Advertisement

Interactive Digital Cardwalls for Agile Software Development

  • Martin KroppEmail author
  • Judith M. Brown
  • Craig Anslow
  • Stevenson Gossage
  • Magdalena Mateescu
  • Robert Biddle
Chapter

Abstract

Agile software development is characterized by very intensive communication and collaboration among members of the software development team and external stakeholders. In this context, we look specifically at cardwalls, noting that despite the wide availability of digital cardwalls, most Agile teams still use physical cardwalls to support their collaborative events. This is true even though a physical cardwall hinders efficient distributed software development and causes extra effort to capture story artefacts into digital tools to meet traceability and persistence requirements. We conducted two empirical studies in industry to understand the use of existing digital Agile cardwalls and to find out the needs for an ideal digital Agile cardwall. The first study was with eight Agile teams of committed digital cardwall users. The study showed the reasons why some teams use projected digital cardwalls and their detailed experiences with them. The study showed that most digital cardwalls seem not be sufficient for the highly interactive and collaborative Agile workstyle. The second study was with eleven Agile companies. The study comprised of the development of aWall, a software prototype of a large interactive high-resolution multi-touch display that supports varied Agile meetings where cardwalls are used. The results of the study emerged with design considerations for digital Agile cardwalls from the evaluation of aWall in a user workshop. Both studies, which were conducted concurrently, began with an interest in new large interactive surface technologies which might have the potential to provide not only the required interaction possibilities to support intensive collaboration, but also the required large display format necessary for a collaborative space. The results of the studies collectively seem to confirm our assumption, that large interactive surface technologies could bring the support for the collaboration of Agile teams to a new level, potentially making the teams more productive.

Keywords

User Story Agile Practice Agile Software Development Software Development Team Agile Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Agile Manifesto. Web, March 2016. http://agilemanifesto.org/
  2. 2.
    Kropp M, Meier A, Biddle R (2016) Agile adolescence to maturity: experience leads to collaboration. Presented at OOP Conference, Munich, 2016Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whitworth E, Biddle R (2007) The social nature of agile teams. In: Proceedings of the Agile software development conference, Washington D.C. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Azizyan G, Magarian MK, Kajko-Matsson M (2011) Survey of Agile tool usage and needs. In: Agile conference (AGILE), 2011, pp 29–38Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sharp H, Robinson H, Petre M (2009) The role of physical artefacts in agile software development. Interdisc J Human-Comput Interac 21(1–2)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thomas RG (1996) Green and Marian Petre. Usability analysis of visual programming environments: A ‘cognitive dimensions’ framework. J Visual Lang Comput 7(2):131–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cockburn A (2006) Agile software development: the cooperative game, second edition. Addison-Wesley ProfessionalGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beck K (1999) Extreme programming explained. Addison-Wesley ProfessionalGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fog Creek Software (2016) Trello. Web, Feb 2016. http://trello.com/
  10. 10.
    Atlassian (2016) JIRA. Web, Feb 2016. http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
  11. 11.
    Wang X (2009) Using digital tabletops to support agile project planning. Master’s thesis, University of Calgary, Department of Computer Science, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, September 2009Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weber S, Ghanam Y, Wang X, Maurer F (2008) Apdt- an agile planning tool for digital tabletops. In: Proceedings 9th international conference on agile processes and eXtreme programming in software engineering (XP2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morgan RE (2008) Distributed agile planner: a card-based planning environment for agile teams. Master’s thesis, University of Calgary, Department of Computer Science, 2008Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smart Technologies (2010) Digital vision touch. http://www.smarttech.com/
  15. 15.
    Schöning J, Brandl P, Daiber F, Echtler F, Hilliges O, Hook J, Lchtefeld M, Motamedi N, Muller L, Olivier P, Roth T, von Zadow U (2008) Multi-touch surfaces: a technical guide. Technical Report TUM-I0833, University of Munster, 2008Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gossage Stevenson (2010) CMAP: a collaborative multitouch Agile planner. University of Carleton, School of Computer Science, Honours projectGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scott SD, Grant KD, Mandryk RL (2003) System guidelines for co-located, collaborative work on a tabletop display. In: Proceedings of the eighth conference on european conference on computer supported cooperative work, ECSCW’03, Norwell, MA, USA, 2003. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 159–178Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    PyMt.eu. PyMt, Multitouch Framework. http://pymt.eu, December 2010
  19. 19.
    Esbensen M, Tell P, Cholewa JB, Pedersen MK, Bardram J (2015) The dboard: a digital scrum board for distributed software development. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces (ITS). ACM, pp 161–170Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anslow C, Marshall S, Noble J, Biddle R (2013) SourceVis: collaborative software visualization for co-located environments. In: Proceedings of the international working conference on software visualization (VISSOFT). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bragdon A, DeLine R, Hinckley K, Morris MR (2011) Code space: touch+air gesture hybrid interactions for supporting developer meetings. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces (ITS). ACM, pp 212–221Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gossage S, Brown JM, Biddle R (2015) Understanding digital cardwall usage. In: Agile conference (AGILE), 2015. IEEE, pp 21–30Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bernard HR (2011) Research methods in anthropology. AltaMira PressGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lofland J (2006) Analyzing social settings: a guide to qualitative observation and analysis, chapter 5. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 4th edition, pp 81–116Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sanjek Roger (1990) Fieldnotes: the makings of anthropology. J Hist Behav Sci 28(3):274–276Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fontana A, Frey JH (1994) Interviewing: the art of science. SAGE Publications, pp 361–376Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rubin HJ, Rubin I (1995) Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data, chapter 5. Sage Publications, pp 93–121Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Smith JA (1995) Rethinking methods in psychology, chapter 2. Thousand Oaks, pp 9–26Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Corbin J, Strauss A (2008) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gubrium JF, Sankar A (1994) Qualitative methods in aging research, vol 168, chapter 12. SAGE Publications, pp 189–210Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    De Almeida RA, Pillias C, Pietriga E, Cubaud P (2012) Looking behind bezels: French windows for wall displays. In: Proceedings of the international working conference on advanced visual interfaces, AVI ’12, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM, pp 124–131Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Endert A, Bradel L, Zeitz J, Andrews C, North C (2012) Designing large high-resolution display workspaces. In: Proceedings of the international working conference on advanced visual interfaces, AVI ’12, New York, NY, USA, 2012. ACM, pp 58–65Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jagodic R (2011) Collaborative interaction and display space organization in large high-resolution environments. PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA, 2011. AAI3551257Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jagodic Ratko, Renambot Luc, Johnson Andrew, Leigh Jason, Deshpande Sachin (2011) Enabling multi-user interaction in large high-resolution distributed environments. Future Gener Comput Syst 27(7):914–923 JulyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jakobsen MR, Haile YS, Knudsen S, Hornbæk K (2013) Information visualization and proxemics: design opportunities and empirical findings. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 19(12):2386–2395Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yost Beth, North Chris (2006) The perceptual scalability of visualization. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 12(5):837–844 SeptCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shneiderman B (1996) The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In: Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE symposium on visual languages, VL ’96, Washington, DC, USA, 1996. IEEE Computer Society, p 336Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mateescu M, Kropp M, Greiwe S, Burkhard R, Vischi D, Zahn C (2015) Erfolgreiche zusammenarbeit in agilen teams: Eine schweizer interview-studie ber kommunikation, 22 Dec 2015. http://www.swissagilestudy.ch/studies
  39. 39.
    Mateescu M, Kropp M, Burkhard R, Zahn C, Vischier D (2015) awall: a socio-cognitive tool for agile team collaboration using large multi-touch wall systems. In: Proceedings of the ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces (ITS). ACM, pp 361–366Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Beck Kent, Cunningham Ward (1989) A laboratory for teaching object oriented thinking. ACM Sigplan Notices 24(10):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Kropp
    • 1
    Email author
  • Judith M. Brown
    • 2
  • Craig Anslow
    • 3
  • Stevenson Gossage
    • 2
  • Magdalena Mateescu
    • 1
  • Robert Biddle
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Applied Sciences Northwestern SwitzerlandWindischSwitzerland
  2. 2.School of Computer ScienceCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceMiddlesex UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations