Effects of Agile Methods on Electronic Commerce Do they improve website quality? David F. Rico.

Effects of Agile Methods on Electronic Commerce

Do they improve website quality?

David F. Rico

2

Introduction

3

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this briefing is to present a model for measuring the relationship

between the use of agile methods to manage the development of Internet websites and their quality. Agile methods are a general purpose approach for managing the development of new products, which are often associated with Internet software. Agile methods may be used for improving website quality by obtaining early customer feedback on a large number of frequent software releases. Agile methods are characterized by early customer involvement, iterative development, self organizing teams, and flexibility. This model may help managers better understand the business effects of adopting or failing to adopt agile methods for the $2 trillion U.S. electronic commerce industry.

Author David F. Rico has been in the field of computer programming since 1983. He worked on

NASA’s $20 billion space station in the 1980s, he worked for a $40 billion Japanese corporation in Tokyo in the early 1990s, and he worked on U.S. Navy fighters such as the F-18, F-14, and many others. He’s also supported the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Space and Naval Warfare Center (SPAWAR), Air Force, and Army. He’s been an international keynote speaker, published numerous articles on three continents, and written a textbook on computer science. He holds a bachelor's degree in computer science, a master’s degree in software engineering, and is pursuing a doctoral degree in information technology.

4

Purpose

GOAL — Determine if agile methods improve website quality Determine if the use of agile methods improves the quality of Internet websites Some believe traditional methods lead to higher quality websites (e.g., CMMI, etc.) Others believe agile methods lead to higher quality websites (e.g., XP, Scrum, etc.)

MacCormack, A., Verganti, R., & Iansiti, M. (2001). Developing products on Internet time: The anatomy of a flexible development process. Management Science, 47(1), 133-150.

AGILITY — Agile methods are based on principles of … Obtaining early customer feedback on a large number of frequent software releases Closed-loop, circular, recursive, and tight-knit processes for rapidly creating software Early customer involvement, iterative development, self organizing teams, flexibility

Highsmith, J. A. (2002). Agile software development ecosystems. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.

OBJECTIVE — Develop an instrument to determine if … Early customer involvement is linked to website quality among U.S. firms? Iterative development is linked to website quality among U.S. firms? Self organizing teams are linked to website quality among U.S. firms? Flexibility is linked to website quality among U.S. firms?

Rico, D. F. (2007). Effects of agile methods on website quality for electronic commerce. Retrieved April 9, 2007, from http://davidfrico.com/rico07h.pdf

5

Background

U.S. information technology expenditures ($141B - $231B) Top 500 U.S. firms spend between $141B and $231B on IT projects each year There are 250,000 IT projects in the U.S. and as many as 180,000 are failing (72%) Managers need to know if agile methods help alleviate the high project failure rates

Anonymous. (2006). Information Week 500: Masters of technology. Information Week, 2006(1105), 73-81.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (2006). Information and communication technology. Washington, DC: Author.

2006 U.S. IT EXPENDITURES BY INFOWEEK (in billions)

$1.5

$9.4

$4.3

$13.7 $1.7 $4.9 $4.4 $2.1$4.9

$3.0

$5.5

$0.6

$2.1$11.6

$13.3

$13.8

$2.2

$0.4

$8.4

$25.4

$7.5

Automotive Banking Biotechnology ChemicalsConstruction Consult ing Consumer DistributionElectronics Energy Healthcare HospitalityInsurance Logist ics Manufacturing MediaMetal Retail-General Retail-Specialty T echnologyT elecommunications

2006 U.S. IT EXPENDITURES BY U.S. DoC (in billions)

$0.2$5.9$2.0$9.3$3.8

$4.5$2.7

$3.6

$1.5$14.2

$3.2

$22.6

$1.3

$3.5

$33.7$2.4 $54.5

$19.0

$43.1

Accommodation Administrative Agriculture Construction Educational

Entertainment Finance Healthcare Information ManagementManufacturing Mining Other Professional Real estate

Retail T ransportation Utilit ies Wholesale

6

Terminology

Agile methods — Approaches to managing the development of Internet software based on principles of early customer involvement, iterative development, self organizing teams, and flexibility

Highsmith, J. A. (2002). Agile software development ecosystems. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.

Early customer involvement (feedback) — The solicitation of early market feedback by including end users in the software development process to achieve higher quality and satisfaction

Kaulio, M. A. (1998). Customer, consumer, and user involvement in product development: A framework and a review of selected methods. Total Quality Management, 9(1), 141-149.

Iterative development (frequent releases) — The act of creating a skeletal computer program followed by the gradual enhancement of successive software implementations

Basili, V. R., & Turner, J. (1975). Iterative enhancement: A practical technique for software development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1(4), 390-396.

Self organizing teams — Non-hierarchical groups with different and complementary skills, who are responsible and accountable for organizational outcomes

Zarraga, C., & Bonache, J. (2005). The impact of team atmosphere on knowledge outcomes in self managed teams. Organization Studies, 26(5), 661-681.

Flexibility — A development process tolerant to design changes, late software changes, or change altogether due in part to flexible designs

Thomke, S., & Reinertsen, D. (1998). Agile product development: Managing development flexibility in uncertain environments. California Management Review, 41(1), 8-30.

Website quality — A website whose features satisfy user needs and reflect the overall excellence of a website

Aladwani, A. M., & Palvia, P. C. (2002). Developing and validating an instrument for measuring user perceived web quality. Information and Management, 39(6), 467-475.

U.S. firm — An entity registered with the appropriate national regulatory authority overseeing the entity’s investment management activities

Caccese, M. S., & Lim, C. H. (2005). Revised global investment performance standards: Highlights and recommendations. Investment Lawyer, 12(12), 3-10.

7

Ecommerce

8

2004 U.S. electronic commerce revenues ($1.95 trillion)

U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). E-stats. Washington, DC: Author.

Ecommerce Revenues (total)

2004 U.S. ECOMMERCE REVENUES (in billions)

$130,112

(7%)

$1,820,876

(93%) B2B B2C

2004 U.S. ECOMMERCE REVENUES (in billions)

$59,206

(3%)$70,906

(4%)

$996,174

(51%)

$824,702

(42%)

Manufacturing (B2B)

Wholesale (B2B)

Retail (B2C)

Services (B2C)

9

2004 U.S. B2B electronic commerce revenues ($1.82 trillion)


Ecommerce Revenues (B2B)

2004 U.S. B2B MANUFACTURING ECOMMERCE (in billions)

$611

$4,416

$7,974

$8,472

$19,631

$8,694

$8,259

$10,850

$33,220

$33,410

$102,967

$77,527

$52,783

$33,992$52,292$76,197

$25,177

$346,473

$64,121

$17,844

$11,264

Food Beverage M ills TextileApparel Leather Wood P aperP rinting P etroleum Chemical P lasticsNonmetallics Metals Fabricated MachineryComputer Equipment Transportation FurnitureM iscellaneous

2004 U.S. B2B WHOLESALE ECOMMERCE (in billions)

$13,181

$37,074

$5,626

$27,741

$12,534

$246,028

$77,791

$4,138$20,144

$35,608 $11,250 $6,930 $62,589

Furniture Lumber EquipmentMetals Electrical Hardware

Machinery P aper DrugsGroceries Farm P etroleum

Miscellaneous

10

2004 U.S. B2C electronic commerce revenues ($130 billion)


Ecommerce Revenues (B2C)

2004 U.S. RETAIL EC OMMERC E (in mil l ions)

$53,630

$1,363

$1,097 $269

$1,249

$820$11,450

Vehicles Electronics BuildingClothing Sport ing MiscellaneousNonstore

2004 U.S. SERVIC ES EC OMMERC E (in mil l ions)

$10,385

$4,834$4,735

$226 $1,526$527$6,268

$4,027

$2,378

$6,871

$6,355$764

$4,393

T ruck Couriers Publishing BroadcastingOnline Securit ies T echnical ComputerWaste T ravel Other Svcs RepairCivic

11

2004 U.S. B2C electronic shopping revenues ($52.2 billion)


Ecommerce Revenues (B2C)

2004 U.S. ELEC TRONIC SHOPPING (in mill ions)

$4,084

$1,415

$1,753$6,572

$3,568

$1,960$4,289 $1,114 $2,266

$7,152

$9,410

$4,653

$1,515

$2,466

Books Clothing Computers Software DrugsElectronics Food Furniture Music OfficeSports Toys Collectibles Auctions

12

History

13


Computers and Software

FIRST GENERATION(Vacuum Tubes 1940-50)

SECOND GENERATION(Transistorized 1950-64)

THIRD GENERATION(Integrated Circuit 1964-80)

FOURTH GENERATION(Microprocessor 1980-Present)

ELECTRONIC COMPUTERS

OPERATING SY STEMS

PACK AGED SOFTWARE

INTERNET & WWW

PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES

· ARPA· IMP· NCP· Ethernet· TCP/IP

· DNS· AOL· HTML· HTTP· Netscape

· Autoflow · Wordperfect· Word· Excel· 1-2-3· Visicalc

· IBM 0S/360· MIT CTSS· MULTICS· UNIX· DEC VMS

· CPM· DOS· MAC OS· MS Windows

· FORTRAN· FLOWMATIC· ALGOL· COBOL· JOVIAL

· BASIC· PL/I· Smalltalk· Pascal· C

· Ada· C++· Eiffel· Perl· Java

· ENIAC· EDVAC· UNIVAC· MARK I, II, III

· TRANSAC S-100· CDC 3600· IBM 7090

· IBM 3/360· RCA Spectra 70· Honeywell 200· CDC 7600· DEC PDP-8

· IBM PC· Apple Macintosh

14


Electronic Commerce

SECOND GENERATION(Transistorized 1950-64)

THIRD GENERATION(Integrated Circuit 1964-80)

FOURTH GENERATION(Microprocessor 1980-1990)

MID FOURTH GENERATION(Microprocessor 1990-Present)

· MICR

· ATM· EFT· NYSE· FAX· Email· POS· DOT· Compuserve· EDI

· Super DOT

· Books· Clothing· Computers· Software· Health· Electronics· Food· Furniture· Music· Sports· Toys· Transportation· Automotive· Vehicles· Brokerages· Finance

(This is only a partiallisting for illustrative purposes)

15


Software Methods

Structured Methods

Object Oriented Methods

Database Design

Software Life Cycles

Software Testing

Software Reviews

Formal Methods

Software Processes

Software Environments

Early User Involvement

Software Quality Assurance

Software Reuse

Software Architecture

Rapid Development

Agile Methods

MAINFRAME ERA(1960s)

MIDRANGE ERA(1970s)

MICROCOMPUTER ERA(1980s)

INTERNET ERA(1990s)

PERSONALIZED ERA(2000s)

Automatic Programming

Software Project Management

16


Software Quality Measures

Software Complexity

Software Size

User Satisfaction

Website Quality

Software Reliability

Software Defect Models

Software Attributes

MAINFRAME ERA(1960s)

MIDRANGE ERA(1970s)


INTERNET ERA(1990s)


Software Errors

17


Agile Methods

J APAN

New Product Development Game


INTERNET ERA(1990s)


IBM

New Development Rhythm

ADM

Scrum

UK

Dynamic Systems Development

MICROSOFT

Synch-n-Stabilize

NETSCAPE

Judo Strategy

CHRY SLER

Extreme Programming

Y AHOO, ETC.

Internet Time

AGILE ALLIANCE

Agile Methods

IBM

Crystal Methods

NEBULON

Feature Driven Development

18


Studies of Agile Methods

Harvard

INTERNET ERA(1990s)


Flexible Technologies

Harvard

Boston College

Reifer Consultants

Shine Technologies

CIO Magazine

Version One

Digital Focus

Flexible Development Processes

Iterative Development

Agile Benefits

Agile Benefits

Agile Organizations

Agile Benefits

Agile Benefits

NANO COMPUTING ERA(2010s)

AmbySoft

Agile Adoption Rate

19

Examples

20

Scrum

Created by Jeff Sutherland at Easel in 1993 Bare bones methodology to produce operational software in 30 day iterations Consists of three phases — Pre-sprint planning, sprint, and post-sprint meeting Becoming popular due to its simplicity — What-you-see-is-what-you-get approach

Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2001). Agile software development with scrum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

21

Extreme Programming

Created by Kent Beck at Chrysler in 1998 Rigorous test-first approach to produce operational software in 14-day iterations Consists of 13 practices: Unit testing, pair programming, on-site customer, etc. Most widely used software development approach by international community

Beck, K. (1999). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

22

Feature Driven Development

Develop anOverall Model

Build aFeatures List

P lan byFeature

Design byFeature

Build byFeature

Iteration

Created by Jeff De Luca at Nebulon in 1997 Robust object-oriented method to produce operational software in 30-day iterations Consists of traditional practices: Object-oriented analysis, inspections, CM, etc. Second most heaviest approach to agile methods behind extreme programming

Palmer, S. R., & Felsing, J. M. (2002). A practical guide to feature driven development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

23

Dynamic Systems Development

Created by consortium of British firms in 1993 RAD approach of using prototypes to elicit requirements over two broad iterations Consists of traditional practices: Plans, specifications, testing, documentation, etc. As-designed, is sort of a closed-end spin-off of RAD approaches from early 1990s

Stapleton, J. (1997). DSDM: A framework for business centered development. Harlow, England: Addison Wesley.

24

Studies

25

Early Case Studies

(1989) IBM — New development rhythm Modularity, reuse, peer reviews, testing, iteration, overlapping, user involvement, teams Created 7 MLOC midrange operating system in 26 months and ported 30 BLOC of RPG 40% lower cycle time, $14B revenues, 95% customer satisfaction, and 1st Baldrige award

Sulack, R. A., Lindner, R. J., & Dietz, D. N. (1989). A new development rhythm for AS/400 software. IBM Systems Journal, 28(3), 386-406.

(1995) MICROSOFT — Synch-n-stabilize Parallel design, flexible requirements, builds, iteration, market feedback, teams Created Windows and Office 95 with 20 MLOC, ie., Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Access 135% annual growth rate (average), 95% customer satisfaction, and 36% profit margins

Cusumano, M. A., & Selby, R. W. (1995). Microsoft secrets: How the world’s most powerful software company creates technology, shapes markets, and manages people. New York, NY: The Free Press.

(1998) NETSCAPE — Judo strategy Modularity, parallel design, flexible priorities, testing, market feedback, teams Created Navigator browsers, Suitespot servers, and Xpert ecommerce with 30MLOC $1.4B revenues, 168% growth rate, 90% market share, 4% profit margins (reinvestment)

Cusumano, M. A., & Yoffie, D. B. (1998). Competing on internet time: Lessons from netscape and its battle with microsoft. New York, NY: The Free Press.

26

Early Scholarly Studies

(1998) HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL — Flexibility Prototyping, experimentation, iterative development, flexible technologies Surveyed 391 engineers from a database of 1,000 magazine subscribers Linked technological flexibility to faster cycle times and higher productivity

Thomke, S., & Reinertsen, D. (1998). Agile product development: Managing development flexibility in uncertain environments. California Management Review, 41(1), 8-30.

(1998) HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL — Internet time Architectural design, early market feedback, generational experience Surveyed 29 projects from top 17 Internet firms (e.g., Microsoft, Yahoo, etc.) Linked architectural design investments and early market feedback to website quality

MacCormack, A. (1998). Managing adaptation: An empirical study of product development in rapidly changing environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard, Boston, MA, USA.

(1998) BOSTON COLLEGE — Results driven incrementalism Business objectives, non-overlapping, operational, 90 day intervals, feedback Compared the performance of 10 incremental versus 18 waterfall software projects Delivered 38% sooner, completed projects 2X faster, and satisfied 2X more requirements

Fichman, R. G., & Moses, S. A. (1999). An incremental process for software implementation. Sloan Management Review, 40(2), 39-52.

27

Early Surveys

(2003) REIFER CONSULTANTS — 78 respondents 14% to 25% reported productivity gains 7% to 12% reported cost reductions 25% to 80% reported time-to-market improvements

Reifer, D. J. (2003). The business case for agile methods/extreme programming (XP). Proceedings of the Seventh Annual PSM Users Group Conference, Keystone, Colorado, USA, 1-30.

(2003) SHINE TECHNOLOGIES — 131 respondents 49% experienced cost reductions 93% experienced productivity increases 88% experienced customer satisfaction improvements

Johnson, M. (2003). Agile methodologies: Survey results. Victoria, Australia: Shine Technologies.

(2004) CIO MAGAZINE — 100 respondents 28% had been using agile methods since 2001 85% initiated enterprise-wide agile methods initiatives 43% used agile methods to improve growth and marketshare

Prewitt, E. (2004). The agile 100. CIO Magazine, 17(21), 4-7.

28

Newest Surveys

(2006) DIGITAL FOCUS — 136 respondents 27% of software projects used agile methods 23% had enterprise-wide agile methods initiatives 51% used agile methods to speed-up development

Digital Focus. (2006). Agile 2006 survey: Results and analysis. Herndon, VA: Author.

(2006) VERSION ONE — 722 respondents 86% reported time-to-market improvements 87% reported productivity improvements 92% reported ability to dynamically change priorities

Version One. (2006). The state of agile development. Apharetta, GA: Author.

(2006) AMBYSOFT — 4,232 respondents 41% of organizations used agile methods 44% reported improved productivity, quality, and costs 38% reported improvements in customer satisfaction levels

Ambler, S. W. (2006). Agile adoption rate survey: March 2006. Retrieved September 17, 2006, from http://www.ambysoft.com/downloads/surveys/AgileAdoptionRates.ppt

29


Studies of Agile MethodsY ear Source Findings Responses

1998 Harvard

(Thomke et al., 1998)

50% reduction in engineering effort 55% improvement in time to market 925% improvement in number of changes allowed

391

1998 Harvard

(MacCormack, 1998)

48% productivity increase over traditional methods 38% higher quality associated with more design effort 50% higher quality associated with iterative development

29

1999 Boston College

(Fichman et al., 1999)

38% reduction in time to produce working software 50% time to market improvement 50% more capabilities delivered to customers

28

2003 Reifer Consultants

(Reifer, 2003)

20% reported productivity gains 10% reported cost reductions 53% reported time-to-market improvements

78

2003 Shine Technologies

(Johnson, 2003)

49% experienced cost reductions 93% experienced productivity increases 88% experienced customer satisfaction improvements

131

2004 CIO Magazine (Prewitt, 2004)

28% had been using agile methods since 2001 85% initiated enterprise-wide agile methods initiatives 43% used agile methods to improve growth and marketshare

100

2006 Digital Focus

(Digital Focus, 2006)

27% of software projects used agile methods 23% had enterprise-wide agile methods initiatives 51% used agile methods to speed-up development

136

2006 Version One

(Version One, 2006)

86% reported time-to-market improvements 87% reported productivity improvements 92% reported ability to dynamically change priorities

722

2006 AmbySoft

(Ambler, 2006)

41% of organizations used agile methods 44% reported improved productivity, quality, and costs 38% reported improvements in customer satisfaction levels

4,232

30

Manifesto

31

Agile Manifesto

In 2001, 17 industry leaders met to form a manifesto Formed as an alternative to heavyweight documentation-driven methodologies Agile methods mushroomed to free the community from Dilbertesque corporations To succeed in ecommerce, firms must rid themselves of make-work, arcane policies

Agile Manifesto. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development. Retrieved November 29, 2006, from http://www.agilemanifesto.org

Original Signatories

K ent Beck

Mike Beedle

Arie van Bennekum

Alistair Cockburn

Ward Cunningham

Martin Fowler

J ames Grenning

J im Highsmith

Andrew Hunt

Ron J effries

J on K ern

Brian Marick

Robert C. Martin

Steve Mellor

K en Schwaber

J eff Sutherland

Dave Thomas

32

Values of Agile Methods

We value items on the left more than items on the right Customer collaboration over contract negotiation Working software over comprehensive documentation Individuals and interactions over processes and tools Responding to change over following a plan


is valuedmore thanCustomer Collaboration

Working Software

Individuals & Interactions

Responding to Change

Contract Negotiation

Comprehensive Documentation

Processes & Tools

Following a Plan

is valuedmore than

is valuedmore than

is valuedmore than

33

We [the signatories] follow these 12 principles


Principles of Agile Methods

Principles of Agile Methods

· Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project.

· Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.

· At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.

· Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software.

· Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.

· Working software is the primary measure of progress.

· Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.

· The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.

· The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.

· Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer’s competitive advantage.

· Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.

· Simplicity—the art of maximizing the amount of work not done—is essential.

34

Factors derived from analysis of values and principles


Factors of Agile Methods

CustomerCollaboration

WorkingSoftware

Individuals& Interactions

Respondingto Change

EarlyCustomer

Involvement

IterativeDevelopment

SelfOrganizing

Teams

Flexibility

· Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project.

· Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.

· At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes and adjusts its behavior accordingly.

· Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer’s competitive advantage.

· Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.

· Simplicity—the art of maximizing the amount of work not done—is essential.

· Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software.

· Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, with a preference to the shorter timescale.

· Working software is the primary measure of progress.

· Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support they need, and trust them to get the job done.

· The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation.

· The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.

35

Model

36

Analysis of Agile Methods

Analyzed factors and subfactors of agile methods New development rhythm Scrum Dynamic systems development method Synch-n-stabilize Internet time Judo strategy Extreme programming Feature driven development Open source software development

Identified four major factors from analysis of agile methods Early customer involvement Iterative development Self organizing teams Flexibility

Identified scholarly model of e-commerce website quality Fulfillment and reliability Website design Privacy and security Customer service


37

Factors and subfactors derived from agile methods


Model of Agile Methods

Agile Methods Website Effectiveness Electronic Commerce

Early Customer Involvement

· Feedback solicited· Feedback received· Feedback frequency· Feedback quality· Feedback incorporated


· Time boxed releases· Operational releases· Small releases· Frequent releases· Numerous releases

Self Organizing Teams

· Team leader· Vision and strategy· Goals and objectives· Schedules and timelines· Small team size

Flexibility

· Small size· Simple design· Modular design· Portable design· Extensible design

H 1 (+)

H 2 (+)

H 3 (+)

H 4 (+)

Website Quality

· Fulfillment and reliability· Website design· Privacy and security· Customer service

Business-to-Consumer (B2C)

· Shopping· Retail· Services

38

Hypotheses derived from analysis of 76 scholarly studies


Hypotheses for Agile Methods

39

Factors

40

Factors. Early customer involvement, iterative development, self organizing teams, and flexibility.


Agile Methods

Method Major Factors

New development rhythm

Reviews, iterations 2, involvement 1, synchronization, configuration control, dependency management, performance reviews, metrics, testing, empowerment, teams 3, modularity 4

Scrum Iterative development 2, prioritized requirements, early architectural design 4, daily team meetings, self managing teams 3, stakeholder feedback 1

Dynamic systems development

User involvement 1, stakeholder cooperation 1, empowered teams 3, frequent delivery, simple flexible designs 4, iterative development 2, change control, high-level requirements, testing

Synch-n-stabilize Parallel development, vision statements, evolving specifications 4, prioritized features, iterations 2, daily builds, milestones, releases, continuous customer feedback 1, small teams 3

Internet time Rapid prototyping and early beta releases 2, daily incorporation of rapid market feedback 1, experienced teams 3, large investments in software architecture and design 4

J udo strategy Cross platform design 4, modular architectures 4, code reuse, parallel development, flexible priorities, evolving features, automated testing, beta testing 2, market feedback 1, teams 3

Extreme programming

Planning, releases 2, metaphor, simplicity 4, tests, refactoring, pair programming 3, continuous integration, collective owners, on-site customer 1, 40-hour weeks, open workspace, just rules

Feature driven development

Domain experts 1, object modeling, design by feature, class (code) ownership, feature teams

3, inspections, regular builds 2, configuration management, reporting, technical architecture 4 Open source

software Parallel development, international communities 3, peer reviews, prompt feedback 1, highly talented developers, increased user involvement 1, rapid releases 2, evolutionary designs 4

Agile manifesto Customer collaboration 1, working software 2, individuals and interactions, responding to change

1 Early customer involvement — 2 Iterative development — 3 Self organizing teams — 4 Flexibility

41

Subfactors. Feedback solicited, feedback received, feedback frequency, feedback quality, and feedback incorporated.


Early Customer Involvement

Method Subfactors


Requirements briefings, field partners, usability activities, contract testing, migrations, invitational’s, advisory councils, early support program


Vision, business processes, requirements, designs, reviews, conflict management, measurement, monitoring, commitments, information, prototyping, approval, testing

Synch-n-stabilize Planning data, wish lines, call data, usability, beta, and supportability testing, technical support, teleconferences, surveys, usage studies, instrumented tools, marketing studies

Internet time Technical feedback on prototypes, technical feedback on daily operational builds, market feedback on early beta releases

J udo strategy Technical feedback on alpha tests, internal feedback on beta tests, market feedback on beta tests, customer feedback from telephone support

Extreme programming

Integrated into team, provide feedback at all stages, write user stories, select user stories, prioritize user stories, specify test scenarios, approve tests, evaluate releases

Scrum Attend reviews, ask questions, note changes, vote on impressions, changes, and priorities, rearrange backlogs, give feedback, identify omissions, suggest additions, add to backlog


Participate in modeling team, give an overview of domain, assess domain model, help build features list, assess features list, participate in domain walkthrough

Open source software

Propose changes, vote on changes, report bugs, join mailing list, suggest guidelines, browse code, download code, analyze code, modify code, add code, join community

42

Subfactors. Time-boxed releases, operational releases, small releases, frequent releases, and numerous releases.



Method Subfactors


Iterative or cyclic process, developing system by iterating, functional milestones at each iteration, prototyping, staged delivery, overlapped component testing


Frequent delivery of products, product-based approach, time-boxing, fixed end dates

Synch-n-stabilize Risk-driven incremental spiral life cycle model, incremental milestones, prototypes, subprojects, daily builds, beta testing

Internet time Evolutionary delivery, iterative approach, working version, prototypes, beta versions

J udo strategy Short development cycles, three-month windows, multiple milestones, daily builds, internal usage testing, alpha testing, beta testing, field testing

Extreme programming

Release planning, release plans, iterations, iteration plans, frequent small releases, continuous integration, incremental deployment, daily deployment, incremental design

Scrum Sprint planning meeting, product backlog, sprints, sprint backlog, sprint review meeting, sprint retrospective meeting, time-box, increment, shippable product, 30-day iteration


Frequent deliveries, tangible working results, adaptive processes, feature development, small features, regular builds, feature lists, feature sets, feature designs, feature builds


Rapid releases, rapid increments, multiple daily releases, development releases, production releases, early releases, official releases, new releases, minor releases, major releases

43

Subfactors. Team leader, vision and strategy, goals and objectives, schedules and timelines, and small team size.


Self Organizing Teams

Method Subfactors


Cross-functional teams, empowered management teams, isolated development teams, co-located teams, special decision teams, engineering teams, testing teams, design groups


Team leaders, empowerment, large team structures, collaboration, communication, daily sub-team meetings, daily time-box meetings, core teams, facilitated workshops

Synch-n-stabilize Small teams, overlapping functional specialists, delegated hiring, learning by doing, mentoring, career paths, ladder levels, specialized management and teams

Internet time Small teams, broad-based experienced team, team empowered to respond to market feedback, team with generational experience

J udo strategy Numerous teams, small six-person teams, decentralized teams, self managed teams, product teams, programming teams, build teams, version teams, Unix teams, quality assurance teams

Extreme programming

Pair programming, personnel rotation, cross training, co-location, side-by-side, take breaks, humility, confidence, communication, listening, teamwork

Scrum Self-managing teams, self-organizing teams, cross-functional teams, collective responsibility, daily scrum meetings


Feature teams, team leaders, class owners, code inspection team, small teams, modeling teams, planning teams, development teams, feature list teams


International communities, distributed communities, large communities, mailing lists, quality assurance groups, core teams, trust

44

Subfactors. Small size, simple design, modular design, portable design, and extensible design.


Flexibility

Method Subfactors


Preliminary system architectures, experimental system architectures, architectural reuse, software reuse, design control groups, early system, software, and user interface prototypes


Fitness for business purpose, system architecture definition, enterprise model, system model, technology model, reversible changes

Synch-n-stabilize Vision statements, evolving specifications, horizontal architectures, modularity, functional building blocks, flexible skeletons, architectural layers, portable designs, simple code

Internet time Flexible, evolving, coherent, delayed, robust, open, scaleable, and modular architectures and designs

J udo strategy Cross-platform modularized architectures, designs, programming systems, programming languages, feature sets, abstraction layers, components, and reusable libraries

Extreme programming

Architectural spikes, system metaphors, spikes, spike solutions, simple designs, delayed functionality, merciless refactoring, coding standards, delayed optimization

Scrum Product infrastructures, detailed product architectures, detailed technical architectures, business architecture, system architecture, development environment


Technical architectures, user interface layers, problem domain layers, data management layers, system interaction layers, domain object models, class diagrams, sequence diagrams


Advanced design decisions, solid architectures, design patterns, portable designs, modular designs, code modularity, cohesive modules, coding guidelines, standards, and conventions

45

Survey

46

Survey of Agile Methods

Phase 0 — Cognitive Interviews Interview six or seven software developers to pre-test agile survey instrument. Analyze feedback received from cognitive interviews of agile survey instrument. Calibrate and adjust agile survey instrument (and conceptual model if necessary).

Phase I — Survey of Software Developers Survey software developers to determine compliance with agile methods. Use online survey service to collect data and perform basic statistical analysis. Collect URLs of e-commerce websites produced by software developers.

Phase II — Survey of Internet Shoppers Survey Internet shoppers to determine quality of e-commerce websites at URLs. Use online survey service to collect data and perform basic statistical analysis. Administer eTailQ website quality instrument with proven inter-item reliability.

Phase III — Analysis of Results Analyze and report basic demographics and statistical results. Analyze relationships between use of agile methods and website quality. Test hypotheses to determine effects (if any) of agile methods on website quality.

47

20 items derived from conceptual model of agile methods


Survey of Agile Methods

Factor Variable Item

Feedback solicited 1. We seek early market feedback on every software release

Feedback received 2. We receive early market feedback on every software release

Feedback frequency 3. We receive early market feedback within a few hours or days

Feedback quality 4. We receive in-depth early market feedback on every software release

Early customer

involvement

Feedback incorporated 5. We incorporate early market feedback into every software release

Time boxed releases 6. Our software is delivered in fixed intervals

Operational releases 7. Our software is delivered as working products

Small releases 8. Our software is delivered in multiple small increments

Frequent releases 9. Our software is delivered in daily, weekly, or bi-weekly increments

Iterative development

Numerous releases 10. Our software is delivered in more than 12 increments

Team leader 11. Our software teams have clear administrative and technical leaders

Vision and strategy 12. Our software teams have clear visions, missions, and strategies

Goals and objectives 13. Our software teams have clear goals and objectives

Schedules and timelines 14. Our software teams have clear schedules and timelines

Self organizing

teams

Small team size 15. Our software teams have a small size with no more than 10 people

Small size 16. Our software is designed to be as small as possible

Simple design 17. Our software is designed to be as simple as possible

Modular design 18. Our software is designed to use modular and interchangeable parts

Portable design 19. Our software is designed to work on multiple operating systems

Customer service

Extensible design 20. Our software is designed to be extensively changed if necessary

48

14 items derived from eTailQ model of website quality

Wolfinbarger, M., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). Etailq: Dimensionalizing, measuring, and predicting etail quality. Journal of Retailing, 79(3), 183-198

Survey of Website Quality

Factor Variable Item

Order received 1. You get what you ordered from this site

On time delivery 2. The product is delivered by the time promised by the company Fulfillment

and reliability

Order accurate 3. The product that came was represented accurately by the website

In-depth information 4. The website provides in-depth information

Processing efficiency 5. The site doesn’t waste my time

Processing speed 6. It is quick and easy to complete a transaction at this website

Personalization 7. The level of personalization at site is about right, not too much or too little

Website design

Product selection 8. This website has good selection

Protection of privacy 9. I feel like my privacy is protected at this site

Feelings of safety 10. I feel safe in my transactions with this website Privacy and

security

Adequate security 11. The website has adequate security features

Willingness to respond 12. The company is willing and ready to respond to customer needs

Desire to fix issues 13. When you have a problem, the website shows a sincere interest in solving it Customer

service

Promptness of service 14. Inquiries are answered promptly

49

14 items derived from eTailQ model of website quality

Wolfinbarger, M., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). Etailq: Dimensionalizing, measuring, and predicting etail quality. Journal of Retailing, 79(3), 183-198

Analysis of Website Quality

Fulfillment and

reliability

Website design

Privacy and security

Customer service

1. You get what you ordered from this site

2. The product is delivered by the time promised by the company

3. The product that came was represented accurately by the website

4. The website provides in-depth information

5. The site doesn’t waste my time

6. It is quick and easy to complete a transaction at this website

7. The level of personalization at site is about right, not too much or too little

8. This website has good selection

9. I feel like my privacy is protected at this site

10. I feel safe in my transactions with this website

11. The website has adequate security features

12. The company is willing and ready to respond to customer needs

13. When you have a problem, the website shows a sincere interest in solving it

14. Inquiries are answered promptly

1 2 3 5 6 7Factor Item

50

Test hypotheses for agile methods and website quality


Final Hypothesis Testing

Factors Hypotheses t-value p-value

H 1.1 Early customer involvement Fulfillment and reliability / / p < 0.05

H 1.2 Early customer involvement Website design / / p < 0.05

H 1.3 Early customer involvement Privacy and security / / p < 0.05

Early customer involvement

H 1.4 Early customer involvement Customer service / / p < 0.05

H 2.1 Iterative development Fulfillment and reliability / / p < 0.05

H 2.2 Iterative development Website design / / p < 0.05

H 2.3 Iterative development Privacy and security / / p < 0.05

Iterative development

H 2.4 Iterative development Customer service / / p < 0.05

H 3.1 Self organizing teams Fulfillment and reliability / / p < 0.05

H 3.2 Self organizing teams Website design / / p < 0.05

H 3.3 Self organizing teams Privacy and security / / p < 0.05

Self organizing teams

H 3.4 Self organizing teams Customer service / / p < 0.05

H 4.1 Flexibility Fulfillment and reliability / / p < 0.05

H 4.2 Flexibility Website design / / p < 0.05

H 4.3 Flexibility Privacy and security / / p < 0.05 Flexibility

H 4.4 Flexibility Customer service / / p < 0.05

Effects of Agile Methods on Electronic Commerce Do they improve website quality? David F. Rico.

Documents

Transcript of Effects of Agile Methods on Electronic Commerce Do they improve website quality? David F. Rico.