2.4 Agile Software Development
2.4.7 The Quest for a ‘Theoretical Lens’
framework that incorporates the assumptions underlying the methodology as well as the contexts in which it is deemed appropriate for implementation, is required.
should be centered on the relationship between the implementation of the methodology and context in which it is used. An outcome of this understanding is that the academic community will be in a better position to provide a framework that informs the implementation of the methodology in a professional setting.
(Kirk & MacDonell, 2014). This imperative to underpin the implementation of agility with a theoretical basis should however, not be seen as an attempt to streamline the process thereby resulting in a paradoxical situation where the core principles of agility are eroded by a framework that is perceived to be prescriptive.
The theoretical intervention needs to embrace the multi-faceted and contextual nature of software development (Lyytinen & Rose, 2006) so that organisations have at their disposal an academic frame of reference that may be used as a platform/cohesive body of knowledge to guide the adoption and adaptation of agile methodology (Abrahamsson et al., 2009).
Such an intervention will enhance the possibility of extending the applicability of agile methods, which are traditionally associated with small, non- critical systems where development teams are co-located and user requirements are elicited dynamically. According to Abrahamsson et al. (2009), many studies have reported on the issues pertaining to the adoption of agile methodology (AM).
However, this knowledge needs to be encapsulated into a theoretical framework that will enhance the prospect of meaningfully engaging in post-adoption studies that examine the sustainability of AM. An example of such a study is the one conducted by Port and Bui (2009) who studied the viability of using a mixed methods approach that entailed an integration of AM and a plan based (PB) methodology to develop software. The study used a simulation strategy to vary the complexity of the software system. An outcome of this study is that the approach of mixing AM with PB methodology is confirmed as a viable option to mitigate the risks (such as the lack of architectural stability (Cao et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2016) imposed by using AM to develop large, complex software systems. The Port and Bui (2009) study represents an initial incursion into the realm of extending the applicability of AM. The initiative to extend the applicability of AM was sustained by Cao et al. (2009) who conducted a multi-site case study to determine how AM
may be adapted for use in different contexts. The study uses adaptive structuration theory (AST) to provide an adaptation framework for AM based on the requirements of different projects and organisational environments. AST is a framework proposed by DeSanctis and Poole (1994) that attaches greater priority to the social aspects of technological interventions rather than the technical aspects of the intervention. The Cao et al. study used AST to understand the adaptation of agile methodology as a consequence of the social interaction that occurs when the methodology is used. A significant aspect of the study is the presentation of empirical evidence attesting to the need to apply specific tenets of agile methods for the varying contexts of usage. A corollary of this finding is that it is not viable to apply agile methods in their entirety and there is a need to temper agile methods so that there is a strong alignment with the prevailing organisational culture with specific focus on priorities established by higher level management and the development styles of software teams and the type of project that is being undertaken. The study by Cao et al. (2009) provides the empirical support for the claim by Nerur et al. (2005) that agile development is characterised by social interaction where the various stakeholders, including business analysts, developers, project managers and end users engage who engage repeatedly in a reflective mode and leverage their experiences of using the methodology to curate a customised version of the methodology.
The reference to the various stakeholders involved in software development in an organisational context opens up another dimension to agile software development (ASD) that has largely been neglected in the literature review this far. This is a reference to the role that ASD plays from an organisational/enterprise-wide perspective. While the academics and practitioners have devoted a lot of attention to the operational issues regarding ASDM, the wider environmental impact has not received much focus in the literature on ASD prompting Fitzgerald and Stol (2015) to suggest that any attempt to adapt ASD will be futile if it is not done from an enterprise-wide perspective that incorporates business objectives. Based on the preceding argument, an incursion into the enterprise-wide impact that ASD will incur is warranted.
The business dimension usually manifests in respect of the cost to develop software as well as the time and resources consumed and invariably the quality of the software produced (Basili et al., 2013). In order to address the issue of business interests, a traditional practice by project managers was to make use of a command and control strategy to uphold the business imperative (McAvoy & Butler, 2009).
However, the rigidity inherent in such a dictatorial approach is not commensurate with the principles of agility. From an agile perspective, project managers are expected to provide an environment that facilitates participatory decision-making thereby devolving authority to all members of the development team. In order to recognise the impact of the afore-mentioned social intervention, there is a strong imperative to make use of a socially oriented theoretical base such as that provided by AST in studies that purport to obtain a deeper understanding of agile methodology.