Using agile methods for enterprise software development (ESD) remains contentious. Advocates of agile and plan-driven methods (i.e., waterfall) argue their respective cases with near evangelical zeal, and recent evidence indicates that waterfall (or some variant) remains a widely used approach. This controversy persists despite strong arguments by Boehm and Turner (2004) recommending a balanced software development approach combining aspects of agile and plandriven methods, aligned to pro-jects based on each project’s fit with agile vs. plan-driven “home ground” characteristics. In this re-search, we hypothesize that Boehm and Turner were fundamentally correct and that neither of the “pure” models will lead to the highest level of project success in all circumstances. This paper de-scribes a research project to study the impact of alignment with a flexible but simple agile vs. hybrid vs. plan-driven approach on ESD outcomes. The discussion includes: 1) Articulating the identifying characteristics of ESD, 2) distilling the essence of plan-driven vs. agile methods along two key dimen-sions, 3) explicating a hybrid method of software development using those dimensions, and 4) extend-ing Boehm and Turner’s “home grounds” model to better determine the optimal ESD approach. The discussion includes our planned research questions, data collection and analysis, and hypotheses.

First Page


Last Page