How successful are different software development paradigms?

HOW SUCCESSFUL ARE DIFFERENT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PARADIGMS? Failed, challenged and successfull projects by each development paradigm Failed Challenged Successful Iterative Agile Lean Ad-Hoc Traditional 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % Comparing development paradigm effectiveness Survey results, scale from -10 to 10 (Note that the highest point on this scale is 6.3. Why so low?) Quality Lean 4.8 High-quality, easy to maintain systems Iterative 4.6 Agile 4.6 Traditional 1.0 -0.8 Ad-Hoc Value Agile 6.3 Actual needs of stakeholders Iterative 5.2 Lean 5.0 Ad-Hoc 2.0 -0.5 Traditional ROI Agile 5.4 Return on investment Lean 4.4 Iterative 3.6 -0.4 Ad-Hoc -0.8 Traditional Time Lean 5.0 Delivering on time according to the schedule, or delivering when the system is ready to be shipped Agile 4.7 Iterative 4.6 -1,2 Ad-Hoc -1.4 Traditional Definitions of paradigms Iterative development Agile development Lean Ad-Hoc Traditional development development development On an ad-hoc Process is organized An iterative process into periods (itera- tions or time boxes). weight, highly On any given day team members may self-organizing, and be gathering requi- rements, designing, coding, testing, and so on. An example Staged process: the requirements are first identified, then the architecture/design is defined, then the coding occurs, then testing, then deploy- ment. Often referred Customer value- which is also light- focused philosophy. software develop- A lean process strives ment project the to optimize value to team does not the end customer, while collaborative, follow a defined minimizing ewhich quality focused. An example of an Agile process is OpenUP, Scrum, and XP. process. waste measured in terms may be of time, quality, and cost. Examples include Kanban and to as "waterfall" or of an iterative simply "serial" process is RUP. process. Scrumban. Data source: http://www.ambysoft.com/surveys/success2011.html Author of this infographic: www.zezere.lt This infographic is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.00 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/. HOW SUCCESSFUL ARE DIFFERENT SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PARADIGMS? Failed, challenged and successfull projects by each development paradigm Failed Challenged Successful Iterative Agile Lean Ad-Hoc Traditional 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % Comparing development paradigm effectiveness Survey results, scale from -10 to 10 (Note that the highest point on this scale is 6.3. Why so low?) Quality Lean 4.8 High-quality, easy to maintain systems Iterative 4.6 Agile 4.6 Traditional 1.0 -0.8 Ad-Hoc Value Agile 6.3 Actual needs of stakeholders Iterative 5.2 Lean 5.0 Ad-Hoc 2.0 -0.5 Traditional ROI Agile 5.4 Return on investment Lean 4.4 Iterative 3.6 -0.4 Ad-Hoc -0.8 Traditional Time Lean 5.0 Delivering on time according to the schedule, or delivering when the system is ready to be shipped Agile 4.7 Iterative 4.6 -1,2 Ad-Hoc -1.4 Traditional Definitions of paradigms Iterative development Agile development Lean Ad-Hoc Traditional development development development On an ad-hoc Process is organized An iterative process into periods (itera- tions or time boxes). weight, highly On any given day team members may self-organizing, and be gathering requi- rements, designing, coding, testing, and so on. An example Staged process: the requirements are first identified, then the architecture/design is defined, then the coding occurs, then testing, then deploy- ment. Often referred Customer value- which is also light- focused philosophy. software develop- A lean process strives ment project the to optimize value to team does not the end customer, while collaborative, follow a defined minimizing ewhich quality focused. An example of an Agile process is OpenUP, Scrum, and XP. process. waste measured in terms may be of time, quality, and cost. Examples include Kanban and to as "waterfall" or of an iterative simply "serial" process is RUP. process. Scrumban. Data source: http://www.ambysoft.com/surveys/success2011.html Author of this infographic: www.zezere.lt This infographic is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.00 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.