1. bookVolume 43 (2018): Issue 4 (December 2018)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2300-3405
First Published
24 Oct 2012
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Combining Data Analytics with Team Feedback to Improve the Estimation Process in Agile Software Development

Published Online: 31 Dec 2018
Volume & Issue: Volume 43 (2018) - Issue 4 (December 2018)
Page range: 305 - 334
Received: 03 Jul 2018
Accepted: 19 Oct 2018
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2300-3405
First Published
24 Oct 2012
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

We apply a mixed research method to improve the user stories estimation process in a German company following agile software development. We combine software project data analytics with elicitation of teams’ feedback, identify root causes for wrong estimates and propose an improved version of the estimation process. Three major changes are adopted in the new process: a shorter non numerical scale for story points, an analogy-based estimation process, and retrospectives analyses on the accuracy of previous sprints estimates. The new estimation process is applied on a new project, and an improvement of estimates accuracy from 10% to 45% is observed.

Keywords

[1] Basili V., Caldiera G., and Rombach H. D. The goal question metric approach. In Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. Wiley, 1994.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Beck K. and Gamma E. Extreme programming explained: embrace change. addison-wesley professional, 2000.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Cohn M. Agile Estimating and Planning. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2005.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Egorova E., Torchiano M., Morisio M., Wohlin C., Aurum A., and Svensson R. B. Stakeholders’ perception of success: An empirical investigation. In 2009 35th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, pages 210–216, Aug 2009.10.1109/SEAA.2009.33Search in Google Scholar

[5] Grealy M. A. and Shearer G. F. Timing processes in motor imagery. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20(5):867–892, 2008.10.1080/09541440701618782Search in Google Scholar

[6] Halkjelsvik T. and Jørgensen M. From origami to software development: A review of studies on judgment-based predictions of performance time. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2):238–271, 2012.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Hooper P. What is a p-value?Search in Google Scholar

[8] ISO. ISO/IEC 15504-4:2004 – Information technology – Process assessment – Part 4: Guidance on use for process improvement and process capability determination. Standard, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH, july 2004.Search in Google Scholar

[9] JøRgensen M. A review of studies on expert estimation of software development e ort. J. Syst. Softw., 70(1-2):37–60, Feb. 2004.10.1016/S0164-1212(02)00156-5Search in Google Scholar

[10] Kalus G. and Kuhrmann M. Criteria for software process tailoring: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software and System Process, ICSSP 2013, pages 171–180, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM.10.1145/2486046.2486078Search in Google Scholar

[11] Le ngwell D. Agile Software Requirements: Lean Requirements Practices for Teams, Programs, and the Enterprise. Addison-Wesley Professional, 1st edition, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[12] McConnell S. Software estimation: demystifying the black art. Microsoft press, 2006.Search in Google Scholar

[13] Mittas N. and Angelis L. Overestimation and underestimation of software cost models: Evaluation by visualization. In 39th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, SEAA 2013, Santander, Spain, September 4-6, 2013, pages 317–324, 2013.10.1109/SEAA.2013.24Search in Google Scholar

[14] Mohagheghi P. and Jørgensen M. What contributes to the success of it projects? an empirical study of it projects in the norwegian public sector. Journal of Software, 12(9):751–758, September 2017.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Nan N. and Harter D. E. Impact of budget and schedule pressure on software development cycle time and e ort. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 35(5):624–637, Sept 2009.10.1109/TSE.2009.18Search in Google Scholar

[16] Parkinson C. N. Parkinson’s Law. Buccaneer Books, 1996.Search in Google Scholar

[17] Robertshaw T. April 2014 ecommerce survey, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

[18] Sachs L. Applied Statistics: A Handbook of Techniques. Springer US, 1982.10.1007/978-1-4684-0123-3Search in Google Scholar

[19] Sauer C. and Cuthbertson C. The state of it project management in the uk 2002-2003. Computer Weekly, 15, 2004.Search in Google Scholar

[20] Serrador P. and Pinto J. K. Does agile work? ? a quantitative analysis of agile project success. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5):1040 – 1051, 2015.10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.006Search in Google Scholar

[21] UCLA Institute for Digital Research and Education. Faq: What is the coefficient of variation?Search in Google Scholar

[22] Vetrò A., Ognawala S., Méndez Fernández D., and Wagner S. Fast feedback cycles in empirical software engineering research. In 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, volume 2, pages 583–586, May 2015.10.1109/ICSE.2015.198Search in Google Scholar

[23] W3Techs. Web technology surveys.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo