Skip to main content

Describing Criteria for Selecting a Scrum Tool Using the Technology Acceptance Model

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Intelligent Information and Database Systems (ACIIDS 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 10192))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 2438 Accesses

Abstract

Scrum teams extensively use tools to support their processes, but little attention has been given to criteria a Scrum team applies in its selection of such a tool. A greenfield approach was used to explore these criteria. To this extent twelve Scrum teams were asked to list criteria and assigned weights in their decision processes. After having chosen and used a tool for a number of Sprints, the teams also evaluated the selected tools. Using the Technology Acceptance Model to structure findings, two major categories were identified: Perceived usefulness, alias criteria directly related to Scrum, and perceived ease of use. Most teams listed more or less the same criteria. Within the categories several specific subcategories were distinguished, for instance burn-down chart support or multi-platform aspects. Teams evaluated more issues, positive or negative, within the Scrum-related criteria. The findings indicate that Scrum teams prefer perceived usefulness over perceived ease of use. In other words: Specific support of Scrum, especially its artefacts, are of greater value to a team than general tool considerations.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., et al.: Agile Manifesto (2001). agilemanifesto.org. Accessed 24 Sept 2012

  2. Hossain, E., Babar, M.A.: Risk identification and mitigation processes for using Scrum in global software development: a conceptual framework. In: Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, Penang, Malaysia, pp. 457–464. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Schatz, B., Abdelshafi, I.: Primavera gets agile: a successful transition to agile development. IEEE Softw. 22(3), 36–42 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Crowder, J.A., Friess, S.: Productivity tools for the modern team. In: Crowder, J.A., Friess, S. (eds.) Agile Project Management: Managing for Success, pp. 43–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Alyahya, S., Alqahtani, M., Maddeh, M.: Evaluation and improvements for agile planning tools. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications, Baltimore, USA, pp. 217–224. IEEE (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Uy, E., Rosendahl, R.: Migrating from SharePoint to a better Scrum tool. In: Proceedings of the Agile Conference, Toronto, Canada, pp. 506–512. IEEE (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Møller, L.S., Nyboe, F.B., Jørgensen, T.B., Broe, J.J.: A Scrum tool for improving project management. In: Wouters, I., Man, Fl. K., Tieben, R., Offermans, S., Nagtzaam, H. (eds.) Flirting with the Future: Prototypes Visions By The Next Generation - Proceedings of the Student Interaction Design Research Conference, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, pp. 30–32 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Engum, E.A., Racheva, Z., Daneva, M.: Sprint planning with a digital aid tool: lessons learnt. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, Patras, Greece, pp. 259–262. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Azizyan, G., Magarian, M.K., Kajko-Mattson, M.: Survey of agile tool usage and needs. In: Proceedings of the Agile Conference, Salt Lake City, USA, pp. 29–38. IEEE (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Taheri, M., Sadjad, S.M.: A feature-based tool-selection classification for agile software development. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Pittsburgh, USA, pp. 700–704 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Clarke, P., O’Connor, R.V.: The situational factors that affect the software development process: towards a comprehensive reference framework. Inf. Softw. Tech. 54(5), 433–447 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(2), 319–340 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35(8), 982–1003 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Alomar, N., Almobarak, N., Alkoblan, S., Alhozaimy, S., Alharbi, S.: Usability engineering of agile software project management tools. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2016. LNCS, vol. 9746, pp. 197–208. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40409-7_20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Gupta, R.M.: Project Management. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., Delhi (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J.: The Scrum guide – The Definitive Guide to Scrum: The Rules of the Game (2013). www.scrum.org. Accessed 17 Sept 2013

  19. Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Glaser, B.G.: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs Forcing. Sociology Press, Mill Valley (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Allan, G.: The use of grounded theory as a research method: warts and all. In: Brown, A. (ed.) Proceedings of the European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies, pp. 9–19. Management Centre International Ltd. (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Basics of Qualitative Research - Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks (2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research would not have been possible without the efforts of students taking the course. The first author also wants to express his gratitude to Avans University of Applied Sciences for facilitating and supporting this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerard Wagenaar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Wagenaar, G., Overbeek, S., Helms, R. (2017). Describing Criteria for Selecting a Scrum Tool Using the Technology Acceptance Model. In: Nguyen, N., Tojo, S., Nguyen, L., Trawiński, B. (eds) Intelligent Information and Database Systems. ACIIDS 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10192. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54430-4_77

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54430-4_77

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54429-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54430-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics