Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reconciliation of scrum and the project management process of the ISO/IEC 29110 standard-Entry profile—an experimental evaluation through usability measures

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Software process standards and models are used in large- and medium-sized organizations to reach the Iron Triangle. In contrast, small and very small entities either ignore them or cannot apply them because these standards and models are technically and economically not affordable. Consequently, agile software development practices are usually used by small and very small organizations. The ISO/IEC 29110 series of standards and guides are now available for very small organizations, but their utilization with agile practices represents an agility-rigor reconciliation problem. In this research, we report the experimental evaluation of Scrum + EPG (a reconciled agile-rigorous software Project Management process from Scrum, and the Project Management process of the ISO/IEC 29110 series-Entry profile, documented in an Electronic Process Guide). Scrum + EPG was compared to Scrum EPG (a non-modified Scrum process also documented in an Electronic Process Guide). Thirty-two international academicians and practitioners, including experts and novices on agile practices, from Latin America, North America, and Asia–Pacific regions, evaluated six metrics of usability. A within-subjects design and Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank tests were applied for collecting and analyzing the experimental data. The statistical results support the claim that the Scrum + EPG was considered a high-quality conciliated agile-rigorous software Project Management process for the Entry profile. Given the scarcity of similar studies and the need for reconciling agile-rigorous software development practices, this study contributes to a plausible solution for very small organizations. Finally, further empirical research is encouraged to confirm, update, and extend the results reported in this investigation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abad, Z., Alipour, A., & Ramsin, R. (2012). Enhancing tool support for situational engineering of agile methodologies in eclipse. In R. Lee (Ed.), Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications (pp. 141–152). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrahamsson, P., Oza, N., & Siponen, M. T. (2010). Agile software development methods: A comparative review. In T. Dingsøyr, T. Dybå, & N. Moe (Eds.), Agile software development (pp. 31–59). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, N., & Rathod, U. (2006). Defining ‘success’ for software projects: An exploratory revelation. International Journal of Project Management, 24(4), 358–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahimbisibwe, A., Daellenbach, U., & Cavana, R. (2017). Empirical comparison of traditional plan-based and agile methodologies—Critical success factors for outsourced software development projects from vendors’ perspective. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 30(3), 400–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48(1), 35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basili, V. R., Briand, L. C., & Melo, W. L. (1996). How reuse influences productivity in object-oriented systems. Communications of the ACM, 39(10), 104–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, J. M., Allison, I. K., & Banerjee, U. (2013). Agile method tailoring in a CMMI level 5 organization. Journal of International Technology and Information Management, 22(4), 78–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, K. (1999). Embracing change with extreme programming. Computer, 32(10), 70–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, K., & Andres, C. (2004). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Addison Wesley Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker-Kornstaedt, U. (2000). A strategy for the integration of software process support technology into organizations. In Proceedings of ICSE workshop ‘SE overthe Internet’, Limerick, Ireland, pp. 1–6.

  • Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., Turner, M., & Khalil, M. (2007). Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(4), 571–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P., & Maurer, G. (2018). Experimental Design with Applications in Management, Engineering, and the Sciences. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, M., Blumberg, S., & Laartz, J. (2012). Delivering large-scale IT projects on time, on budget, and on value. McKinsey on Business Technology, 27, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2003). Using risk to balance agile and plan-driven methods. Computer, 36(6), 57–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2004). Balancing agility and discipline: Evaluating and integrating agile and plan-driven methods. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, Edinburgh, Scotland, pp. 718–719.

  • Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2005). Management challenges to implementing agile processes in traditional development organizations. IEEE Software, 22(5), 30–39.

  • Briand, L. C., Bunse, C., & Daly, J. W. (2001). A controlled experiment for evaluating quality guidelines on the maintainability of object-oriented designs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27(6), 513–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchalcevova, A. (2019). Using ArchiMate to model ISO/IEC 29110 standard for very small entities. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 65, 103–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cayola, L., & Macías, J. A. (2018). Systematic guidance on usability methods in user-centered software development. Information and Software Technology, 97, 163–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. Esposito-Vinzi, W. Chin, J. Henseler, & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares (pp. 655–690). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, P., & O’Connor, R. V. (2013). An empirical examination of the extent of software process improvement in software SMEs. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 25(9), 981–998.

    Google Scholar 

  • CMMI® Institute. (2019). CMMI® for Development v2.0. https://cmmiinstitute.com/products/cmmi/cmmi-v2-products. Accessed 1st March 2019.

  • Coleman, G., & O’Connor, R. (2008). Investigating software process in practice: A grounded theory perspective. Journal of Systems and Software, 81(5), 772–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dingsøyr, T., Moe, N., Dybå, T., & Conradi, R. (2004). A workshop-oriented approach for defining electronic process guides—a case study. In Proceedings of the 11th Norwegian Conference on Information Systems, Stavanger, Norway, pp. 10–25.

  • Ebert, C. (2007). The impacts of software product management. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(6), 850–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eclipse Foundation. (2019). Scrum EPG version 1.5 https://www.eclipse.org/downloads/download.php?file=/technology/epf/Scrum/library/scrum_library_1.5_20080820.zip. Accessed 1st March 2019.

  • Fowler, M., & Highsmith, J. (2001). The agile manifesto. Software Development, 9(8), 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galvan-Cruz, S., Mora, M., O’Connor, R. V., Acosta, F., & Álvarez, F. (2017a). An objective compliance analysis of project management process in main agile methodologies with the ISO/IEC 29110 entry profile. International Journal of Information Technologies and Systems Approach, 10(1), 75–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galvan-Cruz, S., Mora, M., & O’Connor, R. (2017b). A Means-Ends Design of Scrum+: An agile-disciplined balanced Scrum enhanced with the ISO/IEC 29110 Standard. In J. Mejia, M. Muñoz, A. Rocha, Y. Quiñonez, & J. Calvo-Manzano (Eds.), Trends and Applications in Software Engineering (CIMPS 2017) (pp. 13–23). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galván-Cruz, S., Muñoz, M., Mejía, J., Laporte, C.Y., & Negrete, M. (2021). Building a Guideline to Reinforce Agile Software Development with the Basic Profile of ISO/IEC 29110 in Very Small Entities. In J. Mejia, M. Muñoz, A. Rocha, and Y. Quiñonez (Eds.) New Perspectives in Software Engineering. CIMPS 2020. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 1297. Springer, Cham.

  • Garcia, F., Vizcaino, A., & Ebert, C. (2011). Process management tools. IEEE Software, 28(2), 15–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garzás, J., & Paulk, M. C. (2013). A case study of software process improvement with CMMI-DEV and Scrum in Spanish companies. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 25(12), 1325–1333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghanadbashi, S., & Ramsin, R. (2016). Towards a method engineering approach for business process reengineering. IET Software, 10(2), 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, R. L., Ramesh, V., & Vessey, I. (2004). An analysis of research in computing disciplines. Communications of the ACM, 47(6), 89–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauck, J., von Wangenheim, C., de Souza, R., & Thiry, M. (2008). Process reference guides—Support for improving software processes in alignment with reference models and standards. In Proceedings of the 15th EuroSPI conference on European Systems and Software Process Improvement and Innovation, Dublin, Ireland, pp. 1–12.

  • Haumer, P. (2007). Eclipse process framework composer (parts I and II). Eclipse Foundation. https://www.eclipse.org/epf/general/EPFComposerOverviewPart1-2.pdf. Accessed 1st March 2019.

  • Henriques, V., & Tanner, M. (2017). A systematic literature review of agile and maturity model research. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 12, 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hevner, A., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoda, R., Salleh, N., & Grundy, J. (2018). The rise and evolution of agile software development. IEEE Software, 35(5), 58–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, W., Thong, J. Y., Chasalow, L. C., & Dhillon, G. (2011). User acceptance of agile information systems: A model and empirical test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(1), 235–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, W. S. (1999). Pathways to process maturity: The personal software process and team software process. SEI Interactive, 2(2), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, W. (2000). The Team Software Process (TSP). Software Engineering Institute. https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/TechnicalReport/2000_005_001_13754.pdf. Accessed 1st March 2019.

