skip to main content
10.1145/3239235.3239238acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesesemConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

An empirical study of WIP in kanban teams

Published: 11 October 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Background: Limiting the amount of Work-In-Progress (WIP) is considered a fundamental principle in Kanban software development. However, no published studies from real cases exist that indicate what an optimal WIP limit should be. Aims: The primary aim is to study the effect of WIP on the performance of a Kanban team. The secondary aim is to illustrate methodological challenges when attempting to identify an optimal or appropriate WIP limit. Method: A quantitative case study was conducted in a software company that provided information about more than 8,000 work items developed over four years by five teams. Relationships between WIP, lead time and productivity were analyzed. Results: WIP correlates with lead time; that is, lower WIP indicates shorter lead times, which is consistent with claims in the literature. However, WIP also correlates with productivity, which is inconsistent with the claim in the literature that a low WIP (still above a certain threshold) will improve productivity. The collected data set did not include sufficient information to measure aspects of quality. There are several threats to the way productivity was measured. Conclusions: Indicating an optimal WIP limit is difficult in the studied company because a changing WIP gives contrasting results on different team performance variables. Because the effect of WIP has not been quantitatively examined before, this study clearly needs to be replicated in other contexts. In addition, studies that include other team performance variables, such as various aspects of quality, are requested. The methodological challenges illustrated in this paper need to be addressed.

References

[1]
H. Kniberg and M. Skarin. 2010. Kanban and Scrum---making the most of both. Lulu.com.
[2]
D. Anderson, G. Concas, M.I. Lunesu, and M. Marchesi. 2011. Studying Lean-Kanban approach using software process simulation. In International Conference on Agile Software Development. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 12--26.
[3]
J.D. Little and S.C. Graves. 2008. Little's law. In Building intuition: insights from basic operations management models and principles (Vol. 115), D. Chhajed and T.J. Lowe (Eds.). Springer Science & Business Media. Springer US, 81--100.
[4]
D.J. Anderson. 2010. Kanban: successful evolutionary change for your technology business. Blue Hole Press.
[5]
D.J. Anderson, G. Concas, M.I. Lunesu, M. Marchesi, M., and H. Zhang. 2012. A comparative study of Scrum and Kanban approaches on a real case study using simulation. In International Conference on Agile Software Development. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 123--137.
[6]
G. Concas, M.I. Lunesu, M. Marchesi, and H. Zhang (2013). Simulation of software maintenance process, with and without a work-in-process limit. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 25(12), 1225--1248.
[7]
Al-Baik and J. Miller (2015). The Kanban approach, between agility and leanness: a systematic review. Empirical Software Engineering, 20(6), 1861--1897.
[8]
M.O. Ahmad, J. Markkula, and M. Oivo. 2013. Kanban in software development: A systematic literature review. In 39th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA2013). IEEE, 9--16
[9]
D.I.K. Sjøberg, A. Johnsen, and J. Solberg (2012). Quantifying the effect of using Kanban versus Scrum: A case study. IEEE software, 29(5), 47--53.
[10]
D.I.K. Sjøberg, B. Anda, E. Arisholm, T. Dybå, M. Jørgensen, A. Karahasanovic, E. Koren, and M. Vokác. 2002. Conducting realistic experiments in software engineering. In International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE). IEEE, 17--26.
[11]
L.J. Cronbach and P.E. Meehl (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological bulletin, 52(4), 281.
[12]
D.I.K. Sjøberg, A. Yamashita, B.C.D. Anda, A. Mockus, and T. Dybå (2013). Quantifying the effect of code smells on maintenance effort. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 39(8), 1144--1156.
[13]
T. Skeie. 2014. Does limit on Work-In-Progress (WIP) in software development matter? MSc thesis. Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway.
[14]
G.R. Bergersen, J.E. Hannay, D.I.K. Sjøberg, T. Dybå, and A. Karahasanovic. 2011. Inferring skill from tests of programming performance: Combining time and quality. In International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). IEEE, 305--314.
[15]
S. Holm (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian journal of statistics, 65--70.
[16]
T.V. Perneger (1998). What's wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. Bmj, 316(7139), 1236--1238.
[17]
R.A. Armstrong (2014). When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 34(5), 502--508.
[18]
Y. Lindsjørn, D.I.K. Sjøberg, T. Dingsøyr, G.R. Bergersen, and T. Dybå (2016). Teamwork quality and project success in software development: A survey of agile development teams. Journal of Systems and Software, 122, 274--286.
[19]
G.R. Bergersen, D.I.K. Sjøberg, and T. Dybå (2014). Construction and validation of an instrument for measuring programming skill. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 40(12), 1163--1184.
[20]
V.G. Stray, N.B. Moe, and T. Dingsøyr. 2011. Challenges to teamwork: a multiple case study of two agile teams. In International Conference on Agile Software Development. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 146--161.
[21]
T. Dybå, D.I.K. Sjøberg, and D.S. Cruzes. 2012. What works for whom, where, when, and why? On the role of context in empirical software engineering. In International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). ACM-IEEE, 19--28.
[22]
B.C.D. Anda, D.I.K. Sjøberg, and A. Mockus (2009). Variability and reproducibility in software engineering: A study of four companies that developed the same system. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 35(3), 407--429.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)An Approach to Optimizing Kanban Board Workflow and Shortening the Project Management PlanIEEE Transactions on Engineering Management10.1109/TEM.2021.312098471(13266-13273)Online publication date: 2024
  • (2023)Team Productivity Factors in Agile Software Development: An Exploratory Survey with PractitionersApplied Informatics10.1007/978-3-031-46813-1_18(261-276)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2023
  • (2022)How Agile Organizations Use Metrics: A Systematic Literature MappingProceedings of the XXI Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality10.1145/3571473.3571479(1-11)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2022

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ESEM '18: Proceedings of the 12th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement
October 2018
487 pages
ISBN:9781450358231
DOI:10.1145/3239235
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

In-Cooperation

  • IEEE CS

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 11 October 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. agile and lean development
  2. lead time
  3. productivity
  4. quantitative study

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

ESEM '18
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 130 of 594 submissions, 22%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)42
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7
Reflects downloads up to 28 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)An Approach to Optimizing Kanban Board Workflow and Shortening the Project Management PlanIEEE Transactions on Engineering Management10.1109/TEM.2021.312098471(13266-13273)Online publication date: 2024
  • (2023)Team Productivity Factors in Agile Software Development: An Exploratory Survey with PractitionersApplied Informatics10.1007/978-3-031-46813-1_18(261-276)Online publication date: 24-Oct-2023
  • (2022)How Agile Organizations Use Metrics: A Systematic Literature MappingProceedings of the XXI Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality10.1145/3571473.3571479(1-11)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2022
  • (2022)Team Productivity in Agile Software Development: A Systematic Mapping StudyApplied Informatics10.1007/978-3-031-19647-8_32(455-471)Online publication date: 19-Oct-2022

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media