Samenvatting

Agile supporters claimed that Agile was possible to provide better software quality with higher customer satisfaction compared to traditional methods. This claim has made a big impact on the software development world. It was becoming a subject of debate among software practitioners for years. Some of the practitioners agreed with this claim. Some others are doubted. The rest flatly refused on this claim.

This project aims to find the proofs regarding the claim from scientific articles and practices in the field of work. During the project, the researcher gathered and analyzed 33 articles about the relevant topics. These articles were grouped into two groups. The first group, 30 articles, reviewed the success of Agile software development. The second group, three articles, reviewed the adoption of Agile software development. From the first group, the researcher gathered 29 articles including some comparative studies that support the above claim. One study that, according to the author, claimed the Agile and traditional methods satisfy their respective customers under a wide range of different situations. In terms of company reports or company casestudies, Agile and traditional methods cannot be compared with each other since each method was implemented in different projects with different initial conditions, people, and circumstance.

Furthermore, in order to gather data from practitioners of software development, the researcher interviewed three Agile consultants from the Netherlands and Indonesia. The results of the interview provide subjective information regarding Agile software development. In addition, the researcher ran a web survey consisting of 23 questions. The researcher invited more than 279 prospective participants from both the Netherlands and Indonesia. In the beginning, the researcher did not have a plan to utilize a web survey to collect data. Over the time, the project did not go according to project plan. Thus, to obtain data in a bulk in short time, the researcher ran this web survey instead of using interviews.