'''Some Representative Viewpoints on AgileMethods from ICSE '2002'''

''For related activities on AgileMethods at ICSE '2002, see'': AgileMethodsAtIcseTwoThousandTwo.

During the various discussions, several maps were suggested to compare the different processes and process frameworks in terms of their support of agility.

PhilippeKruchten suggested the following taxonomy along two dimensions:

http://seg.iit.nrc.ca/~erdogmus/WikiImages/PkMap.gif

Philippe characterized the RationalUnifiedProcess as a process framework that can be instantiated in light or heavyweight forms and CMM/CMMI as a framework for evaluating processes: 

http://seg.iit.nrc.ca/~erdogmus/WikiImages/PkRupMap.gif 
http://seg.iit.nrc.ca/~erdogmus/WikiImages/PkCmmMap.gif

BarryBoehm located the different development paradigms on a one-dimensional map according to their emphasis on upfront planning. He placed ExtremeProgramming close to the left end of the spectrum, but did not characterize it as hacking: 

http://seg.iit.nrc.ca/~erdogmus/WikiImages/BbMap.gif

JyrkiKontio during the IcseWorkshopOnIterativeAdaptiveAndAgileProcesses drew the following diagram. He suggested that the right development paradigm depends on two orthogonal project attributes: required agility and system complexity/size:

http://seg.iit.nrc.ca/~erdogmus/WikiImages/JkMap.gif

He argued that agile methods have inherent strengts in the lower right corner, but become less effective as size and complexity increases.  However, that's where the money is made and systems with big impact are built, i.e., scaling up of agile methods is a central business challenge. 

----

''Edit this page at will if you think that your viewpoints have been misrepresented. Or contact HakanErdogmus with suggested changes.''