Where Is Scrum in the Current Agile World?
Georgia M. Kapitsaki and Marios Christou
Department of Computer Science, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
Keywords: Scrum, Agile, Software Process, Adaptive Development.
Abstract: A variety of methodologies in software processes exist nowadays with the Agile software development
having gained significant ground since the introduction of the Agile manifesto in 2001. Scrum is a
representative Agile development method employed in the software industry. Since trends come and go, it is
vital to see where they stand in the real world. In order to gain an insight into how Scrum is viewed
nowadays, we have conducted an online study on the current state of the adoption of Scrum. The study
targeted in demonstrating where the success or failure success factors of Scrum lie and in viewing Scrum
properties in comparison to heavyweight approaches. This paper presents the results of the study that
constitute an instructive view into the above aspects of Scrum development.
1 INTRODUCTION
As organizations become global new software
paradigms derive with some being embraced from
the software community and others still lacking
wider acceptance. The era of the dominance of the
waterfall model may have come to an end. The most
widely adopted processes that have gained a strong
momentum in the last years can be found in Agile
development (Highsmith and Cockburn, 2001).
Agile methodologies have been adopted by many
industry leaders worldwide including Yahoo,
Microsoft, Oracle and IBM. Agile principles can be
found in different development approaches including
Extreme Programming (XP), Scrum, Feature Driven
Development (FDD), Crystal methods and Adaptive
Software Development (ASD) with some
approaches having wider acceptance than others.
This paper presents a summary of the results of a
field study conducted on the adoption of Scrum as
an Agile methodology in the software industry
(Scwaber and Beedle, 2002). The initial motivation
for conducting the survey derived from the global
spread of adaptive software development and our
personal experience in a Scrum industrial
environment. Although many Agile-related surveys
have been conducted, since the introduction of Agile
in the industry (the first one dates back to 2003), the
reality in the software industry is constantly
evolving. In contrast to existing studies the main
objectives of the survey we conducted were to:
Demonstrate where Scrum adoption lies today
globally in terms of quantities.
Discover the success or failure rate of both
Scrum- and Agile-driven projects.
Perform a comparison among the results of using
Scrum- or Agile-based techniques and of
following traditional development approaches.
The participants of the study were informed that
some questions would concern only Scrum, although
a part with generic Agile questions was also present,
since some Agile principles are common in all Agile
methods. Those with experience with more than one
Agile methodologies were asked to base their
answers on Scrum. The majority of participants
indicated Scrum as the employed Agile
methodology (76.9% of the participants), which
makes the results obtained more applicable on this
specific case of Scrum.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows.
Section 2 is referring to related surveys. Section 3
describes the survey methodology followed, whereas
section 4 presents the main survey results. Section 5
is dedicated to a summary and a general discussion
of the survey results with section 6 pointing out the
limitations of the study. Finally, section 7 concludes
the paper.
2 RELATED SURVEYS
Various surveys have been conducted by
101
M. Kapitsaki G. and Christou M..
Where Is Scrum in the Current Agile World?.
DOI: 10.5220/0004867701010108
In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE-2014), pages 101-108
ISBN: 978-989-758-030-7
Copyright
c
2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
organizations on Agile development or software
processes in general after the appearance of the
Agile manifesto in 2001. We are referring here to
global surveys and not cases applicable in specific
countries, which can also be found in the literature.
One of the earliest surveys on Agile was
conducted by the Australian Shine Technologies in
2003 (Shine technologies, 2003). With the majority
of the 131 survey participants referring to adoption
of XP and around 8% adopting Scrum, 49% stated
that Agile reduced development costs, 93% that
productivity was better, 83% that business
satisfaction was better and 88% that the quality of
the software improved. Although a rather early
survey, when Agile experience had not been not
gained yet, the results from the Agile use are
generally in accordance with the outcome of our
survey. However, back in 2003 XP was more
popular than Scrum that is gaining ground
nowadays.
The survey of Digital Focus of 2006 was based
on responses from 136 executives across 128
organizations and showcased the main advantages
and disadvantages of adaptive software processes. A
survey of 2008 that focused again on Agile adoption
indicated the benefits and problems of adopting
Agile techniques (Vijayasarathy and Turk, 2008).
The increased productivity, the job satisfaction, the
improved predictability of costs and quality and the
knowledge transfer were the main benefits observed,
whereas the lack of Agile knowledge and the
individual resistance were seen as the main
challenges. This earlier survey approaches Agile
from the perspective of individual’s view within the
team focusing on knowledge and data exchange
opposed to the survey presented in this work. A
survey on Agile adoption and success or failure
project results was performed by Version One in
2010 (VersionOne survey, 2010). Among the main
failure reasons the lack of experience with agile
methods and the company culture were indicated by
the participants as the most common cases.
One of the most recent survey was published in
2012 (Kurapati et al., 2012). However, it has
different goals from the survey presented in this
work. It concentrates on the adoption of Agile
methods and on the applicability degree of the Agile
principles. From this survey it is interesting to see
that the majority of employees and customers are
satisfied with the adoption of Agile practices.
A more specialized survey on the degree of
adoption of Scrum was announced in Carnegie
Melon University in 2011 (Paulk, 2011), but its
results or whether it was conducted were ever
reported. The questions used in the questionnaire
concerned only the adoption of Scrum and were not
referring to any comparisons to other approaches.
The most recent and related survey conducted
close to the presented study was performed by the
Scrum Alliance in the beginning of 2013 with
roughly 500 participants from 70 countries (Scrum
Alliance, 2013). The Scrum Alliance survey draw
useful conclusions on the use of Scrum, but the
objectives differ from the main objectives of our
survey: this earlier survey had a focus on how the
specific principles of Scrum are adopted instead of
uncovering advantages and disadvantages and
comparing Scrum to traditional approaches.
Moreover, the results reflect mainly the point of
view of managers of different levels that formed
53% of the participants, whereas in our survey
Scrum software engineers and Information
Technology (IT) managers were mainly engaged.
3 PREPARATION AND
CONDUCT
For the survey management and execution a
procedure typical followed for conducting surveys
was used (Statistics Canada, 2003):
1) Formulation of the Statement of Objectives: the
survey motivation was determined, the objectives
were set and the research questions were identified
consisting in the following:
RQ1: How popular is Scrum in the industry today?
RQ2: Do engineers like Scrum?
RQ3: Are Scrum and Agile projects successful?
RQ4: Does Scrum or Agile adoption provide better
results in software development (compared to
traditional approaches)?
2) Selection of a Survey Frame and Determination
of the Determination of Sample Design: requests for
participation were distributed to employees of
various organizations and individual Agile
practitioners. The potential participants were
selected among Agile practitioners instead of
targeting any software engineering company, since
we wanted to study opinions on Scrum coming from
people with Agile experience even if this experience
may have been in the form of a partial Agile
adoption. We searched for companies of various
sizes with an active role in the software industry,
sent e-mail requests to over 200 companies with an
Agile profile including personal e-mails to specific
employees and requests for distribution within the
ENASE2014-9thInternationalConferenceonEvaluationofNovelSoftwareApproachestoSoftwareEngineering
102
organization through Human Resources
departments. We also sent notifications to members
of Agile-related groups (e.g., Scrum Alliance)
exploiting relevant mailing lists and using Online
Social Networks with announcements on the
Facebook group of Scrum alliance and distribution
through LinkedIn.
3) Questionnaire Design: In order to keep the time
necessary for the completion of the questionnaire to
a minimum, the majority of questions chosen were
of closed type leaving space for general comments at
the final stage of the survey. This proved useful as
we gained useful insights from these comments. The
length of the questionnaire was restricted to 35
questions. In order to increase the validity of the
results attention was paid on the survey design
making sure that we are asking questions that
measure what we want to measure referring here to
the research questions posed.
4) Data Collection: the web-based survey was open
for a period of three months (March-May 2012). All
potential participants were informed that
approximately 10 minutes would be required to
complete the survey.
