-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [AISWorld] CFP - Discipline-Agility Balance for Software-System Development Methods - special issue Date: Wed, 1 May 2019 14:07:43 -0500 (CDT) From: mmora@securenym.net To: aisworld@lists.aisnet.org CC: roconnor@computing.dcu.ie, jorge.marx.gomez@uni-oldenburg.de, buchalc@vse.cz
Calls for Papers (special): International Journal of Information Technologies and Systems Approach (IJITSA)
https://www.igi-global.com/calls-for-papers-special/international-journal-in...
Special Issue On: Discipline-Agility Balance for Software-System Development Methods Submission Due Date 8/13/2019
Guest Editors Prof. Rory O’Connor, Dublin City University, Ireland Prof. Alena Buchalcevova, University of Economics, Czech Republic Prof. Manuel Mora, Autonomous University of Aguascalientes, Mexico Prof. Jorge Marx Gómez, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Germany
Introduction While Agile Software-System Development methods (such as Scrum, XP) have permeated in the Software Engineering academic and professional communities in the last 10 years (Hoda et al., 2018), they have been also criticized for trying of using them in all kind of software engineering projects (Boehm, 2002; Meyer, 2018) and by their large learning curve to be mastered (Ganesh & Thangasamy, 2012). Even inventors of the main agile methodologies have indicated subtly that agile methods do not imply easiness of utilization. For instance, Beck (1999; chapter 24) reported “XP is simple in its details, but it is hard to execute”. Similarly, Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland (2017; p. 3) “SCRUM is: lightweight, simple to understand, (but) difficult to master”. Additionally, while some studies (Schwaber, K., & Beedle, 2002; Holvitie et al., 2018) have reported that agile software-system development methods help to reduce the negative effects of technical debts, other studies have also reported (Schwanke et al., 2013; Guo et al., 2016) that agile software-system development methods are prone to introduce technical debts by “an emphasis on quick delivery and architecture and design issues” (Behutiye et al. 2017; p. 154). Consequently, balanced discipline-agility methods and approaches have been proposed by researchers (Boehm & Turner, 2004; Rodriguez-Martinez et al., 2012) and some particular adaptations (maturity models, scalation models, enhancement models) to agile methods have been also explored (Boehm & Turner, 2005; Campanelli & Parreiras, 2015; Galvan-Cruz et al., 2017; Özcan-Top & Demirors, 2019; Dingsøyr et al., 2018; 2019). Furthermore, new ISO/IEC standards like the ISO/IEC 29110 standard, pursue similar aims (Munoz et al., 2018; O'Connor, 2019). However, because both software engineering approaches relies in very separate assumptions, their straight integration is not a trivial task (Siau et al., 2015). We hypothesize that in the spectrum of types of software engineering projects, some can be better addressed with disciplined methods, others can be better with agile ones, but others can take advantages of balanced ones. Furthermore, the high dynamic context of the software-system customer demands and the emergence of highly related information technology and innovations such as cloud computing (Younas et al., 2018), internet of things (Jacobson et al., 2017), microservices architecture (Pautasso et al., 2017), and DevOps approach (Dingsøyr, T., & Lassenius, 2016) claim for a reconsideration of the adequate utilization of disciplined vs agile vs balanced software-system development methods. Nevertheless, these concerns have been few explored. Thus, in this special issue we call for conceptual frameworks which help to clarify the theoretical foundations of balanced methods, as well as empirical cases (exploratory and confirmatory ones) where evidence on success or learned lessons on failed cases of these balanced methods be reported.
REFERENCES
Boehm, B. (2002). Get ready for agile methods, with care. Computer, 35(1), 64-69. Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2004, May). Balancing agility and discipline: Evaluating and integrating agile and plan-driven methods. In Software Engineering, 2004. ICSE 2004. Proceedings. 26th International Conference on (pp. 718-719). IEEE. Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2005). Management challenges to implementing agile processes in traditional development organizations. IEEE software, 22(5), 30-39. Beck, K. (1999). Extreme Programming Explained. Addison-Wesley (digital version). Behutiye, W. N., Rodríguez, P., Oivo, M., & Tosun, A. (2017). Analyzing the concept of technical debt in the context of agile software development: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 82, 139-158. Campanelli, A. S., & Parreiras, F. S. (2015). Agile methods tailoring–A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 110, 85-100. Dingsøyr, T., Moe, N. B., Fægri, T. E., & Seim, E. A. (2018). Exploring software development at the very large-scale: a revelatory case study and research agenda for agile method adaptation. Empirical Software Engineering, 23(1), 490-520. Dingsøyr, T., & Lassenius, C. (2016). Emerging themes in agile software development: Introduction to the special section on continuous value delivery. Information and Software Technology, 77, 56-60. Dingsøyr, T., Falessi, D., & Power, K. (2019). Agile Development at Scale: The Next Frontier. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.00324. Galván-Cruz, S., Mora, M., & O’Connor, R. (2017, October). A Means-Ends Design of SCRUM+: an agile-disciplined balanced SCRUM enhanced with the ISO/IEC 29110 Standard. In International Conference on Software Process Improvement (pp. 13-23). Springer, Cham. Ganesh, N. & Thangasamy, S. (2012). Lessons learned in transforming from traditional to agile development. Journal of Computer Science, vol. 8, pp. 389-392. Guo, Y., Spínola, R. O., & Seaman, C. (2016). Exploring the costs of technical debt management–a case study. Empirical Software Engineering, 21(1), 159-182. Hoda, R., Salleh, N., & Grundy, J. (2018). The rise and evolution of agile software development. IEEE Software, 35(5), 58-63. Holvitie, J., Licorish, S. A., Spínola, R. O., Hyrynsalmi, S., MacDonell, S. G., Mendes, T. S., ... & Leppänen, V. (2018). Technical debt and agile software development practices and processes: An industry practitioner survey. Information and Software Technology, 96, 141-160. Jacobson, I., Spence, I., & Ng, P. W. (2017). Is there a single method for the Internet of Things?. Communications of the ACM, 60(11), 46-53. Meyer, B. (2018). Making Sense of Agile Methods. IEEE Software, (2), 91-94. Muñoz, M., Mejia, J., & Laporte, C. Y. (2018, October). Reinforcing very small entities using agile methodologies with the ISO/IEC 29110. In International Conference on Software Process Improvement (pp. 88-98). Springer, Cham. O'Connor, R. V. (2019). Software Development Process Standards for Very Small Companies. In Advanced Methodologies and Technologies in Digital Marketing and Entrepreneurship (pp. 681-694). IGI Global. Özcan-Top, Ö., & Demirors, O. (2019). Application of a software agility assessment model–AgilityMod in the field. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 62, 1-16. Pautasso, C., Zimmermann, O., Amundsen, M., Lewis, J., & Josuttis, N. M. (2017). Microservices in Practice, Part 1: Reality Check and Service Design. IEEE Software, 34(1), 91-98. Rodríguez-Martínez, L., Mora, M., Álvarez, F., Garza, L., Durán, H., & Muñoz, J. (2012). Review of Relevant System Development Life Cycles (SDLCs) in Service-Oriented Software Engineering (SoSE). Journal of applied research and technology, 10(2), 94-113. Siau, K., Chiang, R., & Hardgrave, B. C. (2015). The Application of Cognitive Complexity Principles for Reconciling the Agile and the Discipline Approaches. In Systems Analysis and Design: People, Processes, and Projects (pp. 25-42). Routledge. Schwanke, R., Lu Xiao, & Yuanfang Cai. (2013). Measuring architecture quality by structure plus history analysis. Software Engineering (ICSE), 2013 35th International Conference on, 891–900. Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2002). Agile software development with Scrum (Vol. 1). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall. Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2017). The Scrum Guide™ - The Definitive Guide to Scrum: The Rules of the Game. Online available at: https://www.scrumguides.org Younas, M., Jawawi, D. N., Ghani, I., Fries, T., & Kazmi, R. (2018). Agile development in the cloud computing environment: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology.
Objective This special issue pursues to improve our theoretical academic and professional applied knowledge on the convergence of disciplined and agile software-system development methodologies in a balanced way, as well as on their specific contexts for being applied separately.
Recommended Topics • Conceptual foundations on the disciplined vs agile software-system development methodologies • Conceptual frameworks on the disciplined vs agile software-system development methodologies • Comparative reviews of disciplined vs agile software-system development methodologies • Comparative reviews of specific phases (Requirements, Architecture, Design, Build, Test, Deployment) in the disciplined vs agile software-system development methodologies • Analysis of specific suitable domains for disciplined vs agile software-system development methodologies (e-commerce, industry 4.0, analytics, education, healthcare, financial) • Analysis of specific suitable platforms for disciplined vs agile software-system development methodologies (desktop, mobile, client-server, cloud) • Emergent ICT technologies (cloud, internet of things), and approaches (microservices architecture, DevOps) and balanced methodologies • Case studies on disciplined vs agile software-system development methodologies • Survey studies on disciplined vs agile software-system development methodologies • Experimental studies on disciplined vs agile software-system development methodologies • Simulation studies on disciplined vs agile software-system development methodologies
Submission Procedure Researchers and practitioners are invited to submit papers for this special theme issue on Discipline-Agility Balance for Software-System Development Methods on or before August 31th, 2019. Prospective authors should note that only original and previously unpublished articles will be considered. INTERESTED AUTHORS MUST CONSULT THE JOURNAL’S GUIDELINES FOR MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSIONS at http://www.igi-global.com/journals/guidelines-for-submission.aspx PRIOR TO SUBMISSION. All article submissions will be forwarded to at least 3 members of the Editorial Review Board of the journal for double-blind, peer review. Final decision regarding acceptance/revision/rejection will be based on the reviews received from the reviewers. All submissions must be forwarded electronically at: http://www.igi-global.com/authorseditors/titlesubmission/newproject.aspx
All submissions and inquiries should be directed to the attention of: Dr. Manuel Mora, Autonomous University of Aguascalientes, Mexico ijitsa@gmail.com
weblink to submit a Manuscript: https://www.igi-global.com/submission/submit-manuscript/?jid=1098&cfcid=...
_______________________________________________ AISWorld mailing list AISWorld@lists.aisnet.org