Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agile Software Tools in the Field: The Need for a Tool Reflection Process

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Agile Imperative

Part of the book series: Dynamics of Virtual Work ((DVW))

Abstract

This chapter provides insights into the actual use of software tools in agile projects, where they play an important role. As distributed and dispersed settings become increasingly widespread and accepted in the agile community, software tools become more relevant. Yet to date, there is still a lack of understanding of how tools are actually used in agile projects. The findings show that the use of tools is impacted by surrounding factors such as company standards and policies, data security concerns and personal preferences. Further, it became apparent that there is no systematic tool selection process in the projects studied. On the basis of these findings, two recommendations are made: integration of a tool reflection process and integration of a role Tool Guide.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Azizyan, G., Magarian, M. K., & Kajko-Matsson, M. (2011). Survey of agile tool usage and needs. 2011 AGILE Conference, 29–38. IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, K., Beedle, M., Bennekum A. v., Cockburn A., Cunningham W., Fowler, M., et al. (2001). Agile manifesto. http://agilemanifesto.org/. Accessed 15 Sept 2019.

  • Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calefato, F., & Ebert, C. (2019). Agile collaboration for distributed teams. IEEE Software, 36(1), 72–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capterra. (2020). Software & software reviews for business & nonprofit. https://www.capterra.com/. Accessed 20 April 2020.

  • Cardon, P. W., & Marshall, B. (2015). The hype and reality of social media use for work collaboration and team communication. International Journal of Business Communication, 52(3), 273–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chadli, S. Y., Idri, A., Ros, J. N., Fernández-Alemán, J. L., de Gea, J. M. C., & Toval, A. (2016). Software project management tools in global software development: A systematic mapping study. Springerplus, 5(1), 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, A. (2007). Agile software development: The cooperative game (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, M. (2004). User stories applied: For agile software development. Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conboy, K. (2009). Agility from first principles: reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 329–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, M. (1968). How do committees invent? Datamation, 14(5), 28–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denning, S. (2018). Ten agile axioms that make conventional managers anxious. Strategy & Leadership, 46(5), 10–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deon. (2020). The visual collaboration platform. https://deon.de/. Accessed 20 July 2020.

  • Dery, K., Sebastian, I. M., & van der Meulen, N. (2017). The digital workplace is key to digital innovation. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(2), 135–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Digital.ai (2020). 14th Annual State of Agile Report. https://stateofagile.com. Accessed 20 April 2020.

  • Dimitrijević, S., Jovanović, J., & Devedžić, V. (2015). A comparative study of software tools for user story management. Information and Software Technology, 57, 352–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dullemond, K., van Gameren, B., & van Solingen, R. (2012). Supporting distributed software engineering in a fully distributed organization. 5th International Workshop on Co-operative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE), 30–36. IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50(9–10), 833–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dybå, T., Dingsøyr, T., & Moe, N. B. (2014). Agile project management. In G. Ruhe & C. Wohlin (Eds.), Software project management in a changing world (pp. 277–300). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eckhart, M., & Feiner, J. (2016). How scrum tools may change your agile software development approach. In D. Winkler, S. Biffl, & J. Bergsmann (Eds.), Software quality: The future of systems- and software development: 8th International Conference, SWQD 2016 (pp. 17–36). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU. (2016). General Data Protection Regulation: Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU. (2020). The Court of Justice invalidates Decision 2016/1250 on the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-US Data Protection Shield: Judgment in Case C-311/18. PRESS RELEASE No 91/20. Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fies, C., & Marshall, J. (2006). Classroom response systems: A review of the literature. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(1), 101–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, M., Kruschwitz, N., Bonnet, D., & Welch, M. (2013). Embracing digital technology: A new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan Review Research Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, M. (2001). The new methodology. Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences, 6(1–2), 12–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaikwad, P. K., Jayakumar, C. T., Tilve, E., Bohra, N., Yu, W., & Spichkova, M. (2019). Voice-activated solutions for agile retrospective sessions. Procedia Computer Science, 159, 2414–2423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen (4th ed.). Springer VS.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goggin, G. (2009). Adapting the mobile phone: The iPhone and its consumption. Continuum, 23(2), 231–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve, W., Wentura, D., & Gräser, H. (1997). Wissenschaftliche Beobachtung: Eine Einführung (2nd ed.). Beltz, PVU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heerwagen, J. H., Kampschroer, K., Powell, K. M., & Loftness, V. (2004). Collaborative knowledge work environments. Building Research & Information, 32(6), 510–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbsleb, J. D., & Grinter, R. E. (1999). Splitting the organization and integrating the code. In B. Boehm, D. Garlan, & J. Kramer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1999 international conference on software engineering (pp. 85–95). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrand, K. (1990). Software Tools: Automatisierung im Software Engineering. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollingshead, A. B., Mcgrath, J. E., & O’Connor, K. M. (1993). Group task performance and communication technology. Small Group Research, 24(3), 307–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M.W., & Suskewicz, J. (2020). Does your company have a long-term plan for remote work? https://hbr.org/2020/07/does-your-company-have-a-long-term-plan-for-remote-work. Accessed 28 July 2020.

  • Karis, D., Wildman, D., & Mané, A. (2016). Improving remote collaboration with video conferencing and video portals. Human-Computer Interaction, 31(1), 1–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katsma, C., Amrit, C., Hillegersberg, J., & van Sikkel, K. (2013). Can agile software tools bring the benefits of a task board to globally distributed teams? In W. van der Aalst, J. Mylopoulos, M. Rosemann, M.J. Shaw, C. Szyperski, I. Oshri, et al. (Eds.) (1st ed.), Advances in global sourcing: Models, governance, and relationships. 7th Global Sourcing Workshop 2013, Val d'Isere, France, March 11–14, 2013, Revised Selected Papers (pp. 163–179). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawulich, B. B. (2004). Participant observation as a data collection method. https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/466/996. Accessed 20 June 2020.

  • Khazanchi, S., Sprinkle, T. A., Masterson, S. S., & Tong, N. (2018). A spatial model of work relationships: The relationship-building and relationship-straining effects of workspace design. Academy of Management Review, 43(4), 590–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, B. L., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). The Dimensions and antecedents of team virtuality. Journal of Management, 31(5), 700–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kropp, M., Anslow, C., Mateescu, M., Burkhard, R., Vischi, D., & Zahn, C. (2017). Enhancing agile team collaboration through the use of large digital multi-touch Cardwalls. In H. Baumeister, H. Lichter, & M. Riebisch (Eds.), Agile processes in software engineering and extreme programming: 18th International Conference, XP 2017, Cologne, Germany, May 22–26, 2017, Proceedings (pp. 119–134). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. K., Chang, C. T., Lin, Y., & Cheng, Z. H. (2014). The dark side of smartphone usage: Psychological traits, compulsive behavior and technostress. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 373–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Beltz Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P., Gläser-Zikuda, M., & Ziegelbauer, S. (2005). Auswertung von Videoaufnahmen mit Hilfe der Qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse - ein Beispiel aus der Unterrichtsforschung. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, 9 (Visuelle Methoden), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinsey. (2020). Reimagining the office and work life after COVID-19. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/reimagining-the-office-and-work-life-after-covid-19. Accessed 28 July 2020.

  • Mentimeter. (2020). Interactive presentation software. https://www.mentimeter.com/. Accessed 20 July 2020.

  • Miro. (2020). Free online collaborative whiteboard platform. https://miro.com/. Accessed 20 July 2020.

  • Mishra, D., Mishra, A., & Ostrovska, S. (2012). Impact of physical ambiance on communication, collaboration and coordination in agile software development: An empirical evaluation. Information and Software Technology, 54(10), 1067–1078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mordi, A., & M. Schoop (2020). Making it tangible—creating a definiton of agile mindset. Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Information Systems. 15–17.

    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 

  • Noll, J., Beecham, S., & Richardson, I. (2010). Global software development and collaboration. ACM Inroads, 1(3), 66–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omoronyia, I., Ferguson, J., Roper, M., & Wood, M. (2010). A review of awareness in distributed collaborative software engineering. Software: Practice and Experience, 40(12), 1107–1133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxford Dictionary. (2020). Definition of tool. https://www.lexico.com/definition/tool. Accessed 13 April 2020.

