In the software industry a number of different software processes has been used throughout the years to address known problems with software development, despite their intention complains has been raised that some of these are too bureaucratic. The Agile Alliance was formed in 2001 and aimed to solve this problem, they developed a manifesto and twelve principles which are supported by all Agile software processes. The purpose with the manifesto and its principles is to uncover better ways of developing software and these are by many intercessors of Agile seen as common sense and not completely new ideas. The aim with this master thesis is to answer the question if companies that explicitly claim that they do not use any Agile software process are already applying some of these ideas since they are thought of as obvious and common sense. The comparison in this thesis is performed between the project lifecycles used in specific projects by five non-Agile software companies and four identified lifecycle characteristics and two more general characteristics of the Agile software processes Extreme Programming (XP) and Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM). The result from the analysis of these interviews has shown that it is very difficult to decide if a software company really is working as described by XP or DSDM, this is due to that many different factors affect the final outcome. For example type of project and is the software company using different software processes for different kinds of projects. Since we just covered specific projects we were only able to conclude with absolute certainty actions that really were performed in just these projects. The project lifecycles of these software companies had some similarities with the above mentioned Agile software processes, but as a whole the analysis showed that they are quite different due to that two very important characteristics according to us, namely iterative development and frequent releases, were not applied by any of the software companies and that their project phases differed tremendously compared to XP and DSDM. Our common sense hypothesis for Agile software development was shown in this investigation to be incorrect since important activities were not performed by any of the software companies. Instead of using an iterative approach with frequent releases they all followed sequential waterfall like software processes.

The study of the software development process is a relatively new research area but it is growing rapidly. This development process, also called 'the software life cycle' or 'the software process', is the methodology used throughout the industry for the planning, design, implementation, testing and maintenance that takes place during the creation of a software product. Over the years a variety of different process models have been developed. From the numerous process models now available, project managers need validation of the choice he/she has made for a software development model that he/she believes will provide the best results. Yet the quality software so sought after by software project managers can be enhanced by improving the development process through which it is delivered. Well tested, reliable evidence is needed to assist these project managers in choosing and planning a superior software process as well as for improving the adopted software process. While some guidelines for software process validation and improvement have been provided, such as CMMI, quantitative evidence is, in fact, scarce. The quantitative evidence sometimes may not be able to be obtained from high level processes that refer to a planned process model, such as a waterfall model. Furthermore, there has been little analysis of low level processes. These low level processes refer to the actions of how a development team follow a high level software process model to develop a software product. We describe these low level processes as project enactment. Normally there is a gap between the high level software process and the project enactment. In order to improve this software development process, this gap needs to be identified, measured and analyzed. In this dissertation, we propose an approach that examines the deviation between a planned process model and the project enactment of that plan. We measure the discrepancy from two aspects: consistency and inconsistency. The analytical results of the proposed approach, which include both qualitative and quantitative data, provide powerful and precise evidence for tailoring, planning and selecting any software process model. The entire approach is composed of four major phases: 1) re-presentation of the planned process model, 2) pre-processing the low level process data, 3) process mining, and 4) analysis and comparison of the recovered process model and planned process model. We evaluate the proposed approach in three case studies: a small, a medium, and a large-sized project obtained from an industrial software development organization. The appropriate data on low level processes is collected and our approach is then applied to these projects individually. From each case study we then performed a detailed analysis of the inconsistencies that had surfaced as well as the consistencies between the plan and the enactment models. An analysis of the inconsistencies revealed that several 'agile' practices were introduced during the project's development even though the planned process model was initially based on 'ISO-12207' instead of the 'agile' method. In addition, our analysis identifies the patterns in the process that are frequently repeated. The outcome of the case studies shows that our approach is applicable to a range of software projects. The conclusions derived from these case studies confirmed that our approach could be used to enhance the entire software development process, including tailoring and assessment.