@article{MTMT:32994432,
	title = {Comparative effects of knowledge-based antecedents in different realms of CMMI-based software process improvement success},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/32994432},
	author = {Chen, Chung-Yang and Lee, Jung-Chieh},
	doi = {10.1016/j.csi.2021.103599},
	journal-iso = {COMPUT STAND INTER},
	journal = {COMPUTER STANDARDS & INTERFACES},
	volume = {81},
	unique-id = {32994432},
	issn = {0920-5489},
	abstract = {Software process improvement (SPI) is a knowledge- and learning-intensive activity that is critical in software development. The literature reveals several major knowledge-based antecedents, namely, exploration, exploitation, absorptive capacity (AC) and knowledge sharing (KS), that are shown to be crucial for SPI. Since SPI is a gradual implementation program, from this perspective, the different roles and effects of these antecedents and how they are associated with various levels of progress in SPI success remain unknown. To address this gap, we propose a research model that combines the four antecedents to examine their comparative influence on successful SPI implementation. To reflect the different levels of SPI success, we employ capability maturity model integration (CMMI) maturities. A survey method is used to examine the model based on 413 CMMI-certified organizations in China. The results show that KS has the most explanatory power in contributing to SPI success at all maturity levels. In a further investigation of different maturities, we find that the dominant knowledge antecedents vary depending on distinct maturity levels. The rationale for the above findings, as well as the theoretical and practical implications and limitations of this study, are discussed and summarized.},
	keywords = {Software process improvement (SPI); Knowledge antecedents; Capability maturity model integration (CMMI); SPI success},
	year = {2022},
	eissn = {1872-7018},
	orcid-numbers = {Lee, Jung-Chieh/0000-0001-7605-6463}
}

@article{MTMT:32293304,
	title = {Security in agile software development: A practitioner survey},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/32293304},
	author = {Rindell, Kalle and Ruohonen, Jukka and Holvitie, Johannes and Hyrynsalmi, Sami and Leppanen, Ville},
	doi = {10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106488},
	journal-iso = {INFORM SOFTWARE TECH},
	journal = {INFORMATION AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY},
	volume = {131},
	unique-id = {32293304},
	issn = {0950-5849},
	abstract = {Context: Software security engineering provides the means to define, implement and verify security in software products. Software security engineering is performed by following a software security development life cycle model or a security capability maturity model. However, agile software development methods and processes, dominant in the software industry, are viewed to be in conflict with these security practices and the security requirements.Objective: Empirically verify the use and impact of software security engineering activities in the context of agile software development, as practiced by software developer professionals. Method: A survey (N = 61) was performed among software practitioners in Finland regarding their use of 40 common security engineering practices and their perceived security impact, in conjunction with the use of 16 agile software development items and activities.Results: The use of agile items and activities had a measurable effect on the selection of security engineering practices. Perceived impact of the security practices was lower than the rate of use would imply: This was taken to indicate a selection bias, caused by e.g. developers' awareness of only certain security engineering practices, or by difficulties in applying the security engineering practices into an iterative software development workflow. Security practices deemed to have most impact were proactive and took place in the early phases of software development.Conclusion: Systematic use of agile practices conformed, and was observed to take place in conjunction with the use of security practices. Security activities were most common in the requirement and implementation phases. In general, the activities taking place early in the life cycle were also considered most impactful. A discrepancy between the level of use and the perceived security impact of many security activities was observed. This prompts research and methodological development for better integration of security engineering activities into software development processes, methods, and tools.},
	keywords = {Survey; software security; Agile software development; security engineering; Security standards; Security assurance},
	year = {2021},
	eissn = {1873-6025},
	orcid-numbers = {Ruohonen, Jukka/0000-0001-5147-3084; Hyrynsalmi, Sami/0000-0002-5073-3750; Leppanen, Ville/0000-0001-5296-677X}
}

@inproceedings{MTMT:32994433,
	title = {The Kanban Maturity Model in the Context of Common PI Models},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/32994433},
	author = {Schweigert, Tomas and Bilecen, Serkan and Erdivan, Halime Eda Bitlisli},
	booktitle = {Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-030-56441-4_35},
	unique-id = {32994433},
	abstract = {The paper analyses potential impacts of the Kanban Maturity Model (KMM) on the current Software Process Improvement (SPI) Approaches as represented in the SPI Manifesto. Additionally, the paper presents and compares ISO/IEC 33014 (2013), the PEMM Model, ImprovAbility Model and Test Process Improvement (TPI) with KMM. It also contains a short comparison between the agile extension of TestSPICE and the KMM. In the last section the paper explores where the SPI community can benefit from ideas of the KMM.},
	keywords = {spice; Test process improvement; TPI; Kanban Maturity Model; KMM; ImprovAbility; ISO 33014; TestSPICE; PEMM; SPI Manifesto},
	year = {2020},
	pages = {477-489}
}

@inproceedings{MTMT:32994434,
	title = {Comparison of Agile Maturity Models: Reflecting the Real Needs},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/32994434},
	author = {Tuncel, Doruk and Koerner, Christian and Ploesch, Reinhold},
	booktitle = {2020 46TH EUROMICRO CONFERENCE ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING AND ADVANCED APPLICATIONS (SEAA 2020)},
	doi = {10.1109/SEAA51224.2020.00019},
	unique-id = {32994434},
	abstract = {Agile software development is considered as a game changer by some [1]. There are others who approach the domain more skeptical [2]. Clearly, there is a gap in terms of how Agile is perceived. This gap could be reduced, if proper measures would have been timely employed. Agile maturity assessment models have been helpful in providing means and guidance for reducing this gap. Yet, a detailed look into existing models, comparative studies and literature reviews in the domain suggests that the agile maturity assessment models themselves are far from being mature. Further, the gap between what the proposed models offer and what industry really needs is frequently discussed by those comparative studies. In this study, we reflect on the existing agile maturity assessment models, compare them against a comprehensive set of criteria derived from the literature and from our background in assessing the capabilities of software development organizations. We conclude that none of the analyzed agile maturity assessment models are sound enough to be used in a practical context. Nevertheless, some of the models have interesting elements that can be reused for the development of a new agile assessment model.},
	keywords = {comparative study; Software engineering; process improvement; Maturity assessment; Agile},
	year = {2020},
	pages = {51-58}
}

@article{MTMT:31496000,
	title = {Derivation of an Agile Method Construction Set to Optimize the Software Development Process},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/31496000},
	author = {Vogel, Jerome and Telesko, Rainer},
	doi = {10.4018/JCIT.2020070102},
	journal-iso = {J CAS INFORM TECHNOL},
	journal = {JOURNAL OF CASES ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY},
	volume = {22},
	unique-id = {31496000},
	issn = {1548-7717},
	abstract = {Today, IT and especially the development of customer-focused software, has become one of the most important elements for a company to remain competitive. The primary purpose of this article is to determine whether it is possible to improve the agile development of a company by adjusting its software development process in terms of cultural, technical, and managerial dimensions. Based on a literature analysis and practical experience in the company, different influencing factors and parameters, which affect the value creation throughout the software development process of a company were derived and clustered. Out of these clusters, a framework (Agile Method Construction Set) based on a Microsoft Excel questionnaire was created in order to analyze and identify optimization potential in the development process of a company. This construction set was adapted to meet the requirements of the development department of a large Swiss insurance company in order to validate and test the framework with real data.},
	keywords = {Software development; software process improvement; agile methods; scrum; Agile Best Practice Model; Agile Maturity Models (AMM); Extreme Programming (XP); Feature Driven Development (FDD); Scaling Agile Models},
	year = {2020},
	eissn = {1548-7725},
	pages = {19-34}
}

@inbook{MTMT:30815562,
	title = {SPI is Dead, isn't it? Clear the Stage for Continuous Learning!},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/30815562},
	author = {Kuhrmann, Marco and Muench, Juergen},
	booktitle = {2019 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software and System Processes (ICSSP)},
	doi = {10.1109/ICSSP.2019.00012},
	unique-id = {30815562},
	year = {2019},
	pages = {9-13}
}

@article{MTMT:30814766,
	title = {How has SPI changed in times of agile development? Results from a multi-method study},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/30814766},
	author = {Kupper, Steffen and Pfahl, Dietmar and Juerisoo, Kristjan and Diebold, Philipp and Muench, Juergen and Kuhrmann, Marco},
	doi = {10.1002/smr.2182},
	journal-iso = {J SOFTW-EVOL PROC},
	journal = {JOURNAL OF SOFTWARE-EVOLUTION AND PROCESS},
	unique-id = {30814766},
	issn = {2047-7473},
	abstract = {The emergence of agile methods and practices has not only changed the development processes but might also have affected how companies conduct software process improvement (SPI). Through a set of complementary studies, we aim to understand how SPI has changed in times of agile software development. Specifically, we aim (a) to identify and characterize the set of publications that connect elements of agility to SPI, (b) to explore to which extent agile methods/practices have been used in the context of SPI, and (c) to understand whether the topics addressed in the literature are relevant and useful for industry professionals. To study these questions, we conducted an in-depth analysis of the literature identified in a previous mapping study, an interview study, and an analysis of the responses given by industry professionals to SPI-related questions stemming from an independently conducted survey study. Regarding the first question, we identified 55 publications that focus on both SPI and agility of which 48 present and discuss how agile methods/practices are used to steer SPI initiatives. Regarding the second question, we found that the two most frequently mentioned agile methods in the context of SPI are Scrum and Extreme Programming (XP), while the most frequently mentioned agile practices are integrate often, test-first, daily meeting, pair programming, retrospective, on-site customer, and product backlog. Regarding the third question, we found that a majority of the interviewed and surveyed industry professionals see SPI as a continuous activity. They agree with the agile SPI literature that agile methods/practices play an important role in SPI activities but that the importance given to specific agile methods/practices does not always coincide with the frequency with which these methods/practices are mentioned in the literature.},
	keywords = {systematic review; SPI; software process improvement; agile methods},
	year = {2019},
	eissn = {2047-7481},
	orcid-numbers = {Kuhrmann, Marco/0000-0001-6101-8931}
}

@article{MTMT:30814765,
	title = {Understanding the order of agile practice introduction: Comparing agile maturity models and practitioners' experience},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/30814765},
	author = {Nurdiani, Indira and Borstler, Jurgen and Fricker, Samuel and Petersen, Kai and Chatzipetrou, Panagiota},
	doi = {10.1016/j.jss.2019.05.035},
	journal-iso = {J SYST SOFTWARE},
	journal = {JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE},
	volume = {156},
	unique-id = {30814765},
	issn = {0164-1212},
	abstract = {Context: Agile maturity models (AMMs) suggest that agile practices are introduced in a certain order. However, whether the order of agile practice introduction as suggested in the AMMs is relevant in industry has not been evaluated in an empirical study.Objectives: In this study, we want to investigate: (1) order of agile practice introduction mentioned in AMMs, (2) order of introducing agile practices in industry, and (3) similarities and differences between (1) and (2).Methods: We conducted a literature survey to identify strategies proposed by the AMMs. We then compared the AMMs' suggestions to the strategies used by practitioners, which we elicited from a survey and a series of interviews from an earlier study.Results: The literature survey revealed 12 AMMs which provide explicit mappings of agile practices to maturity levels. These mappings showed little agreement on when practices should be introduced. Comparison of the AMMs' suggestions and the empirical study revealed that the guidance suggested by AMMs are not aligned with industry practice.Conclusion: Currently, AMMs do not provide sufficient information to guide agile adoption in industry. Our results suggest that there might be no universal strategy for agile adoption that works better than others. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.},
	keywords = {Agile practice; Introduction strategies; Agile matunty model},
	year = {2019},
	eissn = {1873-1228},
	pages = {1-20}
}

@article{MTMT:30814767,
	title = {Usage, Retention, and Abandonment of Agile Practices: A Survey and Interviews Results},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/30814767},
	author = {Nurdiani, Indira and Borstler, Jurgen and Fricker, Samuel and Petersen, Kai},
	doi = {10.5277/e-Inf190101},
	journal-iso = {E-INFO: SOFTWARE ENG J},
	journal = {E-INFORMATICA: SOFTWARE ENGINEERING JOURNAL},
	volume = {13},
	unique-id = {30814767},
	issn = {1897-7979},
	abstract = {Background: A number of Agile maturity models (AMMs) have been proposed to guide software organizations in their adoption of Agile practices. Typically the AMMs suggest that higher maturity levels are reached by gradually adding more practices. However, recent research indicates that certain Agile practices, like test-driven development and continuous integration, are being abandoned. Little is known on the rationales for abandoning Agile practices.Aim: We aim to identify which Agile practices are abandoned in industry, as well as the reasons for abandoning them.Method: We conducted a web survey with 51 respondents and interviews with 11 industry practitioners with experience in Agile adoption to investigate why Agile practices are abandoned.Results: Of the 17 Agile practices that were included in the survey, all have been abandoned at some point. Nevertheless, respondents who retained all practices as well as those who abandoned one or more practices, perceived their overall adoption of Agile practices as successful.Conclusion: Going against the suggestions of the AMMs, i.e. abandoning Agile one or more practices, could still lead to successful outcomes. This finding indicates that introducing Agile practices gradually in a certain order, as the AMMs suggest, may not always be suitable in different contexts.},
	keywords = {Survey; Agile practices; Agile maturity models},
	year = {2019},
	eissn = {2084-4840},
	pages = {7-35},
	orcid-numbers = {Nurdiani, Indira/0000-0001-9355-6179}
}

@article{MTMT:30815362,
	title = {Application of a Software Agility Assessment Model – AgilityMod in the Field},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/30815362},
	author = {Ozcan, Top Ozden and Demirors, Onur},
	doi = {10.1016/j.csi.2018.07.002},
	journal-iso = {COMPUT STAND INTER},
	journal = {COMPUTER STANDARDS & INTERFACES},
	volume = {62},
	unique-id = {30815362},
	issn = {0920-5489},
	year = {2019},
	eissn = {1872-7018},
	pages = {1-16}
}

@inproceedings{MTMT:27640787,
	title = {Maturity Models for Agile Software Development: What Are They?},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/27640787},
	author = {Fontana, Rafaela Mantovani and Albuquerque, Regina and Luz, Rosmar and Moises, Ana Carolina and Malucelli, Andreia and Reinehr, Sheila},
	booktitle = {Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-97925-0_1},
	publisher = {Springer Netherlands},
	unique-id = {27640787},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {3-14}
}

@mastersthesis{MTMT:27391068,
	title = {Introduction of Agile Practices. Strategies and Impacts},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/27391068},
	author = {Nurdiani, Indira},
	unique-id = {27391068},
	year = {2018}
}

@article{MTMT:27416530,
	title = {Usage, Retention, and Abandonment of Agile Practices},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/27416530},
	author = {Nurdiani, Indira and Börstler, Jürgen and Fricker, Samuel and Petersen, Kai},
	journal-iso = {E-INFO: SOFTWARE ENG J},
	journal = {E-INFORMATICA: SOFTWARE ENGINEERING JOURNAL},
	volume = {3},
	unique-id = {27416530},
	issn = {1897-7979},
	year = {2018},
	eissn = {2084-4840}
}

@inproceedings{MTMT:27640946,
	title = {ISO 33020 Cornerstone or Pitfall of Process Improvement},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/27640946},
	author = {Schweigert, Tomas and Phillipp, Michael},
	booktitle = {Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-97925-0_26},
	publisher = {Springer Netherlands},
	unique-id = {27640946},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {318-328}
}

@mastersthesis{MTMT:27466699,
	title = {Evaluation of the Relevance of Agile Maturity Models in the Industry. A Case Study},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/27466699},
	author = {Srinivasa, Abhilash Korraprolu},
	unique-id = {27466699},
	year = {2018}
}

@inbook{MTMT:30815364,
	title = {GEANT Software Maturity Model},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/30815364},
	author = {Stanisavljevic, Zarko and Walter, Bartosz and Vukasovic, Maja and Todosijevic, Andrijana and Labedzki, Maciej and Wolski, Marcin},
	booktitle = {2018 26TH TELECOMMUNICATIONS FORUM (TELFOR)},
	doi = {10.1109/TELFOR.2018.8611887},
	unique-id = {30815364},
	year = {2018},
	pages = {1-425}
}

@mastersthesis{MTMT:27652755,
	title = {Assessing the Association between Agile Maturity Model Levels and Perceived Project Success},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/27652755},
	author = {Vaughan, Henriques},
	unique-id = {27652755},
	year = {2018}
}

@{MTMT:26874937,
	title = {Bridging Research and Practice in Humanitarian Logistics: A Diagnostic Tool to Assess Organizational Agility},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/26874937},
	author = {L’Hermitte, Cécile and Bowles, Marcus and Tatham, Peter H and Brooks, Benjamin},
	booktitle = {The Palgrave Handbook of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management},
	doi = {10.1057/978-1-137-59099-2_20},
	publisher = {Palgrave Macmillan Ltd},
	unique-id = {26874937},
	year = {2017},
	pages = {591-623}
}

@CONFERENCE{MTMT:26847629,
	title = {Assessment of Agility in Software Organizations with a Web-Based Agility Assessment Tool},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/26847629},
	author = {O E, Adali and Ö Ö, Top and O, Demirörs},
	booktitle = {43rd Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)},
	doi = {10.1109/SEAA.2017.61},
	publisher = {IEEE Xplore},
	unique-id = {26847629},
	year = {2017},
	pages = {88-95}
}

@article{MTMT:26545347,
	title = {A Systematic Literature Review of Agile Maturity Model Research},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/26545347},
	author = {V, Henriques and M, Tanner},
	journal-iso = {INTERDISC J INFO KNOWL MANAG},
	journal = {INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF INFORMATION KNOWLEDGE AND MANAGEMENT},
	volume = {12},
	unique-id = {26545347},
	issn = {1555-1229},
	year = {2017},
	eissn = {1555-1237},
	pages = {53-73}
}

@article{MTMT:25947887,
	title = {Maturity in Health Organization Information Systems: Metrics and Privacy Perspectives},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/25947887},
	author = {Alberto, Carneiro},
	doi = {10.4018/IJPHIM.2016070101},
	journal-iso = {International Journal of Privacy and Health Information Management (IJPHIM)},
	journal = {International Journal of Privacy and Health Information Management (IJPHIM)},
	volume = {4},
	unique-id = {25947887},
	issn = {2155-5621},
	year = {2016},
	pages = {1-18}
}

@article{MTMT:26262592,
	title = {Measuring the Agility of Omnichannel Operations: an Agile Marketing Maturity Model},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/26262592},
	author = {Mike, Hoogveld and John, Koster},
	journal-iso = {SSRG-IJEMS},
	journal = {SSRG International Journal of Economics and Management Studies},
	volume = {3},
	unique-id = {26262592},
	issn = {2393-9125},
	year = {2016},
	pages = {6-16}
}

@article{MTMT:25243408,
	title = {Measuring Agile Benefits Realization},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/25243408},
	author = {Adam, Alami},
	journal-iso = {PM WORLD J},
	journal = {PM WORLD JOURNAL},
	volume = {4},
	unique-id = {25243408},
	year = {2015},
	eissn = {2330-4480},
	pages = {1-11}
}

@article{MTMT:2916667,
	title = {Process improvement approaches fertilised by advances in SPI},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/2916667},
	author = {Bíró, Miklós and Messnarz, R and Colomo-Palacios, R},
	doi = {10.1002/smr.1725},
	journal-iso = {J SOFTW-EVOL PROC},
	journal = {JOURNAL OF SOFTWARE-EVOLUTION AND PROCESS},
	volume = {27},
	unique-id = {2916667},
	issn = {2047-7473},
	year = {2015},
	eissn = {2047-7481},
	pages = {509-513},
	orcid-numbers = {Bíró, Miklós/0000-0001-8627-1159}
}

@mastersthesis{MTMT:24867949,
	title = {Ketterän ohjelmistokehityksen kypsyysmallien vertailu (A Comparison of Maturity Models for Agile Software Development)},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/24867949},
	author = {Maukonen, Helena},
	unique-id = {24867949},
	year = {2015}
}

@{MTMT:24837924,
	title = {A Reference Model for Software Agility Assessment: AgilityMod},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/24837924},
	author = {Ozcan-Top, Ozden and Demirörs, Onur},
	booktitle = {Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-19860-6_12},
	publisher = {Springer Netherlands},
	unique-id = {24837924},
	year = {2015},
	pages = {145-158}
}

@CONFERENCE{MTMT:24934690,
	title = {An agile strategy for implementing CMMI project management practices in software organizations},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/24934690},
	author = {Soares, Felipe Santana Furtado and de Lemos, Meira Silvio Romero},
	booktitle = {Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), 2015 10th Iberian Conference on},
	doi = {10.1109/CISTI.2015.7170402},
	publisher = {Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers},
	unique-id = {24934690},
	year = {2015},
	pages = {1-4}
}

@article{MTMT:25580376,
	title = {Agile, Web Engineering and Capability Maturity Model Integration: A systematic literature review.},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/25580376},
	author = {Torrecilla-Salinas, CJ and Sedeño, J and Escalona, MJ and Mejías, M},
	doi = {10.1016/j.infsof.2015.11.002},
	journal-iso = {INFORM SOFTWARE TECH},
	journal = {INFORMATION AND SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY},
	volume = {23 November 2015},
	unique-id = {25580376},
	issn = {0950-5849},
	year = {2015},
	eissn = {1873-6025}
}

@mastersthesis{MTMT:24906568,
	title = {Managing Continuous Delivery},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/24906568},
	author = {Wouter, Wezelman},
	unique-id = {24906568},
	year = {2015}
}

@CONFERENCE{MTMT:25201993,
	title = {The connection of the stakeholder cooperation intensity and team agility in software development},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/25201993},
	author = {Juhola, T and Yip, MH and Hyrynsalmi, S and Makila, T and Leppanen, V},
	booktitle = {Management of Innovation and Technology (ICMIT), 2014 IEEE International Conference on},
	doi = {10.1109/ICMIT.2014.6942425},
	publisher = {Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers},
	unique-id = {25201993},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {199-204}
}

@mastersthesis{MTMT:25947878,
	title = {AGILITYMOD: A SOFTWARE AGILITY REFERENCE MODEL FOR AGILITY ASSESSMENT},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/25947878},
	author = {ÖZDEN, ÖZCAN TOP},
	unique-id = {25947878},
	year = {2014}
}

@article{MTMT:26465590,
	title = {Five process tweaks that won’t prevent you from being agile},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/26465590},
	author = {Santiago, Matalonga},
	journal-iso = {CUTTER IT J},
	journal = {CUTTER IT JOURNAL-THE JOURNAL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT},
	volume = {27},
	unique-id = {26465590},
	issn = {1048-5600},
	year = {2014}
}

@{MTMT:25202059,
	title = {Assessing Software Agility: An Exploratory Case Study},
	url = {https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/25202059},
	author = {Top, ÖzdenÖzcan and Demirörs, Onur},
	booktitle = {Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination},
	doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-13036-1_18},
	publisher = {Springer Netherlands},
	unique-id = {25202059},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {202-213}
}