, Alistair Cockburn, Ward 58 percent of organizations report Cunningham, Martin Fowler, James improved satisfaction, whereas only 3 Grenning, Jim Highsmith, Andrew Hunt, percent report reduced satisfaction." Ron Jeffries, Jon Kern, Brian Marick, 23. ^ "The State of Agile Development" Robert C. Martin, Stephen J. Mellor, Ken (PDF). VersionOne, Inc.. 2008. Retrieved Schwaber, Jeff Sutherland, and Dave 2010-07-03. "Agile delivers" Thomas 24. ^ "Answering the "Where is the Proof 6. ^ Beck, Kent; et al. (2001). "Principles That Agile Methods Work" Question" . behind the Agile Manifesto" . Agile Agilemodeling.com. 2007-01-19. Retrieved Alliance. Retrieved 2010-06-06. 2010-04-02. 7. ^ Anderson, David (2005). "Declaration of 25. ^ Agile Processes Workshop II Managing Interdependence" . Multiple Concurrent Agile Projects. 8. ^ Beck, Kent (1999). "Embracing Change Washington: OOPSLA 2002 with Extreme Programming". Computer 32 26. ^ "Supersize Me" in Dr. Dobb's Journal, (10): 70–77. doi:10.1109/2.796139 . February 15, 2006. 9. ^ Boehm, B.; R. Turner (2004). Balancing 27. ^ Beck, K. (1999). Extreme Programming Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Explained: Embrace Change. Boston, MA: Perplexed. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-321-27865-8. ISBN 0-321-18612-5. Appendix A, pages 28. ^ a b c d Boehm, B.; R. Turner (2004). 165-194 Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide 10. ^ a b Aydin, M.N., Harmsen, F., Slooten, for the Perplexed. Boston, MA: Addison- K. v., & Stagwee, R. A. (2004). An Agile Wesley. pp. 55–57. ISBN 0-321-18612-5. Information Systems Development Method 29. ^ "Supersize Me" . Sdmagazine.com. in use. Turk J Elec Engin, 12(2), 127-138 Retrieved 2010-06-06. 11. ^ Abrahamsson, P., Warsta, J., Siponen, 30. ^ Schaaf, R.J. (2007). "Agility XL", M.T., & Ronkainen, J. (2003). New Systems and Software Technology Directions on Agile Methods: A Conference 2007 , Tampa, FL Comparative Analysis. Proceedings of 31. ^ "Bridging the Distance" . ICSE'03, 244-254 Sdmagazine.com. Retrieved 2010-06-06. 12. ^ Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, 32. ^ Martin Fowler. "Using an Agile Software J., & Warsta, J. (2002). Agile Software Process with Offshore Development" . Development Methods: Review and Martinfowler.com. Retrieved 2010-06-06. Analysis. VTT Publications 478 33. ^ [The Art of Agile Development James a b http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development[12/22/2010 2:00:31 AM] Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

13. ^ Aydin, M.N., Harmsen, F., Slooten Shore & Shane Warden pg 47] van K., & Stegwee, R.A. (2005). On the 34. ^ 2000 Adaptation of An Agile Information(Suren) 35. ^ "2006" . Virtual.vtt.fi. Retrieved 2010- Systems Development Method. Journal of 06-06. Database Management Special issue on 36. ^ "2010" . Xp2010.org. Retrieved 2010- Agile Analysis, Design, and 06-06. Implementation, 16(4), 20-24 37. ^ 2001 14. ^ "David Bock's Weblog : Weblog" . 38. ^ 2002 Jroller.com. Retrieved 2010-04-02. 39. ^ 2003 15. ^ "Agility measurement index" . 40. ^ 2004 Doi.acm.org. Retrieved 2010-04-02. 41. ^ "Agile Development Conference" . 16. ^ Peter Lappo; Henry C.T. Andrew. Agile200x.org. Retrieved 2010-06-06. "Assessing Agility" . Retrieved 2010-06-

Further reading [edit]

Fowler, Martin. Is Design Dead? . Appeared in Extreme Programming Explained, G. Succi and M. Marchesi, ed., Addison-Wesley, Boston. 2001. Riehle, Dirk. A Comparison of the Value Systems of Adaptive Software Development and Extreme Programming: How Methodologies May Learn From Each Other . Appeared in Extreme Programming Explained, G. Succi and M. Marchesi, ed., Addison-Wesley, Boston. 2001. M. Stephens, D. Rosenberg. Extreme Programming Refactored: The Case Against XP. Apress L.P., Berkeley, California. 2003. (ISBN 1-59059-096-1) Larman, Craig and Basili, Victor R. Iterative and Incremental Development: A Brief History IEEE Computer, June 2003 Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, J., & Warsta, J. (2002). Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis. VTT Publications 478. Cohen, D., Lindvall, M., & Costa, P. (2004). An introduction to agile methods. In Advances in Computers (pp. 1–66). New York: Elsevier Science. Rother, Mike (2009). Toyota Kata . McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0071635238

External links [edit]

Manifesto for Agile Software Development Listen to this article (info/dl) The Agile Alliance The Agile Executive Article Two Ways to Build a Pyramid by John Mayo- This audio file was created from a revision of Agile software development Smith dated 2010-12-08, and does not reflect The New Methodology Martin Fowler's description of subsequent edits to the article. (Audio the background to agile methods help) More spoken articles Agile Journal - Largest online community focused specifically on agile development Agile at the Open Directory Project Agile Cookbook

v • d • e Software Engineering [hide] Requirements analysis • • • • Fields Formal methods • • • • • • • • Software • • Software development methodology Concepts • Software development process • • Software quality assurance •

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development[12/22/2010 2:00:31 AM] Agile software development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Software archaeology • Orientations Agile • Aspect-oriented • Object orientation • Ontology • Service orientation • SDLC

Agile • Iterative model • RUP • Scrum • • Development models Waterfall model • XP • V-Model • Incremental model • Prototype model Models Automotive SPICE • CMMI • • • Other models • • • Systems model • Modeling languages IDEF • UML Kent Beck • • • Barry Boehm • • Ole-Johan Dahl • Tom DeMarco • Martin Fowler • C. A. R. Hoare • • Michael A. Jackson • Software • • James Martin • • • engineers Winston W. Royce • • • • • Computer science • • Enterprise engineering • History • Management • Related fields Mathematics • Project management • Quality management • Software ergonomics •

Categories: Software development process | Software project management | Software development philosophies | Agile software development

This page was last modified on 20 December 2010 at 10:10.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Contact us

Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development[12/22/2010 2:00:31 AM]