Content uploaded by Taghi Javdani Gandomani
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Taghi Javdani Gandomani on Jun 11, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014), pp.129-148
http://dx.doi.org/10.14257/ijseia.2014.8.1.12
ISSN: 1738-9984 IJSEIA
Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC
How Human Aspects Impress Agile Software Development
Transition and Adoption
1Taghi Javdani Gandomani, 2Hazura Zulzalil, 3Abdul Azim Abdul Ghani,
4Abu Bakar Md. Sultan and 5Khaironi Yatim Sharif
Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, university Putra Malaysia,
43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
1tjavdani@yahoo.com, {2hazura, 3azim, 4abakar, 5khaironi@upm.edu.my}
Abstract
Many software companies are interested in using Agile methods in their software projects.
Contrary to traditional software development methods, Agile methods are people oriented.
This fact shows the significant role of individuals in these methods. Increasing prevalence of
Agile methods forces software companies to consider people related factors as critical issues
in adoption and transition to Agile methods and practices. This article focused on human
aspects of Agile transformation process by conducting a Grounded Theory study involving 32
Agile experts. The main contribution of this article is identification and classification of
diverse human aspects of Agile transformation process. Analyzing collected data showed that
human aspects of Agile transformation process can be classified in several categories. While
some of them are impediments to change, some others act as change accelerators. At the
same time people’s perceptions about change process and incentive factors can shape and
form human aspects during the Agile transformation process. Each of these categories
encompasses its own factors which have negative or positive effect on change process.
Keywords: Agile software development, Agile methods, Agile transformation, Agile
transition, human aspects, Grounded Theory
1. Introduction
Agile methodologies as reaction to traditional methods offer different values to software
industry. Indeed, by defining different development approach, they have focused on different
achievements, such as higher quality, faster delivery, embracing change, light weight
documentation and so forth [1].
The main issue is that for moving to Agile, all of the development practitioners should be
involved in the process which is called Agile transformation/transition process (ATP) and it
makes this process problematic and difficult. Furthermore, transformation process needs
extensive changes in all aspects of organization [2].
Changing development method from traditional to Agile methods needs extensive changes
in people’s mindsets and their behaviors [1, 3]. It means that people play a critical role in
ATP, and can act both as drivers and hindrances of Agile transition and adoption. Several
studies have been carried out on the role of the people in moving to Agile [3-10]. Some of
them have explained how people’s resistance against change impresses transformation [8, 9].
Some others have focused on cultural challenges and issues [9, 10]. At the same time,
people’s reactions to their new roles were discussed by some other studies [11]. Since all
parties from developers to top management and even customers impress Agile transition,
there are many parameters that should be considered in such studies. Conducting a Grounded
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
130 Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC
Theory (GT) study showed that “human aspects of Agile transformation process” is one of the
primary emerged categories. This article takes a look at this concept using GT perspective
and explains how people may affect adoption and transition to Agile methods.
The rest of this article is organized subsequently as: Section 2 provides a concise
background; Section 3 explains research methodology; Section 4 shows the results of the
study. Afterward, a detail discussion is provided followed by addressing limitations of the
study in the next section and finally Section 7 provides conclusion and future works.
2. Background
By creating and signing “Agile manifesto”, Agile methods were introduced as
replacements of traditional methods [12]. During the past few years, several Agile methods
have been proposed, including XP, Scrum, Feature Driven Development (FDD), Crystal
Family, Test Driven Development (TDD), Dynamic System Development Methodology
(DSDM), etc. Although these methods have different practices, they stress on the same
values.
Leaving traditional methods and moving to Agile methods is not an overnight process and
needs much efforts and lasting enough time. Indeed, two simultaneously tasks should be done
for moving to Agile; “forgetting the traditional mindsets and behaviors” and “adopting Agile
practices”. Both of these tasks are people centric and it makes them hard. This is because we
mentioned that Agile transformation process is not easy and fast.
There are many challenges during Agile transition. Because of the people-centered nature
of this process, most of the transformation challenges are about people [13]. Human aspects
of ATP are reported as major obstacles in Agile adoption [14]. Cultural problems also have
negative effects on transformation process [5, 15].
Traditional mindset of software practitioners is also one of the main hindrances of this
process [9, 13, 16]. Command and control mindset causes people resist against the change [9].
Most often, people cannot forget their previous roles and so, adapting to the new role gets so
hard [1, 3, 11]. People's collaboration and commitment are also critical prerequisites of
transformation process, but achieving these factors, is not easy and people, particularly those
with traditional mindsets, are not interested in cooperation with each other in a collaborative
environment [11, 17]. Top and middle management also act as barriers of ATP, mostly
because of their mindsets and lack of knowledge about Agile values and principles [5, 9, 18].
Despite of the above negative effects, there are many reports on positive effects of people
on ATP too. Top management and people commitment are critical drivers of transformation
process [19]. Furthermore, Agile champions in Agile teams, by facilitating transformation
challenges and motivating others, make transformation easier [4]. Also, Agile coaches and
mentors play a critical role in helping people to accept the changes [20].
Following the research methodology, the findings of this study and further discussions
about them, will be provided in next sections.
3. Research Methodology
This study was conducted based on the Grounded Theory as a qualitative research method
[21]. It is suitable for studying actions in a substantive environments from the points of view
of the actors involved [22]. Such method is helpful for answering questions like “What is
going on in an area?” [23]. This research stated with a general area of interest rather than
specific research questions to prevent proposing preconceived hypothesis or idea [22, 24].
However, key concerns and problems are emerged in the initial steps of data analysis [22, 25].
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC 131
3.1. Data Collection
Data collection was started at early stages of the study and was stopped by reaching data
saturation, which is the situation that further data are not adding to the findings [22]. At the
first step, it was called for volunteers whom had at least one Agile transformation experience.
Then, it was conducted semi-structured interviews with all of the volunteers. Interviews were
conducted through on-line media since all of the participants were living out of the country.
Of 32 Agile experts attended to this study, some of them had published several books and
articles on the area under study. Table 1 demonstrates demography of the participants. They
were from 13 different countries and had enough experience in their jobs. Their roles varied
from Agile Developer, Agile Coach, Project Manager, Scrum Manager and so forth. All
interviews were voice recorded and transcribed with interviewees’ consent. In this article,
participants are addressed by their number, P1 to P32 and their role, if necessary.
Table 1. Demography of the Participants (SM=Scrum Master, AC=Agile
Coach, CON=Consultant, DEV= Agile Developer, QA= Quality Assurance
PM= Project Manager)
No.
SD exp.
(Yrs)
Agile exp.
(Yrs)
Position
Country
Methods
Company size
Transition Duration
(month)
P1
14
8
HDD
Finland
XP, Scrum, Kanban
70+
12+, ongoing
P2
25
15
AC
USA
Scrum, Kanban
65+
12+
P3
7
7
PM
USA
XP, Scrum, Kanban
500+
6+,ongoing
P4
10
2
PM
Bulgaria
XP, Scrum, Kanban
200+
6+, ongoing
P5
10
2
PM
Iran
Scrum, Kanban
150+
12+, ongoing
P6
11
8
CON
Australia
Scrum, Kanban, FDD
1000+
12-15
P7
6
2
DEV
Greek
Scrum
20+
12+, ongoing
P8
10
5
PM
Germany
Scrum, Kanban
50+
8+, ongoing
P9
20
10
HDD
Spain
Scrum
200+
24
P10
20
3
SM
Spain
Scrum, Kanban
200+
24+,ongoing
P11
10
4
AC
India
XP, Scrum, Kanban
50+
+6,ongoing
P12
16
2
HDD
USA
Scrum, Kanban
1600+
6+,ongoing
P13
14
6
AC
Finland
Scrum, Kanban
20+
3-30
P14
15
3
MGT
Iran
Scrum, Kanban
50+
12
P15
10
2
CON
Indonesia
Scrum
200+
3+, ongoing
P16
21
10
PM
USA
Kanban
65+
12
P17
19
5
PM
Sweden
Scrum, Kanban
50+
24+, ongoing
P18
8
2
DEV
Sweden
Scrum
40+
24
P19
13
6
PM
India
Scrum
200+
USA:18, India:24
P20
11
3
HDD
USA
Scrum, Kanban
1200+
6+, ongoing
P21
16
7
SM
USA
XP, Scrum
250
18
P22
11
5
AC
France
Scrum, Kanban
2000+
12+, ongoing
P23
16
8
AC
USA
XP, Scrum, Kanban
200+
6-24
P24
15
7
SM
USA
Scrum, XP
40+
6+, ongoing
P25
8
4
DEV
USA
Scrum, XP
300+
15+
P26
13
6
AC
India
Scrum, XP
50+
12+
P27
14
5
SM
USA
Scrum, Kanban
40+
6+, ongoing
P28
15
6
AC
Germany
Scrum, Kanban
50+
15+
P29
10
1
PM
Norway
Scrum
40+
12+
P30
35
1
DEV
USA
Scrum
100+
6+, ongoing
P31
17
4
QA
USA
Scrum
50+
12
P32
25
2
AC
USA
Scrum, Scrumban
200+
12, ongoing
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
132 Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC
3.2. Data Analysis
Data analysis, called data coding, started when some data were collected [25]. In this
study, data analysis was supported by NVIVO software package which is suitable for
handling qualitative researches generally, and GT studies particularly [26-28]. Data analysis
was started by line-by-line reviewing transcribed data and finding key points within the data
[29] and assigning an open code to each key point [21]. Then, immediately discovered code,
was compared to the previous emerged codes in the same and previous interviews through
constant comparison method [21, 25]. This process assisted the researchers to find out higher
level of abstraction called concepts [21]. Iterative using of constant comparison technique
helped to discover categories [21].
Conducting open coding fractured all the data, so, the next steps focused on putting
fractured data together. At first, connections between categories were founded through Axial
coding, which was used to demonstrate relationships between categories, sub-categories and
their properties [23, 30]. This process led to emerging the primary concern of the participants,
called core category. Then, by selective coding, data analysis was continued focusing on
“only those variables that relate to the core variable in sufficiently significant ways as to
produce a parsimonious theory“[29]. The main aim of this process was refining and
integrating the theory [23]. The emerged core category was “iterative Agile transformation
process”, which “human aspects of Agile transition” was one of its related categories. Figure
1 shows the multi-level data analysis carried out in this study.
During data analysis, the researchers used theoretical memoing to add some more related
data (but not in interviews). "Memos are the theorizing write-up of ideas about substantive
codes and their theoretically coded relationships as they emerge during coding, collecting and
analyzing data, and during memoing" [22]. Memos assisted the researchers to develop ideas
about the concepts and the categories and to discover relationships between them [22, 23].
Figure 1. Multi-level Data Analysis
3.3. Theory Generation
The last step of data analysis was theory generation which called “theoretical coding” [21].
There are several different views on this process. While, Glaser has stressed on induction or
emerging theory [25], Strauss has emphasized on validation criteria and systematic approach
[23]. On the other hand, Charmaz, emphasizes on the role and effect of researchers on theory
building [31]. This study followed Glaser’s approach for theory building.
The main theory is iterative Agile transformation process where covers all related
categories and properties of this process. It includes Preparation activities and prerequisites,
Managing and Challenge handling, Transformation Facilitators, Iterative Transition
Framework, Continuous Assessment and etc. These categories and their own sub-categories
and properties are discussed in different articles.
“Human aspects” as one of the related categories of iterative Agile transformation process
(the core category) is discussed in this article. Limited space of the article doesn’t let the
authors to provide all interviewee’s quotations, key points, concepts, codes and properties and
only those that have clarified emerged concepts are explained.
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC 133
4. The Results: Human Aspects of Agile Transition and Adoption
This study showed that people and their mindsets and behaviors strongly affect all
transformation related activities as is depicted in Figure 1. In the following subsections
all related categories and subcategories are explained.
Figure 1. Emergence of the Theory of Human Aspects of Agile Transition
and Adoption
4.1. Impediments to Change
Human aspects were major hindrances to change process in the software companies.
It seemed that the participants mainly complained about this challenge and warned
others about it.
4.1.1. Resistance to Change
Naturally, people are accustomed to the status quo and this fact acts as a serious barrier to
change. The participants addressed this issue a major human challenge during ATP.
“Resistance to change in some teams & CEOs was the major challenge we faced with
during the process. Most of them are accustomed to their current roles and activities and
naturally resist change.” P10, Scrum Master.
“I should mention about the people resistance against change. Some managers did not
accept decreasing their power and let people to be free.” P19, Project Manager.
Sometimes this challenge is because of their concerns about their jobs. In this case, afraid
of losing job was seen as an obstacle to change process.
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
134 Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC
“Very often, people’s concern about their role and personal career is common issue.
Sometimes, it is an organizational reporting structure but as it often is, it is always a people’s
problem.” P2, Agile Coach.
This issue was addressed by almost all the participants and was emphasized by some of
them. (P9, P11, P13, P15, P20, P27, P32)
4.1.2. Cultural Issues
People’s culture was another challenge that had made change more difficult. This issue
was addressed by most of the participants as one of the critical challenges during ATP.
“We had many problems in some Agile practices that their origins were cultural issues.
Trust to each other, collaboration, collective ownership and many other practices were and
are hard to be adopted. In many cases people preferred their own benefits rather than team's
benefit.” P5, Project Manager.
“Some of the failures for the Agile transformation were due to culture. The culture of
[Company name] is more on Control and Competences, Scrum is more on Cooperation and
Cultivation. That's why we have also decided to use Kanban and to focus more on doing Agile
than being Agile. We think that the first step is doing and being will follow. We can't do a
culture assessment of the team because of the unions. It could be forbidden by the [his
country] law.” P22, Agile Coach.
Sometimes, this issue returned to organizational culture rather than people’s culture, as the
participants declared.
“I have been faced with many cultural problems. These problems aren’t only related to
people, most of the times, they return to organizational culture and behaviors. Organizations
usually dictate their own culture to people. I mean that sometimes, the real problem isn’t
people’s culture; it’s organizational culture.” P23, Agile Coach.
“I don't know it is cultural problem or no, but I think that being self-organized team is
completely depending on the culture of each company. Success in some practices has direct
relation with organizational culture and people’s habits. I believe that cultural issues affect
human aspects in organizations.” P4, Project Manager.
Cultural problems, regardless of the people or organizational culture, were emphasized by
almost all the participants unless P12 and P18.
4.1.3. Lack of Collaboration
The participants addressed lack of collaboration as a critical challenge during ATP.
“Demand collaboration in Agile methods makes some problems in many cases. People
addicted to do their own work in their ways; it was hard to change it, even for enthusiastic
people.” P17, Project Manager.
“Many people have problem in collaboration and communication. They have not enough
confidence to participate in group works and group decision making. In this case
communication is not good.” P11, Agile Coach.
The participants stressed on the role of teams rather than individuals and declared that
collaboration is necessary for organizing an Agile team. They addressed it as a major issue.
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC 135
“Agile means that the team is responsible for its work [rather than individuals] and how
this work is done. In Spain hierarchical structures are still the usual pattern and people is not
used to take decisions on their own. I mean that collaboration is weak in many cases.” P9,
Head of Development Department.
Some of the respondents addressed this issue in people’s culture and their organizational
habits (P11, P19, P24) and some other emphasized on nature of distributed teams which leads
to this issue. (p16, P25)
4.1.4. Wrong Mindset
Having the wrong mindset about change and Agile methods and values can act as a
major hindrance during ATP. Some of the participants declared that this phenomenon
leads to many problems in Agile transition and adoption.
“The number one and huge cultural problem is pretty much everyone having the
wrong mindset. Managers think command & control which is excellent for managing
work that is about execution [but] is unsuitable for design & development. Customers
expect to purchase new product design, development work with fixed price, fixed scope
contracts. Legislators assume the same. So basically all parties related to software
product development mostly get it completely and hopelessly wrong.” P1, Head of
Development Department.
“… Some others preferred to have a leader that controls them, they afraid for going
wrong. This attitude is contradictory to Agile approach.” P19, Project Manager.
This challenge also was seen as a common problem for managers too.
“In my last two transformations, I faced with manage rs who asked me impossible
stuffs. They were not aware of the real change and its circumstances. Generally, some
of managers are not interested in relinquishing their power.” P16, Project Manager.
“I think that our problems were in two categories: First, The main challenge was to
get the founder, owner and inventor of the company to relinquish control and learn how
to delegate…” P1, Project Manager.
Furthermore, some other respondents addressed this issue and emphasized on its
effect on Agile transition. (P5, P12, P13, P14, P15, P17, P18, P21, P31)
4.1.5. Lack of Knowledge
Lack of deep and enough knowledge was reported as one of the causes of negative
effects of the involved people on ATP.
“Common challenges tend to be around education and understanding. Lack of deep
understanding of Agile approach, makes people reaction unpredictable and often
ineffective.” P6, Agile Consultant.
“People are my main problem [in transformation]. They need to be coached and
trained, but most of them resist against changes. In most of the times, their knowledge
is not enough about Agile, I mean that they don’t feel the reality of Agile and its values.
Thus, they may follow their incorrect or wrong approach.” P23, Agile Coach.
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
136 Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC
This shortcoming also was seen in the stakeholders’ r oles generally, and the
customers particularly. Thus, sometimes weak collaboration and involvement of
customers during ATP was because of their insufficient knowledge.
“The big issue was lack of buy-in from customers and stakeholders; low morale,
misunderstanding. These items suffered transformation process.” P6, Agile Consultant.
“Generally, customer information is not deep on Agile. They have not concern for
development process… so, they have no sense about Agile and their roles and it affects
transformation.”P2, Agile Coach.
Lack of knowledge and its consequences and effects on ATP, were addressed several
times by lots of other respondents. (P5, P7, P9, P10, P11, P15, P17, P18, P21, P28)
4.2. Accelerating Change
Despite of aforementioned negative effects of people on transformation process,
several evidences were seen about positive effects of human factors on ATP. It means
that people can push transformation forward to achieving its goals and facilitating
change process. Following subsections explain these positive aspects.
4.2.1. People buy-in
People buy-in was addressed as one of the facilitators that make Agile transformation
easier than expected and conversely, lack of it, makes Agile transformation more
difficult and longer.
“People commitment to change increases the chance of successful transformation
and decreases the cost of change. It is the most powerful catalyst for changing
approach.” P14, Top Manager.
“People buy-in helps them to be positive about change, thus, the migration will be
easier. Without getting buy-in, there will be little chance to change people’s mindsets of
processes.” P8, Project Manager.
People buy-in was also addressed as a facilitator which can help Agile team to
overcome transition challenges. In this case, fewer efforts are needed to being Agile.
“Get people buy-in, before going Agile. It can help you to overcome most of the
people-related challenges. In this process people can be both facilitators and
hindrances…” P2, Agile Coach.
Almost all of the other Agile coaches also talked about this factor in their interviews.
4.2.2. Management Buy-in
Management commitment and support also like people buy-in was emphasized by
some of the participants.
“I can count several items for successful migration to Agile… the next one is
management buy-in that is extremely important factor, especially for challenging with
senior traditional practitioners…” P2, Agile Coach.
Role of managers, especially those who had enough authority, affect transformation
process. It was mentioned as one of the facilitators of ATP.
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC 137
“Our top management helped our team in all steps. He was very knowledgeable and
open minded. I think that such manager can lead teams to being Agile easy and fast.”
P9, Head of Development Dept.
This factor was also addressed as a necessary prerequisite of ATP.
“Most important prerequisites are intentions and commitment from CEOs. Managers
help people in change process by supporting them and reducing hindrances and
handling challenges.” P10, Scrum Master.
On the other hand, some of the participants discussed about the risk of the lack of
management commitment before and during ATP
“… If management is not agreeing with change, don't do it. We were faced with this
challenge and our project failed. We expected that management could facilitate this
process and support others…”P18, Agile developer.
Positive personality and supportive morale, as necessary characteristics of the
managers, were mentioned by other participants. (P1, P5, P7, P8, P15, P19, P20)
4.2.3. Champions
Agile champions by adjusting Agile practices to suit environment and support other
members play a critical role in ATP as the respondents declared.
“I always try to identify the "champion" who will drive the internal change.
Champions expand or even break the borders that Agile practices face in their
environment. They also try to find the better ways of working with the others around
them. They really help organizations in transformation process.” P6, Agile Coach.
They also stressed that champions can facilitate transformation process and motivate
other people to adopt themselves with changed processes and activities.
“In transition process, champions play a critical role. I totally agree with the idea
that having at least to champions on the teams during Agile transformation gets people
to herald its adoption. In my opinion, changes with more champions come to fruition
easier. I believe that any successful Agile transformation has a champion, even he
would not be known with that name.” P23, Agile Coach.
“Companies should hire an expert; they should have their own champion.
Champions can reduce side effects of change, lead and inspire the change and lead
people to next level.” P16, Project Manager.
The senior participants put more emphasis on the role of champions in ATP. This
factor also was addressed by other participants. (P2, P7, P8, P9, P25)
4.2.4. Supporters
Supporters, regardless of their roles, were addressed as those who support Agile
teams and help them in change process. As the participants declared, such people not
only motivate others, but also help them to overcome their problems during
transformation process.
“Some people have more influence and authority in company; they can be good
supporter for others. Such people affect migration process by impressing other
members.” P19, Project Manager.
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
138 Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC
The Participants declared that supporters can be found in all roles and
responsibilities, even a junior developer can be a supporter.
“Managers can be the best supporters, especially middle managers. If managers
have enough commitment to change, and support other members, this is the best
motivation. Lucky team members have supportive managers.” P15, Agile Consultant.
“As a developer, if you have a problem with tasks and requirements then scrum role
product owner is your best supporter. If you have technical problem may your peer is
the best. If serious problems are in process itself, coach is the best supporter… all
members need supporter in doing their jobs, but during the migration supporters are
necessary…” P13, Agile Coach.
“Managers and coaches are best supporters in transformation process. They can
support people in Agile transformation well.” P23, Agile Coach.
Regardless of the roles, almost all the participants mentioned about role of supporters
during ATP.
4.3. People’s Perceptions about Change Process
This study discovered that people’s reactions to change mainly related to their
perceptions about it. Also their behaviors during ATP depend on their perceptions and
sensations. The participants addressed several perceptions and feelings in Agile teams,
before and during Agile transition.
4.3.1. Enthusiasm for Change
Enthusiasm for change was addressed as one of the major reasons for change in Agile
teams. This factor along with the problems of traditional methodologies had motivated
many people to change their development methods.
“I think that most of people were enthusiastic about change. They got tired and they
were interested in change.” P17, Project Manager.
“I was enthusiastic about migrating to Agile... I read about it and I felt that it could
solve most of our problems. I was really interested in it.” P4, Project Manager.
This factor helped people to overcome transformation challenges and problems. In
this case, people could accept change with less effort and in an easy manner.
“Fortunately we had minimum problem with developers. Do you know why? They
were really enthusiastic for changing their ways. They were more interested in Agile
than managers. This made our transition easier than expected.” P17, Project Manager.
Enthusiasm of team members was mentioned by most of the respondents as a human
aspect that had impressed their transformation process.
4.3.2. Worried About Change
This case was reported by some of the participants as another perception of people
about changing their development methodologies.
“Honestly, I was enthusiastic as well as worried. You know, after seven years
developing software using waterfall-based tools and methods, I was worried about our
future development strategy.” P5, Project Manager.
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC 139
“We didn’t know more detail about Scrum and XP; I heard something about their
methods, but not in deep. Always I worried about adapting to new methodology. You
know, I worried about people judging me, I should have a pair. I had lots of concerns
about Agile practices…” P25, Agile Developer.
However, some of the participants addressed this factor as people’s perception before
starting transformation; some other mentioned that people were worried as well as
enthusiastic. (P1, P11, P13)
4.3.3. Indifferent to Change
While some people were enthusiastic or worried about change, as was reported by the
participants, some others were indifferent to change process.
“As a manager, I was enthusiastic. But I saw that some of my staffs were
indifference, I think that they were those who had minimum interaction with customers
(and so, problems). They have little information about Agile values and its business
advantages.” P14, Management.
It seemed that lack of knowledge and motivation was hidden reason of this human
aspect during the change process.
“I faced with some people that were indifferent to change and I say that what caused
them to become indifferent to transformation was lack of knowledge about this
process.” P22, Agile Coach.
“People who had no motivation to being Agile, I mean those who are indifference,
need more time to change themselves and find their ways. Coaches must pay attention
to those people.” P26, Agile Coach.
This issue was addressed mainly by some of the project managers. (P3, P4, P17, P19)
4.3.4. Feeling the Real Need for Change
The participants emphasized that feeling need for Agile impresses people during
transformation process.
“Feeling need for change is a key in transition process. It can affect all aspects of
moving to Agile, since it's about people's behaviors and responsibilities.” P4, Project
Manager.
Feeling real need for changing development process and being enthusiastic and
realistic about the change make people stronger to change themselves.
“Fortunately, in our company almost all teams felt that our previous methods need
be changed and they embraced Agile methods.” P24, Scrum Master.
Some of the respondents also discussed the importance of sensing real reasons for
going Agile before starting transformation since they believed that it impresses the
whole of Agile transition and can shape perceptions of people and help them in
changing themselves. (P3, P5, P6, P18, P19, P21, P23, P26)
4.3.5. Unrealistic Expectation About Agile
The last perception that the participants addressed it was unrealistic expectations
about Agile methods and their effects on development process.
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
140 Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC
“People should be realistic and have correct perception about changes achievable
values. Some of my colleagues had wrong expectation at the beginning and it made a
lot of problems for whole of the team.” P7, Agile Developer.
“In my last two transformations, I faced with managers that asked me impossible
stuffs. …That was because their expectation from Agile methods, Agile values and
related items were completely wrong.” P16, Project Manager.
Sometimes, wrong expectations caused problems and challenges during ATP and got
Agile teams in trouble.
“I should mention that having wrong expectations about Agile is a major risk in
transformation process. Sometime people’s enthusiasm leads them to unreal
expectations, so, Agile coaches need lots of effort to change their Agile wrong
mindsets; I mean that it causes new issues.” P11, Agile Coach.
Some other participants also mentioned about this issue and other aspe cts of it and
also addressed effective training and coaching as the strategies that were useful for
correcting this wrong mindset. (P1, P6, P8, P12, P13)
4.4. Incentive Factors
The Study discovered that people, especially those who had not enough deep
knowledge about Agile methods and values, should be motivated and encouraged for
going Agile. Providing incentives makes people positive about the change.
“All members can understand values, achieving Agile is achieving value. The
important issue is that organizations should motivate them for being Agile.
Encouraging people helps managers to handle migration process faster and easier.”
P2, Agile Coach.
Providing incentives also was reported as a critical factor that affects other
stakeholders, like customers.
“Customer involvement in our transformation process was insufficient. Fortunately,
by motivating them and offering some incentives, their collaboration got better…” P3,
Project Manager.
Providing incentives during the transformation process generally, and in early stages
particularly, addressed as a helpful factor for pushing people in Agile transition.
“Maybe at first stages nothing could be done for encouraging opponents. You should
have some ceremonies for showing your progress, even for small progress.” P4, Project
Manager.
Totally, providing incentives and motivations were addressed as one of the
facilitators of ATP that has significant effect and influence on people mindsets and their
reactions to change. (P5, P7, P8, P10, P11, P12, P19, P27)
5. Discussion and Related Works
The above findings showed the general outline of human aspects of Agile transition
and transformation as depicted in Figure 2.
Human aspects in Agile methodologies and Agile transformation are studied
previously in several studies from different perspectives. Fortunately, most of the
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC 141
emerged categories of this study are supported by other researches that have been done
by different research methodologies and different perspectives.
Figure 2. The General Outline of Human Aspects of Agile Transition and
Adoption
5.1. Impediments to Change
Agile manifesto has emphasized on individuals and interaction as one of the Agile
values [12]. It reflects the importance role of people in these methodologies compared
to traditional methodologies. Conboy et al., explained that increasing prevalence of
Agile methods and growing pressure to adopt to these methods lead organizations to
focus on people related issues carefully [4]. They believe that at the first step all
potential people related challenges that may occur during ATP, should be studied.
Nerur et al., in one of the early studies, categorized all challenges of moving to Agile
in four categories in which “people related issues” was one of them [9]. This study also
discovered that people can act as a major impedance to change. Several reasons for this
human reaction to change were discovered which the most important reasons were
discussed in the section 4.1 of this article. Among them, it seemed that cultural
problems are more critical than the others since they were addressed by almost all of
the participants. In several studies people and organizational culture are discussed [5, 9,
14]. Cockburn et al., by describing role of the people in moving to Agile methods
mentioned that people’s culture strongly influences transformation process [3]. Problem
with organizational culture was addressed by Nerur et al., [9]. Dorairaj et al.,
discovered that lack of understanding causes lack of trust in distributed teams and
affects Agile transition and adoption in distributed teams [7]. Chan et al., pointed out
organizational culture as one of the potential determinants of Agile acceptance [16].
Tolfo et al., discussed on different levels of organizational culture and found out that
there are several obstacles and facilitators in lower levels of organizational culture [14].
Cultural issues of ATP also were studied in some other researches [5, 17, 32].
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
142 Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC
Resistance to change was reported as another barrier during ATP. This challenge was
addressed previously by some other studies [9, 16, 33]. However, resistance to change
is not seen only in Agile methods, but, since nature of Agile methods is people-
centered, this factor is more critical in these methods [4]. Cohn mentioned that
changing people’s mindset and adapting new approach is not easy and fast [33]. Also,
in some of case studies, people resistance was reported explained during the
transformation process [18, 19, 34].
Having wrong mindset was another issue that was discovered by this study as one of
the negative human aspects in ATP. Nerur et al. addressed traditional mindset as one of
most important obstacles to changing development approach [9]. Having the wrong
mindset causes people show negative and unexpected reaction to change. For instance,
Sureshchandra et al., explained that some of the people like project managers, cannot
forget their traditional roles and act as a barrier in moving to Agile [11]. Furthermore,
sometimes managers cannot relinquish their previous authority and this makes Agile
transition hard. In this case “command and control” mindset is a critical challenge [9].
Lack of knowledge was one of the reasons that people play a negative role in
transformation as the participants addressed in this study. Landim et al., addressed lack
of knowledge as one of the reasons of failing in Agile and suggested several
recommendations to achieving adequate knowledge in Agile contexts [35]. Both Agile
practices and Agile values should be understood by all Agile teams in order to do their
responsibilities in transformation process carefully. Lack of knowledge mostly causes
by inadequate and dysfunctional training. Bergin et al. stressed on learning Agile values
and principles besides of Agile practices to improve knowledge of Agile practitioners
[36]. Asnawi et al., showed that low perception from Agile user towards Agile
methodologies is a barrier of getting everyone in Agile teams to take responsibilities
[37]. Some other studies also mentioned about role of training and improving team
member’s knowledge in moving to Agile [4, 17, 38, 39].
This study also discovered that lack of collaboration is another cause for impediment
to change in ATP. Due to the people oriented nature of Agile methods, collaboration
and interaction play a critical role in Agile transition and adoption. Moe et al. discussed
on lack of collaboration in shared-decision making as one of the Agile practices [40].
Mishra et al. studied impacts of physical ambiance on collaboration, communication
and coordination in Agile software development [41]. Kusumasari et al. by emphasizing
on role of the collaboration in Agile methodologies defined a collaboration model for
these methods [42]. Furthermore, this factor was mentioned as one of the customers’
issues in transformation process by many studies [1, 32, 43, 44].
5.2. Accelerating Change
Despite of the above negative human aspects, several positive aspects were
discovered by this study too. These aspects as explained in section 4.2 help Agile teams
to accelerate change process. People and management buy-in, Agile champions and
supporters of the process, were the most important factors that were used to facilitate
and speed up transformation process, as the participants addressed. Of these factors,
people and management buy-in were more critical as discovered in data analysis
process. All of these factors support by several related studies. Conby et al., by
describing importance role of the people emphasized that people interest is the most
important factor that causes processes change well [4]. Tolfo et al., in their study, by
focusing on the human aspects, addressed people commitment as a critical factor in
changing process [14]. Sureshchandra et al., discovered that unhappy people interrupt
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC 143
transformation process [11]. Misra et al., as mentioned previously, focused on the role
of customer commitment in transformation process [44]. While several other studies
emphasized on motivating people to change [1, 5, 45, 46], management commitment
and buy-in was stressed by others. Nerur et al., pointed out that lack of management
commitment is a serious risk to moving to Agile [9]. Hoda et al., focused on the role of
the management support on self-organizing team [47]. Chow et al., discovered that
management commitment is one of the most critical issues in Agile projects [48].
Furthermore, other studies discussed about importance of this factor [17, 19, 49, 50].
This study also discovered that champions and supporters by motivating other people
affect transformation process strongly. Hoda et al. described the role of the champions
in Agile teams and their effects on other team members [51]. Senapathi et al., pointed
out that role of the champions and top management in usage and adoption of Agile
practices[52]. Kum et al., in a research on Test Driven Development (TDD) addressed
‘Agile champion’ as one of the success factors [53]. Furthermore, some people or roles
by supporting other people impress transformation process. Top management, Coaches
and mentors, champions and even motivated individuals can be supporters of the other
team members. Pikkarainen et al., addressed top management and continuous support as
critical factors during the change process [19]. Chow et al., also mentioned about the
role of managers as supporters of other people [48]. Monteiro et al., explained the role
of support in making people positive and persuading them to participate in Agile
practices [54]. Poppendieck explained the role of leaders and coaches in helping and
supporting team members and believed that their role is more important than the role of
the managers in this regard [55]. Hoda et al., also stressed the role of coaches and
mentors in supporting people in self-organizing team [51]. Lack of such roles makes
transformation more difficult, as reported by some other studies [11, 17, 18].
5.3. Perceptions about Change
People’s perception was another emerged category in this study. This research
showed that people have different perceptions and mindsets about the change process.
While some people were enthusiastic or worried about change, some others were
indifferent. Also, some of the people had unrealistic expectation about transformation
process, Agile and its values. At the same time, feeling real needs for Agile acted as a
factor for shaping people’s perceptions about change process. Begel et al., at Microsoft
showed that while people were interested in using Agile practices to improve
communication and increase design flexibility, they worried about scaling Agile in
larger projects, participating in too many meetings and the coordinating Agile and non -
Agile teams [56]. Conboy et al., also pointed out people’s perceptions as barriers to
Agile methods usage and adoption [4]. Patel, et al, studied people’s perceptions of
agility and showed that majority of their studies participants perceive Agile values and
principles as important factors that can help Agile teams to adapt to Agile practices
[57]. Lalsing et al., discovered that “shared perceptions and objectives to achieve
organizational goals” which was called team climate, affects team performance in Agile
software development [58]. O’Connor explained that Agile coaches sometimes should
correct people unrealistic expectations during ATP [59].
5.4. Incentive and Motivation Factors
The last finding of this study was importance of role of the incentive factors in ATP.
Providing appropriate motivations and incentives makes positive atmosphere and
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
144 Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC
encourages people in change process [60]. Due to the people-intensive nature of ATP,
incentive factors impress it strongly. Conboy et al., showed that lack of motivations and
incentives causes many problems in using and adapting to Agile software methods [4].
Ganesh et al., discovered that during ATP, providing slow motivation is necessary and
supportive for participants [49]. Chan et al., explained how motivation-related factors
should be considered for using software development and Agile methods [16]. Melo et
al., showed that motivators in Agile teams are slightly different from other teams [61].
O’Connor explained that project managers should create right incentives for enhancing
team productivity during ATP [59].
6. Limitations
Finding of the study are grounded in the data, because all codes, concepts, categories
and properties were collected directly from real environments [22]. This article does not
claim that its findings are universal, because its access to appropriate resources was
limited to those participants that voluntarily had attended to this research. But, it claims
that its findings describe and characterize the area under study [62].
7. Conclusion and Future Works
Conducting a GT study involving 32 Agile experts from 13 different countries
showed how human aspects of ATP impress Agile transition and adoption. This study
discovered that people behaviors can be impediments to moving to Agile as well as
facilitators. People’s wrong mindset, resistance to change, lack of enough knowledge,
lack of adequate collaboration and cultural problems play negative roles in moving to
Agile. At the same time, some other human factors have positive effects on
transformation process. People and management buy-in, Agile champions and
supporters are important factors that speed up the change process.
Another important factor was perceptions of people about the change. This study
showed that people most often are enthusiastic, worried or indifferent about the change.
Furthermore, sometimes people have unrealistic expectations about Agile and its
values. Wrong and unrealistic expectations have negative effects on change process.
Finally, feeling the real need for change and providing appropriate incentives and
motivations play important role during the transformation process.
Due to the people-centered nature of Agile transformation process, awareness of
human aspects of this process and potential challenges is a critical and necessary
prerequisites before starting this process.
Future studies can focus on the emerged aspects of this study. For instance, one study
can be done on how people related barriers can be reduced before transformation
process. Another study can be done on enhancing positive human aspects of change
process. Also, role of incentives, supporters and other positive factors can be studied in
quantitative studies.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to express their special thanks to all the participants. Also thank to
reviewers that their comments lead to improving quality of this article. This study was
funded by UPM International Graduate Research Fellowship (IGRF), Malaysia.
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC 145
References
[1] D. Cohen, M. Lindvall and P. Costa, "An Introduction to Agile Methods", Advances in computers, vol. 62,
(2004), pp. 1-66.
[2] T. J. Gandomani, H. Zulzalil, A. A. A. Ghani and A. B. M. Sultan, "Towards comprehensive and disciplined
change management strategy in agile transformation process", Research Journal of Applied Sciences,
Engineering and Technology, vol. 6, no. 13, (2013), pp. 2345-2351.
[3] A. Cockburn and J. Highsmith, "Agile software development: The people factor", Computer, vol. 34, no. 11,
(2001), pp. 131-133.
[4] K. Conboy, S. Coyle, X. Wang and M. Pikkarainen, "People over process: Key challenges in agile
development", IEEE Software, vol. 28, no. 4, (2011), pp. 48-57.
[5] J. Iivari and N. Iivari, "The relationship between organizational culture and the deployment of agile
methods", Information and Software Technology, vol. 53, no. 5, (2011), pp. 509-520.
[6] D. M. Moore, P. Crowe and R. Cloutier, "The balance between methods and people", CrossTalk, vol. 24, no.
4, (2011), pp. 11-14.
[7] S. Dorairaj, J. Noble and P. Malik, "Understanding lack of trust in distributed agile teams: A grounded theory
study", Proceeding of the 16th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software
Engineering, EASE 2012, Ciudad Real, Spain, (2012) May 14-15.
[8] Y. Ghanam, F. Maurer and P. Abrahamsson, "Making the leap to a software platform strategy: Issues and
challenges", Information and Software Technology, vol. 54, no. 9, (2012), pp. 968-984.
[9] S. Nerur, R. Mahapatra and G. Mangalaraj, "Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies",
Communications of the ACM, vol. 48, no. 5, (2005), pp. 72-78.
[10] F. Dumitriu, D. Oprea and G. Mesnita, "Issues and strategy for agile global software development adoption",
Proceeding of the 3rd World Multiconference on Applied Economics, Business and Development, AEBD'11,
Iasi, Romania, (2011) July 1-3.
[11] K. Sureshchandra and J. Shrinivasavadhani, "Moving from waterfall to agile", Proceeding of the Agile 2008
Conference, AGILE '08, Toronto, ON, (2008) August 4-8.
[12] K. Beck, A. Cockburn, R. Jeffries and J. Highsmith, Agile manifesto. Available:
http://www.agilemanifesto.org, (2013) July.
[13] T. J. Gandomani, H. Zulzali, A. A. A. Ghani, A. M. Sultan and M. Z. Nafchi, "Obstacles to moving to agile
software development; at a glance", Journal of Computer Science, vol. 9, no. 5, (2013), pp. 620-625.
[14] C. Tolfo, R. S. Wazlawick, M. G. G. Ferreira and F. A. Forcellini, "Agile methods and organizational
culture: Reflections about cultural levels", Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution, vol. 23, no. 6,
(2011), pp. 423-441.
[15] M. Summers, "Insights into an Agile adventure with offshore partners", Proceeding of the Agile 2008
Conference, AGILE '08, Toronto, ON, (2008) August 4-8.
[16] F. K. Y. Chan and J. Y. L. Thong, "Acceptance of agile methodologies: A critical review and conceptual
framework", Decision Support Systems, vol. 46, no. 4, (2009), pp. 803-814.
[17] J. Srinivasan and K. Lundqvist, "Agile in India: Challenges and lessons learned", Proceeding of the 3rd India
Software Engineering Conference, ISEC'10, Mysore, India, (2010) February 25-27.
[18] H. Hajjdiab and A. S. Taleb, "Agile adoption experience: A case study in the U.A.E", Proceeding of the
IEEE 2nd International Conference on Software Engineering and Service Science (ICSESS 2011), Beijing,
China, (2011) July 15-17.
[19] M. Pikkarainen, O. Salo, R. Kuusela and P. Abrahamsson, "Strengths and barriers behind the successful agile
deployment-insights from the three software intensive companies in Finland", Empirical Software
Engineering, vol. 17, no. 6, (2012), pp. 675-702.
[20] D. F. Rico and H. H. Sayani, "Use of agile methods in software engineering education", Proceeding of the
Agile Conference, AGILE 2009, Chicago, IL, (2009) August 24-28.
[21] B. Glaser and A. Strauss, "The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research", Aldine
Transaction Chicago, (1967).
[22] B. Glaser, "Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions", Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA, (1998).
[23] J. M. Corbin and A. C. Strauss, "Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing
Grounded Theory (3e)", SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California, (2008).
[24] C. Urquhart, H. Lehmann and M. D. Myers, "Putting the 'theory' back into grounded theory: Guidelines for
grounded theory studies in information systems", Information Systems Journal, vol. 20, no. 4, (2010), pp.
357-381.
[25] B. Glaser, "Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence Vs. Forcing", Sociology Press, Mill Valley,
CA, (1992).
[26] S. di Gregorio, "Teaching grounded theory with QSR-NVivo", Qualitative Research Journal, vol. Special
issue 2003, (2003), pp. 79-95.
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
146 Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC
[27] J. D. Bringer, L. H. Johnston and C. H. Brackenridge, "Maximising transparency in a doctoral thesis: The
complexities of writing about the use of QSR*NVIVO within a grounded theory study", Qualitative research,
vol. 4, no. 2, (2004), pp. 247-265.
[28] A. J. Hutchison, L. H. Johnston and J. D. Breckon, "Using QSR-NVivo to facilitate the development of a
grounded theory project: an account of a worked example", International Journal of Social Research
Methodology, vol. 13, no. 4, (2010), pp. 283-302.
[29] B. G. Glaser, "Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory", The Sociology
Press, Mill Valley, CA, (1978).
[30] A. C. Strauss and J. M. Corbin, "Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and
Techniques", 2nd edition, SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, California, (1990).
[31] K. Charmaz, "Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis", SAGE
Publications Ltd, London, (2006).
[32] A. L. Asnawi, A. M. Gravell and G. B. Wills, "Factor analysis: Investigating important aspects for agile
adoption in Malaysia", Proceeding of the Asia's Premier Agile and Lean Conference, AgileIndia 2012,
Bengaluru, India, (2012) February 17-19.
[33] M. Cohn and D. Ford, "Introducing an agile process to an organization", Computer, vol. 36, no. 6, (2003),
pp. 74-78.
[34] M. Laanti, O. Salo and P. Abrahamsson, "Agile methods rapidly replacing traditional methods at Nokia: A
survey of opinions on agile transformation", Information and Software Technology, vol. 53, no. 3, (2011),
pp. 276-290.
[35] H. F. Landim, A. B. Albuquerque and T. C. Macedo, "Procedures and conditions that influence on the
efficiency of some agile practices", Proceeding of the 7th International Conference on the Quality of
Information and Communications Technology, QUATIC 2010, Porto, Portugal, (2010) September 29-
October 2.
[36] J. Bergin and F. Grossman, "Extreme construction: Making agile accessible", Proceeding of the AGILE
Conference, 2006, Minneapolis, MN, (2006) July 23-28.
[37] A. L. Asnawi, A. M. Gravell and G. B. Wills, "Emergence of agile methods: Perceptions from software
practitioners in Malaysia", Proceeding of the Asia's Premier Agile and Lean Conference, AgileIndia 2012,
Bengaluru, India, (2012) February 17-19.
[38] R. Lingard and S. Barkataki, "Teaching teamwork in engineering and computer science", Proceeding of the
1st Annual Frontiers in Education Conference: Celebrating 41 Years of Monumental Innovations from
Around the World, FIE 2011, Rapid City, SD, (2011) October 12-15.
[39] X. Wang, K. Conboy and M. Pikkarainen, "Assimilation of agile practices in use", Information Systems
Journal, vol. 22, no. 6, (2012), pp. 435-455.