  • ISO, IEC. . (2012). ISO/IEC TR 29110-5-1-1:2012 Software engineering—Lifecycle profiles for very small entities (VSEs) Part 5-1-1: Management and engineering guide: generic profile group: Entry profile. International Organization for Standardization.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO, IEC. . (2015). ISO/IEC 33004:2015 Information technology—Process assessment—Requirements for process reference, process assessment and maturity models. International Organization for Standardization.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO, IEC. . (2017). ISO/IEC/IEEE 12207:2017 Systems and software engineering—Software life cycle processes. International Organization for Standardization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen, C. R., & Johnson, K. A. (2008). Mature Agile with a Twist of CMMI. In Proceedings of the Agile 2008 Conference, Toronto, Canada, pp. 212–217.

  • Jedlitschka, A., Ciolkowski, M., & Pfahl, D. (2008). Reporting controlled experiments in software engineering. In F. Shull, J. Singer, & D. Sjøberg (Eds.), Guide to advanced empirical software engineering (pp. 201–228). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jirapanthong, W. (2019). Experience in applying of ISO 29110 to agile software development. Journal of Information Science and Technology, 9(1), 63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, A. N., & Hasselbring, W. (2017). Effectiveness and efficiency of a domain-specific language for high-performance marine ecosystem simulation: A controlled experiment. Empirical Software Engineering, 22(4), 2206–2236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellner, M. I., Becker-Kornstaedt, U., Riddle, W. E., Tomal, J., & Verlage, M. (1998). Process guides: Effective guidance for process participants. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the Software Process, Illinois, USA, pp. 11–25.

  • Klotins, E., Unterkalmsteiner, M., & Gorschek, T. (2019). Software engineering in start-up companies: An analysis of 88 experience reports. Empirical Software Engineering, 24(1), 68–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koolmanojwong, S., Aroonvatanaporn, P., & Charoenthongtrakul, I. (2008). Incremental commitment model process guidelines for software engineering class. USC CSSE Technical Report, 2008–832, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laporte, C., O’Connor, R., & Fanmuy, G. (2013a). International systems and software engineering standards for very small entities. CrossTalk, The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 26(3), 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laporte, C. Y., Séguin, N., Villas Boas, G., & Buasung, S. (2013b). Small tech firms: Seizing the benefits of software and systems engineering standards. ISO Focus+, 4(2), 32–36.

  • Laporte, C., & O’Connor, R. (2017). Software process improvement standards and guides for very small organization: An overview of eight implementations. CrossTalk, The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 30(3), 23–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laporte, C. (2019). Deployment packages guidelines. http://profs.etsmtl.ca/claporte/english/VSE/VSE-packages.html. Accessed 1st March 2019.

  • Larrucea, X., & Fernandez-Gauna, B. (2019). A mapping study about the standard ISO/IEC29110. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 65, 159–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leuser, J., Porta, N., Bolz, A., & Raschke, A. (2009). Empirical validation of a requirements engineering process guide. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, Durham University, UK, pp. 1–10.

  • Magdaleno, A. M., Werner, C. M. L., & De Araujo, R. M. (2012). Reconciling software development models: A quasi-systematic review. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(2), 351–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majchrowski, A., Ponsard, C., Saadaoui, S., Flamand, J., & Deprez, J. C. (2016). Software development practices in small entities: An ISO29110-based survey. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 28(11), 990–999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marques, R., Costa, G., Silva, M., & Gonçalves, P. (2017). A survey of failures in the software development process. In Proceedings of the 25th European Conference in Information Systems, Guimarães, Portugal, pp. 2445–2459.

  • MaxStatLite. (2019). MaxStatLite tool. http://www.maxstatlite.com. Accessed 1st March 2019.

  • Moe, N. B., & Dybå, T. (2006). The use of an electronic process guide in a medium-sized software development company. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 11(1), 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mora, M., Gelman, O., Paradice, D., & Cervantes, F. (2008). The case for conceptual research in information systems. In Proceedings of the CONF-IRM 2008, Niagara Falls, Canada, pp. 1–10.

  • Mora, M., Rory, V. O., Rainsinghani, M., & Gelman, O. (2016). Impacts of electronic process guides by types of user: An experimental study. International Journal of Information Management, 36(1), 73–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz, M., Mejia, J., & Laporte, C. Y. (2018). Reinforcing very small entities using agile methodologies with the ISO/IEC 29110. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Process Improvement, Guadalajara, Mexico, pp. 88–98.

  • Niazi, M. (2015). A comparative study of software process improvement implementation success factors. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 27(9), 700–722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niazi, M., Wilson, D., & Zowghi, D. (2005). A maturity model for the implementation of software process improvement: An empirical study. Journal of Systems and Software, 74(2), 155–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, R., & Coleman, G. (2009). Ignoring “Best Practice”: Why Irish software SMEs are rejecting CMMI and ISO 9000. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 16(1), 7–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, R. V., & Laporte, C. Y. (2017). The evolution of the ISO/IEC 29110 set of standards and guides. International Journal of Information Technologies and Systems Approach, 10(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pai, D. R., Subramanian, G. H., & Pendharkar, P. C. (2015). Benchmarking software development productivity of CMMI level 5 projects. Information Technology and Management, 16(3), 235–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palomino, M., Dávila, A., Melendez, K., & Pessoa, M. (2016). Agile practices adoption in CMMI organizations: A systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Process Improvement, Aguascalientes, Mexico, pp. 57–67.

  • Pasini, A., Esponda, S., Boracchia, M., & Pesado, P. (2013). Q-Scrum: una fusión de Scrum y el estándar ISO/IEC 29110. In Proceedings of the XVIII Congreso Argentino de Ciencias de la Computación, Bahía Blanca, Argentina, pp. 898–909.

  • Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., & Mattsson, M. (2008). Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE), University of Bari, Italy, pp. 1–10.

  • Pikkarainen, M. (2009). Towards a better understanding of CMMI and agile integration-multiple case study of four companies. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, Oulu, Finland, pp. 401–415.

  • Pino, F. J., Pedreira, O., García, F., Luaces, M. R., & Piattini, M. (2010). Using Scrum to guide the execution of software process improvement in small organizations. Journal of Systems and Software, 83(10), 1662–1677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, I., & Von Wangenheim, C. G. (2007). Guest editors’ introduction: Why are small software organizations different? IEEE Software, 24(1), 18–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riemenschneider, C. K., Hardgrave, B. C., & Davis, F. D. (2002). Explaining software developer acceptance of methodologies: A comparison of five theoretical models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(12), 1135–1145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savolainen, P., Ahonen, J. J., & Richardson, I. (2012). Software development project success and failure from the supplier’s perspective: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Project Management, 30(4), 458–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwaber, K. (1997). Scrum development process. In the Proceedings of the OOPSLA’95, Austin, USA, pp. 117–134.

  • Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2017) The definitive guide to scrum: The rules of the game. https://www.scrumguides.org/docs/scrumguide/v2017/2017-Scrum-Guide-US.pdf. Accessed 1st March 2019.

  • Sheskin, D. (2000). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. Boca Raton, Florida, USA, Chapman & Hall/CRC.

  • Silva, F. S., Soares, F. S. F., Peres, A. L., de Azevedo, I. M., Vasconcelos, A. P. L., Kamei, F. K., & de Lemos Meira, S. R. (2015). Using CMMI together with agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 58, 20–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H., & Newell, A. (1971). Human problem solving: the state of the theory in 1970. American Psychology, 26(2), 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S. A., Harter, D. E., & Krishnan, M. S. (1998). Evaluating the cost of software quality. Communications of the ACM, 41(8), 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Standish Group. (2015). Chaos Report 2015. https://www.infoq.com/articles/standish-chaos-2015. Accessed 1st March 2019.

  • Staples, M., Niazi, M., Jeffery, R., Abrahams, A., Byatt, P., & Murphy, R. (2007). An exploratory study of why organizations do not adopt CMMI. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(6), 883–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suteeca, K., & Ramingwon, S. (2016). A framework to apply ISO/IEC29110 on Scrum. In Proceedings of the Computer Science and Engineering Conference, Chiang Mai, Thailand, pp. 1–5.

  • Sutherland, J. (2010). Scrum handbook. Scrum Training Institute.

  • Sutherland, J., Jakobsen, C., & Johnson, K. (2008). Scrum and CMMI level 5: The magic potion for code warriors. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS), Waikoloa, USA, pp. 466–466.

  • Takeuchi, M., Kohtake, N., Shirasaka, S., Koishi, Y., & Shioya, K. (2014). Report on an assessment experience based on ISO/IEC 29110. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 26(3), 306–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torrecilla-Salinas, C. J., Sedeño, J., Escalona, M. J., & Mejías, M. (2016). Agile, web engineering and capability maturity model integration: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 71, 92–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unterkalmsteiner, M., Gorschek, T., Islam, A. M., Cheng, C. K., Permadi, R. B., & Feldt, R. (2011). Evaluation and measurement of software process improvement—A systematic literature review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 38(2), 398–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vegas, S., Apa, C., & Juristo, N. (2015). Crossover designs in software engineering experiments: Benefits and perils. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 42(2), 120–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VersionOne. (2018). The 12th Annual State of Agile Survey Report. http://stateofagile.versionone.com. Accessed 1st March 2019.

  • Von Wangenheim, C. G., Thiry, M., & Kochanski, D. (2009). Empirical evaluation of an educational game on software measurement. Empirical Software Engineering, 14(4), 418–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., & Wesslén, A. (2012). Experimentation in Software Engineering. Springer.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Autonomous University of Aguascalientes, Ave. Universidad, 940, 20131, Aguascalientes, Ags, Mexico

    Sergio Galvan-Cruz & Manuel Mora

  2. École de Technologie Supérieure, 1100 Notre Dame Street, Montreal, QC, H3C 1K3, Canada

    Claude Y. Laporte

  3. University of Guadalajara, Perif. Nte. 799, Villa de los Belenes, 45130, Zapopan, Jal, Mexico

    Hector Duran-Limon

Authors
  1. Sergio Galvan-Cruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manuel Mora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claude Y. Laporte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hector Duran-Limon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Mora.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 13 KB)

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 15 KB)

Appendices

Appendix 1. Instruments

Usefulness metric statements:

  • Item USEF#1. If I were to use the (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG), it would enable me to accomplish my agile project management tasks more quickly.

  • Item USEF#2. If I were to use the (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG), the quality of my work of agile project management would improve.

  • Item USEF#3. If I were to use the (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG), it would enhance my effectiveness on the job related to agile project management.

    Ease of use metric statements:

  • Item EOU#1. Learning to use the (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG) would be easy for me.

  • Item EOU#2. If I were to use the (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG), it would be easy to operate.

  • Item EOU#3. If I were to use the (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG), it would be difficult to use. (This statement is codified intentionally in reverse scale).

    Compatibility metric statements:

  • Item COMP#1. If I were to use the (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG), it would be compatible with most aspects of my work related to agile project management.

  • Item COMP#2. If I were to use the (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG), it would fit my work style related to agile project management.

  • Item COMP#3. If I were to use the (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG), it would fit well with the way I like to work related to agile project management.

    Value metric statements:

  • Item VAL#1. The value for saving money by using the (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG) for agile project management tasks is:

  • Item VAL#2. The value for saving valuable time by using the (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG) for agile project management tasks is:

  • Item VAL#3. The value for being able to locate a wide variety of agile project management data, information, and knowledge by using the (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG) is:

  • Item VAL#4. In overall, the value of using the (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG) for agile project management tasks is:

    Normative beliefs metric statements:

  • Item NBEF#2. My close friends think I should use (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG) for agile project management tasks.

  • Item NBEF#3. My immediate supervisor thinks I should use (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG) for agile project management tasks.

  • Item NBEF#5. My IT Department thinks I should use (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG) for agile project management tasks.

  • Item NBEF#6. Other IT specialists in my work organization think I should use (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG) for agile project management tasks.

    Attitude metric statements:

  • Item ATT#1. All considered things, using (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG) in my job within the next 6 months would be [extremely negative … extremely positive]

  • Item ATT#2. All considered things, using (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG) in my job within the next 6 months would be [extremely bad … extremely good]

  • Item ATT#3. All considered things, using (Scrum + EPG|Scrum EPG) in my job within the next 6 months would be [extremely harmful … extremely beneficial]

Appendix 2. Means-ends analysis design of the scrum + EPG

A conceptual design research method from Gregor and Hevner (2013), Hevner et al. (2004), and Mora et al. (2008) and augmented with the Means-Ends Analysis method (Anderson, 1993; Simon & Newell, 1971) was applied for the design of the Scrum + EPG. The applied conceptual design (CD) research method consisted of the following activities: CD.1 Knowledge Gap Identification, CD.2 Design Work Planning, CD.3 Conceptual Design, CD.4 Design Evaluation, and CD.5 Analysis and Synthesis of Design Results. Seven design research guidelines reported in Hevner et al. (2004) and fitted the Design Science Research Knowledge Contribution Framework (DSRKCF) as an exaptation type of contribution (Gregor & Hevner, 2013) were also applied. A knowledge contribution of type exaptation refers to the adaptation of known solutions (i.e., the EPG artifact) to new problems (i.e., the agility-rigor reconciliation problem).

The design research problem formulation was stated as follows: “is it feasible to design and build the artifact [X] = {Scrum + EPG} what fulfill the set of design objectives [DO] = {DO.1 = Scrum + EPG is theoretically valid; DO.2 = Scrum + EPG must reach at least a high compliance level with the Project Management process of the ISO/IEC 29110 standard-Entry profile -; DO.3 = Scrum + EPG must be still perceived as an agile method by practitioners (i.e., Scrum + EPG must not lose its agile essence); and DO.4 = Scrum + EPG is perceived with adequate levels of usefulness, ease of use, compatibility, value, normative beliefs, and attitude} and design restrictions [DRs] = {DR.1 = Scrum + EPG is designed, built and evaluated in a 3-year period; DR.2 = Scrum + EPG must be designed, built and evaluated with the assigned research budget)} by using a design process [DP]  = {design approach DA = heuristic; design method DM = Means-Ends Analysis; design knowledge DK = {DK.1 = Scrum practices; DK.2 = Project Management process of the ISO/IEC 29110 standard-Entry profile; DK.3 = EPG design recommendations}; design parameters DPs = {DP.1 = roles; DP.2 = activities-tasks; DP.3 = artifacts}} ?”

The design process (DP) applied a heuristic design approach (DA). Neither analytic nor axiomatic design approaches could be used because no design equations or logical rules were available. Thus, a heuristic design approach (practical design recommendations based on the joint research team expertise) was applied. The design method DM was the Means-Ends Analysis (Anderson, 1993; Simon & Newell, 1971). Means-Ends Analysis is an iterative problem-solving heuristic method that represents a design problem as a non-desired initial set of attributes (called initial state), and its solution as a desired final set of attributes (called goal state). Means-Ends Analysis, thus, requires defining a set of valid actions (called operators) to be applied for transforming (called transformation sequence path) the initial state to the goal state. The set of all possible states including the initial and goal ones is called the state space. The set of all operators is called the action space. A solution can be satisfactory or optimal. The first case implies that is not known the best one path and it is not possible to search for all plausible paths by time or cost restrictions and a near state to the goal state was reached. This last case implies also that the designer is aware of the practical unfeasibility to find an optimal solution and he/she accepts a sub-optimal one but that satisfies also the minimal expected set of pre-established criteria. The second case implies that was found the best path regarding a set of pre-established criteria on economic costs, duration of actions, and other related relevant metrics. The application of a heuristic design approach and the Means-Ends Analysis consisted essentially in the application of operators that reduce the difference between the current state and the goal state.

Further details of the application of the Means-Ends Analysis method to the design of the Scrum + EPG are available upon request to the corresponding author.

Appendix 3. Instructions to international evaluators

PRESENTATION

You have been contacted because you qualify as a practitioner or academic interested and skilled in using/knowing agile software development methods (in particular Scrum) and the ISO/IEC 29110 or a related software engineering standard. We thank you for the asked evaluation on Scrum + , which is an agile project management methodology enhanced from the original Scrum for reaching an estimated overall compliance level of 90% with the project management process of the Entry profile of ISO/IEC 29110. The goal of 90% is for keeping its agility essence but at the same time to cover some identified gaps. It must be remarked that a full compliance level (100%) was not pursued by Scrum + EPG because it would cause the loss of its agility approach. Thanks very much in advance for conducting the asked evaluations for Scrum + EPG. We also thank the complimentary evaluation (for comparative research purposes) of the official Scrum EPG elaborated by EPF Consortium

INSTRUCTIONS

1. Please download the attached file containing the questionnaires:

• QUESTIONNAIRES.DOCX

2. Please, you must evaluate the two Scrum process-EPGs (original Scrum EPG and Scrum + EPG). For doing it, we need you to select the order randomly (i.e., some people will evaluate first the Scrum EPG and after it the Scrum + EPG, and other ones in the opposite order; it is required for statistical validation purposes). For it, we ask you the favor of flipping a coin and:

2.1 If the result is HEAD then please navigate firstly in the Scrum + EPG application for 20 min at least and 30 min at most by using any internet browser (Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, etc.) and please register the number of minutes finally spent in this task. You can access it at the next URL: http://x3620a-labdc.uaa.mx/scrum_plus/

After it, please close the browser and take a 15-min break. Then, please navigate also 20 min at least and 30 min at most (and please also register the exact number of minutes spent in this task) in the other Scrum EPG at: http://epf.eclipse.org/wikis/scrum/

Once completed these 2 navigations on Scrum + EPG and Scrum EPG, please continue with step #3

2.2 If the result is TAIL, please navigate firstly in the original Scrum EPG application for 20 min at least and 30 min at most by using any internet browser (Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, etc.) and please register the number of minutes finally spent in this task. You can access it at the next URL: http://epf.eclipse.org/wikis/scrum/.

After it, please close the browser and take a 15-min break. Then, please navigate also 20 min at least and 30 min at most (and please also register the exact number of minutes spent in this task) in the other Scrum + EPG at: http://x3620a-labdc.uaa.mx/scrum_plus/

Once completed these 2 navigations on Scrum + EPG and Scrum EPG, please continue with step #3

3. Now, we ask you to fill the USABILITY and DEMOGRAPHIC questionnaires. Both are in the same word document entitled QUESTIONNAIRES.DOCX. This task is estimated at 30 min. We thank you answer all questions for both Scrum + EPG and Scrum EPG.

4. Thanks very much for returning to us the filled questionnaires to the email (X) on or before (date).

Appendix 4. PLS results for the threats to construct validity

The validity and reliability of the six metrics of usability were assessed respectively with the convergent validity of the factor loadings, the discriminant validity, and the composite reliability index (CRI) of the PLS statistical method (Chin, 2010). Three statements (one for usefulness and two for normative beliefs) were dropped by insufficient factor loadings. The remainder ones achieved satisfactory scores (i.e., factor loadings at least 0.50). For the discriminant validity, the square root of each AVE (average variance extracted) of each construct was greater than the correlations among constructs. It is verified in the correlation matrix where the values in the diagonal (i.e., the square roots of the AVEs) must be at least 0.71 and greater than the other values in the off-diagonal line. Regarding the CRI, all of the six metrics of usability achieved also satisfactory scores (i.e., at least 0.70). Tables 7 and 8 report the results for Scrum EPG and Scrum + EPG, respectively. These values were obtained with the free-100-data license of the software tool SmartPLSv3 (https://www.smartpls.com).

Table 7 Validity and reliability of usability metrics for Scrum EPG
Full size table
Table 8 Validity and reliability of usability metrics for Scrum + EPG
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Galvan-Cruz, S., Mora, M., Laporte, C.Y. et al. Reconciliation of scrum and the project management process of the ISO/IEC 29110 standard-Entry profile—an experimental evaluation through usability measures. Software Qual J 29, 239–273 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-021-09552-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-021-09552-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation