Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strengths and barriers behind the successful agile deployment—insights from the three software intensive companies in Finland

  • Published:
Empirical Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The number of success stories being reported concerning agile software development has led to an increase in interest among industries and research communities. The purpose of this paper is to identify strengths and barriers for ‘successful agile deployment’ in the software companies. This knowledge can benefit software companies planning their current strategy for agile deployment. Analysis of 57 developers, architects, project managers, customers, quality managers, and line and product managers in three case companies identifies 71 strengths and 169 barriers of agile deployment. The analysis revealed the importance of management providing the necessary goals and support for agile development. It also indicated the significance of defining a tailored process model and giving developers the freedom to improve their own agile development process continuously during agile deployment. The identified barriers, strengths and recommendations can be used as a checklist for planning and/or monitoring the effectiveness of agile deployment in software companies. By identifying the barriers and strengths of agile deployment, the paper deepens understanding of this highly relevant but relatively under-researched phenomenon and contributes to the literature on agile deployment and software process improvement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Mobile-D is an agile method for mobile software development, developed by VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.

References

  • Abrahamsson P (2002) The role of commitment in software process improvement. Dissertation, University of Oulu

  • Abrahamsson P, Hanhineva A et al (2004) Mobile-D: an agile approach for mobile application development. Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications, Vancouver, Canada

  • Basili VR (1989) Software development: a paradigm for the future. COMPSAC ’89, Orlando, Florida

  • Baskerville R, Ramesh B et al (2006) High-speed software development practices: what works, what doesn’t. IT Prof 8(4):29–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck K, Andres C (2005) Extreme programming explained. Addison-Wesley Professional

  • Beck K, Beedle M et al (2001) Manifesto for agile software development. http://AgileManifesto.org. Accessed 15 October 2010

  • Benbasat I, Goldstein DK et al (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Q 11(3):369–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm B (2002) Get ready for agile methods, with care. IEEE Comput 35(1):64–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm B, Turner D (2003) Using risk to balance agile and plan-driven methods. IEEE Comput 36(6):57–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börjesson A, Martinsson J et al (2006) Agile improvement practices in software organizations. Eur J Inf Syst 15:169–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan FKY, Thong JYL (2008) Acceptance of agile methodologies: a critical review and conceptual framework. Decis Support Syst 46:803–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen D, Lindvall M et al (2004) An introduction to agile methods. Elsevier Academic Press

  • Drobka J, Noftz D et al (2004) Piloting XP on four mission critical projects. IEEE Softw 21(6):70–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dybå T (2005) An empirical investigation of the key factors for success in software process improvement. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 31(5):410–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dybå T, Dingsøyr T (2008) Empirical studies of agile software development: a systematic review. Inf Softw Technol 50(9–10):833–859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dybå T, Moe NB et al (2004) An empirical investigation of factors affecting software developer acceptance and utilization of electronic process guide. 10th International Symposium on Software Metrics (Metrics’04)

  • Eisenhardt K (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):532–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishman RG (1992) Information technology diffusion: a review of empirical research. MIT Sloan School of Management. 50 Memorial Drive, 53–314

  • Fitzgerald B, Hartnett G et al (2006) Customising agile methods to software practices at Intel Shannon. Eur J Inf Syst 15(2):200–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvin DA (2000) Learning in action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson C, Dittrich Y et al (2006) How agile are industrial software development practices? J Syst Softw 79:1295–1311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kähkönen T (2005) Life cycle model for software process improvement project deploying an agile method. International Conference on Agility, Helsinki

  • Kähkönen T, Abrahamsson P (2004) Achieving CMMI level 2 with enhanced extreme programming approach. Profes, Japan

  • Kettunen P (2009) Adopting key lessons from agile manufacturing to agile software and product development—a comparative study. Technovation 29:408–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kettunen P, Laanti M (2005) How to steer an embedded software project: tactics for selecting the software process model. Inf Softw Technol 47(9):587–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindvall M, Muthig D et al (2004) Agile software development in large organizations. Comput Pract 37(12):38–46

