Agile Software Development Directory, Links. Programming, Development, Design, Support Resources, Reference @ eIT.in

Add Links: If you have a web site that you wish to include in this database, do let us know the details by sending a note about your URL to narsi@esource.in. We’ll quickly review the web site, and if found relevant, add it to the database. We look forward to web site owners and link exchange partners to submit URL. Thanks!

Looking for an outsourcing partner for software development and programming? Have you talked to us?

Other IT Web Sites from eIT.in

Content derived from Wikipedia article on Agile Software Development

Agile software development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Software Development Process

This article is part of the Software Development Process series

Activities and Steps

Requirements | Architecture | Implementation | Testing | Deployment

Models

Supporting Disciplines

Configuration Management | Documentation | Project Management

Agile software development is a conceptual framework for undertaking software engineering projects. There are a number of agile software development methods, such as those espoused by The Agile Alliance.

Most agile methods attempt to minimize risk by developing software in short timeboxes, called iterations, which typically last one to four weeks. Each iteration is like a miniature software project of its own, and includes all of the tasks necessary to release the mini-increment of new functionality: planning, requirements analysis, design, coding, testing, and documentation. While an iteration may not add enough functionality to warrant releasing the product, an agile software project intends to be capable of releasing new software at the end of every iteration. At the end of each iteration, the team reevaluates project priorities.

Agile methods emphasize realtime communication, preferably face-to-face, over written documents. Most agile teams are located in a bullpen and include all the people necessary to finish software. At a minimum, this includes programmers and their "customers" (customers are the people who define the product; they may be product managers, business analysts, or actual customers). The bullpen may also include testers, interaction designers, technical writers, and managers.

Agile methods also emphasize working software as the primary measure of progress. Combined with the preference for face-to-face communication, agile methods produce very little written documentation relative to other methods. This has resulted in criticism of agile methods as being undisciplined.

Contents

1 History

2 Principles behind agile methods — The Agile Manifesto

3 Comparison with other methods

3.1 Contrasted with iterative development

3.2 Contrasted with the waterfall model

3.3 Contrasted with "cowboy coding"

4 Suitability of agile methods

5 Adaptation of agile methods

6 Agile methods and method tailoring

7 Agile methods and project management

8 Agile methods

9 Criticism

10 Experience reports

11 See also

12 References

13 Further reading

14 External links

History

The modern definition of agile software development evolved in the mid 1990s as part of a reaction against "heavyweight" methods, as typified by a heavily regulated, regimented, micro-managed use of the waterfall model of development. The processes originating from this use of the waterfall model were seen as bureaucratic, slow, demeaning, and contradicted the ways that software engineers actually perform effective work.

A case can be made that agile and iterative development methods are a return to development practice seen early in the history of software development [1].

Initially, agile methods were called "lightweight methods." In 2001, prominent members of the community met at Snowbird and adopted the name "agile methods." Later, some of these people formed The Agile Alliance[2], a non-profit organization that promotes agile development.

Early agile methods—created prior to 2000—include Scrum (in management) (1986), Crystal Clear, Extreme Programming (1996), Adaptive Software Development, Feature Driven Development, and DSDM (1995).

Extreme Programming, while it may not have been the first agile method, established the popularity of agile methods. Extreme Programming was created by Kent Beck in 1996 as a way to rescue the struggling Chrysler Comprehensive Compensation (C3) project. While that project was eventually canceled, the methodology was refined by Ron Jeffries' full-time XP coaching, public discussion on Ward Cunningham's Portland Pattern Repository wiki and further work by Beck, including a book in 1999.[1] Elements of Extreme Programming appear to be based on Scrum and Ward Cunningham's Episodes pattern language.

Principles behind agile methods — The Agile Manifesto

See also: Agile Manifesto

Agile methods are a family of development processes, not a single approach to software development. In 2001, 17 prominent figures [2] in the field of agile development (then called "light-weight methodologies") came together at the Snowbird ski resort in Utah to discuss ways of creating software in a lighter, faster, more people-centric way. They created the Agile Manifesto, widely regarded as the canonical definition of agile development, and accompanying agile principles.

Some of the principles behind the Agile Manifesto[3] are:

Customer satisfaction by rapid, continuous delivery of useful software

Working software is delivered frequently (weeks rather than months)

Working software is the principal measure of progress.

Even late changes in requirements are welcomed.

Close, daily, cooperation between business people and developers

Face-to-face conversation is the best form of communication.

Projects are built around motivated individuals, who should be trusted

Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design.

Simplicity

Self-organizing teams

Regular adaptation to changing circumstances

The publishing of the manifesto spawned a movement in the software industry known as agile software development.

In 2005, Alistair Cockburn and Jim Highsmith gathered another group of people — management experts, this time — and wrote an addendum, known as the PM Declaration of Interdependence.

Comparison with other methods

Agile methods are sometimes characterized as being at the opposite end of the spectrum from "plan-driven" or "disciplined" methodologies. This distinction is misleading, as it implies that agile methods are "unplanned" or "undisciplined." A more accurate distinction is to say that methods exist on a continuum from "adaptive" to "predictive".[4] Agile methods exist on the "adaptive" side of this continuum.

Adaptive methods focus on adapting quickly to changing realities. When the needs of a project change, an adaptive team changes as well. An adaptive team will have difficulty describing exactly what will happen in the future. The further away a date is, the more vague an adaptive method will be about what will happen on that date. An adaptive team can report exactly what tasks are being done next week, but only which features are planned for next month. When asked about a release six months from now, an adaptive team may only be able to report the mission statement for the release, or a statement of expected value vs. cost.

Predictive methods, in contrast, focus on planning the future in detail. A predictive team can report exactly what features and tasks are planned for the entire length of the development process. Predictive teams have difficulty changing direction. The plan is typically optimized for the original destination and changing direction can cause completed work to be thrown away and done over differently. Predictive teams will often institute a change control board to ensure that only the most valuable changes are considered.

Agile methods have much in common with the "Rapid Application Development" techniques from the 1980's as espoused by James Martin and others (see RAD ).

Contrasted with iterative development

Most agile methods share iterative development's emphasis on building releasable software in short time periods. Agile methods differ from iterative methods in that their time period is measured in weeks rather than months and work is performed in a highly collaborative manner. Most agile methods also differ by treating their time period as a strict timebox.

Contrasted with the waterfall model

Agile development has less in common with the waterfall model. In some eyes the waterfall is discredited, but as of 2004, this model is still in common use.[5] The waterfall model is the most predictive of the methodologies, stepping through requirements capture, analysis, design, coding, and testing in a strict, pre-planned sequence. Progress is generally measured in terms of deliverable artifacts—requirement specifications, design documents, test plans, code reviews and the like. The waterfall model can result in a substantial integration and testing effort toward the end of the cycle, a time period typically extending from several months to several years. The size and difficulty of this integration and testing effort is one cause of waterfall project failure.[citation needed] Agile methods, in contrast, produce completely developed and tested features (but a very small subset of the whole) every few weeks or months. The emphasis is on obtaining the smallest workable piece of functionality to deliver business value early, and continually improving it/adding further functionality throughout the life of the project.

Some agile teams use the waterfall model on a small scale, repeating the entire waterfall cycle in every iteration.[citation needed] Other teams, most notably Extreme Programming teams, work on activities simultaneously.

Contrasted with "cowboy coding"

Cowboy coding is the absence of a defined method: team members do whatever they feel is right. Agile development's frequent reevaluation of plans, emphasis on face-to-face communication, and relatively sparse use of documents sometimes causes people to confuse it with cowboy coding. Agile teams, however, do follow defined (and often very disciplined and rigorous) processes.

As with all methodologies, the skill and experience of the users define the degree of success and/or abuse of such activity. The more rigid controls systematically embedded within a process offer stronger levels of accountability of the users. The degradation of well-intended procedures can lead to activities often categorized as cowboy coding.

Suitability of agile methods

Although agile methods differ in their practices, they share a number of common characteristics, including iterative development, and a focus on interaction, communication, and the reduction of resource-intensive intermediate artifacts. (Cohen et al., 2004)[6] The suitability of agile methods in general can be examined from multiple perspectives. From a product perspective, agile methods are more suitable when requirements are emergent and rapidly changing; they are less suitable for systems that have high criticality, reliability and safety requirements, although there is no complete consensus on this point (Cohen et al., 2004).[6] From an organizational perspective, the suitability can be assessed by examining three key dimensions of an organization: culture, people, and communication. In relation to these areas a number of key success factors have been identified (Cohen et al., 2004)[6]:

The culture of the organization must be supportive of negotiation

People must be trusted

Fewer but more competent people

Organizations must live with the decisions developers make

Organizations need to have an environment that facilitates rapid communication between team members

The most important factor is probably project size (Cohen et al., 2004).[6] As size grows, face-to-face communication becomes more difficult. Therefore, agile methods are more suitable for projects with small teams, with fewer than 20 to 40 people.

In order to determine the suitability of agile methods individually, a more sophisticated analysis is required. The DSDM method, for example, provides a so-called ‘suitability-filter’ for this purpose. Also, the Crystal family of methods provides criteria on how to select the method for a given project. The selection is based on project size, criticality and priority. However, other agile methods do not provide such explicit instruments to assess their suitability for a project.

Some agile methods, like DSDM and Feature Driven Development (FDD), are claimed to be suitable for any agile software development project, regardless of situational characteristics (Abrahamsonn et al., 2003).[7]

A comparison of agile methods will reveal that they support different phases of a software development life-cycle to varying degrees. This individual characteristic of agile methods can be used as a selection criterion for selecting candidate agile methods.

Agile development has been widely documented (see Experience Reports, below, as well as Beck[1] pg. 157, and Boehm and Turner[8] pg. 55-57) as working well for small (<10 developers) co-located teams. Agile development is expected to be particularly suitable for teams facing unpredictable or rapidly changing requirements.

Agile development's applicability to the following scenarios is open to question:

Large scale development efforts (>20 developers), though scaling strategies have been described.[9]

Distributed development efforts (non-co-located teams). Strategies have been described in Bridging the Distance[10]and Using an Agile Software Process with Offshore Development[11]

Mission- and life-critical efforts

Command-and-control company cultures

Barry Boehm and Richard Turner suggest that risk analysis be used to choose between adaptive ("agile") and predictive ("plan-driven") methods.[8] The authors suggest that each side of the continuum has its own home ground:

Agile home ground:

Low criticality

Senior developers

Requirements change very often

Small number of developers

Culture that thrives on chaos

Plan-driven home ground:

High criticality

Junior developers

Low requirements change

Large number of developers

Culture that demands order

Adaptation of agile methods

A method should be flexible enough to allow adjustments during project execution. There are three key issues related to the topic of adaptation of agile methods: the suitability of agile methods (in general and in particular), method tailoring, and finally, project management support.

Agile methods and method tailoring

In the literature, different terms refer to the notion of method adaptation, including ‘method tailoring’, ‘method fragment adaptation’ and ‘situational method engineering’. Method tailoring is defined as:

A process or capability in which human agents through responsive changes in, and dynamic interplays between contexts, intentions , and method fragments determine a system development approach for a specific project situation.[12]

Potentially, almost all agile methods are suitable for method tailoring. Even the DSDM method is being used for this purpose and has been successfully tailored in a CMM context.[7] Situation-appropriateness can be considered as a distinguishing characteristic between agile methods and traditional software development methods, with the latter being relatively much more rigid and prescriptive. The practical implication is that agile methods allow project teams to adapt working practices according to the needs of individual projects. Practices are concrete activities and products which are part of a method framework. At a more extreme level, the philosophy behind the method, consisting of a number of principles, could be adapted (Aydin, 2004).[12]

In the case of XP the need for method adaptation is made explicit. One of the fundamental ideas of XP is that there is no process that fits every project as such, but rather practises should be tailored to the needs of individual projects. There are also no experience reports in which all the XP practises have been adopted. Instead, a partial adoption of XP practices, as suggested by Beck (Kent Beck), has been reported on several occasions.[13]

A distinction can be made between static method adaptation and dynamic method adaptation.[14] The key assumption behind static method adaptation is that the project context is given at the start of a project and remains fixed during project execution. The result is a static definition of the project context. Given such a definition, route maps can be used in order to determine which structured method fragments should be used for that particular project, based on a predefined sets of criteria. Dynamic method adaptation, in contrast, assumes that projects are situated in an emergent context. An emergent context implies that a project has to deal with emergent factors that affect relevant conditions but are not predictable. This also means that a project context is not fixed, but changing during project execution. In such a case prescriptive route maps are not appropriate. The practical implication of dynamic method adaptation is that project managers often have to modify structured fragments or even innovate new fragments, during the execution of a project (Aydin et al, 2005).[14]

Agile methods and project management

Agile methods differ to a large degree in the way they cover project management. Some methods are supplemented with guidelines on project management, but there is generally not comprehensive support.[7]

PRINCE2 has been suggested as a suitable, complementary project management system.[15]

Agile methods

Some of the well-known agile software development methods:

Extreme Programming (XP)

Industrial Extreme Programming(IXP)

Scrum

Agile Modeling

Adaptive Software Development (ASD)

Crystal Clear and Other Crystal Methodologies

Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM)

Feature Driven Development (FDD)

Lean software development

Agile Unified Process (AUP)

Dialogue-Driven Development aka d3

Other approaches:

Agile Documentation

ICONIX

Microsoft Solutions Framework (MSF)

Agile Data Method

Database refactoring

Examples of the use of agile principles in non-software activities:

Lean manufacturing

Criticism

Agile development is sometimes criticized as cowboy coding. Extreme Programming's initial buzz and controversial tenets, such as pair programming and continuous design, have attracted particular criticism, such as McBreen[16] and Boehm and Turner.[8] However, much of the criticism was believed by Agile practitioners as misunderstandings about agile development.[17]

In particular, Extreme Programming is reviewed and critiqued by Matt Stephens' Extreme Programming Refactored.[18]

Criticisms include:

lack of structure and necessary documentation

only works with senior-level developers

incorporates insufficient software design

requires too much cultural change to adopt

can lead to more difficult contractual negotiations

The criticisms regarding insufficient software design and lack of documentation are addressed by the Agile Modeling method which can easily be tailored into agile processes such as XP.

Experience reports

Agile development has been the subject of several conferences. Some of these conferences have had academic backing and included peer-reviewed papers, including a peer-reviewed experience report track. The experience reports share industry experiences with agile software development.

As of 2006, experience reports have been or will be presented at the following conferences:

XP (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006)

XP Universe (2001)

XP/Agile Universe (2002, 2003, 2004)

Agile Development Conference (2003, 2004) (peer-reviewed; proceedings published by IEEE?)

Agile (2005, 2006) (peer-reviewed; proceedings published by IEEE)

Further reading

Fowler, Martin. Is Design Dead?. Appeared in Extreme Programming Explained, G. Succi and M. Marchesi, ed., Addison-Wesley, Boston. 2001.

Riehle, Dirk. A Comparison of the Value Systems of Adaptive Software Development and Extreme Programming: How Methodologies May Learn From Each Other. Appeared in Extreme Programming Explained, G. Succi and M. Marchesi, ed., Addison-Wesley, Boston. 2001.

Tomek, Ivan. What I Learned Teaching XP. http://www.whysmalltalk.com/articles/tomek/teachingxp.htm

M. Stephens, D. Rosenberg. Extreme Programming Refactored: The Case Against XP. Apress L.P., Berkeley, California. 2003. (ISBN 1-59059-096-1)

D. Rosenberg, M. Stephens. Agile Development with ICONIX Process. Apress L.P., Berkeley, California. 2005. (ISBN 1-59059-464-9)

Beck, et. al., Manifesto for Agile Software Development. [3]

Larman, Craig and Basili, Victor R. Iterative and Incremental Development:A Brief History IEEE Computer, June 2003

Abrahamsson, P., Warsta, J., Siponen, M.T., & Ronkainen, J. (2003). New Directions on Agile Methods: A Comparative Analysis. Proceedings of ICSE'03, 244-254.

Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, J., & Warsta, J. (2002). Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis. VTT Publications 478.

Aydin, M.N., Harmsen, F., Slooten, K. v., & Stagwee, R. A. (2004). An Agile Information Systems Development Method in use. Turk J Elec Engin, 12(2), 127-138

Aydin, M.N., Harmsen, F., Slooten van K., & Stegwee, R.A. (2005). On the Adaptation of An Agile Information Systems Development Method. Journal of Database Management Special issue on Agile Analysis, Design, and Implementation, 16(4), 20-24

Cohen, D., Lindvall, M., & Costa, P. (2004). An introduction to agile methods. In Advances in Computers (pp. 1-66). New York: Elsevier Science.

Karlstrom, D., & Runeson P. (2005). Combining agile methods with stage-gate project management. IEEE Software, 22(3), 43-49

External links

Manifesto for Agile Software Development

The Agile Alliance

The Agile Journal - An online magazine for agile software development

AgileSoftwareDevelopment.com - Public weblogs and news on agile software development

Agile Planet weblog aggregator

Why Agile Software Development Techniques Work: Improved Feedback

Matt Stephens' website SoftwareReality.com - a critical eye on agile development

"The Demise of the Waterfall Model Is Imminent" and Other Urban Myths

Neill, C. J., and Laplante, P. A. Requirements engineering: the state of the practice. IEEE Software 20, 6 (Nov./Dec. 2003), 40-45;

Article Agile, Multidisciplinary Teamwork by Gautam Gosh

Article Buyer's Guide: Choosing and Working with Software Developers

Article Agile Requirements by Rachel Davies

Agile Modeling: Effective Practices for XP and RUP by S.W. Ambler.

Agile Java Programming - also Agile .NET version

Test Driven Development Community Site: testdriven.com

Article Agile IT - by Datadialogs

Article Two Ways to Build a Pyramid by John Mayo-Smith

Levent Gurses. "10 Mistakes in Transitioning to Agile: Slow down the transition in order to go fast", Dr. Dobb's Journal, 2006-11-01.

Contracts for Agile Projects

Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development

End of Wikipedia content, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development

Web Resources for Agile Software Development Method

More eIT.in References

Software

· Programming & Development Directory

o Software Design & Development Methodologies

§ Adaptive Project Framework

§ Agile Software Development

§ Crystal Methods

§ Dynamic Systems Development Model (DSDM)

§ Extreme Programming (XP)

§ Feature Driven Development (FDD)

§ Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL)

§ Joint Application Development (JAD)

§ Lean Development (LD)

§ Unified Process

· Rational Unified Process (RUP)

§ Object Oriented Programming

· COM

· CORBA

· EJB

§ Rapid Application Development (RAD)

· PowerBuilder

§ Scrum

§ Spiral

§ Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC)

§ Waterfall

o Programming Languages

§ The A-Z of Programming Languages

§ A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z

Main Sections @ eIT.in

Software

· Free & Open Source Software

· Operating Systems

o Mainframe & Legacy Operating Systems

· Midrange

· Mainframe Operating Systems

· Databases

· Programming & Development Directory

o Programming Languages

§ The A-Z of Programming Languages

§ A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z

· Internet & Web

§ Web Servers

§ Application Servers

§ Server Side Scripting

§ Web Services

Computer Hardware
Networking & Communications Technologies
IT Strategy & Design
IT in Industries & Businesses
IT in Functions & Business Processes

IT Infrastructure
Tech Support
IT, Software Industry, Trade & Business Network
IT, Software Industry News & Updates

About eIT.in

eIT.in is a comprehensive directory for everything IT & Software. It contains over 500 categories, and well over 10,000 web resources

eIT.in provides directory and web links resources for the IT, software, programming & software development domains. It is intended to be useful for application, applications programmers & developers, software technology programmer & developer, databases software development, administrators & DBAs, application developers, strategy architect, design specialists and architects, migration, integration, customization consultants and customisation analysts, administration, maintenance & support professionals, outsourcing consultant, bespoke solutions programming developers & coders, project management & functional analyst, and for system administrators, testing & quality control engineers. It will make an effort to provide resources on tutorial/tutorials, guide, guides, tips, faq, faqs on these topics.

eIT.in content is available under GPL: All directory content at mainframe.in is under the General Public License (GPL). Under this license, anyone is free to copy & use any amount of directory content @ eIT.in, make changes to it and use it in any way they wish, as long as they also allow the same rights to anyone else for this content. The concept of GPL has been adapted from the GNU GPL of the Free Software Movement. To those who wish to use content from eIT.in, our only request is that they acknowledge the source and provide a link back to eIT.in. This is only a request!

Countries & Cities Where eIT.in Provides Assistance

eIT Cities: Bangalore, Chennai, Mumbai, Bhubaneswar, Mysore, Kolkaka, Delhi, Pune, Trivandrum, Hyderabad

You are the $$$ Section of eIT.in

Reference

GeoDig – Get Local!

Have you checked out the GeoDig directories for over 30 countries? GeoDig provides useful local and regional web resources for over 200 cities around the world. See the list of cities and countries for which GeoDig provides locality-specific web resources.

North America

USA - Alabama (AL) > Birmingham; Alaska; Arkansas (AR) > Little Rock; Arizona (AZ) > Phoenix, Las Vegas, Tucson; California (CA) > Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, Bakersfield; Colorado, CO > Denver; Connecticut, CT > Hartford; District of Columbia, DC > Washington DC; Delaware (DE) > Wilmington; Florida > Miami, Orlando, Tampa, Orlando, Sarasota, West Palm Beach, Jacksonville; Georgia > Atlanta; Hawaii > Honolulu; Idaho; Illinois > Chicago; Indiana > Indianapolis; Iowa; Kansas (KS); Kentucky (KY) > Louisville; Louisiana (LA) > New Orleans, Baton Rouge; Maine; Maryland (MD) > Baltimore; Massachusetts > Boston, Springfield; Michigan > Detroit, Grand Rapids; Minnesota > Minneapolis-St. Paul; Mississippi (MS); Missouri (MO) > Kansas City, St. Louis; Montana; Nebraska (NE) > Omaha; Nevada (NV) > Las Vegas; New Hampshire; New Jersey (NJ) > Jersey City, Newark; New Mexico (NM) > Albuquerque; New York > New York, Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, Syracuse; North Carolina (NC) > Raleigh-Durham, Charlotte, Greensboro; North Dakota; Ohio> Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo, Youngstown, Dayton; Oklahoma (OK) > Oklahoma City, Tulsa; Oregon > Portland; Pennsylvania > Philadelphia, Allentown, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Scranton, ; Rhode Island (RI) > Providence; South Carolina (SC) > Greenville; South Dakota; Tennessee (TN) > Knoxville, Memphis, Nashville; Texas > Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, El Paso, Austin, McAllen; Utah (UT) > Salt Lake City; Vermont; Virginia (VA) > Norfolk, Richmond; Washington > Seattle; West Virginia; Wisconsin (WI) > Milwaukee; Wyoming

Canada - Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, Ottawa-Gatineau, Edmonton, Quebec City, Winnipeg, Hamilton, London

You are the $$$ Section of eIT.in

Europe - UK - London, Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Sheffield, Leeds, Bristol, Edinburgh, Leicester; France - Paris, Marseille, Lyon, Toulouse, Nice, Nantes, Strasbourg, Montpellier, Bordeaux; Germany - Frankfurt (Frankfurt am Main), Munich (München), Berlin, Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Cologne (Köln), Essen, Dortmund, Stuttgart, Bremen, Duisburg, Hannover, Nürnberg (Nuremberg), Dresden, Leipzig; Italy - Milan (Milano), Rome (Roma), Napoli (Naples), Torino (Turin), Palermo, Bologna, Firenze (Florence), Genova (Genoa); Spain - Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Sevilla, Zaragoza, Malaga, Murcia, Las Palmas, Bilbao; Scandinavia - Finland - Helsinki (Helsingin), Espoo, Tampere (Tampereen), Vantaa, Turku, Oulu, Sweden - Stockholm, Goteborg (Göteborg), Malmo (Malmö), Uppsala, Vasteras (Västerås), Denmark - Copenhagen (Københavns), Aarhus (Århus), Odense, Aalborg (Ålborg), Norway - Oslo, Bergen, Stavanger, Trondheim; Benelux - Belgium - Brussels (Brussel), Antwerp (Antwerpen), Ghent (Gent, Gand), Charleroi, Liège (Liege), Netherlands - Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Utrecht, Eindhoven, Tilburg, ‘s-Gravenhage (sGravenhage), Groningen, Luxembourg - Luxembourg City; Portugal – Lisbon; Greece – Athens; Hungary – Budapest; Poland – Warsaw; Switzerland - Zürich (Zurich), Geneva (Geneve, Genève), Basel, Bern (Berne), Lausanne; Austria - Linz, Vienna (Wien), Graz, Linz, Salzburg, Innsbruck; Ireland – Dublin

Asia - India - Mumbai, New Delhi, Bangalore; China & Hong Kong - Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Wuhan, Shenyang, Guangzhou, Harbin, Xian; Japan - Tokyo, Osaka, Yokohama, Nagoya, Sapporo, Kyoto, Kobe, Fukuoka, Kawasaki, Hiroshima; South Korea - Seoul, Pusa, Taegu, Incheon, Taejeon, Taiwan - Taipei; Malaysia - Kuala Lumpur; Singapore; Russia - Moscow, St Petersburg

You are the $$$ Section of eIT.in

Middle East - Turkey - Istanbul, Israel - Tel Aviv

Oceania - Australia - Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide

Africa - South Africa - Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban

eIT.in is a product of eSource India & Sourcing India

Other eSource & Sourcing sites: IT & Software (Dir, SAP), BPO, Chemicals, Textiles, Plant Oils, dotMobi, Billion Dollar Questions,

Biodiesel Encyclopedia, Linens, ideOS, Follars – Free, Open-source Dollars, Quali5.com – Own A Keyword Forever, AntiSE, Serkai, Leather & Hide, GeoDig