Content uploaded by Rory V. O’Connor
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rory V. O’Connor on Jan 15, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
O’Connor, R. V., Duchonova, N., Assessing The Value of an Agile Coach in Agile Method Adoption, 21th
European Conference on Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement (EuroSPI 2014), CCIS Vol.
425, Springer-Verlag, June 2014, pp 135-146.
Assessing The Value of an Agile Coach in Agile Method
Adoption
Rory V. O’Connor 1, 2 Natalia Duchonova2
1 Lero, the Irish Software Engineering Research Centre, Ireland
2 Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
Rory.OConnor@computing.dcu.ie
Abstract. This paper explores the value of Agile Coaching for companies
adopting agile methods.in order to assist those who are adopting agile methods
to decide on using or not using an Agile Coach by examining the value they can
bring to companies adopting agile methods. In our research we surveyed three
distinct groups: companies that used an Agile Coach for agile adoption,
companies that adopted agile on their own and Agile Coaches themselves
without the help of an Agile Coach. The data collected indicates that Agile
Coaches can bring numerous benefits to companies, which in fact exceed the
financial costs of using an Agile Coach. Therefore we suggest that there is
financial value in using an Agile Coach for agile adoption, which is represented
by faster return on investment (ROI) on the change.
Keywords: Agile Methods, Agile Coach, SPI
1 Introduction
Since the introduction of Agile Manifesto in 2001, many companies engaging in
software development have replaced the traditional methodologies by agile methods
[1]. To help companies adopt agile methods smoothly, a new field of Agile Coaching
has been introduced and is constantly gaining in popularity. Conferences are being
held on Agile Coaching where experienced practitioners share their ideas, and some
of them even started to offer Agile Coaching courses in order to teach others how to
become a qualified Agile Coach [2]. In addition, some organizations developed Agile
Coaching certification programs to standardize the qualification process. As a
consequence, the agile community grows, however, there is evidence from numerous
sources indicating a lack of qualified and well-experienced coaches to support the
demand [3] [4].
The goal of this research is to assist companies who are adopting agile methods
decide on using or not using an Agile Coach. This is achieved by examining the value
Agile Coaches can bring to companies adopting agile methods, as so far there has
been no supporting research evidence about the value they can bring to companies
and whether the benefits brought exceed the financial costs. This objective is
accomplished by an investigation involving Agile Coaches, companies that adopted
agile methods with the help of an Agile Coach, as well as companies that adopted
agile methods on their own. The value can be then identified by analyzing and
comparing responses from all parties in order to get an objective point of view.
Moreover, the value of different types of Agile Coaches should be understood and
compared. The research should be beneficial for companies planning to adopt agile
methods, but hesitating on whether to utilize an Agile Coach or not. In addition, once
the company decides to use Agile Coaching for agile adoption, the research should
help them identify the right type of an Agile Coach based on the company’s
characteristics, as well as to choose the right candidate by providing a baseline profile
of an Agile Coach. Last, but not least, the dissertation will investigate how to best
facilitate an Agile Coach in terms of authority given, in order to create a productive
coaching environment within a company.
1.1 Agile Adoption
Agile Adoption is a term used to describe a process of adopting and implementing
agile practices, processes and values in software development. The practices to be
implemented may either correspond to just one agile method or to a combination of
multiple agile methods. According to numerous surveys [5, 6, 7], the most popular
combination of agile methods is Scrum with XP. In addition, organizations or
development teams often do not implement all practices of the chosen agile
method(s), but select only the ones that are compatible with the organization and/or
the team. Such an adoption is called ‘a la carte’ agile adoption [8]. To conclude, some
even customize the agile practices to suit the company’s development environment
[9]. Typically, the agile adoption process contains the following steps [10]:
• Set business goals (e.g. reduce time to market)
• Choose a pilot project
• Analyze company’s and project’s characteristics (size, criticality, etc.) and
current practices
• Choose the method(s) to adopt
• Choose the practices to adopt (in case of an ‘a la carte’ agile adoption)
• Train the development team and the management
• Start applying the chosen practices
An interesting point to note is that despite the fact that most agile practices are
considered to be very straightforward, the adoption of agile methods is not easy. The
reason for that is that agile adoption represents an organizational change that will
affect the company’s organizational structure, processes, as well as people’s behavior,
and therefore it requires a carefully thought-out preparation [11]. In relation to this, a
2010 survey by Version One incorporating 4770 participants from 91 countries
revealed the following list of leading causes of the failed agile projects [6]:
• Lack of experience with agile methods (14% of respondents)
• Company philosophy/culture at odds with core agile values (11%)
• External pressure to follow traditional waterfall practices (10 %)
• Reason not known (11%)
• Lack of management support (7%)
• Lack of cultural transition (8%)
• Insufficient training (5%)
In addition to this, the agile adoption process is even more difficult within large
organizations, as they usually have many formalized processes, have to conform to
numerous norms and standards and consist of many teams often geographically
dispersed with time differences between the locations of these teams. All of this
causes even bigger problems when trying to implement agile methods, therefore it is
not a surprise that some companies either fail completely and reject the agile adoption
for years, or they adopt an ‘Agile-But‘, meaning that they drop the key practices and
as a result the adoption may not bring the company any noticeable improvements.
One way how companies can reduce the risk of failure when adopting agile
methods is to use an Agile Coach. This role has evolved naturally to provide coaching
and mentoring to agile teams, and is relatively new and little researched. Therefore
our aim is to find out whether Agile Coaching is really beneficial for companies
adopting agile and what value it can bring them.
1.2 Agile Coach Value
The literature provides many definitions of value based on the field the value is being
defined in. In marketing for example, value is defined as a difference between the
price and the worth of a product, or in other words, the difference between what a
customer receives and has to give in return. In coaching, value can be defined as the
difference between the costs of hiring/using a coach and the benefits brought by the
coach to the company in question. The value (benefits minus costs) provided by the
coach can be also categorized as financial and non-financial. For evidence, a 2006
survey incorporating 30 companies revealed that coaching can bring numerous non-
financial benefits (e.g. acquiring a new skill, increased motivation) as well as
financial benefits (increased sales and revenue), however the financial benefits were
secondary and not measurable [12].
Building upon this, value in Agile Coaching can be determined as the difference
between the costs of hiring/using an Agile Coach and the benefits brought by the
Agile Coach to the company in question. Despite the fact that the value of Agile
Coaching is not yet researched, deriving from the previous comments about coaching
it is reasonable to state that Agile Coaching may also provide financial and non-
financial costs and benefits. However, these and the differences between them (i.e.
financial and non-financial value) are not known and thus will be researched as part
of this dissertation, with the primary focus on the non-financial value. Therefore for
the purposes of this dissertation by the value in Agile Coaching we mean the non-
financial value unless stated otherwise.
1.3 Research Problem
The goal of this research is to assist companies adopting agile methods decide on
using or not using an Agile Coach. The motivation for this research comes from an
identified gap in the literature. It is apparent that there is little published research on
the area of Agile Coaching, and no published research on the value that Agile
Coaches can bring to companies adopting agile methods. Moreover, there is no
integrated research on what companies can benefit/not benefit from the use of an
Agile Coach, and what type of an Agile Coach is most suitable for what type of
companies.
On this basis, the main objective of this dissertation is to provide an answer to the
following three related questions:
• RQ1: What non-financial value can Agile Coaches bring to companies
adopting agile methods?
• RQ2: What factors determine whether a company should use/not use an
Agile Coach for agile adoption?
• RQ3: What type of an Agile Coach is most suitable for what type of
companies?
The answers to these research questions should help companies decide whether to
use an Agile Coach for agile adoption and if so, what type of Agile Coach to use. To
conclude, the findings of this dissertation should be beneficial from a practical point
of view, and thus used in real world scenarios.
2 Agile Coaching
Agile Coaching is a subfield of coaching whose focus is to “help teams or individuals
adopt and improve agile methods and practice" and "rethink and change the way they
go about development” [13]. In the following sections we will look at the origins of
Agile Coaching, the roles, activities, skills, competencies as well as different types of
Agile Coaches. Since Agile Coaching is primarily based on the knowledge from the
field of coaching, the discipline of coaching will be explained first.
Coaching has been used in many areas where guidance and advice from a more
experienced person is needed, including sports, professional life and business. Despite
that coaching is still a young discipline that is constantly developing. In practice,
coaching is used as a technique for helping teams or individuals learn in order to
improve their performance, or to develop and grow [14]. By providing the guidance
of an expert the teams or individuals receive valuable information that speed up the
learning process and reduce the error rate.
Since agile software development is based on teamwork and the team’s
performance is critical for the success of the software development project, it is not
surprising that coaching has been also applied to the area of agile methods. Coaching
in the context of agile methods (i.e. Agile Coaching) is intended to help software
development teams learn agile practices and then to use them in an effective and
efficient way, which would ultimately improve their performance [15].
Since there are numerous agile methods, an Agile Coach can specialize in one of
the agile methods primarily. Therefore based on the type of agile method promoted
we recognize a Scrum coach, DSDM coach, Lean coach, etc. Depending on the
coach’s mission, i.e. whether his/her objective is to manage the agile adoption of a
team that is transferring to agile or to improve the performance of a team that has
already started using agile and is struggling with it, we can identify adoption coaches
and after-adoption coaches. As already stated, the focus of this dissertation is
primarily on adoption coaches. Another classification is based on whether the Agile
Coach is a member of the organization that is using the coach. In this case we
recognize two types of Agile Coaches - external Agile Coaches and internal Agile
Coaches. This classification seems to be the most commonly used one [15].
Depending on whether the Agile Coach stays with the team full-time and thus is
coaching only one team at a time, or whether the coach stays with the team part-time
and thus can coach multiple teams at once, we can classify the coach either as a full-
time Agile Coach or a part-time Agile Coach [16].
3 Research Study
As stated above, the main purpose of this dissertation is to provide an answer to the
following three related research questions stated in section 2. Furthermore our
analysis of the Agile Coaching literature has led to more questions, which are related
to the research questions above. Some of the additional research questions that were
raised by the preliminary investigation were as follows. It is important to note that a
lot more questions were initially raised, but I have chosen to ask the following set of
additional questions from not only time constraints imposed on this research, but also
from conceptual reason (i.e. the questions seemed to be conceptually related):
• RQ4: How do companies decide about whether to use an Agile Coach for
agile adoption?
• RQ5: How do companies perceive the role of an Agile Coach?
• RQ6: What are the common adoption problems that companies cannot solve
without the help of an Agile Coach?
• RQ7: Is there a financial value in using an Agile Coach for agile adoption?
• RQ8: What is the difference in value provided to companies by different
types of Agile Coaches?
• RQ9: What profile should companies look for in an Agile Coach?
• RQ10: How much authority does an Agile Coach need in order to do his/her
job properly?
• RQ11: When do Agile Coaches withdraw from the team?
The answers to these questions should help companies decide whether to use an
Agile coach for agile adoption and if so, what type of Agile Coach to use in order to
maximize the value received. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the selected
research questions are quite broad in a way that the time scope of this research does
not allow us to perform a detailed analysis when attempting to answer these
questions, but as already stated, the goal of this research is to do a preliminary
analysis that would represent an incremental step on the way towards understanding
these issues more deeply in the future.
3.1 Data Collection
This investigation involving three different groups of research participants:
1. Agile Coaches
2. Companies that used an Agile Coach for agile adoption
3. Companies that adopted agile without the help of an Agile Coach
The research participants consisted of a mixture of individuals known second-hand
to the researchers and direct emails were sent to well-known Agile Coaches that
contributed to the area of Agile Coaching in form of literature or online articles. In
total 8 Agile Coaches participated, who had between 2 and 15 years experience
(average 6) in coaching and coached companies in adopting Scrum XP, Lean,
Kanban, DSDM and FDD. A total of 5 companies that used an Agile Coach for agile
adoption participated via persons with key job titles of CTO and development
manager. These companies varied in size from 22 to 100 persons and were involved
in a range of software domains from Internet systems development to Middleware
systems. Finally, 5 Companies that adopted agile without the help of an Agile Coach
participated via persons with key job titles of development manager, project manager
and CTO. The companies varied in size from size 10 to 40 persons and represented a
range of business domains including: telecommunications, payment solutions and
financial services software.
Prior to undertaking the study three interview guides for the three groups of
respondents was developed. The interview guide for Agile Coaches involved 56
questions that were divided into 5 categories:
1. Agile Coach’s details
2. Adoption strategy
3. Agile Coaching qualities
4. The value of Agile Coaching
5. Additional information
The interview questions for companies that adopted agile with the help of an Agile
Coach (31 in total) were divided into 4 categories:
1. Company details
2. Adoption details
3. Agile Coaching qualities
4. The value of Agile Coaching
Finally, the interview guide for companies that adopted agile on their own
consisted of 24 questions, which again were grouped into 3 categories:
1. Company details
2. Adoption details
3. The value of Agile Coaching
3.3 Data Analysis
The responses from each group of participants were copied into response tables to
make the comparison of responses easier and more structured. Response table is a
data analysis technique that allows to “view the responses of all the respondents for
each of the selected questions in a survey” [17]. This technique is commonly used not
only in survey-based research fields, such as marketing, but also in more technical
fields such as physics to compare the achieved results under different factors. A
typical response table used in a survey-based research consists of table rows that
contain the survey questions and table columns that contain the names of the
respondents. In total three response tables were created - one with responses from
Agile Coaches, the second response table with responses from companies with an
Agile Coach and the third table with responses from companies without an Agile
Coach by copying the responses from the questionnaires and interview response
forms.
Subsequently, common questions were identified in the three response tables, and
these were then extracted together with the corresponding responses into
one summary response table, which represents the selected approach to the research.
Then a data pattern was looked for in the responses from each group. By a sought data
pattern we mean a clear repetition of data within the responses for a particular survey
question. It should be noted that some questions, however, could not be given to all
three groups from logical reasons (e.g. there is no point asking respondents from
companies that had not used an Agile Coach how much authority an Agile Coach
needs to do his job properly). In such case, i.e. a case when a particular question did
not involve all three groups of participants, the provisional hypothesis was formulated
based on a clear repetition of data from within one or two response tables only.
4 Findings
A rich set of data was collected and analyzed as part of this study. Space limitations
prevent a complete description of the findings this paper however, the major themes
will be presented in this section.
4.1 Making the decision to use an Agile Coach
To address RQ4: How do companies decide about whether to use an Agile Coach for
agile adoption? according to the Agile Coaches, companies‘ decision about whether
to use /not to use an Agile Coach for agile adoption is based on the following factors:
• scale of the change
• ability to figure it on their own
• success (failure) of a pilot project
• ability to learn from pilot’s failure
• costs of using an Agile Coach references about successful
implementations with/out the help of an Agile Coach in other companies
• type of company‘s industry
In fact, the costs were mentioned as a decision factor in the majority of responses. The
following extract from Agile Coach 3 is a typical response: “Coaches are expenses
and it requires a strong commitment and buy-in from management. Therefore
companies may opt for figuring it out themselves first”.
To address RQ5: How do companies perceive the role of an Agile Coach? The
Agile Coaches reported that organizations have the following perceptions about Agile
Coaching:
• There is not enough awareness about the service.
• Companies perceive an Agile Coach as a savior or miracle worker.
• Agile Coaching is perceived to be expensive.
• Agile Coaching is becoming very popular.
On the contrary, companies have the following perceptions:
• Agile Coach is an expensive consultant.
• Agile Coach is a guarantee of a successful agile transition.
• Hiring an Agile Coach is an option of how to improve agile knowledge
internally.
The response from Agile Coach 1 best captures the companies‘ current perceptions
of Agile Coaching: “Most people do not know about this service and even if they do,
they think it is too expensive”.
4.2 What companies should use an Agile Coach?
In order to determine which companies should use an Agile Coach for agile adoption,
the respondents from the group of Agile Coaches were asked to provide an objective
view on this topic. Based on the responses a list of factors was assembled. The factors
that determine whether a company should use/not use an Agile Coach for agile
adoption are:
• existing agile expertise within the company
• the size/structure of a company (if a small company with a few departments,
no need to use an Agile Coach)
• complexity of company processes (if simple, then no need to use an Agile
Coach)
• nature of the company industry (if not a common industry, use an Agile
Coach)
• impact of the agile adoption failure on a company (if critical, use an Agile
Coach)
• distribution of teams (if geographically dispersed, adoption is more difficult,
therefore use an Agile Coach)
• presence of continuous improvement and collaborative culture within the
company (e.g. Kaizen culture) (if present, then no need to use an Agile
Coach)
• 4.3 Common adoption problems requiring an Agile Coach
When asked about the common agile adoption problems that teams cannot solve
without the help of an Agile Coach, Agile Coach 3 stated: "There are tons of
practicalities that the coach will help with". The Agile Coaches gave the following
examples:
• how to do agile requirement management
• how to get rid of the documentation
• how to apply agile to a legacy code
• how to keep the quality of code high
• how to do incremental design
• how to track progress of an agile project
• how to get testing done within a short iteration
• what are the things that should happen before items hit the backlog
Other coaches mentioned the following adoption problems that can be avoided by
using an Agile Coach for agile adoption:
• struggling with industry related agile challenges
• NIH (Not-Invented-Here) syndrome, i.e. adopting an original version of
agile methodology
• how to align other (non-development) processes with the change
• still doing a lot of useless things (such as documentation) despite claiming to
be ‘agile‘.
• 4.4 Financial perceptions of using an Agile Coach
The financial and non-financial benefits and drawbacks of Agile Coaching stated by
all three groups of respondents were looked at and the financial and non-financial
value of Agile Coaching was assessed. Finally, the overall value of Agile Coaching in
agile adoption was examined by comparing the overall responses from companies that
used an Agile Coach and from companies that did not use an Agile Coach in order to
determine whether Agile Coaching is really beneficial or not.
The companies that used an Agile Coach consider the adoption to be a success and
they would all use an Agile Coach again. They would also recommend other
companies to use an Agile Coach for agile adoption, however, Company 1 "would not
recommend using a full-time Agile Coach if that was their only skill".
On the other hand, companies that adopted agile without the help of an Agile
Coach all claim the adoption was a success. However, as a drawback of this approach
they mention a significant learning curve. When asked whether they would hire an
Agile Coach if they had to undergo the agile transition again, only one company
(Company 1) would do it, but "lack of money is a real issue". This company would
also recommend using an Agile Coach to all companies that can afford it. Other
companies on the other would send everyone to training. In fact, Company 3 had
everyone sent to training, nevertheless, " ... if we didn’t have somebody with
experience of using Agile in another company, then hiring an Agile Coach would
have been essential". In addition, none of the companies knew other companies that
would completely fail by using a similar do-it-yourself approach.
• 4.5 Agile Coach Profile
Agile Coaches were asked to rate the qualities on a scale based on the criticality. They
rated the following qualities as critical:
• expertise in multiple agile methods
• long experience
• numerous references
• numerous IT skills
• soft skills
• knowledge on team work and team dynamics
• knowledge on change management
Two qualities were considered as not critical for an Agile Coach:
• Agile Coaching certification
• professional coaching certification
On the other hand, companies that used an Agile Coach were asked what profile
they looked for when choosing an Agile Coach. They stated the following qualities:
• experience with agile implementations in companies of a similar size and
complexity
• proven good track record
• strong knowledge of agile
• good cultural fit
• ability to deliver the message to senior management
• great interpersonal skills
• software development background
5 Discussion
The primary research data was collected from 8 Agile Coaches and 10 companies - 5
companies that used an Agile Coach and 5 companies that adopted agile without the
help of an Agile Coach. The Agile Coaches and companies were geographically
dispersed as so provided a general view on Agile Coaching. The research results can
be summarized as follows:
• Half of the respondents believe that Agile Coaches are perceived as
expensive consultants.
• Numerous factors determine whether a company should use an Agile Coach,
such as the size of the company, complexity of its processes, the nature of its
industry and company culture.
• Agile Coaches can provide both financial and non-financial benefits for
companies adopting agile methods.
• According to the respondents, the benefits brought by an Agile Coach
exceeded the financial costs.
• The value Agile Coaches provide is that they significantly reduce the risk of
failure of agile adoption and speed up the adoption process.
• Other benefits of using an Agile Coach are tailoring of agile practices to
company’s needs, highlighting dysfunctions and waste in processes, sorting
out industry related agile adoption challenges, etc.
• There are many practicalities Agile Coaches can help companies with, such
as how to do incremental design among many others.
• All respondents from companies that used an Agile Coach for agile adoption
would recommend it to other companies.
• There is difference in value provided by different types of Agile Coaches.
• External Agile Coaches can provide impartial view on the company and
diverse experience, whereas internal Agile Coaches have a good
understanding of the company’s business and processes.
• Half of the respondents believe that non-directive coaches provide higher
value than directive coaches because they teach coaches how to be self-
coaching.
• Certified Agile Coaches do not necessarily provide higher value than non-
certified coaches as experience matters, but they are more credible.
• Numerous factors influence companies’ decision to use an Agile Coach, the
major ones being existing/missing agile experience in company and the costs
of hiring an Agile Coach.
5.1 Limitations and Future Work
The main limitation of this study comes from the fact that a vast majority of
respondents preferred questionnaires to interviews because of geographical and time
constraints. The disadvantage of using questionnaires for a qualitative research is
a lack of interactivity and immediate feedback.
Further work on this study could involve running another iteration of the research
process. Given longer time scale, more data would be collected on areas where
provisional hypotheses did not manage to develop further and new hypotheses would
be formulated and tested for validity. Possible work by other researchers may involve
carrying out case studies or focus groups within organizations that adopted agile with
the help of an Agile Coach. In addition it may be appropriate to broaden the scope of
this study to include situational factors [18] that affect the choice of a particular agile
method and how these may impact upon the adoption decision and the ultimate
success [19] of the software process.
To conclude, while the research results are positive and show promise, more work
should be undertaken by other researchers in order to have fully generalizable results.
References
1. Ambler, S. W, Has Agile Peaked?, http://drdobbs.com/architecture-and-
design/207600615?cid=Ambysoft
2. Agile Coach Training, http://www.training-
classes.com/programs/00/90/9001_agile_coach_training.php
3. Silva, K. - Doss, Ch., The Growth of an Agile Coach Community at a Fortune 200
Company". Proceedings of the Agile, (2007), USA.
4. Chung M W, and Drummond B (2009). Agile @ yahoo! from the trenches, Paper
presented at the Agile Conference, AGILE 2009, Chicago, IL, 113–118.
5. VersionOne, State of Agile Development 2009,
http://trailridgeconsulting.com/surveys/state-of-agile-development-survey-2009.pdf
6. VersionOne, State of Agile Development 2010,
http://www.versionone.com/state_of_agile_development_survey/10/page3.asp
7. VersionOne, Agile Methodologies,
http://www.versionone.com/Agile101/Methodologies.asp
8. Hovorka, D. S.- Larsen, K. R., Enabling agile adoption practices through network
organizations, European Journal of Information Systems, Volume 15 Issue 2, (2006).
9. Fitzgerald, B. - Hartnett, G. - Conboy, K., Customising agile methods to software
practices at lntel Shannon, European Journal of Information Systems, Volume 15 Issue 2,
(2006).
10. Sidky, A. - Arthur, J. - Bohner, S., A disciplined approach to adopting agile practices: the
agile adoption framework, Proceedings of Innovations in Systems and Software
Engineering, Volume 3, Number 3, (2007).
11. Nerur, S. - Mahapatra, R. - Mangalaraj, G. "Challenges of Migrating to Agile
Methodologies". Magazine Communications of the ACM - Adaptive complex enterprises,
Volume 48 Issue 5, May (2005).
12. Marber, R., Survey: What are the benefits of coaching,
http://www.coachfederation.org/includes/docs/037WhatarethebenefitsofcoachingSummary
Feb07.pdf
13. The Role of an Agile Coach, http://www.agilejournal.com/articles/columns/column-
articles/1917-the-role-of-the-agile-coach
14. History of Coaching,
www.performancecoachinginternational.com/resources/articles/historyofcoaching.asp
15. Davies, R., Adapting Your Agile Coaching Style, http://agilecoach.typepad.com/agile-
coaching/2010/10/agile-coaching-zone.html
16. Certified Scrum Coach (CSC) Application, http://www.o-
act.com/index.php/component/content/article/39-ed-willis/59-certified-scrum-coaching-
application-ed-willis.html
17. Response Table, http://www.zarca.com/Online-Surveys-Product/RM/response-table.html
18. Clarke, P. and O'Connor, R., The situational factors that affect the software development
process: Towards a comprehensive reference framework, Journal of Information and
Software Technology, Vol. 54, Issue 5, May 2012. pp. 433-447
19. Clarke, P. and O'Connor, R.V., The influence of SPI on business success in software
SMEs: An empirical study, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 85, No. 10, 2012. Pages
2356-2367
