Introducing the Agile Method for Web Development in Saudi Arabia - Literature review Example

Introducing the Agile Method for Web Development in Saudi Arabia: An Applied Study on Saudi Universities 2 Literature Review 2 The Software Development Process The software development process involves applying a specific methodology to identify “who is doing what, where, why, how and when” (McDonald & Welland, 2001) so as to better manage and guide it and deal with potential problems. Its fundamental components or stages are specifying, developing, validating and evolving (Pressman, 2005), but different needs and requirements mean that the generic process has to be adapted. The typical goals of developing software are illustrated in the diagram below, which distinguishes between those that are complementary and those that are conflicting. These are enhancing performance, minimising cost, meeting deadlines and ensuring reliability and ease of maintenance. It is also possible for developing software in an ad-hoc way but structured methods become necessary for large and important projects. Figure 1: The typical goals of a software development project (Source: Bell, 2000) The present day problem is that Web 2.0, Ajax, and related web services and technologies are now complicating web development, hence the availability of various Web 2.0 frameworks to assist in the process. An example of such a framework is Ruby on Rails, which “attempts to combine PHP’s simple immediacy with Java’s architecture, purity, and quality” (Bachle & Kirchberg, 2007). The complications of web development over general software development are due to their need for concurrency, immediacy, continuous evolution and security, being network intensive and content driven, and coping with unpredictable load, performance, availability, etc. (Omaima, 2008). These pose challenges, which require new approaches to deal with them. One of the most significant of these latest approaches as far as software process thinking is concerned, is the emergence of agile ideas, commonly believed to have arisen as a reaction to traditional ideas. McDonald & Welland (2001) contrast agile methods with what they call ‘monumental processes’ characterised by their being process oriented and predictive. The greater success of agile over traditional or monumental methods has been proven in a study by Noura et al. (2010) and is attributed to quality improvements, more frequent measurement of customer satisfaction, etc. (Noura et al., 2010b). The historical roots of what is now recognised as agile methods in web development however, originated much earlier (Noura et al. 2008). Since 1957 and throughout the 1970s and later, there were suggestions of working software over documentation, adopting incremental methods and involving customers in the process, as pointed out by Larman & Basili (2003). A briefing on the history of such thinking is therefore worthwhile, as it could help to better understand agile methods as well as help to promote them. Traditional software development processes were devised to solve ‘waterfall problems’ using a single pass approach, which therefore tended to be “heavyweight, document and plan driven” (Noura et al., 2008). Examples are V-Model, Spiral Model (illustrated below) and the Rational Unified Process, all of which Fowler described as engineering methodologies. Thus, agile methods tried to break away from this tradition to make them more suitable for developing software rather than engineering them. Changes in the business environment have also been responsible, as agile methods reflect “today’s turbulent business and technology change[s]” (Cockburn & Highsmith, 2001). Figure 2: The spiral software development process model (Source: Boehm, 1988) The practice of ‘half day iterations’ was used by NASA for Project Mercury and in 1970, and Winston Royce recommended five iterative features for the software development process in order to avoid developmental risks. Many other uses of iterative and incremental development processes were documented by Larman & Basili (2003). Gladden (1982) justified the practice because (1) physical objects convey more information than written specifications, and (2) successful products require both system objectives as well as physical demonstrations. McCracken & Jackson (1982) highlighted the advantages of prototyping early on in the software development process, and suggested the end-user should be involved according to the following sequence, which incorporates the idea of iteration: 1 2 3 4 5 Implementation Design Specification Redesign Re-implementation Table 1: End user involvement in software development process according to McCracken & Jackson (1982) Gilb (1985) then introduced the EVO method based on delivery to the real end-user, measurement of added value, and basing adjustments on observed realities. Eight critical concepts underpin his method, two of which emphasise user value and a comprehensive analysis, design and testing at each step. His method is more results oriented than process oriented. Another methodology soon emerged, known as the Rapid Iterative Production Prototyping (RIPP) designed to ensure customer satisfaction, and this then led to the Rapid Application Development (RAD) methodology (Martin, 1991). Its lifecycle had the following four phases in which the detailed design and generation of code could be could be looped in the construction phase: 1 2 3 4 Requirements planning User design Construction Implementation Table 2: The four phases of the RAD 2.2 Development Methodologies (Overview and comparison of different development methodologies) 2.3 The Agile Methodology Agile web development is a revolutionary new way of looking at teamwork in information technology. IT development is a field that is always changing, and new methodologies are constantly being proposed which challenge the assumptions of the past. One of the newer methodologies in this field is called the Agile methodology, which is often contrasted against older methodologies that are more linear in nature like Waterfall and Adaptive methodologies. Agile methodology, on the other hand, is more about teamwork and communication than it is about fixed rules, fixed roles, and a linear model of project progression and completion. “We argue that an agile approach [2] best addresses the challenges facing Web engineering processes with the agile focus on: people and interactions over processes and tools; working software over comprehensive documentation; customer collaboration over contract negotiation; responding to change over following a plan” (McDonald, 2005). It is a fairly recent development. “In 2005, a group headed by Alistair Cockburn and Jim Highsmith wrote an addendum of project management principles, the Declaration of Interdependence, to guide software project management according to agile development methods” (Waterfall, 2010). Since this time, the method has been growing, and it has picked up many supporters who view it as a more organic system than Waterfall or Adaptive methods, which are less able to respond to new problems which may come up in the process of writing software in dedicated teams. “The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely. Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility” (Jazayeri, 2007) As sources note, there are some basic principles behind Agile methodology, which set the parameters for how the methodology should be used in the IT environment. For one thing, Agile is about satisfying the customer and putting them first, so that the software, above all, responds to their needs. Another uniting feature of the methodology is that it is designed to cut production time down significantly, so that a product can be delivered in weeks instead of months and years. Taking the linearity out of the process of method development also means that enormous changes can be made using Agile methodology at the last minute, which in a more linear model may be scrapped due to the pressure of linear time deadlines. For those using Agile methodology for IT development, the software itself is the product, and represents “Close, daily cooperation between businesspeople and developers, as well as the assumption that face-to-face conversation is the best form of communication (co-location). Projects are built around motivated individuals, who should be trusted, and continuous attention to technical excellence and good design is used” (Waterfall, 2010). Agile methodology was designed to make the process of development simpler, more well organized, and more based on principles of teamwork and adaptation. To accomplish this goal, “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” (Waterfall, 2010). As mentioned, in the swiftly changing IT filed, an adaptive method is needed, but a competing ideology is also ineffective. For programmers and engineers in this field to be successful, they need to work together on integrative teams. Agile provides “the most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation” (Willis et al., 2009) The reason that some claim Agile methodology cuts down on risk is that it allows the project to adapt and change organically and quickly, based on the demands of the present rather than on some past standard. Using this method, “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” (Waterfall, 2010). Workers using Agile methods may use multiple iterations in the same time frame in order to speed a project to completion, while working on teams that are considered to be self organizing. Team members, however, are required to take responsibility. The Agile methodology will not work as well with unmotivated teams. But if the motivation level is high, sources tend to agree on the method’s potential. “The agile process route centres around people and the necessary interactions required to enable a diversity of disciplines to deliver solutions as part of a unified team. Thus it is ideally suited to the multidisciplinary nature of developers, both technical and non-technical, in Web Engineering” (Abbas et al., 2008). In terms of procedures of data collection and analysis, for example, an old Waterfall research method might have the researcher give out questionnaires to a random population segment about what they think about the abovementioned themes, and compare results from these questionnaires to the data derived from existing literature on the subject, in a linear fashion. “Agile projects build projects around motivated individuals, give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done” (Xiaocheng et al., 2006) In an Agile method, on the other hand, it would be more about team planning, and one must first clearly define leadership in these environments. “Working software is the primary measure of progress. Agile processes promote sustainable development” (Sherer and Adams, 2001).  Thus far most perspectives have advanced the idea that both the IT and the business planner are working with a basically rational-systems perspective in the actual leadership of branches, in terms of training pedagogy from a efficiency-based and rule-based system and also managing. But there is also the open systems environment mentioned in collusion with the manager as well as the IT leader. Leadership works in these structural environments in different ways. “There are two types of systems: closed and open. A closed system limits in its interactions with its environments… producing standardized products in an uninterrupted stream. An open system interacts with the external environment” (Hellriegel et al., 2005). Agile is an open system. There may be different effects depending on the environment. Catering to the status quo of clientele at many organizations is based in many cases on a legacy type of operation that puts a strong emphasis on tradition. For this traditional legacy to continue into the present, however, both large and small IT organizations and software companies need to be closely aligned to consumer needs as well as being aligned to the concept of not being a reactionary to industry change, but rather an agent of industry change. This may be difficult for many cost-effective and stability or tradition obsessed IT managers and companies to achieve, because in the past they have based performance initiatives on the perception of dealing with change in the external environment while still maintaining a cost-effective internal structure (non agile waterfall methods). It may be more tenable for these entities to take a more hands-on approach to change in the external environment by changing this internal structure to match overall organizational trends. “The highly volatile nature of e-markets and new technologies in Web-based development make an adaptive iterative and incremental process, such as AWE, that focuses on collaboration and responding to changing customer requirements essential for success” (McDonald, 2005). This may mean the solution of becoming a more active part of the dynamic present environment in terms of policymaking alternatives which focus on the feedback of programmers and engineers working on teams, rather than focusing the policy directions of the IT company entirely on management decisions. Overall, agile methods are designed to highlight the importance of “Individuals and interactions over processes and tools, working software over comprehensive documentation, customer collaboration over contract negotiation, and responding to change over following a plan” (Agile, 2010). By focusing exclusively on the customer, agile methods hope to drive the industry towards a more responsive paradigm, where it is not just engineers and programmers competing with each other to meet deadlines, but rather a more timeless structure in which programmers and engineers are not afraid to make changes as a project nears its completion. There is a lot of positive reflection of Agile methods in existing literature, but since it is a relatively new method, the challenge of the future remains. “Simplicity--the art of maximizing the amount of work not done--is essential” (Kong et al., 2007) 2.4 Project Management 2.5 Global Cultural Differences in Software Development 2.6 Agile Web Development in Saudi Arabia REFERENCES Abbas, N, A Gravell, and B Willis (2008). The Impact of Organization, Project and Governance Variables on Software Quality and Project Success University of Southampton School of Electronics and Computer Science UK. … (2010). Using Factor Analysis to Generate Clusters of Agile Practices University of Southampton School of Electronics and Computer Science Southampton UK. … (2008). An Empirical Comparison of Two Agile Projects in the Same Organization School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton UK. Bachle, Michael & Kirchberg, Paul. (2007). Ruby on Rails. Software Technology, Nov.-Dec. 2007. Bell, Douglas. (2000). Software engineering: a programming approach. 3rd edition. Addison Wesley, Pearson Education Limited. Boehm, Barry W. (2000). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 61-72. The IEEE Computer Society. Cockburn, A. & Highsmith, J. (2001). Agile software development: The business of innovation. Computer, Vol. 34, No. 9, pp. 120-127. Gilb, T. (1985). Evolutionary delivery versus the waterfall model. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 49-61. Hellriegel and Slocum (2005). Management. New York: Pearson. Kong, X, Liu, L, and D Lowe (2007). Modeling an agile web maintenance process using system dynamics. Faculty of Engineering, University of Technology, Sydney AU. Jazayeri, M (2007). Some Trends in Web Application Development. Future of Software Engineering(FOSE07 Larman, C. & Basili, V. R. (2003). Iterative and incremental development: a brief history. IEEE Computer Society, Vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 47-56. Martin, J. (1991). Rapid Application Development. McMillan Publishing Co., Inc. McCracken, D. D. & Jackson, M. A. (1982). Lifecycle concept considered harmful. ACM Press, Vol. 7, pp. 29-32. In Noura et al., 2008. McDonald, Andrew & Welland, Ray. (2001). Agile web engineering (AWE) process. University of Glasgow, Department of Computer Science, Technical Report TR-2001-98. McDonald, A and R Welland (2001). Agile Web Engineering (AWE) Process. University of Glasgow 2001, Department of Computing Science Technical Report McDonald, A (2005). AWE Process. Journal of Web Engineering, Vol. 4, No.4, 283-312. Noura, Abbas; Gravell, A. and Wills, G. (2008). Historical Roots of Agile Methods: Where did “Agile Thinking” Come from? In: Agile processes and eXtreme programming in Software Engineering, 10-14 June 2008, Limerick, Ireland Noura Abbas; Gravell, Andrew, M. & Wills, Gary B. (2010). Using factor analysis to generate clusters of agile practices: a guide for agile process improvement. 2010 Agile Conference. IEEE Computer Society. Noura, Abbas; Gravell, A. & Wills, G. (2010b). The impact of organization, project and governance variables on software quality and project success. 2010 Agile Conference, August 9-13, Orlando, Florida. IEEE Computer Society. Omaima Nazar Ahmad Al-Allaf. (2008). A proposed hybrid web engineering process model for large-scale web-based applications development in large web development enterprises. Dissertation in Computer Information Systems. The Arab Academy for Banking and Financial Sciences. Pressman, Roger S. (2005). Software engineering: a practitioner’s approach. 6th edition. McGraw Hill International Edition. Royce, Winston. (1970). Managing the development of large software systems. Proceedings, IEEE WESCON, pp. 1-9. In Noura et al., 2008. Sherer, S, and B Adams (2001). Collaborative commerce. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, VOL. 2, NO. 2. Willis, G, N Abbas, R Chandrasekharan et al (2009). An Agile Hypertext Design Methodology. School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton UK. Xiaocheng G, R Page, and F Polack (2006). Agile Development of Secure Web Applications. ICWE’06, July 11-14, 2006, Palo Alto, California, USA. Agile web development (2010). CCPACE.com Agile development (2010) http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/programming-and-development/?p=1064 Agile Manifesto Co-Author Mike Beedle Conducts Agile Training Session for SoftServe Team (2010). Business Wire. Waterfall vs. Agile (2010). http://agileintro.wordpress.com/2008/01/04/waterfall-vs-agile-methodology/ BIBLIOGRAPHY Aoyami, M (2010). Agile web processing. IEEE Software. Elliot, H (1999). Agile Software Snags Digital Market. Electronic News. Millard, D, Y Howard, N Abbas et al. (2007). Pragmatic Web Service Design: An Agile Approach with The Service Responsibility and Interaction Design Method. School of Electronics and Computer Science; Southampton UK Millard, D, Davis, H, Y Howard et al (2010). The Service Responsibility and Interaction Design Method: Using an Agile approach for Web Service Design. School of Electronics and Computer Science University of Southampton, Southampton, UK Pool, D (2010). Do it yourself agile. Read More