  • Portillo-Rodríguez, J., Vizcaíno, A., Piattini, M., & Beecham, S. (2012). Tools used in global software engineering: A systematic mapping review. Information and Software Technology, 54(7), 663–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raith, F., Richter, I., & Lindermeier, R. (2017). How project-management-tools are used in agile practice. In IDEAS 2017: Proceedings of the 21st International Database Engineering & Applications Symposium (pp. 30–39). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramesh, B., Cao, L., Mohan, K., & Xu, P. (2006). Can distributed software development be agile? Communications of the ACM, 49(10), 41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratliff, J. M. (2002). NTT DoCoMo and its i-mode success: Origins and implications. California Management Review, 44(3), 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Takeuchi, H. (2016). Embracing agile: How to master the process that’s transforming management. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 40–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittitum, P., Vatanawood, W., & Thongtak, A. (2016). Digital scrum board using leap motion. In 2016 IEEE/ACIS 15th International Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS)6/26/2016—6/29/2016, Okayama, Japan (pp. 1–4). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. T. (2019). Communication network in an agile distributed software development team. In 2019 ACM/IEEE 14th International Conference on Global Software Engineering: ICGSE 2019: Montréal, Canada, 25–26 May 2019: proceedings.5/25/2019—5/26/2019, Montreal, QC, Canada (pp. 100–104). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rola, P., Kuchta, D., & Kopczyk, D. (2016). Conceptual model of working space for Agile (Scrum) project team. Journal of Systems and Software, 118, 49–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreier, M. (2014). Varianten qualitativer Inhaltsanalyse: Ein Wegweiser im Dickicht der Begrifflichkeiten. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 15(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T., & Prenzl, M. (2010). Beobachtungsverfahren. In H. Holling & B. Schmitz (Eds.), Handbuch Statistik, Methoden und Evaluation (pp. 139–152). Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellberg, C., & Susi, T. (2014). Technostress in the office: A distributed cognition perspective on human–technology interaction. Cognition, Technology & Work, 16(2), 187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, S. V., & Rathod, U. (2014). Categorization of risk factors for distributed agile projects. Information and Software Technology, 58, 373–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skjott Linneberg, M., & Korsgaard, S. (2019). Coding qualitative data: A synthesis guiding the novice. Qualitative Research Journal, 19(3), 259–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smite, D., Moe, N. B., Floryan, M., Levinta, G., & Chatzipetrou, P. (2020). Spotify guilds. Communications of the ACM, 63(3), 56–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stray, V., Moe, N. B., & Noroozi, M. (2019). Slack me if you can! Using enterprise social networking tools in virtual agile teams. In 2019 ACM/IEEE 14th International Conference on Global Software Engineering: ICGSE 2019: Montréal, Canada, 25–26 May 2019: Proceedings. 5/25/2019—5/26/2019, Montreal, QC, Canada (pp. 111–121). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, Y. H., & Lin, C. T. (2011). Enhancing enterprise agility by deploying agile drivers, capabilities and providers. Information Sciences, 181(17), 3693–3708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verschuren, P. (2003). Case study as a research strategy: Some ambiguities and opportunities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(2), 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vishnubhotla, S. D., Mendes, E., & Lundberg, L. (2018). Designing a capability-centric web tool to support agile team composition and task allocation. In 2018 ACM/IEEE 11th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering: CHASE 2018: 27 May 2018, Gothenburg, Sweden: proceedings. Ed. by A./I.I.W.o.C.a.H.A.o.S. Engineering. 5/27/2018—5/27/2018, Gothenburg, Sweden (pp. 41–44). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X., Maurer, F., Morgan, R., & Oliveira, J. (2010). Tools for supporting distributed agile project planning. In D. S̆mite, N. B. Moe, & P. J. Ågerfalk (Eds.), Agility across time and space: Implementing agile methods in global software projects (pp. 183–199). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickström, G., & Bendix, T. (2000). The “Hawthorne effect”–What did the original Hawthorne studies actually show? Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 26(4), 363–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zapier. (2020). The easiest way to automate your work. https://zapier.com/. Accessed 20 July 2020.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) under grant 02L15A300. I would like to thank all people involved in the project, including all supporting roles; together they all made this possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany

    Azuka Mordi

Authors
  1. Azuka Mordi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Azuka Mordi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Nuremberg Campus of Technology (NCT), Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nuremberg, Germany

    Sabine Pfeiffer

  2. Nuremberg Campus of Technology (NCT), Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nuremberg, Germany

    Manuel Nicklich

  3. Nuremberg Campus of Technology (NCT), Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Nuremberg, Germany

    Stefan Sauer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mordi, A. (2021). Agile Software Tools in the Field: The Need for a Tool Reflection Process. In: Pfeiffer, S., Nicklich, M., Sauer, S. (eds) The Agile Imperative . Dynamics of Virtual Work. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73994-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73994-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-73993-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-73994-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation