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

Open access

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.

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

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

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

[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.

[5] Grealy M. A. and Shearer G. F. Timing processes in motor imagery. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20(5):867–892, 2008.

[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.

[7] Hooper P. What is a p-value?

[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.

[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] 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.

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[16] Parkinson C. N. Parkinson’s Law. Buccaneer Books, 1996.

[17] Robertshaw T. April 2014 ecommerce survey, 2014.

[18] Sachs L. Applied Statistics: A Handbook of Techniques. Springer US, 1982.

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

[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.

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

[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.

[23] W3Techs. Web technology surveys.

Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences

The Journal of Poznan University of Technology

Journal Information


CiteScore 2017: 0.82

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.212
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.523

Mathematical Citation Quotient (MCQ) 2017: 0.02

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 284 284 34
PDF Downloads 206 206 19