Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Agile methodologies aren't just buzzwords you'll encounter on exams—they're the foundational frameworks that shape how modern software teams actually build products. In Design Strategy and Software I, you're being tested on your ability to recognize when to apply which methodology, understand the trade-offs between structure and flexibility, and explain why certain practices exist. These concepts connect directly to broader themes of iterative design, team collaboration, and responding to change over following rigid plans.
Here's the key insight: each methodology emerged to solve specific problems in software development. Scrum addresses the chaos of undefined requirements through timeboxed iterations. Kanban tackles bottlenecks through visual workflow management. XP fights technical debt through engineering discipline. Don't just memorize the names and features—know what problem each methodology solves and what principles it prioritizes. That's what separates a surface-level answer from one that demonstrates real understanding.
These methodologies structure work into fixed time periods, creating predictable rhythms for planning, building, and reviewing. The core principle: constraints breed focus, and regular deadlines force prioritization decisions.
Compare: Scrum vs. DSDM—both use timeboxing, but Scrum focuses narrowly on development sprints while DSDM addresses the entire project lifecycle including feasibility studies. If an exam question asks about Agile approaches for enterprise projects with governance requirements, DSDM is your answer.
Rather than fixed iterations, these methodologies emphasize continuous movement of work through stages. The core principle: optimize for smooth flow and eliminate bottlenecks rather than batching work into sprints.
Compare: Kanban vs. Scrumban—pure Kanban has no prescribed roles or meetings, while Scrumban retains Scrum's organizational structure. Choose Kanban for teams wanting maximum flexibility; choose Scrumban for teams transitioning from Scrum who need better handling of unplanned work.
These approaches prioritize specific technical practices and code quality over process structure. The core principle: sustainable pace and long-term maintainability require disciplined engineering habits.
Compare: XP vs. FDD—both emphasize technical quality, but XP prescribes specific coding practices (pair programming, TDD) while FDD focuses on organizational structure around features. XP works best for small, co-located teams; FDD scales better for larger projects needing coordination.
These methodologies prioritize flexibility and human factors over rigid processes. The core principle: people and their interactions matter more than tools and procedures.
Compare: Crystal vs. ASD—both prioritize people and adaptation, but Crystal provides structured variants for different contexts while ASD offers a philosophical framework for embracing chaos. Crystal gives you methodology options; ASD gives you a mindset for navigating uncertainty.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Timeboxed iterations | Scrum, DSDM, AUP |
| Continuous flow | Kanban, Scrumban |
| Technical practices emphasis | XP, FDD |
| Scalable to team size | Crystal, FDD |
| Waste elimination | Lean, Kanban |
| Hybrid approaches | Scrumban, AUP |
| Uncertainty management | ASD, Crystal |
| Full lifecycle coverage | DSDM, AUP |
Which two methodologies both use timeboxing but differ in their lifecycle coverage? Explain what additional phases one addresses that the other doesn't.
A team is struggling with too much work-in-progress and frequent context switching. Which methodology's core principle directly addresses this problem, and what specific mechanism does it use?
Compare and contrast XP and Lean Software Development: both aim for quality, but what fundamentally different approach does each take to achieve it?
Your organization wants to transition from Scrum but needs to handle unpredictable support requests alongside planned feature work. Which methodology would you recommend, and why does it solve this specific problem better than alternatives?
If an FRQ asks you to recommend an Agile approach for a large enterprise project requiring governance documentation and stakeholder sign-offs at multiple stages, which methodology would you choose? Defend your answer by explaining what distinguishes it from lighter-weight alternatives.