agile

If Agile is going to make a difference to an organization, it must accomplish two things. First, it must assist us in being driven by business needs—not the development organization. Second, it must help us with the entire value stream—not merely part of it. Lean-agile practices presents us with an opportunity to reunite the business and software development organizations so our Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) can focus on value, not merely delivered software.

The components of software processes work together in important and sometimes unrecognized ways. The removal of one of those components will affect the others. In this article, which originally appeared in the August 2010 issue of the Iterations eNewsletter, Jennitta Andrea takes a look at the value of acceptance test-driven development and the costs of making it an optional practice.

Life used to be simpler. In the early 2000s, if you wanted to go "agile," XP was the route of choice. And then Scrum became popular. And it was not too long before organizations began to hit the limits of these approaches due to their focus on teams. And then it became apparent that lean principles could be applied to software and Lean Software Development and later Kanban were added to the mix. Now, you have a great many choices: Not just about which method to use, but where to start, whether to go top-down or bottom-up, and what should be the scope of your effort.

Agile and ALM are two terms that you don’t often see side by side. To most developers, agile means team interaction, customer collaboration, dynamism, and responsiveness to change. In contrast, ALM seems to imply the opposite of agile, with echoes of rigid procedures, inflexibility, and top-down process control. But are the agile and ALM approaches as contradictory as they first appear to be?