Evaluation of OpenProject, OrangeScrum and ProjeQtor using
QSOS Methodology
Any Keila Pereira
1
and Jorge Bernardino
1,2 a
1
Polytechnic of Coimbra – ISEC, Rua Pedro Nunes, Quinta da Nora, 3030-199 Coimbra, Portugal
2
CISUC - Centre of Informatics and Systems of University of Coimbra, DEI, 3030-290 Coimbra, Portugal
Keywords: Open Source Project Management Tools, QSOS Methodology, OpenProject, OrangeScrum, ProjeQtor.
Abstract: The market of project management tools is fruitful in Open Source solutions that are able to provide similar
functionalities or even superior to those offered by commercial solutions. Many organizations using these
tools deal with the problem of selecting the appropriate one, that corresponds to their requirements.
Qualification and Selection of Open Source Software (QSOS) is a methodology designed to qualify, select
and compare Open Source solutions in an objective and argued way, based in the functionalities and maturity
of the software. This paper provides an evaluation of three Open Source Project Management tools:
OpenProject, OrangeScrum, and ProjeQtor using QSOS methodology.
1 INTRODUCTION
According to Project Management Body of
Knowledge (PMBOK) (Project Management
Institute, 2017), a project is a temporary endeavor
undertaken to create a unique product, service, or
result.
Project Management is the application of
knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project
activities to meet the project requirements. It enables
organizations to execute projects effectively and
efficiently (Project Management Institute, 2017).
Managing a project is not an easy task, and to
facilitate it, several tools have been developed. These
tools offer a variety of features. Currently, a large
number of project management tools are available,
and the Open Source alternatives are increasingly
demonstrating better functionalities, similar or even
superior to those offered by commercial solutions
(Abramova et al., 2016).
With the increase of the quality of Open Source
Project Management tools, choose one over the other
implies a prior assessment. Many companies are
currently selecting the tool to managing their projects
using ad-hoc techniques (Deprez and Alexandre,
2008), instead of using a certified methodology that
allows to do the evaluation taking into account
various characteristics of the software.
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9660-2011
The QSOS (Qualification and Selection of Open
Source software), is a methodology that allows to
qualify, compare and select Open Source software in
an objective and argued way, based, not only in the
functionalities of the software, but also on a set of
maturity criteria proposed by the methodology
(Semeteys, 2013).
In this paper, we use the QSOS methodology,
because we wanted an evaluation based not only in
the functionalities but also in the maturity of the
software. We evaluated OpenProject, OrangeScrum
and ProjeQtor, once they appear in the list of the Top
Open Source Project Management Software.
We also present the main functionalities,
advantages, and limitations for each of the open
source management tool analyzed.
The present paper is organized as follows. Section
2 describes the related work existent about this theme,
Section 3 describes the three Project Management
tools that will be evaluated. Section 4 presents a
description of the QSOS methodology and in Section
5 is presented the results of the evaluation of the tools
with the application of QSOS methodology. Finally,
Section 7 presents the conclusions and future work.
180
Pereira, A. and Bernardino, J.
Evaluation of OpenProject, OrangeScrum and ProjeQtor using QSOS Methodology.
DOI: 10.5220/0007959201800187
In Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on e-Business and Telecommunications (ICETE 2019), pages 180-187
ISBN: 978-989-758-378-0
Copyright
c
 2019 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

2 RELATED WORK
There are some published works that compare Project
Management tools.
In Pereira et al., (2013), the authors compare the
most popular Free/Open Source web-based Project
Management tools with respect to their compliance to
PMBOK and Capability Maturity Model Integration
(CMMI). In general, they observed that exist a very
large number of so-called Project Management Tools,
however, a review of those tools indicated that in fact
only a few tools actually provide support for Project
Management as understood by PMBOK/CMMI.
Many of these tools are rather for managing to-do lists
and/or management of issue tracking, such as,
Bugzilla or Redmine.
In Cicibas et al., (2010), the authors do a
Comparison of Project Management Software tools.
Half of the tools they analysed are Open Source or do
not require licenses. In this study, they developed
criteria to determine which tool would be subject to
the analysis. Then, they developed criteria to compare
and evaluate these tools. For each of the tools, the
authors investigated whether it supports the
functionality or features selected as the criteria
developed for the study. The analysis indicates that
none of the tools provides all the functionality or
features and some of the features exist in most all of
the tools.
There are also, some published works that use the
QSOS methodology to evaluate and select software.
In Ferreira et al., (2012), the authors use the QSOS
methodology for qualification and selection of Open
Source Software (Koha, Evergreen and PhpMyBibli)
and applies it in the context of integrated library
management software. Based on the analysis
performed, the software that showed more ability to
meet the needs of the national librarians was the
Koha. After the analysis, they present an evaluation
and selection of Big Data Analytics using and
adapting the QSOS methodology for qualification
and selection of Open Source software. The
comparison demonstrated that the HPCC Systems
Platform is more efficient and reliable than the
Hortonworks Data Platform. There are also some
works comparing other types of software such as Big
Data platforms (Almeida and Bernardino, 2015).
However, to the best of our knowledge, this is one
of the first papers that applies the QSOS
Methodology to evaluate Open Source Project
Management Tools.
3 OPEN SOURCE PROJECT
MANAGEMENT TOOLS
Most of the failed projects have in common the fact
that they are not adequately managed. Doing effective
and efficient management of projects still remains a
big challenge to organizations. In order to achieve the
best way to manage projects, "best practice" models,
such as, the CMMI or the PMBOK, (Project
Management Institute, 2017) are being developed to
assist organizations in improving project
management.
The dimensional growth and increasing difficulty
in Project Management promoted the development of
different tools that serve to facilitate it. Although not
required, software tools can help implement the
Project Management process in practice and becomes
a key in supporting the effort to complete a project
successfully (Margea and Margea, 2011).
There are many Project Management tools that
provide a large number of features and the market is
rich in Open Source solutions that are able to provide
similar functionalities or even superior to those
offered by commercial solutions (Abramova et al.,
2016).
We selected the tools: OrangeScrum,
OpenProject, and ProjeQtor to evaluate, since the 3
tools are in the list of best Project Management Tools
(Conrad et al., 2018). The metrics for the choice were,
number of features, number of users and friendly
interface.
In the next sections, we describe the main
characteristics of the Project Management Open
Source tools: OpenProject, OrangeScrum, and
ProjeQtor.
3.1 OpenProject
OpenProject (OpenProject, 2019) is a powerful Open
Source Project Management solution written in Ruby
on Rails and compatible with Linux operating
systems.
The OpenProject Foundation was established by
OpenProject’s developers and users in October 2012.
Is continuously developed by an active Open Source
community.
The association provides an organizational
framework for technical decisions and the
propagation, acceleration and perpetuation of
development by the worldwide community and by a
full-time development team, funded by the members
of the OpenProject Foundation.
Its modules support: Project planning and
scheduling, it is possible to easily define the project
Evaluation of OpenProject, OrangeScrum and ProjeQtor using QSOS Methodology
181

objectives and specify the work to be done related to
this scope, analyse the required activities and create a
detailed plan that shows how and when the project
will provide the deliverables defined in the project
scope; Roadmap and release planning, it is easy to
plan, visualize, and communicate the product
roadmap, share product roadmap with stakeholders,
get feedback about the ideas and break it down into a
detailed release plan; Time tracking, cost reporting
and budgeting, OpenProject makes time tracking
easy, it is possible to create custom reports for
accurate, current insight into project performance and
allocated resources, plan the cost for each project
phase, and see how much of the allocated budget has
been spent; Bug tracking, OpenProject excels at bug
tracking, offering Quality Assurance managers and
testers a platform to capture, classify and prioritize
bugs; Kanban, Agile and Scrum, its agile features,
including creating stories, prioritizing sprints, and
tracking tasks, it is the perfect tool for agile teams that
want to use agile methodologies such as Scrum;
Project Wiki, OpenProject allows users to create a
knowledge base for theirs projects and share it with
theirs team and other stakeholders. Paid plans offer
additional capabilities, including customization,
security, and support (OpenProject, 2019). The price
for the upgrade is 4,95€ per user for the Cloud Edition
and 9,95€ per user for the Enterprise Edition.
OpenProject is licensed under GPLv3. Its latest
version, 7.3.2. is available for download and its
source code is available on GitHub (Conrad et al.,
2018).
The main advantages of OpenProject are:
 The free version includes the entirety of Project
Management capabilities;
 Easy to use and user friendly.
The main limitations of OpenProject are:
 Windows Operation System is not supported;
 OpenProject Community offers minimal support
outside of user guides.
Figure 1 shows the interface of OpenProject.
Figure 1: Interface of OpenProject.
3.2 OrangeScrum
OrangeScrum is a product of AndolaSoft Inc., a
privately held web and mobile app development
company based in San Jose, USA, founded in 2009
by Jay Das (Andolasoft, 2019a).
It is a cloud-based Project Management software
and Task Management to help organize, projects,
teams, and tasks in one place. It gives users full
visibility and control over their projects, enabling
them to deliver projects on time and within budget. It
is a valuable tool that brings people and projects
together, providing clear structures (Andolasoft,
2019b).
As an agile Project Management software, it
offers capabilities such as epics and stories, sprints,
scrum boards, reports and velocity charts.
The Premium features include: time tracking, that
allows time tracking spent on tasks, with daily and
weekly timesheets for evaluating team performance;
Recurring tasks, that allows auto-creation of tasks
with the defined frequency of time; Gantt charts, that
allows to drag and drop tasks, draw linkages to define
task dependencies, arrange the tasks in a sequence
and many from a single view; Project templates, that
enables to replicate and reuse the structure and
content of existing projects, including milestones and
task with start date, end date, estimated hours to speed
up new project creation and standardize workflow
processes; Client management, that allow clients to
easily contribute to the project with their account
access, mark a user as a client to involve clients in
project progress, maintain log of all client
communication to prevent unwanted interference
from clients and customers, create a private task
which a client user can’t see; User role management,
that allows to define clear roles and responsibilities
for the smooth functioning of the teams as well as the
projects, it also ensures how everyone can contribute
to a project (Andolasoft, 2019a).
Training and onboarding support are available for
an additional fee (Project Management Zone, 2019).
As we can see, most of the Project Management
capabilities are Premium features, which has an
associated cost.
OrangeScrum offers several versions. The Startup
plan is priced at 7€ per month, it includes for 10 users
with a storage limit of 5GB. The Basic plan is priced
at 23€ per month, includes for 20 users and 15GB
storage limit. The Standard plan is priced at 39€ per
month, includes for 35 users, the Professional plan is
priced at 71€ per month, with up to 60 users, and there
is also an Unlimited Users plan, priced at 88€ per
ICE-B 2019 - 16th International Conference on e-Business
182

month. All plans include unlimited tasks, projects,
and task groups or sprints.
OrangeScrum is licensed under GPLv3 and is
based on the CakePHP framework. It requires
Apache, PHP 5.3 or higher, and MySQL 4.1 or
higher, and works on Windows, Linux, and MacOS.
Its latest release, 1.6.1. is available for download, and
its source code can be found on GitHub.
The main advantages of OrangeScrum are:
 Easy to use and user friendly;
 It allows self-hosting;
 Mobile application for iOS, Android;
 Ideal for task management, small organizations
and small and midsize businesses.
The main limitations of OrangeScrum are:
 Limited number of free features;
 Confusing in distinguishing the free and paid
versions, once they have same name;
 Although it is easy to use, the process of
installation is explained in a confusing way in the
tool website.
Figure 2 shows the interface of OrangeScrum.
Figure 2: Interface of OrangeScrum.
3.3 ProjeQtor
ProjeQtor (ProjeQtOr, 2019) is a solid, Open Source
Project Management tool originally released in 2009
by Pascal Bernard.
Its name means Quality based Project Organizer,
as it claims to be Quality oriented. This software has
changed its name in November 2013. It was formerly
called Project'Or RIA (Project Organizer Rich
Internet Application).
Over the years many contributors have put
significant work into the project, expanding it into a
deep Project Management system with a dizzying
number of features, including portfolio management,
bug tracking, risk management, and budget
management. ProjeQtor main features are: Planning
management, it provides all the elements needed to
build a planning from workload, constraints between
tasks and resources availability; Resource
management, it manages the availability of resources
that can be affected to multiple projects, it calculates
a reliable, optimized and realistic planning; Incident
management, it includes a Bug Tracker to monitor
incidents on your projects, with possibility to include
work on planned tasks of your projects; Costs
management, all elements related to delays can be
followed as costs (from resources work) and
managing other expenses, all costs of the project are
monitored and can generate invoices; Quality
management, it is Quality Oriented, it integrates the
best practices that help to meet the quality
requirements on the projects; Risks management, it
includes a comprehensive risks and opportunities
management, including the action plan necessary to
mitigate or treat them and monitoring occurring
problems; Perimeter management, it allows you to
monitor and record all events on your projects and
helps in managing of deviations, to control the
perimeter of projects; Commitments management, it
allows to follow the requirements on the projects and
measure at any time coverage progress, making it
easy to reach your commitments; Documents
management, ProjeQtOr offers integrated Document
Management, documents can be versioning and an
approver process can be defined, it is efficient to
manage project and product documents; Tools,
ProjeQtOr includes some tools to generate alerts,
automatically send emails on chosen events, import
or export data in various formats (ProjeQtOr, 2017).
The system is regularly updated, with new patches
coming out several times per month and a new major
update to add features and address issues roughly
every other month. The community forum is also very
active (ProjeQtOr, 2019).
The main advantages of ProjeQtor are:
 It is a completely free and fully operational;
 It includes all of Project Management capabilities
and a few more things;
 It is customizable, due to its high configurability;
 It has an active international community,
participating to its constant improvement and
rapid enrichment.
The main limitations of ProjeQtor are:
 The number of menu icons available after
installing the application is impressive, and it may
be complex for some users;
 The tool seems not to be "agile methods" oriented;
 Users complain that after some time of use in
business environment, the software starts to
become slow.
Evaluation of OpenProject, OrangeScrum and ProjeQtor using QSOS Methodology
183

Figure 3 shows the interface of ProjeQtor.
Figure 3: Interface of ProjeQtor.
4 QSOS METHODOLOGY
The QSOS (Qualification and Selection of Open
Source software), is a methodology designed by Atos
to qualify, select and compare Free and Open Source
software in an objective, traceable, and arguable way.
The evaluation of the software using this method is
based, not only in the functionalities, but also in the
maturity of the software (Semeteys, 2013).
It consists of four stages, namely, Definition,
Evaluation, Qualification, and Selection. The model
is supported by a tool called Open Source Selection
Software (Adewumi et al., 2019).
The general approach of the QSOS methodology
is composed of four interdependent steps.
4.1 Step 1: Define
The purpose of this step is to define different elements
of typology that will be used during the next three
steps of process.
The different typological references are:
 Type of software: the hierarchical classification of
types of software and the description of functional
coverage;
 Type of license: classification of types of free and
open source licenses in use;
 Type of community: classification of types of
community organizations around the software to
ensure the life cycle.
4.1.1 Type of Software
This reference is composed of hierarchical criteria,
grouped by axes:
 Maturity analysis of the project in charge of the
software development;
 Functional coverage analysis of the software.
The QSOS Method defines and imposes the maturity
criteria of a project. The QSOS Manifesto (Semeteys,
2013) defines how the maturity criteria are scored.
Figure 4 shows the maturity criteria proposed by
QSOS methodology.
Figure 4: Maturity criteria of a project (Semeteys, 2013).
4.1.2 Type of License
The purpose of this reference is to identify and
categorize the software license according to the
following axes:
 Copyleft: Can derivative works become
proprietary or have to stay under the same
conditions?
 Virality: Does the use of the software from a
module implies that this module has to be under
the same license?
 Inheritance: Does the derivative work inherit from
the license or is it possible to add restrictions?
4.1.3 Type of Community
The types of identified communities are:
 Sole developer: The software is developed by a
sole person;
 Group of developers: Several persons working
together without formal processes;
 Developers organization: A group of developers
using a software lifecycle management system
formalized and respected, based on roles and
meritocracy;
 Legal entity: A legal entity, often a non-for-profit,
manages the community and the sponsorship and
holds the copyrights;
 Commercial entity: A commercial entity employs
the core developers of the project and gets revenue
from the sale of services or commercial version of
the software.
4.2 Step 2: Evaluate
The purpose of this step is to evaluate the software.
The evaluation criteria of the maturity of the tool are
imposed by the method and described further.
ICE-B 2019 - 16th International Conference on e-Business
184

The criteria are assigned a discrete score from 0 to
2 and the evaluation templates contain the meaning of
the three scores 0, 1 and 2 for every criterion.
Regarding the functional coverage, the scoring
rule is: 0 for Functionality not covered; 1 for
Functionality partially covered and 2 for
Functionality fully covered.
These scores will be used in the selection step to
compare and filter the software depending on the
weighting specified during the qualification step.
It is possible to apply the general approach in an
iterative way. At the evaluation level, it means to have
the possibility to score the criteria several times.
4.3 Step 3: Qualify
The purpose of this step is to define a set of elements
translating the needs and constraints lined to the
selection approach of a Open Source software. The
context in which the software will be used has to be
set, in order to get a filter used in the Selection step.
In the Maturity filter, the degree of relevance of
every maturity criterion is defined as: Not relevant
criterion; Relevant criterion and Critical criterion. In
the Functional coverage filter, every functionality is
assigned a level of requirement: Required
functionality; Optional functionality and Not required
functionality.
The degree of relevance of the criteria and the
level of requirement of the functionalities will be
translated into a weighting value in the next step of
the process, depending on the chosen selection mode.
4.4 Step 4: Select
The purpose of this step is to select the software
matching the user’s needs, or to compare the software
of the same type.
Two modes of selection are available: Strict
selection and Loose selection.
The Strict selection is made by a process of
elimination as soon as a piece of software does not
comply with the demands:
 Elimination of the software that don’t go through
the identity filter;
 Elimination of the software that don’t provide the
required functionalities;
 Elimination of the software whose maturity
criteria don’t match with the degree of relevance
defined by the user:
- the score of a relevant criterion must be greater than
or equal to 1;
- the score of a critical criterion must be equal to 2.
The Loose selection mode is less strict than the
previous one. Instead of eliminating software that are
non-eligible, it sorts them while measuring the
difference compared to the filters previously defined.
It is based on the weighting values whose rules are
detailed in the following paragraphs:
A. Weighting of Functionalities.
The weighting factor is based on the level of
requirements of every functionality of the
functionality coverage.
The weight of the functionality according to the
level of requirement is: 3 for Required functionality;
1 for Optional functionality and 0 for Not required
functionality.
B. Weighting of Maturity.
The weighting factor is based on the degree of
relevance of every maturity criterion.
The weight of the criteria according to degree of
relevance is:
- 3 for Critical criterion;
- 1 for Relevant criterion;
- 0 for Not relevant criterion.
5 EVALUATION
To do the evaluation, it is necessary to build the
maturity matrix according to the method, the matrix
of functionalities considered important in a Project
Management Tool and identify the software license
and community.
For this evaluation we considered the
functionalities: Hierarchical tasks; Milestone
tracking; Task dependencies; Gantt charts; PERT
charts; Resource management; Time tracking; Cost
tracking; Risk management; Scrum support; Kanban
support and Project portfolio management, since they
are the most common functionalities in a Project
Management tool (Karlson, 2018) (Kashyap, 2019).
In terms of licence all of the three tools have the
GNU Public License, which means that the license is
not an evaluation factor.
In terms of community of developers, we identify
that: OrangeScrum is developed by a Commercial
Entity; OpenProject is developed by a Developers
Organization and the ProjeQtor by a Group of
developers. Although the community of developers
may be a relevant factor in the evaluation of a
software, we think that it does not influence in the
choice of one tool in relation to another one, so we
will not consider it in the evaluation.
Evaluation of OpenProject, OrangeScrum and ProjeQtor using QSOS Methodology
185

Considering all the criteria on the maturity matrix,
after assigning the score of each criterion for each
tool, the tool that achieved the highest score, with the
sum of the scores assigned to each criterion, was
OpenProject with a score of 20, followed by
ProjeQtor with 19, and finally the OrangeScrum with
14 in in a maximum of 32.
Considering all the functionalities, defined on step
1, after assigning the score of each one, (steps 1 and
2) the tool that achieved the highest score, with the
sum of the scores assigned to each functionality, was
ProjeQtor with a score of 18, followed by the
OpenProject with 12, and finally the OrangeScrum
with 8 in in a maximum of 24.
The step 3 is to qualify the criteria and
functionality considered in the previous step. The
Tables 1 and 2 qualifies the maturity criteria and
functionality coverage respectively.
Table 1: Degree of relevance of the maturity criteria.
Maturity
Degree of relevance
Age
Not relevant criterion
History
Not relevant criterion
Core team
Not relevant criterion
Popularity
Relevant criterion
Contributing community
Relevant criterion
Activity on bugs
Critical criterion
Activity on features
Critical criterion
Activity on releases/versions
Relevant criterion
Copyright owners
Not relevant criterion
Roadmap
Not relevant criterion
Project management
Relevant criterion
Distribution mode
Not relevant criterion
Services
Critical criterion
Documentation
Critical criterion
Quality assurance
Relevant criterion
Source code modification
Not relevant criterion
Table 2: Level of requirement of the functionalities.
Functionalities
Level of requirement
Hierarchical tasks
Not required functionality
Milestone tracking
Required functionality
Task dependencies
Not required functionality
Gantt charts
Optional functionality
PERT charts
Optional functionality
Resource management
Required functionality
Time tracking
Required functionality
Cost tracking
Required functionality
Risk management
Required functionality
Scrum support
Optional functionality
Kanban support
Required functionality
Project portfolio management
Optional functionality
To qualify we removed of the evaluation the “Not
relevant criteria” and “Not required functionality”.
For the next step, Selection, we chose the Loose
selection. According to this mode of selection we
calculated the final score of each tool by multiplying
the score attributed in the evaluation step by the
weight of the criteria/functionality level.
After multiplying the score of each criterion on
the maturity matrix by the weight of maturity,
according to degree of relevance, the tools
OpenProject, and ProjeQtor achieved the same score,
21, and then OrangeScrum with 14 in a maximum of
34. In the functionality matrix, after multiplying the
score of each functionality by the weight of
functionalities, according to the level of requirement
of the functionality, the tool that achieved the high
score is ProjeQtor, with a score of 38, followed by
OpenProject, with a score of 22 and then
OrangeScrum with 20 in a maximum of 44.
As we can see the ProjeQtor is the tool that we
select as the best tool applying the QSOS
methodology, since it obtained the best score in both
matrixes.
6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE
WORK
There is a variety of Open Source Project
Management tools that provide a large number of
features. Considering available Open Source
alternatives, it is important to notice that there are a
vast number of then that provide similar features to
proprietary ones.
In this paper, we analysed three Open Source
Project Management tools: OpenProject,
OrangeScrum and ProjeQtor. This evaluation is based
in technical documentation and on the websites of the
respective tools.
The application of the QSOS methodology
allowed us to obtain a more precise assessment, based
not only in the functionalities of the tools but also on
maturity criteria proposed by this methodology.
With the application of the QSOS methodology
we conclude that ProjeQtor is the best tool, once this
tool achieved the highest score in both matrixes, the
functionalities and the maturity matrixes proposed by
this method. Although this tool is powerful for project
management with plenty of features, the number of
features available scares some users, and this
characteristic that should be its main advantage ends
up being its main disadvantage. So, if the user-
friendly interface of a software is an important thing
for you, then ProjeQtor is not a good choice, but if
you are looking for features it is an excellent choice.
As we can see, ProjeQtor just goes beyond
OpenProject in terms of functionality, because in the
maturity matrixes they achieved the same score.
ICE-B 2019 - 16th International Conference on e-Business
186

As a future work, we intend to evaluate ProjeQtor
comparing with other Open Source tools and even
commercial ones. We also propose to use the best tool
in a real environment.
REFERENCES
Abramova, V., Pires, F. and Bernardino, J. (2016) ‘Open
Source vs Proprietary Project Management Tools’,
New Advances in Information Systems and
Technologies. Advances in Intelligent Systems and
Computing, 2. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
31232-3_31.
Adewumi, A., Misra, S., Omoregbe, N. and Sanz, L. (2019)
‘Research Article Fosses : Framework for open-source
software evaluation and selection’, (January), pp. 780–
812. doi: 10.1002/spe.2682.
Almeida, P. and Bernardino, J. (2015) ‘Big Data Open
Source Platforms’, 2015 IEEE International Congress
on Big Data. IEEE, pp. 268–275. doi:
10.1109/BigDataCongress.2015.45.
Andolasoft (2019a) OrangeScrum. Available at:
https://www.orangescrum.com/.
Andolasoft (2019b) OrangeScrum Blog. Available at:
http://blog.orangescrum.com/2019/02/4-proven-
strategies-for-increasing-employee-productivity-in-
2019.html.
Cicibas, H., Unal, O. and Demir, K. (2010) ‘A Comparison
of Project Management Software Tools (PMST).’,
Software Engineering Research, (January). Available
at:
http://www.softwaresuccess.org/SERP10_Demir_Com
parison_PM_Tools.pdf.
Conrad, A., O'Loughlin, E., Lauren, M. and Tamang, P.
(2018) The Top 29 Free and Open Source Project
Management Software for Your Small Business.
Available at: https://wp-stage.capstage.net/free-open-
source-project-management-software/.
Deprez, J. C. and Alexandre, S. (2008) ‘Comparing
Assessment Methodologies for Free/Open Source
Software: OpenBRR and QSOS’, Lecture Notes in
Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes
in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in
Bioinformatics), 5089 LNCS, pp. 189–203. doi:
10.1007/978-3-540-69566-0_17.
Ferreira, M., Ferros, L. M. and Fernandes, V. (2012)
‘Avaliação e seleção de software open-source para
Gestão Integrada de Bibliotecas’, Actas do Congresso
Nacional de Bibliotecários, Arquivistas e
Documentalistas, p. 6. Available at:
http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/2049
1.
Karlson, K. (2018) 6 PM Software Features That Will
Skyrocket Your Project Performance. Available at:
https://www.scoro.com/blog/features-of-project-
management-software/.
Kashyap, V. (2019) 12 Amazing Features to Look for in a
Project Management System. Available at:
https://www.proofhub.com/articles/project-
management-system.
Margea, R. and Margea, C. (2011) ‘Open source approach
to project management tools’, Informatica Economică,
15(1), pp. 196–206.
OpenProject (2019) Open source project management
software. Available at: https://www.openproject.org/.
Pereira, A., Gonçalves, R., Wangenheim, C. and Buglione,
L. (2013) ‘Comparison of Open Source Tools for
Project Management’, International Journal of
Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering,
23(02), pp. 189–209. doi:
10.1142/s0218194013500046.
Project Management Institute (2017) A Guide to the Project
Management Body of Knowledge, International
Journal of Production Research. doi:
10.1002/pmj.21345.
Project Management Zone (2019) Orangescrum System
Properties. Available at: https://project-
management.zone/system/orangescrum.
ProjeQtOr (2017) ‘ProjeQtOr User guide’. Available at:
https://www.projeqtor.org/files/ProjeQtOrUserGuide.p
df.
ProjeQtOr (2019) ProjeQtOr free project management
software Quality Based Open Source Project Organizer.
Available at: https://www.projeqtor.org/en/.
Semeteys, R. (2013) ‘Qualification and Selection of Open
Source Software (QSOS)’, Open Source Business
Resource, (May 2008), pp. 1–29. Available at:
http://backend.qsos.org/download/qsos-
2.0_en.pdf%5Cnhttp://timreview.ca/article/146%5Cnh
ttp://www.qsos.org/Method.html.
Evaluation of OpenProject, OrangeScrum and ProjeQtor using QSOS Methodology
187