Comparing Extreme Programming and Waterfall Project Results
Comparing Extreme Programming and Waterfall Project Results
Feng Ji
Carnegie Mellon University
Silicon Valley Campus
Mountain View, CA, 94035 jojojifeng@gmail.com Todd Sedano
Carnegie Mellon University
Silicon Valley Campus
Mountain View, CA, 94035 todd.sedano@sv.cmu.edu Abstract
Waterfall and Extreme Programming are two software project methods used for project management. Although there are a number of opinions comparing the two methods regarding how they should be applied, none have used project data to clearly conclude which one is better. In this paper, we present the results of a controlled empirical study conducted at
Carnegie Mellon University in Silicon Valley to learn about the effective transition from traditional development to agile development. We conducted a comparison research against these two approaches. Multiple teams were assigned a project; some used Waterfall development, others used Extreme Programming. The purpose of this research is to look at advantages and disadvantages based upon the outcomes, generated artifacts, and metrics produced by the teams.
1. Introduction
1.1. Agile vs Traditional
Since the early 1970s, numerous software managers have explored different ways of software development methods (such as Waterfall model, evolutionary model, spiral model etc.) those have been developed to accomplish these goals and have been widely used by the software industry [1]. Methodologists often describe the Waterfall method as a stereotypical traditional method whereas they describe Extreme Programming as the stereotypical agile method. The Waterfall model, as the oldest traditional software development method, was cited by Winston W. Royce in 1970 [2]. He divided the software development lifecycle into seven sequential and linear stages: Conception, Initiation, Analysis, Design, Construction,
Testing, and Maintenance. The Waterfall model is especially used for large and complex engineering projects.
Feng Ji
Carnegie Mellon University
Silicon Valley Campus
Mountain View, CA, 94035 jojojifeng@gmail.com Todd Sedano
Carnegie Mellon University
Silicon Valley Campus
Mountain View, CA, 94035 todd.sedano@sv.cmu.edu Abstract
Waterfall and Extreme Programming are two software project methods used for project management. Although there are a number of opinions comparing the two methods regarding how they should be applied, none have used project data to clearly conclude which one is better. In this paper, we present the results of a controlled empirical study conducted at
Carnegie Mellon University in Silicon Valley to learn about the effective transition from traditional development to agile development. We conducted a comparison research against these two approaches. Multiple teams were assigned a project; some used Waterfall development, others used Extreme Programming. The purpose of this research is to look at advantages and disadvantages based upon the outcomes, generated artifacts, and metrics produced by the teams.
1. Introduction
1.1. Agile vs Traditional
Since the early 1970s, numerous software managers have explored different ways of software development methods (such as Waterfall model, evolutionary model, spiral model etc.) those have been developed to accomplish these goals and have been widely used by the software industry [1]. Methodologists often describe the Waterfall method as a stereotypical traditional method whereas they describe Extreme Programming as the stereotypical agile method. The Waterfall model, as the oldest traditional software development method, was cited by Winston W. Royce in 1970 [2]. He divided the software development lifecycle into seven sequential and linear stages: Conception, Initiation, Analysis, Design, Construction,
Testing, and Maintenance. The Waterfall model is especially used for large and complex engineering projects.
References: [1] Sommerville, Software engineering, 8th ed., New York: Addison-Wesley, Harlow, England, 2006. [2] W.Royce, Managing the Development of Large Software Systems, IEEE WESTCON, Los Angeles, 1970. [3] A. Abran and J. W. Moore, Guide to the software engineering body of knowledge: trial version (version 0.95) IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2001. [4] Kent Beck and Cynthia Andres, Extreme programming eXplained: embrace change, Second Edition, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2004. [5] Mike Cohn, Agile estimating and planning, Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, Nov 11, 2005. [6] Barry, Boehm and Richard Turner, Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed, Addison Wesley, August 15, 2003. [9] Ming Huo, June Verner, Muhammad Ali Babar, and Liming Zhu, How does agility ensure quality?, IEEE Seminar Digests 2004, (2004):36. [11] Glaser, Barney G, Strauss, and Anselm L., The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, 1967.