AGIS: hacia una herramienta basada en ISO9001 para la medición de procesos ágiles
AGIS: Towards an ISO9001 based Tool for Measuring Agility
Santiago Matalonga1 y Gastón Rivedieu2
1 Universidad ORT Uruguay, Uruguay. smatalonga@uni.ort.edu.uy.
]]> 2 Grupo Consultor, Uruguay. gaston.rivedieu@gmail.com.Autor de correspondencia es Santiago Matalonga.
Articulo recibido el 21/10/2013.
Aceptado el 05/12/2014.
Resumen
La norma ISO 9001:2008 es quizás el modelo de mejora de procesos más adoptado en el mundo. ISO 9001:2008 es un estándar de propósito general (para industrias manufactureras y empresas de servicios), que sienta las bases para la mejora de los procesos. También ha sido ampliamente adoptado en la industria de software. Por otro lado, las metodologías ágiles de desarrollo también están creciendo en adopción y popularidad. Aparentemente en oposición a los modelos formales de mejora, las metodologías ágiles sostienen la interacción entre las personas por sobre el seguimiento de los procesos. Sin embargo, ambos enfoques tienen el mismo problema, muchos sujetos claman éxitos en términos de certificación o agilidad, pero no pueden demostrarlo con datos reales. Por un lado, por ser de propósito general, una certificación ISO 9001:2008 es relativamente alcanzable. Y al mismo tiempo, malas interpretaciones del manifiesto ágil hacen que existan muchos equipos que se autodenominan ágiles sin seguir todos los valores del manifiesto. Este artículo presenta una herramienta que basada en los principios de mejora y auditoria de ISO 9001:2008. Esta herramienta es capaz de medir el grado de agilidad de un proceso de acuerdo a los valores del manifiesto ágil. El propósito de la misma es obtener una medida objetiva del proceso productivo que evite los falsos positivos de ambos lados.
Palabras clave: Evaluación de procesos, desarrollo ágil de software, ISO 9001:2008.
]]> Abstract
ISO9001:2008 is probably the most widely adopted process improvement model in the world. ISO9001:2008 is a general purpose standard for service and production organizations, which established the groundwork for improving system processes in an enterprise. This standard has also been widely adopted in the software industry. On the other hand, agile development methodologies have been steadily gaining acceptance and popularity in the past decade. At a first glance, these two approaches are opposite. While agility preaches interaction above processes, ISO is a process-oriented approach to improvement. Nonetheless, both approaches share the same conundrum: both hold claims of compliance but there have been few data-backed-up success case studies. However, since ISO is a general purpose standard, its achievement is fairly attainable. In contrast, the agile development ecosystem is full of false positives that claim agility without achieving project success. This paper presents an assessment tool to measure agility based on ISO 9001:2008 process improvement principles. Our tool is capable of measuring a degree of agility aligned with the agile manifesto values. Its goal is to provide an objective measurement of agility that avoids false positives on both sides.
Keywords: Process evaluation, agile development, ISO 9001 2008.
DESCARGAR ARTÍCULO EN FORMATO PDF
Referencias
1. ISO (2008). ISO 9001:2008(E) Quality Management Systems Requirements. [ Links ]
2. ISO (2010). ISO Survey Results Summary. [ Links ]
3. ISO (2004). International Standards Organization, ISO 90003:2004 Guidelines for the application of ISO 9001:2000 to computer software. [ Links ]
4. The British Standards Institution (2003). Tick It Guide. http://www.tickit.org/guide5-5.htm. [ Links ]
5. VersionOne Inc. (2011). State of Agile survey. [ Links ]
6. Qasaimeh, M. & Abran, A. (2010). Investigation of the Capability of XP to Support the Requirements of ISO 9001 Software Process Certification. Eighth ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications (SERA), pp. 239-247. [ Links ]
7. Stálhane, T. & Hanssen, G. (2008). The Application of ISO 9001 to Agile Software Development. Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, A. Jedlitschka and O. Salo (eds.), Springer, Vol. 5089, pp. 371-385. [ Links ]
8. Kruchten, P. (2011). Contextualizing agile software development. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice.
9. ISO (2012). ISO 19011:2012 Quality Management System Auditing. [ Links ]
10. Wright, G. (2003). Achieving ISO 9001 Certification for an XP Company. XP/Agile Universe, Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 43-50. [ Links ]
11. Beck, K. (1999). Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley Professional, 224 p. [ Links ]
12. Namioka, A. & Bran, C. (2004). extreme ISO?!?. Companion to the 19th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications, pp. 260-263. [ Links ]
]]>13. Tarhan, A. & Yilmaz, S.G. (2013). Systematic analyses and comparison of development performance and product quality of Incremental Process and Agile Process. Inf. Softw. Technol., Vol. 56, pp. 477-494. [ Links ]
14. Dyba, T. & Dingsoyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Inf. Softw. Technol., Vol. 50, pp. 833-859. [ Links ]
15. Turk, D. & Rumpe, B. (2005). Assumptions Underlying Agile Software-Development Processes. J. Database Manag., Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 62-87. [ Links ]
16. Boca, S.P.P., Bowen, J.P.J., Gorman, & Hinchey, M. (2009). Formal Versus Agile: Survival of the Fittest. Computer (Long. Beach. Calif), Vol. 42, No. 9, pp. 37-45. [ Links ]
17. Boehm, B. & Turner, R. (2003). Balancing agility and discipline: A guide for the perplexed. Addison-Wesley/Pearson Education, 304 p. [ Links ]
]]>18. Pikkarainen, M. & Mantyniemi, A. (2006). An Approach for Using CMMI in Agile Software Development: Experiences from three case studies. Proceeeding of the 2006 SPICE Conference. [ Links ]
19. Leffingwell, D. (2007). Scaling Software Agility. Addison-Wesley Professional [ Links ]
20. Pikkarainen, M. & Passoja, U. (2005). An Approach for Assessing Suitability of Agile Solutions: A Case Study. International conference of eXtreme Programming and agile process in software engineering, pp. 1-10. [ Links ]
21. Kroll, P., & Krebs, W. (2008). Introducing IBM rational self-check. The Rational Edge, 14 p. [ Links ]
22. Schwaber, K. (2004). Agile project management with Scrum. Redmond, Wash.: Microsoft Press, Vol, 19, 163 p. [ Links ]
23. Palmer, S.R. & Felsing, J.M.A. (2002). Practical guide to Feature-Driven development. Prentice Hall, 304 p. [ Links ]
24. Reinersten, D.G. (2009). The Principles of Product Development Flow: Second Generation Lean Product Development. Celeritas Publishing. [ Links ]
25. Matalonga, S., Solari, M., & Matturro, G. (2013). Factors affecting distributed agile projects: a systematic review. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng., Vol. 23, No. 9, pp. 1289-1301. [ Links ]
26. Pressman, R.S. (2009). Software engineering: a practitioner's approach. McGraw-Hill. [ Links ]
27. Cohn, M. (2005). Agile estimating and planning. Prentice Hall, 368 p. [ Links ]
28. Poppendieck, M. & Poppendieck, T. (2003). Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit. Addison-Wesley Professional. [ Links ]
]]>