Advertisement

Empirical Investigation of Scrumban in Global Software Development

  • Ahmad Banijamali
  • Research Dawadi
  • Muhammad Ovais Ahmad
  • Jouni Similä
  • Markku Oivo
  • Kari Liukkunen
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 692)

Abstract

Scrumban combines two Agile approaches (Scrum and Kanban) to create a management framework for improving software engineering practices. Scrumban is expected to override both Scrum and Kanban, as it inherits the best features of both. However, there is little understanding of the possible impact of Scrumban on software development in prior studies. This study first makes a comparison among Scrum, Kanban, and Scrumban and then investigates the impact of Scrumban on six major challenges of global software development. This study was conducted in a distributed project at two Software Factories in two universities in Finland and Italy. The results show that Scrumban could positively affect issues such as evenness of different sites, communication, and cultural issues as well as leveraging resources among sites. However, there are still few challenges that require alternative methodologies and tools other than Scrumban to be overcome.

Keywords

Agile Distributed software development Kanban Scrum Scrumban Software factory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the DIGILE Need for Speed program, and partially funded by Tekes (the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation). We would like to thank DIGILE and Tekes for their support and the University of Bolzano for its excellent collaboration.

References

  1. 1.
    Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J.: Software in 30 Days: How Agile Managers Beat the Odds, Delight Their Customers, and Leave Competitors in the Dust. John Wiley & Sons Press, Hoboken (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alam, S.S., Chandra, S.: Agile software development: novel approaches for software engineering. Int. J. Eng. Sci. (IJES) 3(1), 36–40 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rodriguez, P., Markkula, J., Oivo, M., Turula, K.: Survey on agile and lean usage in finnish software industry. In: Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, pp. 139–148. ACM Press (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yilmaz, M., O’Connor, R.: A Scrumban integrated gamification approach to guide software process improvement: a Turkish case study. Tehnicki Vjesnik 23(1), 237–245 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mahnic, V.: Improving software development through combination of scrum and Kanban. Recent Advances in Computer Engineering, Communications and Information Technology, Spain (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ahmad, M.O., Markkula, J., Oivo, M.: Kanban in software development: A systematic literature review. In 39th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), pp. 9–16. IEEE Press (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reddy, A.: The Scrumban [R]Evolution: Getting the Most Out of Agile, Scrum, and Lean Kanban. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kniberg, H., Skarin, M.: Kanban and Scrummaking the most of both. The InfoQ Enterprise Software Development (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ladas, C.: Scrumban. Lean Software Engineering-Essays on the Continuous Delivery of High Quality Information Systems (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khan, Z.: Scrumban-adaptive agile development process: using scrumban to improve software development process. Master’s Thesis, Finland (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rodriguez, P., Partanen, J., Kuvaja, P., Oivo, M.: Combining lean thinking and agile methods for software development: a case study of a finnish provider of wireless embedded systems detailed. In: 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2014), pp. 4770–4779. IEEE Press (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tripathi, N., Rodríguez, P., Ahmad, M.O., Oivo, M.: Scaling Kanban for software development in a multisite organization: challenges and potential solutions. In: Lassenius, C., Dingsøyr, T., Paasivaara, M. (eds.) XP 2015. LNBIP, vol. 212, pp. 178–190. Springer (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-18612-2_15
  13. 13.
    Auerbach, B., McCarthy, R.: Does agile+ lean= effective: an investigative study. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. 2(2), 73–86 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith, J.L., Bohner, S., McCrickard, D.S.: Toward introducing notification technology into distributed project teams. In: 12th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems (ECBS 2005), pp. 349–356. IEEE Press (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta, M., Fernandez, J.: How globally distributed software teams can improve their collaboration effectiveness? In: 6th IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE), pp. 185–189. IEEE Press (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Šmite, D., Moe, N.B., Ågerfalk, P.J.: Fundamentals of agile distributed software development. In: Šmite, D., Moe, N., Ågerfalk, P. (eds.) Agility Across Time and Space. LNCS, pp. 3–7. Springer (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-12442-6_1
  17. 17.
    Šmite, D., Moe, N.B., Agerfalk, P.J.: Agility Across Time and Space: Implementing Agile Methods in Global Software Projects. Springer Science & Business Media, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carmel, E., Espinosa, J.A.: I’m Working While They’re Sleeping: Time Zone Separation Challenges and Solutions. Nedder Stream Press, Washington, DC (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sutherland, J., Viktorov, A., Blount, J., Puntikov, N.: Distributed scrum: agile project management with outsourced development teams. In: 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2007). IEEE Press (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rising, L., Janoff, N.S.: The scrum software development process for small teams. IEEE Softw. 17(4), 26–32 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schwaber, K.: Agile Project Management with Scrum. Microsoft Press, Redmond (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile Software Development with Scrum. Pearson International Edition, New York (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nikitina, N., Kajko-Mattsson, M.: Guiding the adoption of software development methods. In: Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Software and System Process, pp. 109–118. ACM Press (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nikitina, N., Kajko-Mattsson, M., Strale, M.: From scrum to scrumban: a case study of a process transition. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and System Process, pp. 140–149. IEEE Press (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sjøberg, D.I., Johnsen, A., Solberg, J.: Quantifying the effect of using kanban versus scrum: a case study. IEEE Softw. 29(5), 47–53 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ahmad, M.O., Liukkunen, K., Markkula, J.: Student perceptions and attitudes towards the software factory as a learning environment. In: Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), pp. 422–428. IEEE Press (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Polk, R.: Agile and Kanban in coordination. In: AGILE Conference, pp. 263–268 (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ikonen, M., Pirinen, E., Fagerholm, F., Kettunen, P., Abrahamsson, P.: On the impact of Kanban on software project work: an empirical case study investigation. In: 16th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS), pp. 305–314. IEEE Press (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Barash, I.: Use of agile with XP and Kanban methodologies in the same project. PM World J. 2(2), 1–11 (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ladas, C.: Scrumban-Essays on Kanban Systems for Lean Software Development. Modus Cooperandi Press, Seattle (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    Using Scrumban (Scrum Kanban) for Agile Marketing - Chief Marketing Technologist. http://chiefmartec.com/2014/12/using-scrumbanlean-agile-marketing/
  33. 33.
    Ahmad, M.O., Kuvaja, P., Oivo, M., Markkula, J.: Transition of software maintenance teams from scrum to Kanban. In: 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2016), pp. 5427–5436. IEEE Press (2016)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Karvonen, T., Rodriguez, P., Kuvaja, P., Mikkonen, K., Oivo, M.: Adapting the lean enterprise self-assessment tool for the software development domain. In: 38th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), pp. 266–273. IEEE Press (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sutanto, J., Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.: Deriving it-mediated task coordination portfolios for global virtual teams. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 54(2), 133–151 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ramasubbu, N., Cataldo, M., Balan, R.K., Herbsleb, J.D.: Configuring global software teams: a multi-company analysis of project productivity, quality, and profits. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 261–270. ACM Press (2011)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jiménez, M., Piattini, M., Vizcaino, A.: Challenges and improvements in distributed software development: a systematic review. Adv. Soft. Eng. 2009, 3 (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nakamura, K., Fujii, Y., Kiyokane, Y., Nakamura, M., Hinenoya, K., Peck, Y.H., Choon-Lian, S.: Distributed and concurrent development environment via sharing design information. In: The Twenty-First Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference, 1997, COMPSAC 1997, Proceedings, pp. 274–279. IEEE Press (1997)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Noll, J., Beecham, S., Richardson, I.: Global software development and collaboration: barriers and solutions. ACM Inroads 1(3), 66–78 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mak, D.K., Kruchten, P.B.: Task coordination in an agile distributed software development environment. In: Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, CCECE 2006, pp. 606–611. IEEE Press (2006)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Redmiles, D., Van Der Hoek, A., Al-Ani, B., Hildenbrand, T., Quirk, S., Sarma, A., Filho, R., de Souza, C., Trainer, E.: Continuous coordination: a new paradigm to support globally distributed software development projects. Wirtschafts Informatik 49(1), 28–38 (2007)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sidhu, J.S., Volberda, H.W.: Coordination of globally distributed teams: a co-evolution perspective on offshoring. Int. Bus. Rev. 20(3), 278–290 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sutherland, J., Schoonheim, G., Rijk, M.: Fully distributed scrum: Replicating local productivity and quality with offshore teams. In: 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2009), pp. 1–8. IEEE Press (2009)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Paasivaara, M.: Coaching global software development projects. In: 6th IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE), pp. 84–93. IEEE Press (2011)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Abrahamsson, P., Kettunen, P., Fagerholm, F.: The set-up of a software engineering research infrastructure of the 2010s. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Product Focused Software, pp. 112–114. ACM Press (2010)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    France, R., Rumpe, B.: Model-driven development of complex software: a research roadmap. In: 2007 Future of Software Engineering, pp. 37–54. IEEE Computer Society (2007)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Greenfield, J., Short, K.: Software factories: assembling applications with patterns, models, frameworks, and tools. In: 3rd International Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications (OOPSLA). ACM Press (2004)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Taibi, D., Lenarduzzi, V., Ahmad, M.O., Liukkunen, K., Lunesu, I., Matta, M., Fagerholm, F., Münch, J., Pietinen, S., Tukiainen, M., Fernández-Sánchez, C., Garbajosa, J., Systä, K.: “Free” innovation environments: lessons learned from the software factory initiatives. In: 10th International Conference on Software Engineering Advances (ICSEA 2015), pp. 25–30 (2015)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cohen, D., Crabtree, B.: Qualitative Research Guidelines Project. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton (2006)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Barcus, A., Montibeller, G.: Supporting the allocation of software development work in distributed teams with multi-criteria decision analysis. Omega 36(3), 464–475 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Espinosa, J.A., Slaughter, S.A., Kraut, R.E., Herbsleb, J.D.: Team knowledge and coordination in geographically distributed software development. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(1), 135–169 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nidiffer, K.E., Dolan, D.: Evolving distributed project management. IEEE Softw. 22(5), 63–72 (2005). IEEE PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fagerholm, F., Oza, N., Munch, J.: A platform for teaching applied distributed software development: the ongoing journey of the Helsinki software factory. In: 3rd International Workshop on Collaborative Teaching of Globally Distributed Software Development (CTGDSD), pp. 1–5. IEEE Press (2013)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Höst, M., Regnell, B., Wohlin, C.: Using students as subjects a comparative study of students and professionals in lead-time impact assessment. Empirical Softw. Eng. 5(3), 201–214 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Madeyski, L.: Test-Driven Development: An Empirical Evaluation of Agile Practice. Springer Science & Business Media, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Chao, J., Randles, M.: Agile software factory for student service learning. In: 22nd Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET), pp. 34–40. IEEE Press (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmad Banijamali
    • 1
  • Research Dawadi
    • 1
  • Muhammad Ovais Ahmad
    • 1
  • Jouni Similä
    • 1
  • Markku Oivo
    • 1
  • Kari Liukkunen
    • 1
  1. 1.M3S Research Unit, Faculty of Information Technology and Electrical EngineeringUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations