Project Management National Conference 2011                                  PMI India  Unleash, an Active Project  Manage...
Project Management National Conference 2011                                                                           PMI ...
Project Management National Conference 2011                                         PMI India                 1      Abstr...
Project Management National Conference 2011                                           PMI India                 Online pro...
Project Management National Conference 2011                                        PMI India                 detected in t...
Project Management National Conference 2011                                          PMI India                 09, no. (20...
Project Management National Conference 2011                                          PMI India                 applicabili...
Project Management National Conference 2011                                      PMI India                 5.2 Approach:  ...
Project Management National Conference 2011                                          PMI India                 Agile desig...
Project Management National Conference 2011                                           PMI India                 Weekly dev...
Project Management National Conference 2011                                                      PMI India   Metric       ...
Project Management National Conference 2011                                           PMI India                  These pro...
Project Management National Conference 2011                                            PMI India                 When movi...
Project Management National Conference 2011                                            PMI India                          ...
Project Management National Conference 2011                                   PMI India                 “Unleash”, flag sh...
Project Management National Conference 2011                                        PMI India                 Mr. Srinivasu...
Project Management National Conference 2011                                      PMI India                 Grenning, J. (2...
ETPM5
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

ETPM5

645 views
596 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
645
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

ETPM5

  1. 1. Project Management National Conference 2011 PMI India Unleash, an Active Project Management System: Cloud based Project Management tool for Agile, Waterfall and Hybrid approaches Dr. Srinivas Telukunta, Mr. Raghu Kumar Katakam, Mr. G Swamy Naidu, Mr. Srinivasu Nimmakayala2|P a g e Application of Select Tools of Psychology for Effective Project Management
  2. 2. Project Management National Conference 2011 PMI India Contents 1 Abstract:.............................................................................................................................4 2 Keywords:..........................................................................................................................4 3 Introduction: ......................................................................................................................5 4 Related Work: ...................................................................................................................6 5 Current Work: ...................................................................................................................7 5.1 Introduction:....................................................................................................................7 5.2 Approach:........................................................................................................................9 5.3 Experiments:..................................................................................................................11 5.3.1 Metrics:.......................................................................................................................11 5.3.2 Projects:......................................................................................................................12 5.4 Results:..........................................................................................................................13 5.4.1 Human Factors:..........................................................................................................14 6 Future Work: ...................................................................................................................14 7 Conclusions: ....................................................................................................................15 8 Authors’ Profiles..............................................................................................................15 9 References........................................................................................................................173|P a g e Application of Select Tools of Psychology for Effective Project Management
  3. 3. Project Management National Conference 2011 PMI India 1 Abstract: Traditional waterfall approaches are based on clear structure, control, progression, finite project cycles and works well when the project has well known phases with defined work at the beginning of a phase. Agile techniques on the other hand provide freedom for teams to iterate through a single deliverable numerous times, until a desired level of quality is achieved and works well, when certain amount of flexibility is available to prioritize, as project progresses and partial results or features are implemented. Both approaches have significant yet different benefits, and are generally seen as being mutually exclusive of one another. It is the authors’ contention that certain elements of these two seemingly different approaches can be combined to achieve better results, not possible with traditional methods alone. These are demonstrated using their online, cloud based project management tool (Unleash) whose methodology and functioning will allow for collaboration across various departments with iterations, under the broad framework of defining project management work in various phases. This method allows for easy transition and adoptability of Agile methods into traditional settings with positive results. Some salient features of unleash include: • Manage projects, programs, portfolios and products on a cloud (Self managed or outsourced). • Manage meetings, track information and streamline creation of Information radiators. • Creation of collaborative environment where teams emphasize faster product creation following a mix of water fall and agile technologies as appropriate. • Use traditional waterfall approach, completely agile approach or any degree of Agility in between the two approaches as appropriate to the project needs. 2 Keywords: Unleash, Agile and waterfall coupling, Cloud Project Management, Flexible Project Management, Software Configuration Management System, Hybrid project management approach, Hybrid project management approach results,4|P a g e Application of Select Tools of Psychology for Effective Project Management
  4. 4. Project Management National Conference 2011 PMI India Online project management system, Online project tracking, Efficient software development process. 3 Introduction: In any software development, the challenging task is to complete projects under the pressure of dynamic market, where “Time to Market (TTM)” and requirements instability could result in the failure of projects execution. Under these conditions, it becomes imperative that teams should use development methods which have the ability to minimize problems due to requirements of faster development time and somewhat (or sometimes drastically) changing requirements. Agile teams argue that traditional waterfall approaches are unable to cope with the rapid changes of the dynamic market, because of their strong emphasis on a detailed and thorough planning in addition to detailed design techniques (Sommerville, 2006). On the other hand, agile teams claim that agile methodology is a better solution to deal with problems arising out of dynamic market because agile achieves higher flexibility and is better able to satisfy actual customer requirements. Agile achieves this, by developing and delivering the software product in an incremental fashion. Agile methodologies try to avoid any development overheads, and minimize unnecessary effort. This paper presents an approach to project management which offers the teams, flexibility to use either of the approaches and adjust the “Agility” of a project as needed during the course of the project and thereby significantly reduce the software development time (and cost) by providing a choice to adopt the best of both the approaches as appropriate for the project needs. Traditional waterfall methodologies are designed to control and solve the problems associated with the development style which is based on “coding first and fixing next”, where the software is written without a complete emphasis on immediately usable software and relies on making many short term decisions. As the code grows it becomes a huge problem to add new features or fix bugs without incurring significant additional costs (Fowler M. , 2005). These difficulties are overcome by the traditional approaches by adopting a rigid up-front design technique which results in detailed development plan (W.Royce, 1970). Agile methods deal well with unstable and changing requirements by using a number of techniques of which most noticeable are: low ceremony documents, short iterations, early testing, and customer collaboration. These characteristics enable agile methods to obtain the smallest workable piece of functionality to deliver the business value early and continually improving it while adding further functionality throughout the life of the project (Cohn, Nov 11, 2005). The major impact of changes in requirement using traditional waterfall approach is the cost that is spent on fixing the defects. It is very expensive to fix a change in requirements especially in the late phases of waterfall methods (Roger, 2005) as seen in Figure-1. Fixing errors increases the cost exponentially the later they are5|P a g e Application of Select Tools of Psychology for Effective Project Management
  5. 5. Project Management National Conference 2011 PMI India detected in the development lifecycle because the artifacts within a serial process build on each other (Ambler, 2006). Figure 1: Cost of Changes in Waterfall Methods In agile methodologies, the effect of changes of requirements is minimized as Figure-2 shows and controlled by depending on implementation of requirements in small releases (M. Kamel, 2010). The changes of requirements during small period of time seldom happen, and even if they do, they are immediately prioritized by project stakeholders, and added to the requirements stack in the appropriate increments. Figure 2: Cost of Changes in Agile Methods 4 Related Work: Significant research has been done which provides some guidelines as to when to use agile based methods and when to use traditional water fall based methods. For example, Boehm Turners work looks at several characteristics like criticality, culture and dynamism (Barry, August 15, 2003) to decide on the choice of the method to be used. Andrew and Nachiappan (Nagappan, MSR-TR-2007-6|P a g e Application of Select Tools of Psychology for Effective Project Management
  6. 6. Project Management National Conference 2011 PMI India 09, no. (2007): 10) reported on the results of an empirical study conducted at Microsoft by using an anonymous web-based survey. They found that one third of the study respondents use Agile methodologies to varying degrees and most view it favorably due to improved communication between team members, quick releases and the increased flexibility of agile designs. Their findings also suggest that developers are most worried about scaling Agile to larger projects, and coordinating agile and traditional teams. Most existing literature and methodologies focus on the parameters to consider in making a choice between either traditional waterfall based approaches or Agile based approaches by treating them as exclusive approaches. In addition, quantified literature results on the application of these nascent methods are very few. 5 Current Work: The complexity of everyday software development has changed dramatically in the last several years. Teams want to deliver higher quality software at a rapid pace. The current work described here is focused on development of methodology for integration of the best practices of both Agile and traditional practices and treats them as mutually complementary, rather than as exclusive methodologies. Our goal is to present a way to combine these methods and make it applicable for larger projects and gain efficiencies. The approach combines peer review, short development cycles, issue based branching, allows advanced integrated development environment (IDE) and web-based collaborative tools to develop high quality software that meets customer requirements meeting cost and schedule constraints. 5.1 Introduction: Developing high-quality software which meets customer requirements and user needs is the desired outcome of any software development process, but the software development industry is still far from being able to meet this goal in a satisfactory way. Various studies (NandhaKumar J, 1999) have been made which argue that traditional software development methods “are treated primarily as a necessary fiction to present an image of control or to present a symbolic status”. Truex et al (Truex, 2000) go even further to claim that it is possible that traditional methods and “merely unattainable ideals and hypothetical ‘strawmen’ that provide normative guidance to utopian development situations”. While a perfect agreement on what the concept of “Agile” actually refers is yet to be made, it has generated a lot of interest among practitioners, project management consultants and also lately in the academia. The introduction of “Extreme Programming (XP)” (Beck, 1999a) is widely acknowledged as the starting point for the various agile approaches. Despite enormous interest, a clear agreement on how to distinguish agile methods from traditional methods has been made. While some effort has been made to establish a few guidelines as to the7|P a g e Application of Select Tools of Psychology for Effective Project Management
  7. 7. Project Management National Conference 2011 PMI India applicability of these methods for various situations, existing literature is mostly based on exclusive application of either of these methods with hardly any consideration for the possibility of application of a hybrid approach, utilizing the best principles of both the approaches. There is very little known at this stage about the actual payoffs to the investment made into process improvement efforts, and even less is known about how much an organization will benefit from the use of agile software development approaches. The initial industry experiences have been positive (Grenning, 2009 (18)), but hard numbers are not yet available with a good degree of certainty. There is hardly any literature which presents the methods or benefits of using a hybrid approach. This paper aims to address some of these gaps by presenting an approach and preliminary results of one such hybrid approach to software development process. This article thus has three broad purposes. Firstly, a hybrid approach where both traditional and agile methodologies are used for software development is introduced. Secondly, an analysis of the preliminary results obtained with the use of this approach is made and finally, directions for future work and larger scale implementation of these methods is proposed. The aim of this paper is to introduce “Unleash”, a cloud based software development management tool which allows incorporation of concepts from the modern world of agile development, as well as current best-practice version control systems from the traditional waterfall based methodologies. This methodology allows for • Management of the complexity associated with geographically distributed teams working under different time zones. • Integration of Waterfall, Agile or a mix of Hybrid project management approaches in the management of software development process. • Provide transparency and allow acceleration of the software development process by providing customized work flow for each software development project. This work is organized into three sections. In the following section (Section 3.2 Approach), a hybrid method to integrate the principles of agile development methodology in a traditional software development project is made. The second section (Section 3.3) presents a few project cases which have been used as test cases for the application of the hybrid development approach. Finally, comparative preliminary results from the hybrid approach are presented with a concluding section (Section 3.4) of various possible future studies which can further extend the utility of the proposed methodology.8|P a g e Application of Select Tools of Psychology for Effective Project Management
  8. 8. Project Management National Conference 2011 PMI India 5.2 Approach: Design in traditional methodology begins once the requirements have been completely analyzed, modeled and documented. In the traditional methodologies, design team (architects) is usually separated from implementation team (programmers). Architects think out the big issues in advance and do not need to write code, because they do not build the software, they only design it. Towards this end, they typically use various design techniques (like UML etc) which gets away from the details of programming and allows working at an abstract level. Once the design is done, architects hand it off to the programmers to write the code. Since the design is thought off at a high level, decisions on many small details are avoided. Architects create four design models (Figure-3) to complete a specification of design and all design activities are well documented using a documentation standard that has been selected in the analysis phases. These documents would be the main source for the programmers to implement the system. Figure 3: Design models in traditional development approach9|P a g e Application of Select Tools of Psychology for Effective Project Management
  9. 9. Project Management National Conference 2011 PMI India Agile design rigorously follows the “keep it simple and design for today” principle. Agile methodologies assume that more design for future, results in more complex design, which lead to more unnecessary costs. In addition to that, the design provides implementation guidance for a unit of requirements (usage of user stories) as it is written and nothing less, nothing more. The design of extra functionality (because it will be needed later) is discarded. Agile methodologies use simple tools to keep the simplicity. They do not elaborate by using complex and detailed tools. If a difficult design problem is encountered, agile methodologies recommend the immediate creation of an operational prototype of that portion of the design. The intent of this is to lower risk when true implementation starts and to validate the original unit of requirement. Agile encourages refactoring technique which is a reorganization technique that improves, simplifies and maximize the efficiency of the design (or code) of a component without changing its function or behavior. When software is refactored, the existing design is examined for redundancy, unused design elements, inefficient or unnecessary algorithm, poorly constructed or inappropriate data structures or any other design failure that can be corrected to yield a better design. The proposed approach makes use of the principles from both traditional water fall approach and the agile methodologies. Since, the purpose of the article is not to describe the Agile methodology in detail, we are skipping these details and can be referenced by interested elsewhere (Fowler M. ). In the proposed approach the projects are planned in accordance to the water fall approach but the actual implementation is done following agile methodologies making use of a hybrid approach for project completion. All the implementation is done by breaking the work into tasks which are of one week in duration and consists of various features to be developed. The duration is always fixed to one week and never changes (Similar to the concept of a “30 day Sprint” in Scrum (Degrace, 1990)). The one week tasks ensure that significant amount of work does not progress without code review and the developer has a well specified and easily understandable task with defined features to complete. A prioritized ``wish list of existing and future development features is also maintained in parallel, ordered by their expected iteration. The team creates and updates the ``wish list to allow any member at any time to view the feature deemed most important to incorporate into the next iteration. Code reviews usually happen within a few hours and is usually scheduled to be completed (for the code developed in the previous week) by end of a Monday. Reviews are done by use of various automated tools like bug detectors, structural analyzers etc to maintain high quality code. Because the task is fairly small in size, sometimes the formal design review is skipped and most designs are decided by the team with use of a white board and informal discussions. A few occasional formal design meetings are held for tasks perceived to be critical by the senior manager or the individual developer.10|P a g e Application of Select Tools of Psychology for Effective Project Management
  10. 10. Project Management National Conference 2011 PMI India Weekly developer based tests are performed on the current repository and any defects uncovered are put for immediate resolution with highest priority to ensure high quality of release repository. Some degree of non-functional testing (like stress test, reliability etc) will also be done by the developers to fix any issues at its infancy. Subversion (http://subversion.tigris.org/) version control pattern (SVN) based on Activity Based Branching (ABB) is used where all development work is performed on a branch that is running in parallel to the repository. This allows a developer to focus on the task at hand without having to worry about any significant merging issues in the future. This allows the repository (trunk) to be always of release quality. All aspects of the project management are done using the cloud based management software provided by Nucleus Group (http://www.unleashpm.com), an enterprise workflow and project management tool which has several in-built tools for effective online collaboration with various in-built communication tools and project enterprise forms effective in both traditional and agile settings. 5.3 Experiments: In order to quantify the benefits gained from the hybrid development approach, a few projects metrics were analyzed. Unfortunately, due to the early nature of the process this is not a perfect set of metrics to evaluate, but nevertheless is a good indicator of the effectiveness of the hybrid approach. To compare the effectiveness of the new approach, three project results are analyzed and the same metrics are collected. One project is completely developed following the traditional approach, while one has been developed using a completely hybrid approach and another one started off with a traditional approach but was transitioned to the hybrid approach (roughly towards the midpoint of its execution timeline). Also, it should be noted that these projects based on PHP programming language are all of varying size and difficulty level but, but still serve as a good study to compare the effectiveness of various approaches. 5.3.1 Metrics: Static analysis techniques analyze either the source or compiled binaries of a project and attempts to collect metrics. It is performed on the code itself and not on the executing program. Static analyses vary in complexity, depending on the metrics to be calculated (Fenton, 1997). Many different metrics and a range of tools are available for analyzing the quality of code generated by the team. Different metrics have their associated pros and cons and are designed to detect certain types of issues, so a variety of metrics (figure-4) will be measured based on tools developed by PHP_Depend (http://pdepend.org) and PHP code sniffer (http://pear.php.net/package/PHP_CodeSniffer/redirected). These are described in figure-4 below.11|P a g e Application of Select Tools of Psychology for Effective Project Management
  11. 11. Project Management National Conference 2011 PMI India Metric Detailed Explanation ANDC Average Number of Derived Classes The Average of direct subclasses of a class AHH The average of the maximum lenght from a root class to ist deepest subclass subclass NOP Number of Packages NOC Number Of Classes NOM Number Of Methods Lines of code. Indicates the generic size and complexity of the project. Particulary useful when LOC used with other metrics like the bug count etc. Cyclomatic Complexity Number is a measure of the number of independent paths of CYCLO execution through source code. A high CC indicates that a software module is difficult to maintain and test. NOM Number Of Methods CALLS Number of Method or Function Calls FANOUT Number of Fanouts Referenced Classes Figure 4: Metrics for project evaluation 5.3.2 Projects: For comparison of the hybrid approach and its impact on the final output, three projects currently active (or recently completed) and have been managed using the project management tool, “Unleash” (http://www.unleashpm.com) have been selected and subjected to the same analysis. These three projects will be referenced by code-names and are described next: • Project-A: This is a project that has been running for the past one and a half year. The first eight months of the project was done using traditional methodologies with rigorous effort on documentation, and the later part was done by addition of agile methodologies to the implementation approach and has now completed user acceptance testing. • Project-B: Project B has been under active development for the past 8 months. It is developed completely using the above hybrid approach and has been delivered to the customer without any issues or the need for any additional work. • Project-C: This is a completed project (On October 2010) which has taken about 10 months of development time. This was developed completely using traditional methodologies and has been delivered to the customer without any issues.12|P a g e Application of Select Tools of Psychology for Effective Project Management
  12. 12. Project Management National Conference 2011 PMI India These projects were chosen primarily to represent a good cross-sample of projects and also due to the fact that much larger projects completed based on this methodology were not available at the time of compilation of this manuscript (some of these will be the objects of study in future work as explained later in section-4 of this article). A simple methodology for collecting results from each of the projects was followed. The source code is checked out of Subversion, compiled, and the results from PHP_Depend and PHP_Codesniffer are gathered. These results are then processed into a single large metrics sample for each project, and analysis of the metrics is performed on them. 5.4 Results: The first analysis to be performed for each of the projects is a comparison of LOC (Lines of executable code) to the number of errors (deviations from the coding standards) and the sum of errors, violations and any sniff violations. As errors are primary indicator of programming mistakes, we felt comparing the errors to LOC are the best predictor of defects. These results are indicated in Figures-5, 6 shown below. For the sake of comparison, the error rates for the well known open source code wordpress (http://wordpress.org/download/) are included in the analysis. Figure 5: Static analysis results from PHP_Codesniffer Errors Warnings Sniff Violations LOC LOC/Errors LOC/Total ViolationsProject-A 8517 622 9139 13886 1.63 0.76Project-B 3057 1037 4094 5454 1.78 0.67Project-C 8431 472 8903 6680 0.79 0.38Wordpress 34300 3475 38200 93183 2.72 1.23 Figure 6: Error rates per Lines of code (LOC)13|P a g e Application of Select Tools of Psychology for Effective Project Management
  13. 13. Project Management National Conference 2011 PMI India When moving to a development methodology that focuses on tasks rather than development, a prime concern is the teams productivity. For this end, we have compared the lines of code against the average man months and are summarized in Figure-7. It can be seen that the error rates are significantly lower for the hybrid methodology (Projects- A, B) in comparison to the traditional approach (Project-C) providing significant benefits in terms of reduced rework and associated costs. Average Approximate LOC LOC/(Team Size x Months) Team Size months Project-A 13886 5 19 146.17 Project-B 5454 6 9 101.00 Project-C 6680 3 10 222.67 Figure 7: Productivity aspect of development approach Figure-7 shows a significantly higher productivity rate for project C (based on traditional approach) than projects using the hybrid approach. This is not completely unreasonable and coupled with Figure-6 indicates that traditional approach is more productive, but of lower quality source code and is in line with the standard production triangle of time, budget, and quality. 5.4.1 Human Factors: One of the challenges to overcome when implementing new hybrid approach is to train the team to be disciplined with respect to the timelines. Some members had a feeling that one week was a very short time and was unfair as the tasks could require longer time. This was overcome by providing significant flexibility to break down a task into sub-tasks till the team felt comfortable with the size. While usually selection of people is a challenge for any new approach, this was made easier by the eagerness of the team to try a new approach. 6 Future Work: The above work has shown the utility of adopting a hybrid approach over traditional methods. Further work is needed to expand and confirm these benefits to larger projects and among a larger sample of projects. Notable, among these ideas which would be of benefit to the software development community would be14|P a g e Application of Select Tools of Psychology for Effective Project Management
  14. 14. Project Management National Conference 2011 PMI India • Actual verification of the approach at a much larger scale (of 100 or more team size). • A more quantitative comparison of the approach with a completely agile based approach. • Cost benefits trade off analysis of the better quality source code as against the dip in productivity due to adoption of the hybrid approach. 7 Conclusions: Before performing the above studies, authors had a strong belief that a hybrid approach would be a better model in comparison to the traditional development approach followed. While a weakness in terms of lower productivity exists partially it could be ascribed to the relative familiarity of traditional approaches to the team, and it is also our belief that as organizations mature with the application of hybrid approach productivity would be increased. The in-depth code reviews done frequently was one of the prime reasons for the improvements reported here. Another crucial noteworthy aspect is that the benefits are substantial even when the method was adopted after the beginning of the project, as seen by the results for Project-A. The method proposed here provides substantially reduced rework and increases software development effectiveness, in addition to being applicable to already existing development approaches. This is of huge significance to larger projects looking to adopt Agile techniques without too much risk in the Agile adoption process. 8 Authors’ Profiles Dr. Srinivas Telukunta1: Currently works as Director for Business Systems at Nucleus Group. He is a lead consultant and corporate project management trainer for Nucleus Consulting. He holds a B-Tech from the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (IIT Madras), an MS and a PhD from the Cornell University of Ithaca, NY. He also holds an MBA from the Indian School of Business (ISB, Hyderabad) and is the chief architect for1 Corresponding Author. Email: st245@cornell.edu, Tel/Fax: 91-40-40030324, Address: Nucleus Group, 201KVR Enclave, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, AP, 500016, India.15|P a g e Application of Select Tools of Psychology for Effective Project Management
  15. 15. Project Management National Conference 2011 PMI India “Unleash”, flag ship product of Nucleus Software Technologies for enterprise project management. Mr. Raghu Kumar Katakam: Currently works as Director for Information Technology at Nucleus Group. He has deep experience in developing applications across various verticals and has successfully executed many projects and is the chief developer for “Unleash”, flag ship product of Nucleus Software Technologies for enterprise project management. Raghu holds a Bachelor’s from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) in Information Technology and a Master’s from International Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Hyderabad in Information Technology. He is currently pursuing an Executive MBA from IIM Lucknow (Noida Campus). Mr. G. Swamy Naidu: Currently works as Head of Product Development for Information Technology at Nucleus Group. He is an accomplished and expert solutions-oriented leader for a range of corporate IT initiatives to drive efficiencies. He is the lead developer for “Unleash”, flag ship product of Nucleus Software Technologies for enterprise project management. Swamy holds a Bachelor’s from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) in Information Technology, Hyderabad in Information Technology and presented various research papers.16|P a g e Application of Select Tools of Psychology for Effective Project Management
  16. 16. Project Management National Conference 2011 PMI India Mr. Srinivasu Nimmakayala: Currently works as Product Lead at Nucleus Group. More than two years of experience in software product design, development specialized in Project management, ERP Domains. He has played an active role in taking initiatives and in this course he led development of three products from concept to launch and involved in all phases of product development. Prior to joining Nucleus, Srinivasu holds a Bachelor’s degree from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU) in Information Technology. 9 References Ambler, S. (2006). Examining the Agile Cost of Change Curve (Available Online). http://www.agilemodeling.com/assays/ExaminingtheAgileCostofChangeCurve.ht m Barry, B. a. (August 15, 2003). Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed,. Addison Wesley. Beck, K. (1999a). Embracing change with Extreme Programming. IEEE Computers , 70-77. Cohn, M. (Nov 11, 2005). Agile estimating and planning. Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference. Degrace, P. &. (1990). Wicked Problems, Righteous Solutions. Englewood : Yourdon Press. Fenton, N. P. (1997). Software Metrics. Boston: PWS Publishing. Fowler, M. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2011, from http://martinfowler.com/articles/newMethodology.html Fowler, M. (2005). The New Methodology (2005). Available Online , www.martinfowler.com/articles/newmethodology.html .17|P a g e Application of Select Tools of Psychology for Effective Project Management
  17. 17. Project Management National Conference 2011 PMI India Grenning, J. (2009 (18)). Launching XP at a process-intensive company. IEEE Software , 3-9. M. Kamel, I. B.-R. (2010). Planned Methodologies vs. Agile Methodologies under the Pressure of Dynamic Market. KAU: Eng. Sci., Vol. 21, No-1 , 19-35. Nagappan, A. B. ( MSR-TR-2007-09, no. (2007): 10). Usage and Perceptions of Agile Software Development in an Industrial Context: An Exploratory Study. MiIEEE Computer Society . NandhaKumar J, A. J. (1999). The fiction of methodological development: A field study of information systems development. Information Technology and People , 176-191. Roger, S. (2005). Software Engineering a Practitioners Approach. McGrow-Hill International Edition. Sommerville. (2006). Software engineering, 8th ed. New York: Addison-Wesley, Harlow, England. Truex, D. B. (2000). A methodical systems development: The deferred meaning of systems development methods. Accounting, Management and Information Technology (10) , 53-79. Unleash. (n.d.). Unleash Project Management. Retrieved July 06, 2011, from Unleash: Active Management System: www.unleashPM.com W.Royce. (1970). Managing the Development of Large Software Systems. Los Angeles: IEEE WESTCON. www.unleashpm.com. (n.d.).18|P a g e Application of Select Tools of Psychology for Effective Project Management

×