5) Data Capturing and Coding, Editing and
Imputation: the survey management was done
through the SurveyMonkey tool.
The remaining steps of data analysis and
dissemination that were carried out subsequently are
presented in this article stressing out the main results
of the study in respect to the benefits of Scrum
development and its comparison with traditional
approaches. The results reflect the 233 complete
questionnaires collected out of a total of 335
responses. Since many participants skipped
questions on development methodologies, these
incomplete questionnaires were neglected.
4 MAIN RESULTS
4.1 Demographics
We obtained answers from more than 126
companies distributed geographically in 44 different
countries: 40% of the countries are from North and
South America, 35% from Europe, 4% concern
companies with a global presence (i.e., presence in
more than one continents), 13% originate from the
remaining continents (Africa, Asia and Australia),
while in 8% of the cases the country is not specified.
The main age group of the participants is
between 30 and 40 (41.1%). 28.1% are between the
age of 40 and 50, 14.3% between 50 and 60, 12.1%
between 18 and 30 and 4.5% above 60. Men mostly
responded to the survey (90.5%) opposed to women
(9.5%). The education level of the participants is
high with 42.5% possessing a masters degree, 38.9%
a bachelor or diploma, 8.0% a technical degree,
4.4% a PhD and 2.2% being in possession of other
kinds of degree (mostly college degrees).
The results of the survey cover a wide range of
practitioners. For instance many indicated
themselves as Scrum Masters, who do not have a
pure technical role but provide rather guidance and
assist in problem solving in the Scrum team. 27%
indicate themselves as software engineers, 25.2% as
IT managers, 23.0% as project managers and 8.4%
as business stakeholders. The remaining 15.5% of
the participants are active in other technical roles,
such as quality assurance engineers (or testers), data
professionals and analysts, whereas 0.9% have an
operation or support role. The fact that the majority
of participants have a direct involvement in the
development process from a technical role (42.5%)
or as IT managers (25.2%) is an advantage for the
accuracy of the results, since we wanted to reflect
the perspective of technical practitioners.
4.2 Organization Profile
The participants are working in enterprises of
different sizes: one third is coming from enterprises
with over 1000 employees (30.6%), one quarter with
101 to 1000 employees (25.5%), whereas the rest is
employed in smaller companies.
Concerning the participants specific experience
in teams working with Agile techniques most are
quite experienced with their involvement ranging
from 3 to over 10 years. The Agile practitioners of
the survey employ mostly Scrum. Most were quite
experienced with its use: Scrum is either the normal
way the organization uses to build software (32.5%),
one of the standard ways (27.3%) indicating that it is
usually employed in combination with other
techniques, the method that has just been adopted for
development across the organization (14.7%) or a
method that has been piloted without taking any
adoption decision yet (10.8%). Some are currently
piloting Scrum (9.5%), whereas only 5.2% have not
used Scrum. This last result provides a rough
estimation on the non-Agile practitioners contacted
during the distribution of the questionnaire.
Regarding the specific use of Scrum in the
organization development projects, Scrum is
generally used a lot (61.1% answered that Scrum is
used for a percentage around 50% and higher)
WhereIsScrumintheCurrentAgileWorld?
103
showing a tendency of applying Scrum organization
wide (Figure 1).
4.3 How Popular Is Scrum
When it comes to development methods there are
organizations that opt for heavyweight and others
that go for lightweight approaches. Our survey
showed that the most popular among heavyweight
alternatives is, as expected, the waterfall model
(36.5%) followed by the Spiral model (14.4%) and
the Unified Process (12.2%), whereas enterprises
tend to adopt also hybrid approaches or reject
traditional methodologies completely heading
directly for adaptive techniques (36.9%).
Figure 1: Development work performed with Scrum.
Figure 2: Agile methodologies mostly used.
Among Agile methodologies the big winner is
Scrum (76.9% of the participants) followed by
Extreme Programming (6.4%) and Feature Driven
Development (3.8%), whereas Agile combinations
were also indicated (Figure 2). In these
combinations increasing importance is given to
Kanban that is based on building software
production on customer demand with characteristics
from Just-In-Time and Lean production (Sugimori et
al. 1977).
These results constitute an indication of a
tendency moving from XP to Scrum. Nevertheless,
we are aware of the fact that the emphasis on Scrum
indicated as the driving force of the study may have
lead participants who have employed more than one
Agile methodologies to give Scrum as an answer.
4.4 Do Engineers like Scrum
Agile focuses on four main principles found in the
Agile manifesto: 1) Individuals and interactions over
processes and tools, 2) Working software over
comprehensive documentation, 3) Customer
collaboration over contract negotiation, 4)
Responding to change over following a plan.
The principle that is valued most by practitioners
is #4, while many are intrigued by #1 and #2 (Figure
3). Indeed adaptation to change is one of the main
characteristics of Agile (Leau, Loo et al., 2012).
However, there are also elements that people dislike
in Agile as the lack of project structure given as the
most typical answer (38.2%), the low documentation
(35.2%), although some see it also as an advantage,
the low planning (16.6%) and the less management
control (10.1%).
Figure 3: Appealing Agile aspects compared to
heavyweight methodologies.
The Scrum Master is one of the main players in
Scrum. Many participants indicated themselves as
Scrum Masters. We wanted to see how people see
the Scrum Master: most find the role useful (73.7%)
or useful to some extend (19.2%), whereas some
ENASE2014-9thInternationalConferenceonEvaluationofNovelSoftwareApproachestoSoftwareEngineering
104
find it redundant (4.2%) or not useful (2.8%). It
might be that the role cannot be fully perceived by
players involved in the Scrum development process
that are not, however, part of the development team
that is in constant contact with the Scrum Master.
Investigating how practitioners see Scrum in
general most appear satisfied, whereas a small
percentage is not sure or does not find Scrum
suitable for their needs (Table 1). Roughly 1 out of
10 is either not satisfied or has not made up his/her
mind yet.
Table 1: Overall satisfaction with Scrum.
Project measure Higher
Very pleased with Scrum 38.0
Scrum exceeds my
expectations
10.9
Scrum is adequate for my
needs
38.0
Disappointing outcome 3.1
Not at all pleased with
Scrum
3.9
I don't know yet 2.6
Not applicable 3.5
4.5 Success in Scrum or Agile Projects
Agile adoption is not always easy and seamless.
Drawbacks are usually found in the need for
constant customer participation, the difficulty to
scale in large projects and the need for Agile training
(Petersen and Wohlin, 2009). The lack of skilled
people who can follow Scrum is one important
reason for failure (Figure 4). Indeed motivated
people are needed, since Agile requires discipline in
order to be successful.
Project size also poses a problem. As project size
grows, so does the need for people participation,
which introduces more complexity in
communication activities. Other participants see the
lack of customer collaboration as a major problem.
Moreover, customers may find it hard to comply
with Agile principles that state the importance of
active customer participation. Other problems noted
in the study are the lack of top management support
and the project team size, which is not ideal in all
cases.
Regardless of the problems that may be observed
during the project execution, the results of the final
product are of significant importance. Project
success is usually identical with on-time product
delivery within the assigned budget, but different
criteria may also be important in specific projects. In
order to study project success without considering
how success is specifically defined for each
organization, we tried to detect the percentage of
projects that were considered successful. Agile
projects are generally successful with 54% of the
participants indicating an overall success rate over
81% for their projects (Figure 5).
Figure 4: Most common problems while practicing Agile
methodologies.
Figure 5: Overall success rate of Agile projects.
4.6 Comparison with Traditional
Approaches
In comparison to traditional approaches adaptive
methodologies are generally considered to perform
better in terms of increase in productivity, quality
improvement, cost reduce, maintainable and
extensible code, collaboration and customer
satisfaction. In our study the majority of participants
indicated a more or less significant increase in
productivity, much higher or somewhat higher
quality of the product, much lower or somewhat
lower development cost and much higher or
WhereIsScrumintheCurrentAgileWorld?
