Advertisement

Helping Teams to Help Themselves: An Industrial Case Study on Interdependencies During Sprints

  • Jil KlünderEmail author
  • Fabian Kortum
  • Thorsten Ziehm
  • Kurt Schneider
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11262)

Abstract

Software process improvement is a very important topic. Almost all companies and organizations face the necessity for improvement sooner or later. Sometimes, there is obvious potential for improvement (e.g., if the number of developers does not fit the project size). Nonetheless, fixing all obvious issues does not necessarily lead to a “perfect” project. There are a lot of interdependencies between project parameters that are difficult to detect – sometimes due to the influences of social aspects which can be hardly grasped.

We want to support the process of improving daily work by simulating and visualizing how project parameters evolve over time. Our approach is based on building a System Dynamics model that takes into account key performance indicators as well as assumptions about social aspects. In the present case, we chose parameters of capacity, customer satisfaction, and mood. The model uncovers interdependencies between the available parameters. Furthermore, it is able to simulate consequences of different preconditions and incidents during a sprint such as change requests.

In this contribution, we present our approach and apply it in a case study with three agile teams in industry. We build a System Dynamics model and use it for sprint simulations. Our analysis determined, e.g., the teams’ productivity during the sprint and their workload each day. The simulation increased the teams’ awareness of the negative influences due to interventions during the sprint.

Keywords

Process improvement Simulation System dynamics Agile software development teams Social aspects 

References

  1. 1.
    Abdel-Hamid, T., Madnick, S.E.: Software Project Dynamics: An Integrated Approach. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cao, L., Ramesh, B., Abdel-Hamid, T.: Modeling dynamics in agile software development. ACM Trans. Manag. Inf. Syst. (TMIS) 1(1), 5 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Forrester, J.W.: World Dynamics. Wright-Allen Press, Lawrence (1971)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Forrester, J.W.: System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 10(2–3), 245–256 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herbsleb, J.D., Mockus, A.: An empirical study of speed and communication in globally distributed software development. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 29(6), 481–494 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoegl, M., Gemuenden, H.G.: Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organ. Sci. 12(4), 435–449 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klünder, J., Karras, O., Kortum, F., Schneider, K.: Forecasting communication behavior in student software projects. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering. ACM (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2972958.2972961
  8. 8.
    Klünder, J., Schmitt, A., Hohl, P., Schneider, K.: Fake news: simply agile. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Projektmanagement und Vorgehensmodelle 2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klünder, J., Schneider, K., Kortum, F., Straube, J., Handke, L., Kauffeld, S.: Communication in teams - an expression of social conflicts. In: Bogdan, C., Gulliksen, J., Sauer, S., Forbrig, P., Winckler, M., Johnson, C., Palanque, P., Bernhaupt, R., Kis, F. (eds.) HCSE/HESSD -2016. LNCS, vol. 9856, pp. 111–129. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44902-9_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klünder, J., Unger-Windeler, C., Kortum, F., Schneider, K.: Team meetings and their relevance for the software development process over time. In: Proceedings of Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kortum, F., Klünder, J.: Early diagnostics on team communication: Experience-based forecasts on student software projects. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (QUATIC), pp. 166–171. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kortum, F., Klünder, J., Schneider, K.: Characterizing relationships for system dynamics models supported by exploratory data analysis. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. KSI Research Inc. (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kortum, F., Klünder, J., Schneider, K.: Don’t underestimate the human factors! exploring team communication effects. In: Felderer, M., Méndez Fernández, D., Turhan, B., Kalinowski, M., Sarro, F., Winkler, D. (eds.) PROFES 2017. LNCS, vol. 10611, pp. 457–469. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69926-4_36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kuhrmann, M., Diebold, P., Münch, J.: Software process improvement: a systematic mapping study on the state of the art. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 2, e62 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Madachy, R.J.: Software Process Dynamics. Wiley, Hoboken (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reshef, D.N., et al.: Detecting novel associations in large data sets. Science 334(6062), 1518–1524 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schneider, K., Klünder, J., Kortum, F., Handke, L., Straube, J., Kauffeld, S.: Positive affect through interactions in meetings: the role of proactive and supportive statements. J. Syst. Softw. 143, 59–70 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schneider, K., Stapel, K., Knauss, E.: Beyond documents: visualizing informal communication. In: Requirements Engineering Visualization, 2008. REV 2008, pp. 31–40. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shiohama, R., Washizaki, H., Kuboaki, S., Sakamoto, K., Fukazawa, Y.: Estimate of the appropriate iteration length in agile development by conducting simulation. In: Agile Conference (AGILE), 2012. pp. 41–50. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Watson, D., Clark, L.A., Tellegen, A.: Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54(6), 1063 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz University Hannover, Software Engineering GroupHannoverGermany
  2. 2.Arvato SCM SolutionsHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations