[2017/2018] Agile development
1 like388 views
The document discusses the differences between Agile and Waterfall methodologies in software development, emphasizing the Agile Manifesto's principles that prioritize individuals and interactions, working software, customer collaboration, and responsiveness to change. It outlines how Agile methods, such as Scrum, advocate for iterative development, continuous integration, and incorporating testing throughout the process. Additionally, the document critiques certain limitations of Agile methods, highlighting the potential neglect of comprehensive planning and architectural considerations.
![Suggested readings
1. Striebeck, M., "Ssh! We are adding a process... [agile practices],"
Agile Conference, 2006 , vol., no., pp.9 pp.,193, 23-28 July 2006
2. Nicolรฒ Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, Michael Unterkalmsteiner,
Tony Gorschek, Pekka Abrahamsson, Software development in
startup companies: A systematic mapping study, Information and
Software Technology, Volume 56, Issue 10, October 2014, Pages
1200-1218, ISSN 0950-5849
3. Alfonso Fuggetta and Elisabetta Di Nitto. 2014. Software process. In
Proceedings of the on Future of Software Engineering (FOSE 2014).
ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1-12.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ivano05agiledevelopment-171123214423/85/2017-2018-Agile-development-19-320.jpg)
[2017/2018] Agile development
- 2. Waterfall vs agile: poor visibility
- 3. Waterfall vs agile: poor quality
- 4. Waterfall vs agile: too risky
- 5. Waterfall vs agile: canโt handle change
- 8. Agile manifesto We are uncovering better ways of developingโจsoftware by doing it and helping others do it.โจThrough this work we have come to value: Individuals and interactions over processes and toolsโจ Working software over comprehensive documentationโจ Customer collaboration over contract negotiationโจ Responding to change over following a plan That is, while there is value in the items onโจthe right, we value the items on the left more. http://www.agilemanifesto.org
- 9. How does it work in practice? You make a list You start executing You estimate You update the plan โ@run-timeโ You set priorities
- 10. Agile iterations
- 11. Technical tools: unit tests Snippet of test code for exercising some functionality of the product ร codified requirements We will have a dedicated course on testing
- 12. Technical tools: test-driven development Write tests first Refactoring is less risky now
- 13. Technical tools: continuous integration Merging all the developersโ working copies many times a day ร it allows to make sure that all the code integrates, all the unit tests pass, and a warning if anything goes wrong image from http://newmedialabs.com/
- 15. An implementation: SCRUM http://www.flickr.com/photos/magia3e/6233729753/
- 16. An implementation: SCRUM Burndown chart = how much work is left Scope changes โข The engineering team missed features in the UI mockups when we created the release backlog โข Integrations into other AdWords features were overlooked โข The rate of change in AdWords APIs is very high.
- 17. Critical evaluation of the agile method + Acceptance of change ร less risky + Frequent and short iterations + Emphasis on working code + Associating a test with every piece of functionality + tests are a key resource within the project + Continuous integration (and delivery) + Planned โ Tests as a replacement for specifications โ Feature-based development & ignorance of dependencies โ No quality plan โ Dismissal of a priori architecture work โ actually, dismissal of everything which is non-shippable
- 18. References
- 19. Suggested readings 1. Striebeck, M., "Ssh! We are adding a process... [agile practices]," Agile Conference, 2006 , vol., no., pp.9 pp.,193, 23-28 July 2006 2. Nicolรฒ Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, Michael Unterkalmsteiner, Tony Gorschek, Pekka Abrahamsson, Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study, Information and Software Technology, Volume 56, Issue 10, October 2014, Pages 1200-1218, ISSN 0950-5849 3. Alfonso Fuggetta and Elisabetta Di Nitto. 2014. Software process. In Proceedings of the on Future of Software Engineering (FOSE 2014). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1-12.
- 20. Contact Ivano Malavolta | Assistant professor Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam iivanoo [email protected] www.ivanomalavolta.com