Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Towards comprehensive and

disciplined change management
strategy in agile transformation
process
Taghi Javdani Gandomani, Abdul Ghani, Hazura Zulzalil

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Import ant Considerat ions for Agile Soft ware Development Met hods Governance
Abdul Azim

Import ant considerat ions of Agile SD met hods governance

Taghi Javdani Gandomani, Abdul Ghani

How Human Aspect s Impress Agile Soft ware Development Transit ion and Adopt ion
Taghi Javdani Gandomani, Abdul Ghani, Hazura Zulzalil
Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 6(13): 2345-2351, 2013
ISSN: 2040-7459; e-ISSN: 2040-7467
© Maxwell Scientific Organization, 2013
Submitted: December 3, 2012 Accepted: January 25, 2013 Published: August 05, 2013

Towards Comprehensive and Disciplined Change Management Strategy in

Agile Transformation Process

Taghi Javdani Gandomani, Hazura Zulzalil, Abdul Azim Abd Ghani and Abu Bakar Md. Sultan
Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Uuniversity
Putra Malaysia (UPM), 43400, UPM Serdang, Malaysia

Abstract: Moving to agile through a well-defined strategy and framework is essential and this socio-technical
process should be studied in deep. Advantages and earned values of agile approach in software industry motivate a
lot of companies to try to use agile methods in their software product lines. Transformation process to agile methods
is not easy and because of its nature, takes a long time. Since agile transformation needs organizational mutation,
companies are faced with many challenges during this process. While several studies have been conducted for how
to use agile methods, some other studies have focused on finding obstacles in agile adoption process. However,
previous studies are valuable, but each of them has focused the change process from a particular perspective. In this
study we discuss the dimensions of agile transformation process from a wider perspective. We will show that
focusing on agile adoption is not the only master key for success in agile transformation process and we need to
define an agile change management strategy for this organizational metamorphosis. This strategy should consider all
aspects of changing approach and is underpinning of achievement in agile transformation process through
substantive transformation experiences.

Keywords: Agile adoption, agile software development, agile transformation, change management strategy

INTRODUCTION Several well-branded companies and organizations

like Microsoft, Google, Nokia, IBM, FBI, Primavera,
Over one decade after agile manifesto (Beck et al., etc. are using agile methods in at least some of their
2001), several agile methods were founded and projects (Cohan and Glazer, 2009; Fulgham et al.,
introduced to the software industry. Although some of 2011; Jakobsen and Johnson, 2008; Laanti, 2010;
them have been founded before agile manifesto, but it Schatz and Abdelshafi, 2005), but there are many
was the first time that all of them were collected under companies which are using traditional software
agile umbrella. Scrum (Schwaber and Beedle, 2001), development methods yet. Many of these companies
XP (Beck and Andres, 2004), Crystal methods have good experience in traditional methods and many
(Highsmith, 2002), Feature driven development (FDD) others worry about changing their development process.
(Highsmith, 2002), Dynamic Systems Development
Previous researches in this matter typically have
Method (DSDM) (Highsmith, 2002), Test Driven
focused on case studies in transforming to agile and
Development (TDD) (Beck, 2002), lean software
have explained the dimensions of change in
development (Highsmith, 2002) are some the famous
agile methods. However these methods are different in organizations during the agile movement process
some activities and goals, but all of them rely on same (Babuscio, 2009; Fraser et al., 2006; McCarthy and
agile values. Tsinopoulos, 2003). Some other studies have done on
Agile methods are defined as a reaction to agile adoption. Of course because of the nature of agile
traditional methods (Boehm, 2002) and emphasize on methods and their different effects in organizations,
new values which are not stressed by traditional there is no unified strategy for agile adoption. In one
methods. Focusing on the individual and interaction, study, a framework was suggested to adapting to agile
working software, customer collaboration and in a multi stages process (Sidky, 2007). This approach
embracing changes are these values (Beck et al., 2001). is an engineering approach, but there are a lot of other
Along with these values, agile methods claim to issues in agile movement process that should be
provide fast delivery, higher quality (Huo et al., 2004), considered and managed such as cultural issues, non-
customer satisfaction and a dozen of other advantages. technical issues, etc. Also in recent years, many
A glance at the mentioned benefits motivates managers researches are conducted in moving to agile based on a
and all software stakeholders to using these methods. specific method (Cho, 2010), specific culture (Asnawi

Corresponding Author: Taghi Javdani Gandomani, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Uuniversity
Putra Malaysia (UPM), 43400, UPM Serdang, Malaysia
2345
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 6(13): 2345-2351, 2013

et al., 2012) and specific organizations (Barlow et al., customers ask for a rigid and high disciplined process
2011; Sureshchandra and Shrinivasavadhani, 2008a). for their projects and tailoring approach is a good
We believe that those studies that have conducted from choice for managers to meet customers’ requirements
the perspective of teams are more valuable than others. and simultaneously gain the agile values.
Agility affects all aspects of organizations, so, effective In the second form, localization, it seems that
researches should be done via exploratory methods. managers accept essential change in production line,
Clearly, achieving agile values and also twelve but some of agile activities customized and some others
agile principles (Beck et al., 2001) behind the agile may be ignored. Clearly such these activities are
manifesto needs an extensive mutation in software different in each method (Fitzgerald et al., 2006;
development approach in each company. Without a Mirakhorli et al., 2008). This is one way to customizing
comprehensive strategy for overcoming the obstacles agile methods to fulfill management, organizational
and issues, a huge amount of effort and cost should be plan or project requirement (Mirakhorli et al., 2008).
paid and in most of time less value could be achieved. Especially at early stages of moving to agile, because of
In this study, the next sections are subsequently: lack of experience in team members, some practices are
tailoring, localization or adoption of agile methods, ignored and typically done in traditional way. For
investigating on challenges and issues of agile example, group decision making which is one of the
migration, role of agile methods in adoption, necessity team-oriented activities in many case studies was
of definition of change management strategy and finally ignored. Also in some other reports, customer
conclusion and future work. collaboration is not possible, so, some of customer
related activities automatically are done in traditional
BEING AGILE; TAILORING, LOCALIZATION way (Srinivasan and Lundqvist, 2010). Furthermore,
OR ADOPTION sometime incompatibilities between agile pilot projects
and environments compel companies to localize agile
Tailoring, localization and adoption are solutions methods in their organizations (Mahanti, 2006). It
that companies may choose for using agile methods in seems that localization of agile methods is only because
their projects. Of course these concepts are close to of organizational requirements.
each other, but each of them is based on a particular In the agile adoption process, managers accept
approach. essential organizational changes and try to adapt their
Tailoring approach mainly focuses on using agile organizations with agile methods. In this case, almost
methods in organization with the minimum changes in there are no internal and external limitations for
the structure of organization. This approach was implementing agile methods and managers try to use
followed mostly in the early years after introducing one or more agile methods completely in their projects.
agile methods. At that time CMMI model was the best There are many publications in this regard; while some
assessment model for achieving high quality product, of them have focused on finding obstacles and
so, many managers were not interested in essential challenges (Babar, 2009; Nerur et al., 2005), others
change in their product line. In other words they claimed to provide a guideline of framework for
preferred to have agile values beside their main transformation to agile (Sidky, 2007). Also, there are
development line. For instance, they wanted to keep some case studies explaining story of movement and
and maintain CMMI practices and if possible, use agile lesson learned among the movement process (Ganesh
methods (Alleman, 2004; Anderson, 2005; Diaz et al., and Thangasamy, 2012; Hajjdiab and Taleb, 2011;
2009). It is clear that with this perspective, sometimes Srinivasan and Lundqvist, 2010). Agile adoption is the
agile methods could not be implemented in the best best way for achieving agile values and could be
way, or sometimes some of the major agile values studied deeper in different perspectives.
should be ignored (Mahanti, 2006). Since agile methods Anyway, moving to agile is a hot research area and
have some conflicts with some CMMI practice areas, there are a lot of research centers that try to facilitate
using agile methods and having CMMI at the same this fundamental change in organizations (Dingsøyr
time, in some cases is not possible (Fritzsche and Keil, et al., 2012).
2007; Turner and Jain, 2002). Nonetheless, there are
some reports that claim for mixing agile and CMMI MIGRATION AND ADOPTION CHALLENGES
completely without any problem (Jakobsen and AND ISSUES
Johnson, 2008). In sum up, benefits of each of these
approaches (Agile and CMMI) cause interesting in both As mentioned in previous section, several studies
of them and tailoring is reasonable process yet (Glazer, have been done in this area. These researches mainly
2010). It seems that it is first choice of managers in have started after 2005, since at that time, efforts for
disciplined companies to using agile in at least some of using agile started in some companies. Nerur et al.
their projects or using some of the agile practices in (2005) in a classic research defines four challenge
their product line. Furthermore in many cases categories; management and organizational, people,
2346
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 6(13): 2345-2351, 2013

process and technology. Changing mindset of people maintenance tasks in teams is a barrier of agile adoption
especially senior traditional software developers is not (Moe et al., 2012).
easy (Cohn and Ford, 2003) and need to enough In process domain, changing process model from
mentoring and time (Sureshchandra and traditional life cycle model to agile (evolutionary and
Shrinivasavadhani, 2008b). In other hand, human iterative) is an obstacle in altering approaches; because
aspects in agile methods which are called ecosystems this change has significant influence on strategies,
by Highsmith (2002), most of the times act as serious tools, role of the people and techniques (Ganesh and
obstacles in organization (Tolfo et al., 2011). For Thangasamy, 2012). This change especially in
instance, sometimes this factor causes problem in companies with a higher level of CMMI, sometimes is
conducting pair programming in XP by senior more difficult because of their rigid and solid behavior
developers (Hunt, 2005; Sureshchandra and (Babuscio, 2009). Finally, different measurement
Shrinivasavadhani, 2008b). Also, code ownership is a practices in agile versus traditional methods is an issue
challenge area in perspective of developers against and should be considered especially for those who have
other teams (Hunt, 2005). Ambitious people in teams a bias toward traditional measurement (Javdani et al.,
sometime change customer’s priorities and make the 2012). Agile adoption process in distributed
transition process and adoption harder (Krasteva and organizations has more issues to be managed compare
Ilieva, 2008). Furthermore, cultural differences and to the previous discusses challenges. The most
consequently different mindset and mentality also were important issues are communication and cultural
reported as barriers in deploying agile methods (Tolfo differences. In such companies due to the distance, face
et al., 2011). Coaching in agile is different from other to face meeting is difficult; also time zone offset makes
methodologies, since both technical and social aspects communication harder (Fowler, 2006). Although
should be considered together. lack of experienced and Impossibility of the teams to work collocated at one
patient coach is an important issue in movement place all the time is a serious barrier in adoption early
process (Srinivasan and Lundqvist, 2010) and is phases in none distributed organizations also (Krasteva
referred as a biggest challenge in a case study and Ilieva, 2008). Cultural issues mainly are seen in
(Sureshchandra and Shrinivasavadhani, 2008b). multi-international sites (Summers, 2008).
Self-organizing team is one the essential of agility, It seems that all parts of organization face to
Hoda et al. (2011) has explained all required roles in an several barriers, challenges and issues. Exactly because
agile team but, assembling such a perfect team is not of this fact, many studies have been done in this area
easy. Furthermore, several obstacles and issues were and will be done later also. Awareness about these
reported about some specific roles in agile teams. For challenges is necessary and all team members should be
instance, project managers especially those who are trained. Overcoming to these challenges even with
experienced in traditional software development, cannot awareness about them needs a lot of efforts and time. It
forget easily their previous role as a commander in should be noted that there are many reports on
traditional methods and alter it to a leadership problems and challenges in post-adaption phase that are
(Sureshchandra and Shrinivasavadhani, 2008b). not included in our study and should be discussed in a
Customer, who supposed to be one the active team separate study.
members, may play a negative role in movement
process. Sometimes they resist against new situation ROLE OF AGILE METHODS IN
(Hunt, 2005). Characteristics of customers in agile TRANSFORMING TO AGILE
project, were explained in many studies (Cohen et al.,
2004; Turner and Boehm, 2003), but having such As was mentioned before, several agile methods were
perfect customers in early stages of moving to agile is a founded and over past years almost all of them were
great chance. used by different companies. Their underpinnings
Light weight documentation and tacit knowledge in values are the same but their practices are different
head of development team members is also a barrier from each other. Cohen et al. (2004) have explained
from management perspective (Levy and Hazzan, more popular agile methods. However, some other
2009). Another issue is decision making in agile teams. methods like adaptive software development (ASD)
Drury et al. (2012) have demonstrated six major (Highsmith, 2000) and Internet-speed development
obstacles in this issue. These obstacles are (ISD) (Baskerville and Pries-Heje, 2001) which were
unwillingness to commit to decisions and rely on introduced at the early years of the emergence of agile,
project manager, conflicting priorities for decision, didn’t get popular as segregated and well-defined
unstable resource availability and also lack of methods over the years. The main reason for this issue
implementation decision by team members, lack of is because the mentioned methods does not emphasize
taking ownership or decision and lack of empowerment on any particular practices. For instance, ASD focuses
by preventing expert from making decision. on result instead of the task needed to achieve the result
Furthermore, group decision making especially in (Chowdhury and Huda, 2011; Highsmith, 2000). Of
allocation of development resources, alignments of course the concepts defined in them are provided in
strategic product line and performing development and other popular agile methods.
2347
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 6(13): 2345-2351, 2013

Fig. 1: General plan of change management strategy

Abrahamsson et al. (2003) have done a comparative emphasizes on particular goals and practices and the
analysis on agile methods to show differences of them ability to use or not to use of these practices has
from different perspectives. Of course they mentioned significant effect on success of agile movement process,
that at that time there were not enough empirical method selection is a critical decision and should be
supports for their research Recently, Rao et al. (2011) done by enough study and time. There are some studies
have done a study on applicability and implications of to help managers in this important decision (McAvoy
different agile methods in industry. Also, there are et al., 2007; Mnkandla and Dwolatzky, 2007).
some studies which compare two specific agile
methods, like Scrum vs. XP (Fernandes and Almeida, CHANGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY IN THE
2010) and Adaptive Software Development vs. Feature AGILE TRANSFORMATION
Driven Development (Chowdhury and Huda, 2011). In
general, the main aim of these studies is not to find pros Agile methods offer a lot of values and achieving
and cons of agile methods; they have tried to increase these values motivate all companies. They have only
the knowledge of applicability of the methods. one solution for gaining the values, they should change.
Generally agile methods in software development
either focused on software development or project Scope of change: Based on our literature, there are a
management. This difference in perspective leads them lot of obstacles in agile transformation process. It is
to different applications. However, the main differences mainly because the range of change is so vast that all
are seen from project management viewpoint, there are parts of organization are involved and need to adjust
many disparities in software development life-cycle themselves with new situation. Agile adoption requires
(Abrahamsson et al., 2003). We should be aware that alteration in attitude and approach and change in this
degree of agility in different agile methods is not equal level may affect organization’s goal also.
to each other. However this factor is not enough
accurate and fair for comparing them, but it can be Necessity of change management strategy: In an
useful for all stakeholders to fix their perceptions and idiotic view, moving to agile is changing the process of
expectation of agility. software development. This is an engineering approach
Based on the above discussion, it seems that and we believe that in socio technical problems,
another important item for increasing successfulness of engineering approach is not sufficient.
agile migration is having enough knowledge about Sidky (2007) proposed a framework to guide
origin and capabilities of each agile method. Each companies for adopting to agile in a four stages process.
company should select one or more agile methods that His work is valuable but he focused only through the
are more suitable for them. Since each method engineering perspective and without pay attention to
2348
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 6(13): 2345-2351, 2013

real situation of stakeholders. It should be noted that at Alleman, G., 2004. Blending agile development
that time there were no enough migration experiences methods with CMMI®. Cutt. IT J., 17(6): 5-15.
to being studied. Anderson, D.J., 2005. Stretching agile to fit CMMI
For success in this process, all of the required level 3: The story of creating MSF for CMMI
functions and practices should be gathered under a process improvement at microsoft corporation.
single umbrella called change management strategy. Proceeding of the AGILE Conference 2005,
Agile transformation should be seen from different Denver, CO, pp: 193-201.
perspective such as management, process, people, Asnawi, A.L., A.M. Gravell and G.B. Wills, 2012.
organization and technology Fig. 1 shows general plan Factor analysis: Investigating important aspects for
of this strategy). Indeed any guidance to transition to agile adoption in Malaysia. Proceeding of the
agile should be a change-oriented process and not
Asia's Premier Agile and Lean Conference,
methodology-oriented. For realization of this idea,
previous experiences should be studied and outline of AgileIndia 2012, Bengaluru, pp: 60-63.
the strategy should be exploited form the inside of Babar, M.A., 2009. An exploratory study of
organizations. We believe that the best strategy for architectural practices and challenges in using agile
change management could be codified by conducting a software development approaches. Proceeding of
Grounded Theory (GT) (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). the 2009 Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on
Fortunately previous successful GT based researches in Software Architecture and European Conference
agile software development area (Babar, 2009; Cho, on Software Architecture, WICSA/ECSA 2009,
2010; Hoda et al., 2011), have had great contributions Cambridge, pp: 81-90.
and it seems that because of nature of these methods, Babuscio, J., 2009. How the FBI learned to catch bad
GT is the best way for investigating on them. guys one iteration at a time. Proceeding of the
Agile Conference, AGILE 2009, Chicago, IL, pp:
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 96-100.
Barlow, J.B., J.S. Giboney, M.J. Keith, D.W. Wilson,
Agile methods in last decade have been hot R.M. Schuetzler, P.B. Lowry and A. Vance, 2011.
methodologies in software development. These Overview and guidance on agile development in
methods by offering significant values motivate large organizations. Commun. Assoc. Inform.
software stakeholders to use them. For achieving the Syst., 29(1): 25-44.
agile values, development approach should be changed Baskerville, R. and J. Pries-Heje, 2001. Racing the e-
from traditional to agile. This change should be done in
bomb: How the internet is redefining information
all parts of company and covers all aspect of
systems development methodology. Proceedings of
organization.
Researches in this area mainly focus to find the IFIP TC8/WG8.2 Working Conference on
barriers, challenges and lessons learned from agile Realigning Research and Practice in Information
transformation and adoption case studies. Also few Systems Development. The Social and
frameworks were supported for agile adoption based on Organizational Perspective, Deventer, The
the specific perspectives. Based on our literature, agile Netherlands, pp: 49-68.
transformation should be done only via a Beck, K., 2002. Test Driven Development: By
comprehensive framework which is explored from Example. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston.
inside of organizations. Different challenges and Beck, K. and C. Andres, 2004. Extreme Programming
obstacles and also different perspectives on this Explained: Embrace Change. 2nd Edn., Addison-
mutation process support our idea. We believe for Wesley Professional, Boston.
success in agile transformation it should be done only Beck, K., A. Cockburn, R. Jeffries and J. Highsmith,
via a change management strategy that will considers 2001. Agile manifesto. Retrieved from: http://
all significant factors like people, organization, www.agilemanifesto.org, (Accessed on: July 28,
management, process and technology. Indeed without 2012)
following a disciplined strategy companies will spend a Boehm, B., 2002. Get ready for agile methods, with
huge amount of effort and cost without achieving a care. Computer, 35(1): 64-69.
reasonable agile achievement. We are conducting a Cho, J.J., 2010. An exploratory study on the issues and
Grounded Theory research for exploring change
challenges of agile software development with
management strategy.
scrum. Ph.D. Thesis, Utah State University, Utah,
REFERENCES USA.
Chowdhury, A.F. and M.N. Huda, 2011. Comparison
Abrahamsson, P., J. Warsta, M.T. Siponen and J. between adaptive software development and
Ronkainen, 2003. New directions on agile feature driven development. Proceeding of the
methods: A comparative analysis. Proceeding of International Conference on Computer Science and
the 25th International Conference on Software Network Technology, ICCSNT 2011, Harbin,
Engineering, Portland, OR, pp: 244-254. China, pp: 363-367.
2349
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 6(13): 2345-2351, 2013

Cohan, S. and H. Glazer, 2009. An agile development Highsmith, J.A., 2000. Adaptive Software
team's quest for CMMI® maturity level 5. Development: A Collaborative Approach to
Proceeding of the Agile Conference, AGILE 2009, Managing Complex Systems. Dorset House
Chicago, IL, pp: 201-206. Publishing Co. Inc., New York.
Cohen, D., M. Lindvall and P. Costa, 2004. An Highsmith, J.A., 2002. Agile Software Development
introduction to agile methods. Adv. Comput., 62: Ecosystems. Addison-Wesley Professional,
1-66. Boston.
Cohn, M. and D. Ford, 2003. Introducing an agile Hoda, R., J. Noble and S. Marshall, 2011. Developing a
process to an organization. Computer, 36(6): grounded theory to explain the practices of self-
74-78. organizing agile teams. Emp. Softw. Eng., 17(6):
Diaz, J., J. Garbajosa and J.A. Calvo-Manzano, 2009. 609-639.
Mapping CMMI level 2 to scrum practices: An Hunt, J., 2005. Agile Software Construction. Springer-
experience report. Commun. Comput. Inform. Sci., Verlog, USA.
42: 93-104. Huo, M., J. Verner, L. Zhu and M.A. Babar, 2004.
Dingsøyr, T., S. Nerur, V. Balijepally and N.B. Moe, Software quality and agile methods. Proceeding of
2012. A decade of agile methodologies: Towards the 28th Annual International Computer Software
explaining agile software development. J. Syst. and Applications Conference, COMPSAC 2004,
Softw., 85(6): 1213-1221. Hong Kong, China, pp: 520-525.
Drury, M., K. Conboy and K. Power, 2012. Obstacles Jakobsen, C.R. and K.A. Johnson, 2008. Mature agile
to decision making in Agile software development with a twist of CMMI. Proceeding of the Agile
teams. J. Syst. Softw., 85(6): 1239-1254. 2008 Conference, Toronto, ON, pp: 212-217.
Fernandes, J.M. and M. Almeida, 2010. Classification Javdani, T., H. Zulzalil, A.A.A. Ghani and A.M. Sultan,
and comparison of agile methods. Proceeding of 2012. On the current measurement practices in
the 7th International Conference on the Quality of agile sofware development. Int. J. Comput. Sci.
Information and Communications Technology, Issue, 9(4): 7.
QUATIC 2010, Porto, pp: 391-396. Krasteva, I. and S. Ilieva, 2008. Adopting an agile
Fitzgerald, B., G. Hartnett and K. Conboy, 2006. methodology - Why it did not work. Proceeding of
Customising agile methods to software practices at the International Workshop on Scrutinizing Agile
Intel Shannon. Eur. J. Inf. Syst., 15(2): 200-213. Practices or Shoot-Out at the Agile Corral, APOS
Fowler, M., 2006. Using an Agile Software Process APSO'08, Leipzig, pp: 33-36.
with Offshore Development. Retrieved from: Laanti, M., 2010. Agile transformation study at Nokia -
http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/agileOffshor One year after. Proceeding of the 1st International
e.html, (Accessed on: August 15, 2012). Conference on Lean Enterprise Software and
Fraser, S., B. Boehm, J. Jarkvik, E. Lundh and K. Systems, LESS 2010, Helsinki, pp: 3-19.
Vilkki, 2006. How do Agile/XP development Levy, M. and O. Hazzan, 2009. Knowledge
methods affect companies? Proceeding of the 7th management in practice: The case of agile software
International Conference on Extreme Programming development. Proceeding of the 2009 ICSE
and Agile Processes in Software Engineering, Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects on
Oulu, Finland. Software Engineering, CHASE 2009, Vancouver,
Fritzsche, M. and P. Keil, 2007. Agile methods and BC, pp: 60-65.
CMMI: Compatibility or Conflict? e-Inform. Mahanti, A., 2006. Challenges in enterprise adoption of
Softw. Eng., 1(1): 9-26. agile methods: A survey. J. Comput. Inform.
Fulgham, C., J. Johnson, M. Crandall, L. Jackson and Technol., 14(3): 197-206.
N. Burrows, 2011. The FBI gets agile. IT Prof., McAvoy, J., D. Sammon and I. Owens, 2007. A simple
13(5): 57-59. tool to assist in agile methodology adoption
Ganesh, N. and S. Thangasamy, 2012. Lessons learned decisions. J. Dec. Syst., 16(4): 451-468.
in transforming from traditional to agile McCarthy, I. and C. Tsinopoulos, 2003. Strategies for
development. J. Comput. Sci., 8(3): 389-392. agility: An evolutionary and configurational
Glaser, B. and A. Strauss, 1967. The Discovery of approach. Integr. Manufact. Syst., 14(2): 103-113.
Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Mirakhorli, M., A.K. Rad, F.S. Aliee, M. Pazoki and A.
Research. Aldine Transaction, Chicago. Mirakhorli, 2008. RDP technique: A practice to
Glazer, H., 2010. Love and marriage: CMMI and agile customize XP. Proceeding of the 13th International
need each other. CrossTalk, 23(1-2): 29-34. Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2008,
Hajjdiab, H. and A.S. Taleb, 2011. Agile adoption Leipzig, pp: 23-32.
experience: A case study in the U.A.E. Proceeding Mnkandla, E. and B. Dwolatzky, 2007. Agile
of the IEEE 2nd International Conference on methodologies selection toolbox. Proceeding of the
Software Engineering and Service Science, 2nd International Conference on Software
ICSESS 2011, Beijing, pp: 31-34. Engineering Advances - ICSEA 2007, Cap Esterel.
2350
 Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 6(13): 2345-2351, 2013

Moe, N.B., A. Aurum and T. Dybå, 2012. Challenges Summers, M., 2008. Insights into an agile adventure
of shared decision-making: A multiple case study with offshore partners. Proceeding of the Agile
of agile software development. Inform. Softw. 2008 Conference, AGILE '08, Toronto, ON, pp:
Technol., 54(8): 853-865. 333-338.
Nerur, S., R. Mahapatra and G. Mangalaraj, 2005. Sureshchandra, K. and J. Shrinivasavadhani, 2008a.
Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies. Adopting agile in distributed development.
Commun. ACM, 48(5): 72-78. Proceeding of the 3rd IEEE International
Rao, K.N., G.K. Naidu and P. Chakka, 2011. A study of Conference Global Software Engineering, ICGSE
the Agile software development methods, 2008, Bangalore, pp. 217-221.
applicability and implications in industry. Int. J. Sureshchandra, K. and J. Shrinivasavadhani, 2008b.
Softw. Eng. Appl., 5(2): 35-45. Moving from waterfall to agile. Proceeding of the
Schatz, B. and I. Abdelshafi, 2005. Primavera gets Agile 2008 Conference, AGILE '08, Toronto, ON,
Agile: A successful transition to Agile pp: 97-101.
development. IEEE Softw., 22(3): 36-42. Tolfo, C., R.S. Wazlawick, M.G.G. Ferreira and F.A.
Schwaber, K. and M. Beedle, 2001. Agile Software Forcellini, 2011. Agile methods and organizational
Development with Scrum. Prentice Hall, Engle culture: Reflections about cultural levels. J. Softw.
Wood Cliffs, NJ. Maintenanc. Evol., 23(6): 423-441.
Sidky, A., 2007. A structured approach to adopting Turner, R. and A. Jain, 2002. Agile meets CMMI:
agile practices: The agile adoption framework. Culture clash or common cause? Proceedings of
Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and the 2nd XP Universe and First Agile Universe
State University, Virgiana, USA. Conference on Extreme Programming and Agile
Srinivasan, J. and K. Lundqvist, 2010. Agile in India: Methods - XP/Agile Universe 2002.
Challenges and lessons learned. Proceeding of the Turner, R. and B. Boehm, 2003. Balancing Agility and
3rd India Software Engineering Conference, Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed. 1 Edn.,
ISEC'10, Mysore, pp: 125-130. Addison-Wesley/Pearson Education, Boston, USA.

2351