Cómo los profesionales perciben la relevancia de las métricas de productividad para un equipo ágil de desarrollo de software

  1. Giovanni Hernández 1
  2. Álvaro Martínez 1
  3. Robinson Jiménez 1
  4. Franklin Jiménez 1
  1. 1 Universidad Mariana, Facultad de Ingeniería, San Juan de Pasto, Colombia
Journal:
RISTI: Revista Ibérica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informação

ISSN: 1646-9895

Year of publication: 2020

Issue: 32

Pages: 596-609

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: RISTI: Revista Ibérica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informação

Abstract

Agile methods have been adopted more frequently in software development. There is literature on the use of productivity metrics for work teams as a tool for continuous improvement in agile software development (ASD); however, works on the relevance that these measures may have for professionals who use agile methods is very limited. This paper contributes to this regard by answering the question: What is the level of relevance of productivity metrics for professionals who develop software and use agile methods? The answer was given from a survey that followed the protocol of Kitchenham and Pfleeger called Personal Opinion Surveys. The professional collaborators rated two aspects with a high level of relevance: the first, information is obtained on the effort required to implement a software product and the second is to measure the client benefits while the software is manufactured and it is operating. In addition, a path was established for the process of measuring the effort required in the early and frequent delivery of software, which adds value.

Bibliographic References

  • Alahyari, H., Berntsson, R., & Gorschek, T. (2017). The Journal of Systems and Software A study of value in agile software development organizations. The Journal of Systems & Software, 125, 271–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.12.007
  • Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., & Kern, J. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development. https://agilemanifesto. org/
  • Cohn, M. (2004). User stories applied: For agile software development. AddisonWesley Professional.
  • Davis, C. W. H. (2015). Agile Metrics in Action (D. Maharry, M. Smolyak, & L. Recktenwald (eds.); 1st ed.). Manning Publications Co.
  • Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., & Moe, N. B. (2012). A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1213–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.02.033
  • Fenton, N. E., & Bieman, J. (2015). Software metrics : a rigorous and practical approach (3rd ed.). CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Hernández, G., Martínez, Á., Argote, I., & Coral, D. (2015). Metodología adaptativa basada en Scrum : Caso empresas de la Industria de Software en San Juan de Pasto - Colombia. Revista Tecnológica ESPOL, 28(5), 211–223.
  • Hernández, G., Martínez, Á., Jiménez, R., & Jiménez, F. (2019a). Métricas de productividad para equipo de trabajo de desarrollo ágil de software: una revisión sistemática. TecnoLógicas, 22, 63–81. https://doi.org/10.22430/22565337.1510
  • Hernández, G., Martínez, Á., Jiménez, R., & Jiménez, F. (2019b). Scrum y Peopleware : elementos clave para la gestión en la construcción de software. Iberian Journal of Information Systems and Technologies, E19, 265–277.
  • Kapitsaki, G. M., & Christou, M. (2015). Learning from the Current Status of Agile Adoption. International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering, 551, 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27218-4_2
  • Khurum, M., Gorschek, T., & Wilson, M. (2012). The software value map — an exhaustive collection of value aspects for the development of software intensive products. https://doi.org/10.1002/smr
  • Kitchenham, B., & Pfleeger, S. (2008). Personal Opinion Surveys. In F. Shull, J. Singer, & D. I. K. Sjøberg (Eds.), Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering (p. 394). Springer.
  • Kurnia, R., Ferdiana, R., Wibirama, S., & Theory, A. S. (2018). Software Metrics Classification for Agile Scrum Process : A Literature Review. 2018 International Seminar on Research of Information Technology and Intelligent Systems (ISRITI), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISRITI.2018.8864244
  • Lo, D., Nagappan, N., & Zimmermann, T. (2015). How Practitioners Perceive the Relevance of Software Engineering Research. In Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering, 415–425. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1145/2786805.2786809
  • Oliveira, E., Conte, T., Cristo, M., & Mendes, E. (2016). Software Project Managers’ Perceptions of Productivity Factors: Findings from a Qualitative Study. International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 08-09-Sept. https://doi.org/10.1145/2961111.2962626
  • Ram, P., Rodriguez, P., & Oivo, M. (2018). Software process measurement and related challenges in agile software development: A multiple case study. Product-Focused Software Process Improvement 19th International Conference, PROFES 2018, 11271, 272–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03673-7_20
  • Ramirez-Mora, S. L., & Oktaba, H. (2018). Productivity in Agile Software Development: A Systematic Mapping Study. Proceedings - 2017 5th International Conference in Software Engineering Research and Innovation, CONISOFT 2017, 44–53. https:// doi.org/10.1109/CONISOFT.2017.00013
  • Rodríguez, P., Markkula, J., Oivo, M., & Turula, K. (2012). Survey on agile and lean usage in finnish software industry. International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 139–148. https://doi. org/10.1145/2372251.2372275
  • Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2017). 2017 Scrum Guide - The Definitive Guide to Scrum: The Rules of the Game.
  • Yamada, S., & Kii, R. (2015). Software quality analysis for agile development. 2015 4th International Conference on Reliability, Infocom Technologies and Optimization: Trends and Future Directions, ICRITO 2015, 0–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ICRITO.2015.7359201
Data source: Dialnet