![](bg8.png)
are: F02stM, F03stM, F06stM. We included the fea-
tures: F04stM and F05stM, in the unified model for
the events, as they are different from all the features
found for the Survey. The other features for this event
are already represented by the features found in the
Survey and which have already gone through the veri-
fication process for compliance with the Scrum guide.
Daily Scrum - DS. Regarding time, the F09dsM and
F17dsS features are the same and we opted for the
Survey feature to compose the unified model for the
event. As for the frequency of this event, the F12dsM
feature is the same as the F18dsS feature, we chose to
integrate the Survey feature into the model. As for the
form of presence for this event the features F16dsM
and F19dsS are the same, we chose to compose the
unified model of events the feature F19dsS.The SMS
F17dsM and F18dsM features will be incorporated
into the unified model for the events, as they do not
have correspondents in the Survey.
Sprint Review - SW. As for the duration of these
events, we have incorporated the F19swM feature to-
gether with the others in the Survey to the unified
model for the event, as they are not the same and met
the recommendations of the Scrum guide.
Sprint Retrospective - SR. As for the duration of
these events, only the F24srM and F32srS features
are the same, we chose to keep the Survey’s source
feature. The others with respect to time will be in-
corporated into the model because they have no cor-
respondents between them.
Sprint Planning - SP. Regarding the duration of this
event, the features of the SMS and the Survey are the
same: F26spM and F43spS, we chose to keep only
that of the Survey in the unified model. The F42spS
feature includes the F25spM feature, so we will in-
corporate the F42spS feature in the unified model.
5 CONCLUSIONS
We observed there is little information available on
handling Scrum events. The literature most often re-
ports the features of the duration of events, but Scrum
has many other details of equal importance for the
events. In the Survey conducted, we asked ques-
tions to understand the aspects not found in the lit-
erature and are part of the Scrum guide. Even in the
Survey, few responses were not in accordance with
the Scrum recommendations. We understand this is
due to the fact participants had a good experience in
Scrum practices. We then developed a unified model
of adaptations. The feature model is especially useful
for grouping and classifying the information obtained,
giving visibility to the knowledge reported in the lit-
erature and with practitioners. The feature model al-
lows to instantiate new versions of Scrum, within the
guidelines’ recommendations, for application in soft-
ware development projects.
As future work we will validate the resulting
model based on an empirical study. Another oppor-
tunity for future is the statement of guidelines to cre-
ate a version of Scrum more suitable for the software
development companies, based on feature models.
REFERENCES
Alliance, S. (2017). State of scrum 2017-2018. scaling and
agile transformation.
Ashraf, S. and Aftab, S. (2017). Latest transformations in
scrum: a state of the art review. International Journal
of Modern Education and Computer Science, 9(7):12.
Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., and Eisenecker, U. (2005). For-
malizing cardinality-based feature models and their
specialization. Software process: Improvement and
practice, 10(1):7–29.
Diebold, P., Ostberg, J.-P., Wagner, S., and Zendler, U.
(2015). What do practitioners vary in using scrum?
In XP, pages 40–51. Springer.
Forza, C. (2002). Survey research in operations man-
agement: a process-based perspective. Interna-
tional journal of operations & production manage-
ment, 22(2):152–194.
Kang, K. C., Cohen, S. G., Hess, J. A., Novak, W. E.,
and Peterson, A. S. (1990). Feature-oriented domain
analysis (foda) feasibility study. Technical report,
Carnegie-Mellon Univ Pittsburgh Pa Software Engi-
neering Inst.
Kitchenham, B. A., Budgen, D., and Brereton, P. (2015).
Evidence-Based Software Engineering and Systematic
Reviews. Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Krzysztof, C. and Eisenecker, U. W. (2000). Genera-
tive Programming: Methods, Tools and Applications.
Addison-Wesley.
Lobo, A. E. d. C. and Rubira, C. M. F. (2009). A study
for deployment of component-based software product
line. Campinas-SP, Campinas State University.
Mendonc¸a, M. (2009). Efficient reasoning techniques for
large scale feature models. PhD thesis, University of
Waterloo.
Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S., and Kuzniarz, L. (2015).
Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping stud-
ies in software engineering: An update. Information
and Software Technology, 64:1–18.
Schwaber, K. and Sutherland, J. (2010). The Definitive
Guide to SCRUM: The rules of the Game. Scrum.org.
Schwaber, K. and Sutherland, J. (2017). The Definitive
Guide to SCRUM: The rules of the Game. Scrum.org.
Sharma, S. and Hasteer, N. (2016). A comprehensive study
on state of scrum development. In ICCCA, pages 867–
872.
Takeyama, F. and Chiba, S. (2013). Implementing fea-
ture interactions with generic feature modules. In SC,
pages 81–96.
On the Adaptations of the Scrum Framework Software Development Events: Literature and Practitioners Analysis using Feature Models
423