105
somewhat higher stakeholder satisfaction (Table 2).
The rest of the participants did not provide any
answer, which may indicate that they did not have
access to this kind of information from their
position.
The only point, where Scrum methodologies may
be problematic was from the perspective of cost,
which appeared slightly increased in many cases
(26%). This is justifiable for organizations that
adopted Scrum for the first time, since any change
comes with time and costs needed for the transition,
training activities and the general learning curve. All
these aspects increase the costs and may also affect
the development procedure.
The increase in quality and productivity was also
observed in the adoption of Scrum in Primavera
(Schatz and Abdelsha, 2005): it resulted in an
increase of 30% in quality in terms of number of
customer defects compared to the traditional
software process and an improvement in time to
market with the product delivered in 10 months
instead of the original plan of 14 months. Similar
improvements were indicated by Yahoo (Benefield,
2008), Amazon (Atlas, 2009) and Microsoft
(Williams, Brown et al., 2011) where the impressive
productivity increase of 250% was observed
(measured by the number of lines produced in each
Scrum Sprint).
Many of the above experience reports indicated
the importance of the organization culture for the
successful adoption of Scrum. The adoption
constitutes a big challenge for companies that are
rather traditional than Agile-oriented. Unsuccessful
Scrum adoption cases are also to be found proving
that Scrum is not a priori successful in any
environment and that traditional development
approaches may be more appropriate (Hajjdiab,
Taleb and Ali, 2012).
Table 2: Scrum comparison with traditional approaches.
Project
measure
Higher
No
change
Lower
No
answer
Productivity 87.5% 6,8% 5.5% 0.18%
Quality 84,3% 13,1% 2.5% 0.3%
Development
cost
26% 25.4% 48.5% 0.1%
Stakeholder
satisfaction
85.4% 9,5% 5.15% 0%
5 DISCUSSION
The participants’ answers in the survey were
indicative of the current state of Scrum and Agile
compared to traditional approaches, whereas the
opinions or experience on Agile development
expressed by many participants through dedicated
comments were useful for drawing further
conclusions on software engineering practice. As a
final note to the study results the main Scrum
characteristics in comparison to traditional
techniques – considering only the proportion of the
participants that indicated themselves as Scrum
practitioners – can be found in the following points:
Respond to Change Rather than Following a
Plan: 47.1% of the Scrum practitioners believe
that this is the main asset of Scrum. Scrum can
assist in rapid re-organization, allowing sudden
project changes without introducing significant
losses in time and cost management. Flexibility
is in general important and should form part of
the software development process (Gao and
Yong-hua, 2012).
People-centric and Not Process-centric: the most
significant advantage of Scrum for 22.4% of the
participants.
Emphasis on Code Writing Instead of
Documentation: this is the most important aspect
for 21.3% of the participants. Generally it can be
in some cases is observed that many software
engineers are not very keen on the process of
writing documentation to accompany their
source code.
Increase in Team Productivity was observed for
87.5% of the participants. Productivity is a vital
aspect of development for the organization also
from the managerial perspective.
Product Quality: the software quality was
increased for 84.3% of the cases.
Decrease in Project Cost: this is considered true
for 48.5% of the participants, although cost
increase was also observed in many cases (26%).
Stakeholder Satisfaction: an increased customer
satisfaction is considered true for 85.4% of the
participants.
A general observation of the study is that the
efficiency from the adoption of Agile and Scrum
depends heavily on the nature of the software
product and the organization culture that can assist
in the transition from waterfall to Agile. Most
participants are employing Scrum and come usually
from organizational environments that do not
hesitate to try new technologies. 62.4% of the
participants indicated that their organization does
not hesitate to adopt new technologies, 30.3% that it
is more conservative, since it follows the approach
only when the technology is proven, and 7.3% that it
prefers more traditional approaches. It was observed
ENASE2014-9thInternationalConferenceonEvaluationofNovelSoftwareApproachestoSoftwareEngineering
106
that those who are open to new technologies follow
in most cases Agile techniques (62.4%), whereas the
adopters of traditional approaches followed in most
cases the waterfall development model (91.7%).
This observation supports the fact that Agile
development is usually embraced by innovative
people (Moore, 2002).
Regarding the dedicated comments of the
participants the most useful outcome was the wide
adoption of Kanban or the combination of Kanban
with Scrum, namely Scrumban. This hybrid method
is indicative of the future trends in software process
evolution. Kanban has advantages from which
software organizations can profit and some have
successfully performed the transition from the pure
Scrum to the hybrid Scrumban.
In terms of initial research questions introduced
the survey has assisted in drawing the following
conclusions:
Popularity - RQ1: Our study showed that Scrum is
gaining ground in comparison to other Agile
approaches and especially Extreme Programming.
Approval - RQ2: In principle engineers like Scrum.
Of course the answer depends also on the
personality, the organization and its effect on the
execution of the daily activities of the engineer.
Another issue is specific roles as the Scrum Master
introduced in Scrum that is not present in other
lifecycle models. Is the Scrum master a manager or
can a manager become a Scrum master? The answer
is no. Indeed as one participant indicated for Scrum:
“You need a team that is open minded with a strong
scrum master who does not over-manage.” The way
roles are viewed depends again on the daily
interactions of the engineer with interpersonal
relationships playing a significant role. Moreover,
the culture also comes to play.
Success - RQ3: Through the study we were able to
discover the success or failure rate of and Scrum-
and Agile-driven projects and most projects appear
successful for the organization.
Improvement - RQ4: Generally Agile adoption
provides better results than traditional methods.
Agile assists in the quality and productivity increase,
but this cannot be usually identified in the short
term, i.e., in a pilot Agile adoption. The problematic
part is the initial cost required for investing time on
learning Scrum and getting used to Agile processes
integrating them in coding activities. Some
organizations undertake educational activities to
minimize this cost; for instance IBM has introduced
an Agile night school program (West, 2010) to make
Agile transition faster.
6 THREATS TO VALIDITY
In terms of threats to validity encountered in case
study research (Yin, 2008) the main issues of our
study were detected in relation to external validity;
related specifically to what extent we can generalize
our findings. The communication on the emphasis
on Scrum to the participants may have affected the
outcome giving less accuracy to the obtained results
for general Agile: participants may have responded
based only on Scrum even if they also adopted other
Agile techniques (e.g., XP, Dynamic Systems
Development Method / DSDM, FDD). The number
of incomplete questionnaires poses an additional
threat (233 questionnaires were complete out of the
335 that were partially answered). This was an
observed disadvantage of the procedure selected for
the collection, since the survey would allow
participants to skip some questions. The high
number of incomplete questionnaires is attributed to
either the lack of adoption of Agile methodologies
from the specific participant or the inadequacy of the
participant’s organization as a representative case
for the survey goals. Lastly, we did not perform any
analysis on the participants’ distribution among the
companies, i.e., if there was a higher participation
rate of employees inside specific companies.
Despite these remarks, the conclusions validity is
not largely affected. The number of responses and
comments we gathered can be considered
representative of the current state on the use of
Scrum assisting in showing the impact of Scrum
among Agile practitioners. Regarding reliability
validity related with whether the study can be
replicated we have made the study results available
online on the website of the first author.
Construct validity refers to whether the
explanation provided for the results is indeed the
correct one. In our study one threat is linked with
whether we are asking the correct questions (in
terms of Research Questions). In order to increase
the validity attention was paid on the survey design
making sure that we are asking questions that
measure what we want to measure.
7 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper the process and the results of a field
study on the effectiveness of Agile methodologies
with an emphasis on the Scrum practice was
presented. The results indicate a significant increase
in the adoption of Scrum in comparison to other
Agile methodologies with many successful project
WhereIsScrumintheCurrentAgileWorld?
107
executions: 8 out of 10 Scrum projects are
successful according to half of the participants. The
survey participants valued the main characteristics
of Agile processes that generally assist in achieving
increased productivity and producing software
systems of higher quality.
The adoption of Scrum seems indeed to be wide
and many books and articles are centred around its
use. Nevertheless, continuous studies are necessary
to follow its adoption progress and the emerging
variants, especially its combination with other
production methods, such as Kanban. Hybrid Agile
methods and their effectiveness under different
environments are an interesting field of study in
software processes.
REFERENCES
Atlas, A., 2009. Accidental Adoption: The Story of Scrum
at Amazon.com, In Agile Conference, pp. 135-140.
Benefield, G., 2008. Rolling Out Agile in a Large
Enterprise, In 41st Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, pp. 461.
Gao, Y., Yong-hua Y., 2012. “Flexibility” of Software
Development Method. Advances in Multimedia,
Software Engineering and Computing, Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, vol. 128, pp. 383-387.
Hajjdiab, H., Taleb, A. S., Ali, J., 2012. An Industrial
Case Study for Scrum Adoption, Journal of Software,
vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 237-242.
Highsmith, J., Cockburn, A., 2001. Agile software
development: the business of innovation, IEEE
Computer, vol. 34, no. 9, pp.120-127.
Kurapati, N., Sarath, V., Manyam, C., Petersen, K., 2012.
Agile Software Development Practice Adoption
Survey, Agile Processes in Software Engineering and
Extreme Programming, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 16-30.
. Leau, Y. B., Loo, W. K., Tham, W. Y., Tan, S. F., 2012.
Software Development Life Cycle AGILE vs
Traditional Approaches. In International Conference
on Information and Network Technology, pp. 162-167.
Moore, G. A., 2002. Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and
Selling Disruptive Products to Mainstream Customers,
Harper Business Essentials.
Paulk, M., 2011. On Empirical Research Into Scrum
Adoption, Carnegie Mellon University, viewed 5
February 2014, http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mcp/agile/
oersa.pdf
Petersen, K., Wohlin, C., 2009. A comparison of issues
and advantages in Agile and incremental development
between state of the art and an industrial case, Journal
of Systems and Software, vol. 82, no. 9, pp. 1479-
1490.
Schatz, B., Abdelsha, I., 2005. Primavera gets Agile: a
successful transition to Agile development, IEEE
Software, vol. 22, no., 3, pp. 36-42.
Scrum Alliance, 2013. The State of Scrum: Benchmarks
and Guidelines, viewed 5 February 2014.
Scwaber, K., Beedle, M., 2002. Agile Software
Development with Scrum, Prentice Hall.
Shine technologies, 2003. Agile methodologies survey
results, viewed 5 February 2014, http://
www.shinetech.com/attachments/104_ShineTechAgile
Survey2003-01-17.pdf.
Statistics Canada, 2003. Survey Methodology, viewed 5
February 2014, http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/12-587-
x/12-587-x2003001-eng.pdf.
Sugimori, Y., et al., 1977. Toyota production system and
kanban system materialization of just-in-time and
respect-for-human system. The International Journal
of Production Research, vol. 15,.no. 6, pp. 553-564.
VersionOne survey, 2010. The state of Agile development,
viewed 5 February 2014, http://www.scribd.com/doc/
45835357/2010-State-of-Agile-Development-Survey-
Results.
Vijayasarathy, L. R., Turk, D., 2008. Agile software
development: a survey of early adopters, Journal of
Information Technology Management, vol. 14, no. 2,
pp. 1-8.
West, D., 2010. Agile Systems Integrators: Plausible Or
Paradoxical?, Application Development & Delivery
Professionals.
Williams, L., Brown, G., Meltzer, A., Nagappan, N., 2011.
Scrum + Engineering Practices: Experiences of Three
Microsoft Teams, In International Symposium on
Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement,
pp. 463-471.
Yin, R. K., 2008. Case study research: Design and
methods, Sage Publications, Incorporated.
ENASE2014-9thInternationalConferenceonEvaluationofNovelSoftwareApproachestoSoftwareEngineering
108
