An explorative survey of formal and agile software development methods

S.B Oyong,V.E Ekong

doi:10.4314/gjpas.v25i1.10

Abstract

This research work explores the trends in formal and agile software development methods. Software development has evolved, from the era of “code and fix” to methods categorized as “heavyweight” and “lightweight”. The heavyweight methods are championed by the waterfall method, while agile methods are considered the lead in lightweight methods of software development. Both methods have proven records of successes and failures. Bridging the divide between them and harmonizing their symbiotic properties has the synergy of creating beneficial and more robust methodology with complementary advantage which is termed ambidexterity. Ambidexterity allows for a high level approach of selecting a methodology on the basis of the problem requirements, and coordinates their independent processes complementarily without conflict. Keywords: Global Software Development, Agile Software Development, off Shoring, Near-shoring, Distribution

Highlights

Many software development methods have been created in the past four decades, and utilized in the software industry
Each method has different features and characteristics that distinguish one from another. These methods can be classified into two groups: the heavyweight methods, called traditional methods, which focus on comprehensive planning, heavy documentation and big design up-front (Boehm and Turner, 2003; Fruhling and De Vreede, 2006)
The lightweight methods concentrate on the software development team and their interactions, rather than on the required processes and tools

Summary

Introduction

Many software development methods have been created in the past four decades, and utilized in the software industry. The lightweight methods concentrate on the software development team and their interactions, rather than on the required processes and tools. The traditional methods are still widely used in the software industry because of their straightforward, methodical, and structured nature; they have proved their abilities to provide high assurance, stability, and productivity. They have a number of shortcomings, which include (Boehm, 2002; Boehm and Turner, 2003; Brooks, 1975; Schach, 2004):

Objectives

Methods

Findings

Conclusion