[40] N. B. Moe, A. Aurum and T. Dybå, "Challenges of shared decision-making: A multiple case study of agile
software development", Information and Software Technology, vol. 54, no. 8, (2012), pp. 853-865.
[41] D. Mishra, A. Mishra and S. Ostrovska, "Impact of physical ambiance on communication, collaboration and
coordination in agile software development: An empirical evaluation", Information and software
Technology, vol. 54, no. 10, (2012), pp. 1067-1078.
[42] T. F. Kusumasari, I. Supriana, K. Surendro and H. Sastramihardja, "Collaboration model of software
development", Proceeding of the 2011 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics,
ICEEI 2011, Bandung, Indonesia, (2011) July 17-19.
[43] R. Hoda, J. Noble and S. Marshall, "The impact of inadequate customer collaboration on self-organizing
Agile teams", Information and Software Technology, vol. 53, no. 5, (2011), pp. 521-534.
[44] S. C. Misra, V. Kumar and U. Kumar, "Identifying some important success factors in adopting agile software
development practices", Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 82, no. 11, (2009), pp. 1869-1890.
[45] A. Pham and P.-V. Pham, "Scrum in Action: Agile Software Project Management and Development", Course
Technology Ptr, USA, (2011).
[46] K. N. Rao, G. K. Naidu and P. Chakka, "A study of the Agile software development methods, applicability
and implications in industry", International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, vol. 5, no.
2, (2011), pp. 35-45.
[47] R. Hoda, J. Noble and S. Marshall, "Supporting self-organizing agile teams what's senior management got to
do with it?", Proceeding of the 12th International Conference on Agile Processes in Software Engineering
and Extreme Programming, XP 2011, Madrid, Spain, (2011) May 10-13.
[48] T. Chow and D. B. Cao, "A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects", Journal of
Systems and Software, vol. 81, no. 6, (2008), pp. 961-971.
[49] N. Ganesh and S. Thangasamy, "Lessons learned in transforming from traditional to agile development",
Journal of Computer Science, vol. 8, no. 3, (2012), pp. 389-392.
[50] L. Vijayasarathy and D. Turk, "Drivers of agile software development use: Dialectic interplay between
benefits and hindrances", Information and Software Technology, vol. 54, no. 2, (2012), pp. 137-148.
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC 147
[51] R. Hoda, "Self-Organizing Agile Teams: A Grounded Theory", PHD, Victoria University of Wellington,
New Zealand, (2011).
[52] M. Senapathi and A. Srinivasan, "Understanding post-adoptive agile usage: An exploratory cross-case
analysis", Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 85, no. 6, (2012), pp. 1255-1268.
[53] W. Kum and A. Law, "Learning effective test driven development: Software development projects in an
energy company", Proceeding of the 1st International Conference on Software and Data Technologies,
ICSOFT 2006, Setubal, Portugal, (2006) September 11-14.
[54] C. V. F. Monteiro, F. Q. B. Da Silva, I. R. M. Dos Santos, F. Farias, E. S. F. Cardozo, A. R. G. Do A. Leitão,
D. N. M. Neto and M. J. A. Pernambuco Filho, "A qualitative study of the determinants of self-managing
team effectiveness in a scrum team", Proceeding of the 4th International Workshop on Cooperative and
Human Aspects of Software Engineering, CHASE 2011, Waikiki, Honolulu, HI, (2011) May 21.
[55] D. J. Anderson, "Agile Management for Software Engineering: Applying the Theory of Constraints for
Business Results", Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA, (2003).
[56] A. Begel and N. Nagappan, "Usage and perceptions of Agile software development in an industrial context:
An exploratory study", Proceeding of the 1st International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering
and Measurement, ESEM 2007, Madrid, Spain, (2007) September 20-21.
[57] C. Patel, M. Lycett, R. Macredie and S. De Cesare, "Perceptions of agility and collaboration in software
development practice", Proceeding of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
HICSS'06, Kauai, HI, (2006) January 4-7.
[58] V. Lalsing, S. Kishnah, and S. Pudaruth, "People factors in agile software development and project
management", International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications(IJSEA), vol. 3, no. 1, (2012),
pp. 117-137.
[59] C. P. O'Connor, Anatomy and physiology of an Agile Transition, Proceeding of the Agile Conference, Agile
2011, Salt Lake City, UT, (2011) August 8-12.
[60] M. De Azevedo Santos, P. H. De Souza Bermejo, A. O. Tonelli and A. L. Zambalde, "Challenges of teams
management: Using agile methods to solve the common problems", Proceeding of the International
Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, CENTERIS 2011, Vilamoura, Portugal, (2011) October 5-7.
[61] C. De O. Melo, C. Santana and F. Kon, "Developers motivation in agile teams", Proceeding of the 38th
EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, SEAA 2012, Cesme,
Izmir, Turkey, (2012) September 5-8.
[62] S. Adolph and P. Kruchten, "Scrutinizing agile practices or shoot-out at the process corral!", Proceeding of
the 30th International Conference on Software Engineering 2008, ICSE'08, Leipzig, Germany, (2008) May
10-18.
Authors
Taghi Javdani Gandomani is a PhD candidate in Software
Engineering at the University Putra Malaysia. His research interests in
software engineering are Agile software development, Software Process
Improvement, Development Methodologies and Empirical studies. He is
also lecturer in Islamic Azad University, Iran and has more than 10 years
industry experience in software development.
Hazura Zulzalil holds a Ph.D. from University Putra Malaysia.
Currently, she is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Computer Science and
Information Technology, University Putra Malaysia. Her research
interests are software metrics, software quality and software product
evaluation.
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications
Vol.8, No.1 (2014)
148 Copyright ⓒ 2014 SERSC
Abdul Azim Abdul Ghani received the B.Sc. in
Mathematics/Computer science from Indiana State University, USA in
1984 and M.Sc. in Computer Science from University of Miami, USA in
1985. He joined University Putra Malaysia in 1985 as a lecturer in
Computer Science. He received the Ph.D in Software Engineering from
University of Strathclyde in 1993. He is a Professor at the Department of
Information Systems, University Putra Malaysia. His research interests
are Software engineering, Software measurement, Software testing, and
Aspect-oriented programming (AOP).
Abu Bakar Md. Sultan holds a Ph.D. from University Putra
Malaysia. Currently, he is an Associate Professor and Dean of Faculty of
Computer Science and Information Technology, University Putra
Malaysia. His fields of expertise are Metaheuristic and Evolutionary
Computing.
Khaironi Yatim Sharif holds a PhD. from University of Limerick,
Ireland. Currently, he is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Computer
Science and Information Technology, University Putra Malaysia. His
research interests are open source software development and open source
programmers' information seeking.
