Volume 2, Issue 1, ICCK Journal of Software Engineering
Volume 2, Issue 1, 2026
Submit Manuscript Edit a Special Issue
Article QR Code
Article QR Code
Scan the QR code for reading
Popular articles
ICCK Journal of Software Engineering, Volume 2, Issue 1, 2026: 30-51

Open Access | Research Article | 08 February 2026
Comparing Agile Transitions: A Study of XP, Scrum, and Hybrid Frameworks
1 Department of Computer Science, Virtual University of Pakistan, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
* Corresponding Author: Samia Akhtar, [email protected]
ARK: ark:/57805/jse.2025.428569
Received: 06 September 2025, Accepted: 11 December 2025, Published: 08 February 2026  
Abstract
Agile has become a cornerstone of modern software development. Among its many frameworks, Extreme Programming (XP) and Scrum are the most widely recognized. XP emphasizes technical practices and engineering discipline while Scrum provides structured roles and iterative planning. Over time, many organizations have also adopted hybrid models that combine the strengths of both. Despite their popularity, teams often face challenges when deciding which approach to adopt. The choice between XP, Scrum or a hybrid is not always straightforward as each carries different strengths, limitations and suitability for specific contexts. This paper addresses this issue by presenting a comparative analysis of XP, Scrum and their hybrids. First, we revisit their phases and key practices along with their strengths, weaknesses and application. Then a detailed comparison is presented between XP, Scrum and their Hybrids. Building on this analysis, we have proposed a structured decision framework. This framework provides a clear criteria and step-by-step guidance to help practitioners select the most suitable approach for their projects. The framework is supported by subsections that explain evaluation criteria and conceptual use cases. In addition, published case studies are discussed to validate the framework and show how XP, Scrum, and hybrid methods are applied in practice. The paper also outlines future directions for agile practices including the role of AI, scaling strategies and distributed collaboration. Through this work, the paper offers both critical insights and practical tools for researchers and practitioners. It highlights not only how XP and Scrum compare but also how hybrid approaches can improve agile adoption in today’s dynamic development landscape.

Graphical Abstract
Comparing Agile Transitions: A Study of XP, Scrum, and Hybrid Frameworks

Keywords
extreme programming
scrum
agile methodologies
comparative analysis
hybrid models

Data Availability Statement
Data will be made available on request.

Funding
This work was supported without any funding.

Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

AI Use Statement
The authors declare that no generative AI was used in the preparation of this manuscript.

Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate
Not applicable.

References
  1. Herdika, H. R., & Budiardjo, E. K. (2020, September). Variability and commonality requirement specification on agile software development: Scrum, xp, lean, and kanban. In 2020 3rd International Conference on Computer and Informatics Engineering (IC2IE) (pp. 323–329). IEEE.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  2. Akhtar, A., Bakhtawar, B., & Akhtar, S. (2022). Extreme programming vs scrum: A comparison of agile models. International Journal of Technology Innovation and Management (IJTIM), 2(2), 80-96.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  3. Cohn, M. (2021). User stories: For agile software development with Scrum, XP, and others. BoD–Books on Demand.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Salazar-Salazar, G., Mora, M., Duran-Limon, H., Alvarez-Rodriguez, F., & Munoz-Zavala, A. (2024). Review of Agile SDLC for Big Data Analytics Systems in the Context of Small Organizations Using Scrum-XP. International Arab Journal of Information Technology (IAJIT), 21(6).
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  5. Hosseini, S. (2023). Xcrum: A Synergistic Approach Integrating Extreme Programming with Scrum. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03248.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fitzgerald, B., Stol, K. J., O'Sullivan, R., & O'Brien, D. (2013, May). Scaling agile methods to regulated environments: An industry case study. In 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) (pp. 863-872). IEEE.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  7. Soukaina, M., Badr, E., Abdelaziz, M., & Nawal, S. (2021). Towards a new metamodel approach of Scrum, XP and Ignite methods. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 12(12), 192–202.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  8. Mamun, M. N. H. (2024). Integration Of Artificial Intelligence And DevOps In Scalable And Agile Product Development: A Systematic Literature Review On Frameworks. ASRC Procedia: Global Perspectives in Science and Scholarship, 4(1), 01-32.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  9. Reiter, M. (2025). Comparative Analysis of Agile Frameworks: Scrum, Kanban, Extreme Programming. In Data-Centric Business and Applications: Advancing Success Through Operational Excellence, Financial Innovation, Digital Transformation, and Data-Driven Human Resource Management (pp. 335-348). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  10. Mora, M., Adelakun, O., Galvan-Cruz, S., & Wang, F. (2022). Impacts of IDEF0-based models on the usefulness, learning, and value metrics of Scrum and XP project management guides. Engineering Management Journal, 34(4), 574-590.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  11. Magistretti, S., & Trabucchi, D. (2025). Agile-as-a-tool and agile-as-a-culture: a comprehensive review of agile approaches adopting contingency and configuration theories. Review of Managerial Science, 19(1), 223-253.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  12. Whiteley, A., Pollack, J., & Matous, P. (2021). The origins of agile and iterative methods. The Journal of Modern Project Management, 8(3).
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  13. Owen, H., & Dunham, N. (2015). Reflections on the use of iterative, agile and collaborative approaches for blended flipped learning development. Education Sciences, 5(2), 85-103.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  14. Shrivastava, A., Jaggi, I., Katoch, N., Gupta, D., & Gupta, S. (2021, July). A systematic review on extreme programming. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1969, No. 1, p. 012046). IOP Publishing.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  15. Pandit, D. P., Gajjam, N. S., Sangu, V. S., Chandra, S., & Chandrasatheesh, C. (2025). Optimizing Efficiency and Delivering Quality for Lean and Extreme Programming (XP) in Agile Business Methodologies. In Impact of Digital Transformation on Business Growth and Performance (pp. 547-578). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  16. Wiratama, J., & Santoso, H. (2023). Developing a class scheduling mobile application for private campus in Tangerang with the Extreme Programming (XP) model. G-Tech: Jurnal Teknologi Terapan, 7(2), 484–493.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  17. Beedle, M., Devos, M., Sharon, Y., Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (1999). SCRUM: An extension pattern language for hyperproductive software development. Pattern languages of program design, 4(1), 637-651.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Sassa, A. C., de Almeida, I. A., Pereira, T. N. F., & de Oliveira, M. S. (2023). Scrum: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 14(4).
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  19. Kalenda, M., Hyna, P., & Rossi, B. (2018). Scaling agile in large organizations: Practices, challenges, and success factors. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 30(10), e1954.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  20. Bhattacharya, S., Shukla, K., & Shukla, A. (2024). Beyond Scrum: Anticipating the evolution of agile project management practices. In Practical approaches to agile project management (pp. 119–141). IGI Global.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  21. Søderberg, A. M., Krishna, S., & Bjørn, P. (2013). Global software development: commitment, trust and cultural sensitivity in strategic partnerships. Journal of International Management, 19(4), 347-361.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  22. Almashhadani, M., Mishra, A., & Yazici, A. (2024). Software maintenance practices using agile methods towards cloud environment: A systematic mapping. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 36(11), e2698.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  23. Sarkar, T., Moharana, B., Rakhra, M., & Cheema, G. S. (2024, March). Comparative Analysis of Empirical Research on Agile Software Development Approaches. In 2024 11th International Conference on Reliability, Infocom Technologies and Optimization (Trends and Future Directions)(ICRITO) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  24. Tabassum, A., Manzoor, I., Bhatti, S. N., Asghar, A. R., & Alam, I. (2017). Optimized quality model for agile development: extreme programming (XP) as a case scenario. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 8(4).
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Sami, M. A., Rasheed, Z., Waseem, M., Zhang, Z., Herda, T., & Abrahamsson, P. (2024). Prioritizing software requirements using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01564.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Nayaka Sheetakallu Krishnaiah, P., Narayan, D. L., & Sutradhar, K. (2024). A survey on secure metadata of agile software development process using blockchain technology. Security and Privacy, 7(2), e342.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  27. Eldanasory, N. A., Idrees, A. M., & Yehia, E. (2024). EFSP: An enhanced full Scrum process model. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 34(5), 729–749.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  28. Zahedi, M. H., Kashanaki, A. R., & Farahani, E. (2023). Risk management framework in Agile software development methodology. International Journal of Electrical & Computer Engineering (2088-8708), 13(4).
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  29. Ahmed, I., Munir, F., Nafees, F., Mahmood, J., Chaudhry, S. A., Javaid, M., & Batool, K. (2024, December). The influence of Kanban agile methodology on software project management: A survey method. In 2024 International Conference on Engineering and Emerging Technologies (ICEET) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  30. Madampe, K., Hoda, R., & Grundy, J. (2024). Supporting emotional intelligence, productivity and team goals while handling software requirements changes. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 33(6), 1-38.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  31. Granados, Y., Snoeck, M., Ruiz, J., & Ferreira, G. (2024). Experiences from combining Merode and Scrum. In Agil-ISE@CAiSE (pp. 27–35).
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Tetteh, S. G. (2024). Empirical study of agile software development methodologies: A comparative analysis. Asian Journal of Research in Computer Science, 17(5), 30-42.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  33. Natarajan, T., & Pichai, S. (2024). Behaviour-driven development and metrics framework for enhanced agile practices in scrum teams. Information and Software Technology, 170, 107435.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  34. Ugwueze, V. U., & Chukwunweike, J. N. (2024). Continuous integration and deployment strategies for streamlined DevOps in software engineering and application delivery. Int J Comput Appl Technol Res, 14(1), 1-24.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  35. Suhartini, S., Suef, M., Ciptomulyono, U., & Widodo, E. (2023). A conceptual framework to agile product development for sustainable garment product. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 465, p. 02024). EDP Sciences.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  36. Rubin, K. S. (2012). Essential Scrum: A practical guide to the most popular Agile process. Addison-Wesley.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Wiratama, J., & Santoso, H. (2023). Developing a Class Scheduling Mobile Application for Private Campus in Tangerang with the Extreme Programming (XP) Model. G-Tech: Jurnal Teknologi Terapan, 7(2), 484-493.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  38. Melnyk, K. V., Hlushko, V. N., & Borysova, N. V. (2020). Decision support technology for sprint planning. Radio electronics, computer science, control, (1), 135-145.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  39. Seniv, M. M. (2023). Method for Selecting a Software Development Methodology Taking into Account Project Characteristics. Radio Electronics, Computer Science, Control, (2), 134-134.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  40. Fageha, M. K., & Aibinu, A. A. (2013). Managing project scope definition to improve stakeholders’ participation and enhance project outcome. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 74, 154-164.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  41. Nuti, V. (2023). Analysis of the effectiveness of the Scrum approach in the management of an IT project (Doctoral dissertation, Politecnico di Torino).
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Merzouk, S., Jabir, B., Marzak, A., & Sael, N. (2024). Best agile method selection approach at workplace. Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, 13(3), 1868–1876.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  43. Moyano, C. G., Pufahl, L., Weber, I., & Mendling, J. (2022). Uses of business process modeling in agile software development projects. Information and Software Technology, 152, 107028.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  44. Kalem, G., Vesek, M. C., & Yalim, H. K. (2023, February). The Efficiency of Software Methodologies Used in Artificial Intelligence-Based Biomedical Projects. In International Congress on Information and Communication Technology (pp. 615-625). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  45. Papadakis, E., & Tsironis, L. (2018). Hybrid methods and practices associated with agile methods, method tailoring and delivery of projects in a non-software context. Procedia computer science, 138, 739-746.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  46. Herda, T., Pichler, V., Zhang, Z., Abrahamsson, P., & Hanssen, G. K. (2025, June). AI and Agile Software Development: From Frustration to Success XP2025 Workshop Summary. In International Conference on Agile Software Development (pp. 3-13). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  47. Santos, E. P., Gomes, F., Freire, S., Mendonça, M., Mendes, T. S., & Spínola, R. (2022, November). Technical debt on agile projects: Managers’ point of view at stack exchange. In Proceedings of the XXI Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality (pp. 1-9).
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  48. Alam, M. M., & Priti, S. I. (2024). Adaptive Hybrid Software Project Management in Bangladesh’s Software Industry: Navigating the Cultural Transformation and Ensuring On-Time Delivery (Doctoral dissertation, IUB).
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Bose, B., Khan, N. T., Ashreen, S., Ahmed, F., Mazid-Ul-Haque, M., & Bhowmik, A. (2023). Hybrid scrum-xp: A proposed model based on effectiveness of agile model on varieties of software companies in bangladesh.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wandri, R., Fadhilah, M. R., Setiawan, P. R., & Fadhilla, M. (2025). Agile Scrum as a development approach: A case study of web-based school information system design. Sistemasi: Jurnal Sistem Informasi, 14(4), 1722–1735.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  51. Abrar, M. F., Alferaidi, A., Almurayziq, T. S., Saqib, M., Khan, W., Khan, Z., & Alsaffar, M. (2025). Enhancing Extreme Programming (XP) adoption through SAMAM: A scalable agile maturity assessment model based on industry best practices. IEEE Access.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]
  52. Mustafa, N., Saeed, S., Abdulhakeem, A., & Ibrahim, M. A. M. (2023). The impact of Scrum-XP hybrid methodology on quality in web development with distributed teamwork. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Emerging Smart Technologies and Applications (eSmarTA) (pp. 1–8). IEEE.
    [CrossRef]   [Google Scholar]

Cite This Article
APA Style
Akhtar, S., & Aftab, S. (2026). Comparing Agile Transitions: A Study of XP, Scrum, and Hybrid Frameworks. ICCK Journal of Software Engineering, 2(1), 30–51. https://doi.org/10.62762/JSE.2025.428569
Export Citation
RIS Format
Compatible with EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley, and other reference managers
RIS format data for reference managers
TY  - JOUR
AU  - Akhtar, Samia
AU  - Aftab, Shabib
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/02/08
TI  - Comparing Agile Transitions: A Study of XP, Scrum, and Hybrid Frameworks
JO  - ICCK Journal of Software Engineering
T2  - ICCK Journal of Software Engineering
JF  - ICCK Journal of Software Engineering
VL  - 2
IS  - 1
SP  - 30
EP  - 51
DO  - 10.62762/JSE.2025.428569
UR  - https://www.icck.org/article/abs/JSE.2025.428569
KW  - extreme programming
KW  - scrum
KW  - agile methodologies
KW  - comparative analysis
KW  - hybrid models
AB  - Agile has become a cornerstone of modern software development. Among its many frameworks, Extreme Programming (XP) and Scrum are the most widely recognized. XP emphasizes technical practices and engineering discipline while Scrum provides structured roles and iterative planning. Over time, many organizations have also adopted hybrid models that combine the strengths of both. Despite their popularity, teams often face challenges when deciding which approach to adopt. The choice between XP, Scrum or a hybrid is not always straightforward as each carries different strengths, limitations and suitability for specific contexts. This paper addresses this issue by presenting a comparative analysis of XP, Scrum and their hybrids. First, we revisit their phases and key practices along with their strengths, weaknesses and application. Then a detailed comparison is presented between XP, Scrum and their Hybrids. Building on this analysis, we have proposed a structured decision framework. This framework provides a clear criteria and step-by-step guidance to help practitioners select the most suitable approach for their projects. The framework is supported by subsections that explain evaluation criteria and conceptual use cases. In addition, published case studies are discussed to validate the framework and show how XP, Scrum, and hybrid methods are applied in practice. The paper also outlines future directions for agile practices including the role of AI, scaling strategies and distributed collaboration. Through this work, the paper offers both critical insights and practical tools for researchers and practitioners. It highlights not only how XP and Scrum compare but also how hybrid approaches can improve agile adoption in today’s dynamic development landscape.
SN  - 3069-1834
PB  - Institute of Central Computation and Knowledge
LA  - English
ER  - 
BibTeX Format
Compatible with LaTeX, BibTeX, and other reference managers
BibTeX format data for LaTeX and reference managers
@article{Akhtar2026Comparing,
  author = {Samia Akhtar and Shabib Aftab},
  title = {Comparing Agile Transitions: A Study of XP, Scrum, and Hybrid Frameworks},
  journal = {ICCK Journal of Software Engineering},
  year = {2026},
  volume = {2},
  number = {1},
  pages = {30-51},
  doi = {10.62762/JSE.2025.428569},
  url = {https://www.icck.org/article/abs/JSE.2025.428569},
  abstract = {Agile has become a cornerstone of modern software development. Among its many frameworks, Extreme Programming (XP) and Scrum are the most widely recognized. XP emphasizes technical practices and engineering discipline while Scrum provides structured roles and iterative planning. Over time, many organizations have also adopted hybrid models that combine the strengths of both. Despite their popularity, teams often face challenges when deciding which approach to adopt. The choice between XP, Scrum or a hybrid is not always straightforward as each carries different strengths, limitations and suitability for specific contexts. This paper addresses this issue by presenting a comparative analysis of XP, Scrum and their hybrids. First, we revisit their phases and key practices along with their strengths, weaknesses and application. Then a detailed comparison is presented between XP, Scrum and their Hybrids. Building on this analysis, we have proposed a structured decision framework. This framework provides a clear criteria and step-by-step guidance to help practitioners select the most suitable approach for their projects. The framework is supported by subsections that explain evaluation criteria and conceptual use cases. In addition, published case studies are discussed to validate the framework and show how XP, Scrum, and hybrid methods are applied in practice. The paper also outlines future directions for agile practices including the role of AI, scaling strategies and distributed collaboration. Through this work, the paper offers both critical insights and practical tools for researchers and practitioners. It highlights not only how XP and Scrum compare but also how hybrid approaches can improve agile adoption in today’s dynamic development landscape.},
  keywords = {extreme programming, scrum, agile methodologies, comparative analysis, hybrid models},
  issn = {3069-1834},
  publisher = {Institute of Central Computation and Knowledge}
}

Article Metrics
Citations:

Crossref

0

Scopus

0

Web of Science

0
Article Access Statistics:
Views: 9
PDF Downloads: 1

Publisher's Note
ICCK stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and Permissions
CC BY Copyright © 2026 by the Author(s). Published by Institute of Central Computation and Knowledge. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.
ICCK Journal of Software Engineering

ICCK Journal of Software Engineering

ISSN: 3069-1834 (Online)

Email: [email protected]

Portico

Portico

All published articles are preserved here permanently:
https://www.portico.org/publishers/icck/