Pith. sign in

REVIEW

To Agile, or not to Agile: A Comparison of Software Development Methodologies

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1704.07469 v1 pith:SZLYZS45 submitted 2017-04-24 cs.SE

To Agile, or not to Agile: A Comparison of Software Development Methodologies

classification cs.SE
keywords agiledevelopmentwaterfallexploremanymethodologiesmethodologymethods
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Since the Agile Manifesto, many organizations have explored agile development methods to replace traditional waterfall development. Interestingly, waterfall remains the most widely used practice, suggesting that there is something missing from the many "flavors" of agile methodologies. We explore seven of the most common practices to explore this, and evaluate each against a series of criteria centered around product quality and adherence to agile practices. We find that no methodology entirely replaces waterfall and summarize the strengths and weaknesses of each. From this, we conclude that agile methods are, as a whole, unable to cope with the realities of technical debt and large scale systems. Ultimately, no one methodology fits all projects.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.