Agile processes in software engineering and extreme programming : 10th international conference, XP 2009, Pula, Sardinia, Italy, May 25-29, 2009 : proceedings

Agile Software Development Challenges: Identification, Validation, and Prioritization Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Context: The Agile methodology has been prevalent in the software industry for more than two decades, marking a shift from plan-driven to market-driven approaches and introducing various challenges. While the literature identifies numerous challenges in Agile development, little attention has been given to their ranking and prioritization, which are critical for effective project management and decision making. This study fills this gap by combining empirical evidence from the literature and practitioners. Objectives: This study aims to identify and hierarchically prioritize the most recent challenges faced by Agile practitioners during product development. To achieve this, a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was conducted using 115 published studies between 2010 and 2025 followed by empirical data collection from 30 Agile experts through semi-structured interviews conducted with practitioners from Agile companies and an online survey. This study applies Cumulative Voting (100-Dollar Test) and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques to rank and prioritize these challenges. Results: The SLR identifies several recurring Agile challenges; however, limited research has focused on their ranking and prioritization. The present study reveals new challenges, such as user interface complexities, lack of pre-development and pre-operational cost information, and lack of cost scalability at the module and feature levels. The current study identifies Inadequate Architecture (22%), Lack of Standardized Framework (18%), Communication and Coordination (16%), Poor Requirement Verification (13%), and Minimum Documentation (8%) as the most significant challenges. Conclusions: This study provides valuable insight for Agile practitioners and organizations, enabling more informed project planning, resource allocation, and strategic decision making. By focusing on the most critical challenges, teams can enhance software quality, streamline processes, and improve overall productivity in Agile environments.

A Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review of Agile Methodology

Agile methodology, which offers collaborative, adaptable, and iterative alternatives to conventional plan-driven procedures, has become a revolutionary paradigm in project management since it was codified in the Agile Manifesto. Agile was first used in software development, but it has now spread across many different industries, demonstrating its increasing applicability in dealing with complexity, ambiguity, and quick environmental change. Given this expansion, a comprehensive synthesis of the existing body of knowledge is necessary to understand the trajectory of Agile’s development, its practical applications, and its theoretical foundations. The literature demonstrates enduring issues, such as organizational resistance, misalignment with current governance structures, and the shortcomings of traditional performance measuring tools, despite widespread implementation. As a result, hybrid models that combine Agile and conventional methods have drawn more academic and real-world interest. This paper aims to present a literature review of Agile methodologies from 2001 to 2025, systematically examining their evolution, cross-sectoral diffusion, and key adaptations. It further identifies critical gaps in the literature and outlines future research directions, particularly in relation to sustainability, emerging market contexts, and the advancement of hybrid frameworks. Through this analysis, the study aims to provide a coherent and integrated understanding of Agile’s role in managing complexity and enhancing value delivery in contemporary organizational environments.

Using the Work and Organizational Psychology Perspective in Research on Agile Software Development Teams

MEASURING THE IMPACT OF GENERATIVE AI ON SOFTWARE TEAM PRODUCTIVITY AND OUTPUT QUALITY IN AGILE ENVIRONMENTS

Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is becoming more incorporated into software engineering functions like code creation, debugging, requirement analysis, testing, and sharing knowledge. This research looks at how GAI affects software teams in terms of productivity and quality of the output in Agile environments. The research design used is quantitative, cross-sectional survey type using a questionnaire prepared for this research. The data used consists of 35 responses, with 34 usable cases in analyzing 30 Likert items. The measuring instrument consists of six concepts: use of GAI, efficiency of the software team, quality of the software output, GAI in Agile, team collaboration, and communication, and overall impact perceived. The descriptive results show positive feelings about the six concepts. The values on the mean for the different concepts varied from 3.54 to 3.78 on a scale of five, with GAI being the concept that received the highest mean (M = 3.78, SD = 0.47) while productivity was the one that received the lowest (M = 3.54, SD = 0.69). The instrument has a high level of internal consistency with α = 0.799 for the entire scale of 30 items. In terms of specific items, productivity, quality, and team collaboration had acceptable reliability, whereas GAI had low internal consistency and Agile and general have the upper limit of reliability therefore, construct-level findings should be interpreted cautiously. Pearson correlation analysis showed statistically significant positive associations between overall perceived impact and software output quality (r = 0.365, p = 0.034) and team collaboration and communication (r = 0.371, p = 0.031). Productivity was positively associated with overall impact but did not reach the conventional 0.05 significance level (r = 0.312, p = 0.073). In a multiple regression model, the five dimensions explained 23.5% of the variance in overall perceived impact (R² = 0.235); however, the overall model was not statistically significant (F(5, 28) = 1.719, p = 0.163). These findings support a cautious interpretation: respondents generally perceive GAI positively, but the present small sample does not provide strong evidence for broad causal claims.

Order and chaos in agile software development: a comparison of two software development teams in a major IT company

Operationalizing the EU AI Act in Agile Software Development: A Guideline-Based Approach

Context: The EU AI Act requires providers and deployers of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems to implement documentation, risk management, and human oversight. Agile teams that ship AI features in short iterations lack specific artifacts to discharge these duties, since the regulation's abstract provisions do not map onto the Definition of Done, Sprint Reviews, or working agreements. Objective: We provide agile teams with an actionable compliance instrument: an evaluated guideline that operationalizes EU AI Act obligations as activities integrable into existing agile practice. We further document the translation method behind it so that the approach can be reused for adjacent regulations. Method: Following Design Science Research, we assessed each EU AI Act article along three dimensions. We subsequently classified the articles using a traffic-light scheme and mapped those deemed highly relevant to previously documented pain points of agile teams working with AI. We validated the resulting catalog with practitioners through a survey and 11 additional semi-structured expert interviews, analyzed via qualitative content analysis. Results: The guideline comprises 12 items covering roles and responsibilities, risk and quality management, transparency and traceability, monitoring, and regulatory sandboxes. Practitioners rated the catalog as understandable and relevant; feasibility varied with organizational maturity. Effective adoption towards EU AI Act compliance requires collective ownership across roles and integration into existing agile events rather than parallel compliance processes. Conclusions: The catalog gives agile teams a starting point to transform their delivery practices towards an EU AI Act compliance without dismantling agile practices.