An analysis of the history of classical software development and agile development

The ongoing debate over the merits of classical software engineering (SE) methodologies and agile methodologies has so far resulted in no clear benefits for the SE community. This paper uses the CHAPL framework developed in our previous research to analyse the history of classical SE methodologies and agile methodologies. Our historical analysis focuses on the following three perspectives: the practices, the principles, and the technological context. The analysis reveals that both approaches to software development have similar roots and that their proponents have ample ground for constructive discussions. In fact, both approaches can be seen as complementary and their integration could contribute to project success.

I. Introduction

Significant effort has been invested over the last decades in identifying good practices, models and methods²

For a detailed discussion on the differences between the terms SE method, SE methodology, software process model and software lifecycle, please see [5], [6].

that lead to more efficient software development. The large number of methodologies has also led to heated debates amongst software developers who now tend to classify SE methodologies into two categories: 1)

Classical SE methodologies: They are also often referred to as heavy-weight or plan-driven and require upfront requirements definition, documentation and detailed plans. Two prominent examples are the waterfall model [26] and the spiral model [33]. Larger frameworks, such as the CMM, generally support classical SE methodologies [1].

2)

Agile methodologies: They are often called light-weight or agile. This category includes e.g., (Extreme Programming) XP [2] and Serum [58], which follow the 12 agile principles as described in Beck [2] and Cockburn [3].