Agile software development represents a major departure from traditional, plan-based approaches to software engineering. A systematic review of empirical studies of agile software development up to and including 2005 was conducted. The search strategy identified 1996 studies, of which 36 were identified as empirical studies. The studies were grouped into four themes: introduction and adoption, human and social factors, perceptions on agile methods, and comparative studies. The review investigates what is currently known about the benefits and limitations of, and the strength of evidence for, agile methods. Implications for research and practice are presented. The main implication for research is a need for more and better empirical studies of agile software development within a common research agenda. For the industrial readership, the review provides a map of findings, according to topic, that can be compared for relevance to their own settings and situations.

/pdf/empirical-studies-of-agile-software-development-a-systematic-4kky3l7vnd.pdf

Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review

本文对国际科学计量学杂志《Ｓｃｉｅｎｔｏｍｅｔｒｉｃｓ》１９７９－１９９１年的研究论文内容、栏目、作者及国别和编委及国别作了计量分析，揭示出科学计量学研究的重点、活动的中心及发展趋势，说明了学科带头人在发展科学计量学这门新兴学科中的作用。

国际刊物《Scientometrics》文献计量研究

Quasi-experimentation - design and analysis issues for field settings - cook,td, campbell,dt

Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews

A decade of agile methodologies

The traditional goal of optimization and control is making way for learning and innovation.

Theoretical reflections on agile development methodologies

Extreme programming is currently gaining popularity as an alternate software development methodology. Pair programming, a core practice of this methodology, involves two programmers working collaboratively to develop software. This study examined the efficacy of pair programming by comparing the performance effectiveness and affective responses of collaborating pairs with those of individual programmers treated as nominal pairs. In a controlled laboratory experiment involving student subjects, proxies for entry level programmers working on entry level tasks, two factors were manipulated: programming setting (collaborative pair versus individuals) and programming task complexity (high versus low). Participants who worked in the individual condition were randomly combined into nominal pairs. The performance and affective responses of the collaborating pairs were then compared with those of the best performers and the second best performers of each nominal pair. Results indicated that programming pairs performed at the level above the second best performers and at the level of the best performers in each nominal pair. This relationship was found to be consistent across both levels of task complexity. Consequently, there was no evidence of an "assembly bonus effect," where the performance of a collaborating pair exceeds the performance of its best member working alone. While this finding may appear counterintuitive due to the general perception of two heads being better than one, it is consistent with the findings in small group research. When affective responses were considered, programming pairs reported higher levels of satisfaction than those of the best and second-best performing members in nominal pairs. They also showed higher levels of confidence in their performance compared to those of the second-best members. But the confidence levels of pairs were no different from those of the best performing members in nominal pairs. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are presented.

Are two heads better than one for software development? the productivity paradox of pair programming

Research Article VenuGopal Balijepally Prairie View A&M University vebalijepally@pvamu.edu George Mangalaraj Western Illinois University G-Mangalaraj@wiu.edu Kishen Iyengar University of Colorado at Boulder kishen.iyengar@colorado.edu Cluster analysis is a powerful statistical procedure for extricating natural configurations among the data and the populations. Cluster analysis, with its seemingly limitless power to produce groupings in any dataset, has all the trappings of a super-technique. However, the method produces clusters even in the absence of any natural structure in the data, and has no statistical basis to reject the null hypothesis that there are no natural groupings in the data. Application of cluster analysis, therefore, presupposes sound researcher judgment and responsible analysis and reporting. This paper summarizes the results of a reflective review of the application of cluster analysis in Information Systems (IS) research published in major IS outlets. Based on the analysis of 55 IS applications of cluster analysis, various deficiencies noticed in its use are discussed along with suggestions for future practice. By analyzing the results over two time periods, longitudinal trends in the application of this technique are highlighted.

/pdf/are-we-wielding-this-hammer-correctly-a-reflective-review-of-k8f81tecet.pdf

Are We Wielding This Hammer Correctly? A Reflective Review of the Application of Cluster Analysis in Information Systems Research*

Some journals are perceived as sources of knowledge; others serve as storers of knowledge Learning the strengths and persuasions of journals is of value to academia, scholars, and publishers

VenuGopal Balijepally

Papers

A decade of agile methodologies

Theoretical reflections on agile development methodologies

Are two heads better than one for software development? the productivity paradox of pair programming

Are We Wielding This Hammer Correctly? A Reflective Review of the Application of Cluster Analysis in Information Systems Research*

Assessing the relative influence of journals in a citation network