Conflict between agile approaches and the traditional SDLC in teaching systems development

1. Navigating the Tensions between
Traditional and Agile
Development Approaches in Systems
Analysis and Design
Courses
Nik Rushdi Hassan
Professor MIS

2. Problem Statement
 Systems Analysis and Design (SA&D) curriculum hasn’t
changed much since Davis’ (1984) first MIS book
 Many changes have overtaken SA&D since then
 New different methodologies, models and techniques – should
students be taught all?
 DFD vs UML
 Which UML?
 Structured vs. Object-oriented
 ERDs vs Objects
 Gaps between traditional plan-based and empirical project
management
 One or two SA&D courses? Separate project mgmt course?
 Traditional SA&D vs. Agile (and multiple approaches in same
textbook)
 Which Agile approach? (RUP, XP, Scrum, Kanban, Lean)
2

3. Solution: Theoretical
Framework for ISD
 What is theory?
 Means of explaining the world (Popper) – what theories explain SA&D?
 Putting experience into a symbolic device for interpreting, criticizing, and unifying
established laws, modifying them to fit data unanticipated in their formulation, and
guiding the enterprise of discovering new and more powerful generalizations
(Kaplan) – What generalizations and laws do we have about SA&D?
 Software Engineering – SEMAT (Software Engineering Method and Theory) –
latest efforts in developing theory in SE (Jacobson)
 Why theory?
 Take stock of our experience and add to that stock of knowledge
 Currency of our scholarly realm – our theories are useful when others outside our
field use them
 Explain and predict
 Evidence of progress
 To be applied in practice
 Can we say what will contribute towards improving software project
failures from 70% to less?
 Provide guidance on which is most effective and productive in teaching
SA&D
3

4. Progress in ISD
 Framework
 Paradigm
 Approach
 Methodology
 Technique
 Model
 Tool
 Example:
 Functionalist paradigm (“as-
is” to “to-be”)  Structured
approach  Waterfall
(SDLC) methodology 
Structured analysis and
design techniques  DFD
model  Visio
4

5. How does Agile fit in?
 Paradigm (Functionalist or Humanistic/Agile
Manifesto)
 Approach (Object-oriented and/or Agile)
 Methodology (OOAD, RUP, XP, Scrum, Kanban)
 Technique (Pair programming, Sprint, Daily
Scrum, Daily Stand Up, Process Improvement)
 Model (Use cases, UML, User story, Backlog,
Burndown chart, Kanban Board, Work Item)
 Tool (Rational, MS Project, Visio, Jira,
Monday.com, Wrike)
5

6. Highlight of Results (21 SA&D instructors)
Textbook
adopted
Project
management
tool adopted
Extent of agile
approach
adopted
Agile
methodology
adopted
Models
adopted
Dennis et al. (3)
Satzinger at al.
(2)
Dennis et al OO
with UML (2)
No textbook (7)
Microsoft
Project (3)
Jira (2)
Trello (2)
No project
management
tools (8)
Agile approach
exclusively (7)
Combine
traditional and
agile (11)
No agile
approach used
(1)
Scrum (16)
eXtreme
Programming
(2)
Kanban (2)
No agile
approach
specified (2)
Use case
diagram (14)
Class diagram
(11)
Activity diagram
(9)
ER Diagram (7)
Sequence
diagram (7)
Data Flow
diagram (5)
6

7. Recommendations
 Rebranding SA&D
 Agile is no longer SA&D. Agile does not differentiate between analysis and design
 Teach students paradigms (values and emergent paradigm-embrace change and
complexity) and approaches (goals and guiding principles across different
methodologies)
 Techniques, models and tools can vary depending on approaches
 Combine PM with ISD
 Require programming as prerequisite
 Incorporate business acumen into design
 Incorporate PM as part of ISD
 Seamless flow into capstone
 Teach exclusively Agile
 Not enough time for hybrid – more confusing
 Choosing the right methodology, techniques, models and tools
 Decide on one major agile methodology
 Choose related techniques
 Teach only 2-3 major models
 Flexible and capable tool
7

8. HTTP://Z.UMN.EDU/SA_D
Respond to SA&D survey (2.5 mins)
8