    Google Scholar 

  • McCaffery F, Richardson I et al (2006) Adept—a software process appraisal method for small to medium-sized Irish software development organisations. EuroSPI06, Finland, Joensuu

  • McCaffery F, Pikkarainen M et al (2008) AHAA—agile, hybrid assessment method for automotive, safety critical SMEs. ICSE 2008, Leipzig, Germany

  • McCaffery F, Pikkarainen M et al (2009) AHAA: integrated assessment tool for plan-driven and agile processes. In: Maxwell GA, Drummond SK (ed) Automotive industry: technical challenges, design issues and global economic crisis

  • McFeeley B (1996) IDEAL(SM): a user’s guide for software process improvement. CMU/SEI-96-HB-001. Software Engineering Institute (SEI)

  • Miles M, Huberman A (1999) Qualitative data analysis. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Misra SC, Kumar V et al (2009) Identifying some important success factors in adopting agile software development practices. J Syst Softw 82(11):1869–1890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niazi M, Wilson D et al (2006) Critical success factors for software process improvement implementation: an empirical study. Software Process Improv Pract 11:193–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage Publications. 452–455

  • Paulk MC (2001) Extreme programming from a CMM perspective. Software 18(6):19–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen K, Wohlin C (2010) The effect of moving from a plan-driven to an incremental software development approach with agile practices. An industrial case study. Empir Softw Eng 15:654–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pikkarainen M, Mäntyniemi A (2006) An approach for using CMMI in agile software development assessments: experiences of three case studies. SPICE 2006, Luxembourg

  • Pikkarainen M, Salo O et al (2005) Deploying agile practices in organizations: a case study. European Software Process Improvement and Innovation, EuroSPI, Budapest, Hungary

  • Rasmusson J (2003) Introducing XP into Greenfield projects: lessons learned. IEEE Softw 20(3):21–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robson C (2002) Real world research, 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishing

  • Royce W (1970) Managing the development of large software systems. IEEE WESCON

  • Salo O (2006) Enabling software process improvement in agile software development teams and organizations. Dissertation, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, University of Oulu

  • Salo O, Abrahamsson P (2007) An iterative improvement approach for agile development: implications from multiple case study. Software Process Improv Pract 12(1):81–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwaber K, Beedle M (2002) Agile software development with scrum. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Stelzer D, Mellis W (1998) Success factors of organizational change in software process improvement. Software Process Improv Pract 4(4):227–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svensson H, Höst M (2005) Introducing an agile process in a software maintenance and evolution organization. 9th European Conference of Maintenance and Reengineering, Manchester, UK

  • Sweeney A, Bustard DW (1997) Software process improvement: making it happen in practice. Softw Qual J 6(4):265–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams L, Cockburn A (2003) Agile software development: it’s about feedback and change. Computer 36(6):39–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams L, Layman L, Krebs W (2004) Extreme programming evaluation framework for object-oriented languages. Computer Science TR-2004-18

  • Worley JM, Doolen TL (2006) The role of communication and management support in a lean manufacturing implementation. Manag Decis 44(2):228–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was carried out in AGILE-ITEA2 and FLEXI-ITEA2 projects funded by TEKES (the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, P.O. Box 1100, FIN-90571, Oulu, Finland

    Minna Pikkarainen & Raija Kuusela

  2. Nokia Corporation, Oulu, Finland

    Outi Salo

  3. The University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Pekka Abrahamsson

Authors
  1. Minna Pikkarainen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Outi Salo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raija Kuusela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pekka Abrahamsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Minna Pikkarainen.

Additional information

Editor: Laurie Williams

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pikkarainen, M., Salo, O., Kuusela, R. et al. Strengths and barriers behind the successful agile deployment—insights from the three software intensive companies in Finland. Empir Software Eng 17, 675–702 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-011-9185-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-011-9185-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation