Agile Methodologies in Software Maintenance: A Systematic Review

This presentation provides a systematic review of Agile Methodologies in software maintenance. It explores the benefits and challenges of Agile Methodologies, compares them with the waterfall model, and discusses available tools. The presentation also highlights future directions and includes a list of references.

AGILE METHODOLOGIES IN
SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE
A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

INTRODUCTION
 Agile Methodologies has been noticed to
have been gaining huge popularity since
the year 2000.
 Software maintenance phase of the
lifecycle of software is considered to be
highly expensive in the nature and here
Agile Methodologies will be helping in the
maintenance of the software over time in
both iterative as well as flexible manner.

AIMS
 Several Agile Methodologies for a far
better performance in the maintenance of
the software.
 Specific comparison of the model of
waterfall and the lifecycle of agile
methodology.
 The total switch from the model of
waterfall to all the agile methodologies.
 Several tools available for all the Agile
Methodologies.
 Summarization of all the strengths as well
as the weaknesses of the Agile
Methodologies.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
What is actually the agile development of
software?
What are all the strengths as well as the
weaknesses of the agile methodologies?
How does the maintenance of software
team actually switched from Waterfall to
that of Agile?
Identify all the several subparts of the agile
methodologies.
How all the several extreme practices of
programming help a lot in the improvement
of the specific performance of the
maintenance of the software?
What are all those tools which are actually
available for all the agile methodologies?

STRENGTHS OF AGILE METHODOLOGIES
Strengt
hs
Consta
nt
Testing
Feedba
ck of
the
custom
ers
Smalle
r Team
Early
warnin
g risk
Budget
and on
time
Quality Iteratio
ns

WEAKNESSES OF AGILE METHODOLOGIES
Weakness
es
Miscommu
nication
Not at all
suitable for
the larger
projects
Increment
in the
overall cost
Coordinati
on lack
Increment
of
resources

SWITCHING FROM THE WATERFALL TO THE AGILE

TYPES OF AGILE METHOFOLOGIES
Extreme
Programmi
ng
Scrum
Developme
nt which
will be test
driven
Lean Crystal

OPEN TOOLS
Agilefant
Agile Manager
File Scrum
ICEscrum
LeanKit
Xplanner

PROPRIETARY TOOLS
Version
One
Agile
Log Agilo
Extrem
e
Planner

FUTURE DIRECTIONS
 In future, there is a proper planning for comparing the quality of the product that can be
well achieved with the help of the waterfall and alongside all the agile methodologies as
well.
 Analysis of the metrics can be done in details with the help of several agile methodologies.
 Refinement of the extreme process model of programming using various case studies.
 Creation of the tools which will be fully automated and prepared for all the refinements in
projects for the future.

REFERENCES
 [1] S.Tarwani and A.Chug. Agile methodologies in software maintenance: A systematic review. Informatica, 40(4), 2016.
 [2] V.Rajlich. Software evolution and maintenance. In Proceedings of the on Future of Software Engineering (pp. 133-144). ACM, 2014.
 [3] T.J. Gandomani, H. Zulzalil, A.A.A. Ghani, A.B.M. Sultan and M.Z. Nafchi. Obstacles in moving to agile software development methods; at
a glance. Journal of Computer Science, 9(5), p.620, 2013.
 [4] P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, J. Ronkainen and J. Warsta. Agile software development methods: Review and analysis. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1709.08439, 2017.
 [5] M. Stoica, M. Mircea and B. Ghilic-Micu. Software Development: Agile vs. Traditional. Informatica Economica, 17(4), 2013.
 [6] G. Destefanis, S. Counsell, G. Concas and R. Tonelli. Software metrics in agile software: An empirical study. In International Conference
on Agile Software Development (pp. 157-170). Springer, Cham, 2014.
 [7] S.W. Chuang, T. Luor and H.P. Lu. Assessment of institutions, scholars, and contributions on agile software development (2001–
2012). Journal of Systems and Software, 93, pp.84-101, 2014.
 [8] M.O. Ahmad, P. Kuvaja, M. Oivo and J. Markkula. Transition of software maintenance teams from Scrum to Kanban. In 2016 49th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 5427-5436). IEEE, 2016.
 [9] S. Sultana, Y.H. Motla, S. Asghar, M. Jamal and R. Azad. A hybrid model by integrating agile practices for pakistani software industry.
In 2014 International Conference on Electronics, Communications and Computers (CONIELECOMP) (pp. 256-262). IEEE, 2014.
 [10] M. Usman, E. Mendes, F. Weidt and R. Britto. Effort estimation in agile software development: a systematic literature review.
In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on predictive models in software engineering (pp. 82-91). ACM, 2014.
 [11] M. Dick, J. Drangmeister, E. Kern and S. Naumann. Green software engineering with agile methods. In 2013 2nd international workshop
on green and sustainable software (GREENS) (pp. 78-85). IEEE, 2013.
 [12] J. Paredes, C. Anslow and F. Maurer. Information visualization for agile software development. In 2014 Second IEEE Working Conference
on Software Visualization (pp. 157-166). IEEE, 2014.

THANK YOU