Classification and comparison of agile methods

This manuscript describes a technique and its tool support to perform comparisons on agile methods, based on a set of relevant features and attributes. This set includes attributes related to four IEEE’s Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) Knowledge Areas (KAs) and to the agile principles defined in the Agile Manifesto. With this set of attributes, by analysing the practices proposed by each method, we are able to assess (1) the coverage degree for the considered KAs and (2) the agility degree. In this manuscript, the application of the technique is exemplified in comparing eXtreme Programming (XP) and Scrum

Measuring Software Process: A Systematic Mapping Study

Context: Measurement is essential to reach predictable performance and high capability processes. It provides support for better understanding, evaluation, management, and control of the development process and project, as well as the resulting product. It also enables organizations to improve and predict its process’s performance, which places organizations in better positions to make appropriate decisions. Objective: This study aims to understand the measurement of the software development process, to identify studies, create a classification scheme based on the identified studies, and then to map such studies into the scheme to answer the research questions. Method: Systematic mapping is the selected research methodology for this study. Results: A total of 462 studies are included and classified into four topics with respect to their focus and into three groups based on the publishing date. Five abstractions and 64 attributes were identified, 25 methods/models and 17 contexts were distinguished. Conclusion: capability and performance were the most measured process attributes, while effort and performance were the most measured project attributes. Goal Question Metric and Capability Maturity Model Integration were the main methods and models used in the studies, whereas agile/lean development and small/medium-size enterprise were the most frequently identified research contexts.Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad TIN2013-46928-C3-3-RMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad TIN2016-76956-C3-2- RMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad TIN2015-71938-RED

Establishing a resource center: A guide for organizations supporting community foundations

Maintaining a resource center such as a library is a central tasks of an association to serve its members, though one of the first to be neglected. WINGS-CF commissioned this guide to assist organizations supporting community foundations to review and organize their resource items, and to propose several classification systems / taxonomies

CoFeD: A visualisation framework for comparative quality evaluation

Evaluation for the purpose of selection can be a challenging task particularly when there is a plethora of choices available. Short-listing, comparisons and eventual choice(s) can be aided by visualisation techniques. In this paper we use Feature Analysis, Tabular and Tree Representations and Composite Features Diagrams (CFDs) for profiling user requirements and for top-down profiling and evaluation of items (methods, tools, techniques, processes and so on) under evaluation. The resulting framework CoFeD enables efficient visual comparison and initial short-listing. The second phase uses bottom-up quantitative evaluation which aids the elimination of the weakest items and hence the effective selection of the most appropriate item. The versatility of the framework is illustrated by a case study comparison and evaluation of two agile methodologies. The paper concludes with limitations and indications of further work