Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

European Conference on Software Process Improvement

EuroSPI 2020: Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement pp 45–57Cite as

Visualization, Monitoring and Control Techniques for Use in Scrum Software Development: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach

Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS,volume 1251)

Abstract

Scrum is the most widely used agile development framework that guides the development process with its ability to create customer-valued software artifacts iteratively and incrementally, whilst seeking best practices to provide continuous measurement during production. However, measuring success in Scrum can be a challenging endeavor. In particular, it is hard to select the best fitting agile metrics during consecutive Scrum sprints. The goal of this industrial case study was to utilize a systematic selection process for identifying the appropriate scrum metrics tools addon component within the TBİTAK SAGE software development group. Moreover, the distribution of software developers’ preferences of process metrics were analyzed according to their characteristic features and defense industry structure, and are presented using various distribution charts. Finally, alternatives to the software development process measurement component, which was integrated into the agile software process tool employed by the TBİTAK SAGE software development group, were efficiently determined by using the Analytic Hierarchy Process approach. Among the options discussed, our results suggest that the Actionable Agile Addon scored the highest followed by the Screenful Addon. The present study presents a rigorous approach that ultimately have improved community participation in metric planning, implementation and monitoring, thus moving towards sustainable software development goals.

Keywords

  • Software measurement component
  • Software process metrics tool
  • Scrum
  • AHP
  • Software component selection
  • Industrial case study

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://actionableagile.com/.

  2. 2.

    https://ripplerock.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SEN/overview.

  3. 3.

    https://screenful.com/tour.

  4. 4.

    http://agilemontecarlo.com/.

References

  1. Pfleeger, S.L.: Software metrics: progress after 25 years? IEEE Softw. 25, 32–34 (2008)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Yilmaz, M.: Observed effects of software processes change in three software firms: industrial exploratory case study. Pamukkale Univ. Muh. Bilim. Derg. 25, 240–246 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lee, M.C., Chang, T.: Software measurement and software metrics in software quality. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 7, 15–34 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Farooq, S.U., Quadri, S., Ahmad, N.: Software measurements and metrics: role in effective software testing. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 3, 671–680 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Yilmaz, M., O’Connor, R.V., Clarke, P.: Effective social productivity measurements during software development-an empirical study. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng. 26, 457–490 (2016)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Manifesto: Software Process Improvement (SPI). https://2019.eurospi.net/images/eurospi/spi_manifesto.pdf. Accessed 3 Sept 2019

  7. Yilmaz, M.: A software process engineering approach to understanding software productivity and team personality characteristics: an empirical investigation. Ph.D. thesis, Dublin City University (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Paulish, D.J., Carleton, A.D.: Case studies of software-process-improvement measurement. Computer 27, 50–57 (1994)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Yilmaz, M., O’Connor, R.: Social capital as a determinant factor of software development productivity: an empirical study using structural equation modeling. Int. J. Hum. Cap. Inf. Technol. Prof. (IJHCITP) 3, 40–62 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Yilmaz, M., O’Connor, R.V.: A scrumban integrated gamification approach to guide software process improvement: a Turkish case study. Tehnički Vjesn. 23, 237–245 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jones, C.: A Guide to Selecting Software Measures and Metrics. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2017)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Yilmaz, M., Atasoy, B., O’Connor, R.V., Martens, J.-B., Clarke, P.: Software developer’s journey. In: Kreiner, C., O’Connor, R.V., Poth, A., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2016. CCIS, vol. 633, pp. 203–211. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44817-6_16

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. Yilmaz, M., O’Connor, R.V., Clarke, P.: A systematic approach to the comparison of roles in the software development processes. In: Mas, A., Mesquida, A., Rout, T., O’Connor, R.V., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2012. CCIS, vol. 290, pp. 198–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30439-2_18

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. Wan, J., Zhu, Y., Zeng, M., et al.: Case study on critical success factors of running Scrum. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 6, 59 (2013)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Pfleeger, S.L., Fitzgerald Jr., J.: Software metrics tool kit: support for selection, collection and analysis. Inf. Softw. Technol. 33, 477–482 (1991)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  16. Card, D.N., Glass, R.L.: Measuring Software Design Quality. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wallace, L.G., Sheetz, S.D.: The adoption of software measures: a technology acceptance model (TAM) perspective. Inf. Manag. 51, 249–259 (2014)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  18. Fenton, N.E., Neil, M.: Software metrics: roadmap. In: Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering, pp. 357–370 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kitchenham, B., Pfleeger, S.L., Fenton, N.: Towards a framework for software measurement validation. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 21, 929–944 (1995)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  20. Akarsu, Z., Ozgun, M., Kuru, Y., Yilmaz, M.: Using adapted version of Hoshin matrix for selection of agile software development processes. In: 12th Turkish National Software Engineering Conference (UYMS 2018), pp. 1–11 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Marks, G., O’Connor, R.V., Yilmaz, M., Clarke, P.: An ISO/IEC 12207 perspective on software development process adaptation. Softw. Qual. Prof. 20, 48–58 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ebert, C., Bundschuh, M., Dumke, R., Schmietendorf, A.: Making metrics a success-the business perspective. In: Ebert, C., Bundschuh, M., Dumke, R., Schmietendorf, A. (eds.) Best Practices in Software Measurement: How to Use Metrics to Improve Project and Process Performance, pp. 9–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-26734-4_2

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Saaty, T.L.: What is the analytic hierarchy process? In: Mitra, G., Greenberg, H.J., Lootsma, F.A., Rijkaert, M.J., Zimmermann, H.J. (eds.) Mathematical Models for Decision Support. NATO ASI Series, vol. 48, pp. 109–121. Springer, Heidelberg (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-83555-1_5

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. Sharma, N.K., Gupta, S., Sharma, V.: A comparatively study for project management software selection using analytic hierarchy process method. Int. J. Eng. Manag. Res. (IJEMR) 5, 188–195 (2015)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  25. Sagar, S., Mathur, P., Sharma, A.: Multi-criteria selection of software components using fuzzy-AHP approach. Int. J. Innov. Comput. Inf. Control 11, 1045–1058 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ömürbek, N., Makas, Y., Ömürbek, V.: AHP ve TOPSIS yöntemleri ile kurumsal proje yönetim yazilimi seçimi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sosyal BilimlerEnstitüsü Dergisi, pp. 59–83 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Al-Qutaish, R.E., Muhairat, M.I., Al-Kasasbeh, B.M., Al-Kasasbeh, B.: The analytical hierarchy process as a tool to select open source software. In: Proceedings of the 8th WSEAS International Conference on Software Engineering, Parallel and Distributed Systems, Cambridge, UK, pp. 39–44 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zaidan, A.A., Zaidan, B.B., Al-Haiqi, A., Kiah, M.L.M., Hussain, M., Abdulnabi, M.: Evaluation and selection of open-source EMR software packages based on integrated AHP and TOPSIS. J. Biomed. Inform. 53, 390–404 (2015)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  29. Orgun, P., Gungor, D., Kuru, Y., Metin, O., Yilmaz, M.: Software development overall efficiency improvement in a CMMI level 5 organization within the scope of a case study. In: Uluslararası Bilgisayar Bilimleri ve Mhendisliği Konferansı (UBMK 2018), pp. 1–12 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research work is supported, in part, by TUBITAK SAGE. During the research, we have received help and generous support from many people, to all of whom we would like to express our gratitude.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Turkish Defense Industries Research and Development Institute – TUBİTAK SAGE, Ankara, Turkey

    Nesib Tekin

  2. Cognitive Science & Artificial Intelligence (CS&AI) Department, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands

    Mehmet Kosa

  3. Lero, The Science Foundation Ireland Research Centre for Software, Limerick, Ireland

    Murat Yilmaz & Paul Clarke

  4. Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    Murat Yilmaz & Paul Clarke

  5. Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK

    Vahid Garousi

Authors
  1. Nesib Tekin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehmet Kosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Murat Yilmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul Clarke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vahid Garousi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Murat Yilmaz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computing, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    Murat Yilmaz

  2. University of Applied Sciences Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Prof. Dr. Jörg Niemann

  3. School of Computing, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    Paul Clarke

  4. I.S.C.N. GesmbH, Graz, Steiermark, Austria

    Dr. Richard Messnarz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Tekin, N., Kosa, M., Yilmaz, M., Clarke, P., Garousi, V. (2020). Visualization, Monitoring and Control Techniques for Use in Scrum Software Development: An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach. In: Yilmaz, M., Niemann, J., Clarke, P., Messnarz, R. (eds) Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement. EuroSPI 2020. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1251. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56441-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56441-4_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-56440-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-56441-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

search

Navigation