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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., et al.: Agile Manifesto (2001). agilemanifesto.org. Accessed 24 Sept 2012
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)
Schatz, B., Abdelshafi, I.: Primavera gets agile: a successful transition to agile development. IEEE Softw. 22(3), 36–42 (2005)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(2), 319–340 (1989)
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)
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000)
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)
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
Gupta, R.M.: Project Management. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., Delhi (2011)
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
Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago (1967)
Glaser, B.G.: Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs Forcing. Sociology Press, Mill Valley (1992)
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)
Corbin, J., Strauss, A.: Basics of Qualitative Research - Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks (2008)
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
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)