Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

ARP–GWO: an efficient approach for prioritization of risks in agile software development

  • Methodologies and Application
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Risk management is considered as a critical project management activity that needs to be performed for successful software development. Within risk management, risk prioritization is an important process which helps the software team to effectively manage the risks at early stage of the project. In agile-based software environment, it is necessary to prioritize the risks in an effective manner in order to address the risks in shorter duration of time. In recent times, swarm intelligence techniques are widely popular in solving various optimization problems in software development process. The main reason is due to its convergence accuracy toward global optimal solution and faster computational time. In this study, an efficient risk prioritization technique termed as ARP–GWO (agile risk prioritization–grey wolf optimization) has been proposed for prioritizing the risk factors present in the agile software development using grey wolf optimization (GWO). The proposed ARP–GWO method helps the organization to mitigate the risks and ensures successful delivery of software products with good quality, in lesser cost and time. The effectiveness of ARP–GWO is analyzed using two performance metrics, namely Index of Integration and Usability Goals Achievement Metric, for which case studies are performed on five industrial projects from two different organizations. The experimental results indicate that ARP–GWO is most effective in prioritization of risks and offers better enhancement with high degree of satisfaction among developers and users as compared with the existing agile process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agrawal R, Singh D, Sharma A (2016) Prioritizing and optimizing risk factors in agile software development. In: 2016 ninth international conference on contemporary computing (IC3), pp 1–7

  • Aladdin Shamilov (2010) Generalized entropy optimization problems with finite moment function sets. J Stat Manag Syst 13(3):595–603

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Alzoubi YI, Gill AQ, Moulton B (2018) A measurement model to analyze the effect of agile enterprise architecture on geographically distributed agile development. J Softw Eng Res Dev 6(4):1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Anes V, Abreu A, Santos R (2020) A new risk assessment approach for agile projects. In: International young engineers forum, Portugal, pp 67–72

  • APM (2004) Project risk analysis and management guide, 2nd edn. APM Publishing, High Wycombe, ISBN 1-903494-12, 2004

  • Arvinder K, Shubhra G (2011) A genetic algorithm for fault based regression test case prioritization. International Journal of Computers and Applications 32(8):30–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Azzeh M (2011) Adjusted case-based software effort estimation using bees optimization algorithm, vol 6882. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 315–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Badanahatti S, Rama Murthy YSS (2017) Optimal test case prioritization in cloud based regression testing with aid of KFCM. Int J Intell Eng Syst 10(2):96–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Basturk B, Karaboga D (2006) An artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm for numeric function optimization. In: IEEE swarm intelligence symposium, pp 2–4

  • Beni G, Wang J (1993) Swarm intelligence in cellular robotic systems. In: Robots and biological systems: towards a new bionics, ed. Springer, pp 703–712

  • Boehm BW (1991) Software risk management: principles and practices. IEEE Software 8(1):32–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm B (2000) Project termination doesn’t equal project failure. Computer 33(9):94–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonabeau E, Dorigo M, Theraulaz G (1999) From natural to artificial swarm intelligence. Oxford University Press Inc, Oxford

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Brezočnik L, Fister I, Podgorelec V (2018) Scrum task allocation based on particle swarm optimization. In: Korošec P, Melab N, Talbi E-G (eds) Bioinspired optimization methods and their applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 38–49

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brezočnik L, Fister I, Podgorelec V (2020) Solving agile software development problems with swarm intelligence algorithms. In: Karabegović I (eds) New technologies, development and application II, Lecture notes in networks and systems, vol 76. Springer

  • Buganova K, Simickova J (2019) Risk management in traditional and agile project management. In: 13th international scientific conference on sustainable, modern, and safe transport (TRANSCOM 2019), Novy Smokovec, Slovak Republic, pp 986–993

  • Chaves-González JM, Pérez-Toledano MA, Navasa A (2015) Software requirement optimization using a multi objective swarm intelligence evolutionary algorithm. Knowl Based Syst 83:105–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Souza JT, Maia CLB, do Nascimento Ferreira T, de do Carmo RAF, de Brasil MMA (2011) An ant colony optimization approach to the software release planning with dependent requirements. In: International symposium on search based software engineering. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 142–157

  • Del Sagrado J, del Águila IM, Orellana FJ (2015) Multi-objective ant colony optimization for requirements selection. Empir Softw Eng 20(3):577–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dingsøyr T, Nerur S, Balijepally V, Moe NB (2012) A decade of agile methodologies: towards explaining agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software 85(6):1213–1221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorigo M, Birattari M, Stutzle T (2006) Ant colony optimization. IEEE Comput Intell Manag 1(4):28–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drury-Grogan ML, Conboy K, Acton L (2017) Examining decision characteristics challenges for agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software 131:248–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fong S, Deb S, Yang S, Zhuang Y (2014) Towards enhancement of performance of K-means clustering using nature-inspired optimization algorithms. Scientific World Journal 2014:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill AQ (2015) Distributed agile development: applying a coverage analysis approach to the evaluation of a communication technology assessment tool. Int J e-Collab 11(1):57–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkinson M, Close P, Hillson D, Ward S (2008) Prioritising project risks: a short guide to useful techniques. Association for Project Management (APM), Princes Risborough, Bucks

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudaib A, Masadeh R, Alzaqebah A (2018) WGW: a hybrid approach based on whale and grey wolf optimization algorithms for requirements prioritization. Adv Syst Sci Appl 02:63–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang H, Zhang J, Xuan J, Ren Z, Hu Y (2010) A hybrid ACO algorithm for the next release problem. In: The 2nd international conference on software engineering and data mining. IEEE, pp 166–171

  • Joshi A, Sarda NL, Tripathi S (2010) Measuring effectiveness of HCI integration in software development processes. Journal of Systems and Software 83(11):2045–2058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaushik A, Verma S, Singh HJ, Chhabra G (2017) Software cost optimization integrating fuzzy system and COA-Cuckoo optimization algorithm. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manage 8(2):1461–1471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization in Neural Networks. In: Proceedings, IEEE international conference, pp 1942–1948

  • Khuat T, Le M (2017) A novel hybrid ABC-PSO algorithm for effort estimation of software projects using agile methodologies. J Intell Syst 27(3):1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Khuat T, My Hanh L (2017) Applying teaching-learning to artificial bee colony for parameter optimization of software effort estimation model. J Eng Sci Technol 12(5):1178–1190

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick S Jr, Gelatt DG, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220:671–680

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kulkarni RH, Padmanabham P (2017) Integration of artificial intelligence activities in software development processes and measuring effectiveness of integration. IET Softw 11(1):18–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim SL (2011) Social networks and collaborative filtering for large-scale requirements elicitation. Doctoral dissertation, University of New South Wales

  • Lincke R, Host M, Runeson P (2007) How do PhD students plan and follow-up their work?: a case study. University Sweden, School of Mathematics and Systems Engineering

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd S (1982) Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 28(2):129–137

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Manga I, Blamah N (2014) A particle swarm optimization-based framework for agile software effort estimation. Int J Eng Sci (IJES) 3(6):30–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Manju K, Prabhat K (2017) An effective meta-heuristic cuckoo search algorithm for test suite optimization. Informatica 41:363–377

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Marghny MH, El-Hawary HM, Dukhan WH (2017) An effective method of system requirement optimization based on genetic algorithms. Inf Sci Lett 6(1):15–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masadeh R, Sharieh A, Sleitn A (2017) Grey wolf optimization applied to the maximum flow problem. Int J Adv Appl Sci 4:95–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masadeh R, Alzaqebah A, Hudaib A (2018) Grey wolf algorithm for requirements prioritization. Mod Appl Sci 12(2):54–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirjalili S, Mirjalili SM, Lewis A (2014) Grey wolf optimizer. Advanced Engineering Software 69:46–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muntes-Mulero V, Ripolles O, Gupta S, Dominiak J, Willeke E, Matthews P, Somoskoi B (2019) Agile risk management for multi-cloud software development. IET Soft 13(3):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Muro C, Escobedo R, Spector L, Coppinger RP (2011) Wolf-pack (Canis Lupus) hunting strategies emerge from simple rules in computational simulations. Behavioural Processes 88(3):192–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nascimento Ferreira T, Arajo AA, Neto ADB, de Souza JT (2016) Incorporating user preferences in ant colony optimization for the next release problem. Applied Soft Computing 49:1283–1296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nerur S, Mahapatra R, Mangalaraj G (2005) Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies. Communications of the ACM 48(5):72–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odzaly EE, Greer D, Stewart D (2018) Agile risk management using software agents. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing 9(3):823–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira M, Pinheiro D, Macedo M, Bastos-Filho C, Menezes R (2020) Uncovering the social interaction network in swarm intelligence algorithms. Appl Netw Sci 5(24):1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Pazhaniraja N, Sountharrajan S, Sathis Kumar B (2020) High utility itemset mining: a Boolean operators-based modified grey wolf optimization algorithm. Soft Computing 24:16691–16704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen K (2011) Is lean agile and agile lean: a comparison between two software development paradigms. In: Modern software engineering concepts and practices: advanced approaches. IGI Global, pp 19–46

  • Petersen K, Wohlin C (2010) The effect of moving from a plan-driven to an incremental software development approach with agile practices. Empir Softw Eng 15(6):654–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pikkarainen M, Salo O, Kusela R, Abrahamsson P (2012) Strengths and barriers behind the successful agile deployment insights from the three software intensive companies in Finland. Empir Softw Eng 17(6):675–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PMI (2004) A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK), 3rd edn. Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania, p 2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakash B, Viswanathan V (2019) Distributed cat modeling based agile framework for software development. Indian Acad Sci 44(166):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasad Reddy PVGD, Hari VMK (2011) Fuzzy based PSO for software effort estimation. In: International conference on advances in information technology and mobile communication. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 227–232

  • Project Management Institute, Inc (2017) PMBOK: a guide to the project management body of knowledge, 6th edn

  • Ranjith N, Marimuthu A (2016) A multi objective teacher-learning-artificial bee colony (MOTLABC) optimization for software requirements selection. Indian J Sci Technol 9(34):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao GS, Krishna CVP, Rao KR (2014) Multi objective particle swarm optimization for software cost estimation. In: Satapathy S, Avadhani P, Udgata S, Lakshminarayana S (eds) ICT and critical infrastructure: proceedings of the 48th annual convention of computer society of India- Vol I. Advances in intelligent systems and computing, vol 248. Springer

  • Runeson P, Host M (2009) Guidelines for conduction and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empir Softw Eng 14:131–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sankhwar S, Gupta D, Ramya KC, Sheeba R, Shankar K, Lakshmanaprabu SK (2020) Improved grey wolf optimization-based feature subset selection with fuzzy neural classifier for financial crisis prediction. Soft Computing 24:101–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos V, Goldman A, de Souza CRB (2015) Fostering effective inter-team knowledge sharing in agile software development. Empir Softw Eng 20(4):1006–1051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheffield S, Lemétayer J (2013) Factors associated with the software development agility of successful projects. Int J Proj Manage 31(3):459–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava SV, Rathod U (2015) Categorization of risk factors for distributed agile projects. Information and Software Technology 58:373–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava SV, Rathod U (2017) A risk management framework for distributed agile projects. Information and Software Technology 85:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava S, Rathod U (2019) A goal-driven risk management approach for distributed agile development projects. Aust J Inf Syst 23:1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons CL, Smith J, White P (2014) Interactive ant colony optimization (iACO) for early lifecycle software design. Swarm Intell 8(2):139–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solinski A, Peterson K (2016) Prioritizing agile benefits and limitations in relation to practice usage. Softw Qual J 24(2):447–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommerville I (2018) Software engineering, 10th edn. Pearson, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sum RM (2015) Risk prioritisation using the analytic hierarchy process. In: Innovation and analytics conference and exhibition (IACE 2015): Proceedings of the 2nd innovation and analytics conference exhibition, 2015

  • Sunitha B, Murthy YSSR (2018) Prioritization of software applications in cloud using GWO algorithm. Int J Res Appl Sci Eng Technol 6(5):2070–2075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavares BG, de Silva SCE, de Souza AD (2019) Practices to improve risk management in agile projects. Int J Softw Eng 29(3):381–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Teng Z, Lv J, Guo L (2019) An improved hybrid grey wolf optimization algorithm. Soft Computing 23:6617–6631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Standish Group International (2018) The CHAOS report. https://www.standishgroup.com/outline

  • Thom-Manuel O, Ugwu C, Onyejegbu L (2018) A new mathematical risk management model for agile software development methodologies. Int J Softw Eng Appl 9:67–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkataiah V, Mohanty R, Pahariya JS, Nagaratna M (2017) Application of ant colony optimization techniques to predict software cost estimation. Springer, Singapore, pp 315–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Version One: https://explore.versionone.com/state-of-agile/versionone-12th-annual-state-of-agile-report. Accessed December 2018

  • Wolpert DH, Macready WG (1997) No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 1:67–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu D, Li J, Liang Y (2013) Linear combination of multiple case-based reasoning with optimized weight for software effort estimation. J Super Comput 64(3):898–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our sincere thanks to the software organizations for their support in this study. This research has been carried out in EMYES Software Center and Cognibit Solutions, located in India. We also like to thank all the participants from the organizations who participated in the evaluation process, provided their valuable input during the interview session and extended their contribution for this research work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computer Science and Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Chennai, India

    B. Prakash & V. Viswanathan

Authors
  1. B. Prakash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. V. Viswanathan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Prakash.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

See Table 9.

Table 9 Attribute values of UGAM/sample UGAM calculations
Full size table

Appendix B

See Table 10.

Table 10 Attribute values of IoI/sample IoI calculations
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prakash, B., Viswanathan, V. ARP–GWO: an efficient approach for prioritization of risks in agile software development. Soft Comput 25, 5587–5605 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-05555-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-05555-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation