2019
DOI: 10.1002/smr.2167
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stepwise transition to agile: From three agile practices to Kanban adaptation

Abstract: Many smaller companies cannot afford the time and effort to change their development processes all at once. In some cases, companies are not aware of the fact that many aspects of agile development are already in place. The aim of this work was to evaluate if an evolutionary transition to agile software development is suitable for small companies. We conducted a case study with a small company to start their step‐by‐step agile transition. Initially, three agile software development practices were introduced. B… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…People present a key role in the company development and in their own projects, thus, training is essential to allow teams to prevent obstacles to the company's agility (Ventura, 2007). According to agile production practices, tasks can be sorted into fields or departments and then cross‐functional teams are formed to perform the activities of each area (Cabral et al, 2012; Diebold et al, 2019).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…People present a key role in the company development and in their own projects, thus, training is essential to allow teams to prevent obstacles to the company's agility (Ventura, 2007). According to agile production practices, tasks can be sorted into fields or departments and then cross‐functional teams are formed to perform the activities of each area (Cabral et al, 2012; Diebold et al, 2019).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Notable ones can be listed as follows: simultaneously used number and size-based WIP, iterative movement of the items on the flow, work/hypothesis/experiment/release-based iterations, calendar-based regular or on-demand ceremonies, daily planning, team formations that break the <standard= cross and self-organizing team structures including floating teams, subgroups/roles and supervisory authority, same/similar-size work items, and product owner teams. [28], [29], [32], [33], [34], [39]-Case1, [40], [41], [49], [56] Daily 9 -[26], [28], [33], [38], [41], [44], [49], [51], [52] Scrum Team…”
Section: Collective Understandingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(2017) use interviews in order to identify barriers to deliver value in agile process. Gandomani and Nafchi (2014), Miranda and Bourque (2010), Qumer and Henderson-Sellers (2008a, 2008b, Sidky et al (2007), Tam et al (2020), Choras et al (2020, Paulk (2001), Paulk et al (1993), Diebold et al (2019), Basili and Rombach (1988) and Boehm (1988), although there is the understanding by the authors of this research that some of the authors related here have used qualitative instruments but not explicitly stated.…”
Section: Analysis Lens 4: Measurement Formmentioning
confidence: 86%