skip to main content
10.1145/3120459.3120484acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesxpConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Results of the 2nd International Workshop on the Impact of Agile Practices (ImpAct 2017)

Published:22 May 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

At present, agile development is a dominating development process in software engineering. Yet, due to different contexts, also agile methods require adaptations (e.g. Scrum-but). Since adaptation means adding, modifying or dropping some agile elements, it is important to know what the effects and importance of these elements are. Given the weak state of empirical evidence in this area, we initiated the workshop series on the Impact of Agile Practices (ImpAct). This paper provides a summary of the second workshop of this series, especially its lightning talks and discussions. The major outcomes include interesting observations such as negatively rated practices and contradicting experiences as well as follow-up activities ordered in a roadmap.

References

  1. VersionOne. 2015. The 9th Annual State of Agile™ Survey Report. http://stateofagile.versionone.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Theocharis, G., Kuhrmann, M., Münch, J., & Diebold, P. (2015, December). Is water-scrum-fall reality? On the use of agile and traditional development practices. In PROFES'15 (pp. 149--166). Springer International Publishing. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Diebold, P., Ostberg, J. P., Wagner, S., & Zendler, U. (2015, May). What do practitioners vary in using Scrum?. In XP'15 (pp. 40--51). Springer International Publishing. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Diebold, P., Šmite, D., & Fernández, D. M. (2015). Results of the 1 st International Workshop on Impact of Agile Practices (ImpAct 2015). ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 40(6), pp. 20--23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Diebold, P., Galster, M., Rainer, A., & Licorish, S. A. (2017, June). Interactive Posters: An Alternative to Collect Practitioners' Experience. In EASE'17 (pp. 230--235). ACM.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Dingsøyr, T., & Moe, N. B. (2014, May). Towards principles of large-scale agile development. In XP'14 (pp. 1--8). Springer International Publishing. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. M. Kropp, A. Meier, & R. Biddle. Agile Practices, Collaboration and Experience - An Empirical Study about the Effect of Experience in Agile Software Development. In PROFES'16. Springer International Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Kraut, R. E., & Streeter, L. A. (1995). Coordination in software development. Communications of the ACM, 38(3), pp. 69--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Paasivaara, M., Lassenius, C., & Heikkil, V. T. (2012) "Inter-team coordination in large-scale globally distributed scrum: do scrum-of-scrums really work?," In ESEM '12. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Ingvaldsen, J. A. & Rolfsen, M. (2012). Autonomous work groups and the challenge of inter-group coordination. In Human Relations, vol. 65, pp. 861--881. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., & Koenig Jr, R. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. In American sociological review, pp. 322--338.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. denHeijer, P., Koole, W., & Stettina, C.J. (2017). Don't Forget to Breathe: A Controlled Trial of Mindfulness Practices in Agile Project Teams. In XP'17 (pp. 103--118). Springer International Publishing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Graziotin, D., Wang, X., & Abrahamsson, P. (2014). Happy software developers solve problems better: psychological measurements in empirical software engineering. In PeerJ, 2, e289. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Ortu, M., Adams, B., Destefanis, G., Tourani, P., Marchesi, M., & Tonelli, R. (2015). Are bullies more productive?: empirical study of affectiveness vs. issue fixing time. In MSR '15 (pp. 303--313). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Results of the 2nd International Workshop on the Impact of Agile Practices (ImpAct 2017)

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      XP '17: Proceedings of the XP2017 Scientific Workshops
      May 2017
      124 pages
      ISBN:9781450352642
      DOI:10.1145/3120459

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 22 May 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate11of15submissions,73%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)4
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader