Agile methods for software development, typified by their iterative, incrementalapproach and flexibility to change, became known as such with the founding ofthe Manifesto for Agile Development in 2001. Agile methods are intended toaddress the challenges of business requirements and technology changes thatcontinually arise during software development.This study investigates software managers’ perceptions of agile methods forsoftware development in the South African context. The research consideredthe meaning of agile methods including characteristics, similarities anddifferences between agile and other software development methods. Softwaremanagers’ attitudes towards agile methods were examined, covering their viewson benefits, shortcomings and challenges of implementing agile methods.Data was collected through in-depth face to face interviews with fourteen projectmanagers and development team leaders, representing various sizes and typesof organisations. Respondents were knowledgeable on the subject of agilemethods and had current and/or previous exposure to agile projects.Important characteristics of agile methods noted were: iterative cycles; usingagile methods where appropriate; active business involvement; short planningand delivery cycles and using an appropriate level of documentation.Comparing agile and other software development methods key differencesincluded: documentation; solution delivery; dealing with changes;planning/delivery cycle and quality assurance/testing. There were considerablyfewer references to similarities than differences. Similarities that emergedwere: similar concepts but different approach; delivering the end product; teamroles/members; project tracking/reporting and producing documentation.Some of the characteristics of agile methods were also related to the benefits,shortcomings and challenges. Highly rated benefits were: good/better quality;better team spirit/dynamics; meeting client needs/delivering value; improvedteam performance and early detection of issues/failure.iiShortcomings of agile methods included: limited applicability; cost notnecessarily lower and possibly higher; lack of common definition andunderstanding of agile methods; lower suitability for large projects/teams andlower suitability for distributed/outsourced/off-shore development teams.Implementation challenges included: selective, customised or combined use ofagile methods; resistance to change; the need for education of customers andteams; insufficient business involvement and the need for the right kind ofpeople.The study revealed that software managers see the meaning of agile softwaredevelopment being strongly grounded in the values and principles of the AgileManifesto. Agile software development is an iterative approach that breakswork into small packages and delivers a solution incrementally over multipleshort cycles, accommodating changes throughout the process. It is appropriatefor certain types of situations and environments and should be usedaccordingly. The characteristics of agile methods are inextricably linked to theirdistinguishing features. Whilst similarities can be identified at a very high level,agile methods tend to work differently to other methods.Software managers’ attitude towards agile software development is largelypositive, improved quality being viewed as the most significant benefit. Thesebenefits arise from the way agile projects work and specific agile practices suchas pair programming, continuous integration and test-driven development.While the general sentiment is positive, agile methods have inherent limitationswhich mainly centre on their limited applicability with regard to certain types ofsituations or projects. Agile methods are not seen to reduce project costsalthough quality and time are generally positively impacted.Agile methods being new and different face resistance to change duringimplementation. Education is needed to overcome resistance and lack ofunderstanding of agile methods. Software managers should appreciate thatagile methods should be implemented with situation-dependent adaptation asappropriate.
