Planning improvements based on agile requirements analysis for software projects with uncertain requirements

• Autorzy: Marchwicka Ewa , Cybulski Tomasz

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2025.215.22

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: The objectives of the paper are to identify agile software projects with uncertain requirements that require planning adjustments and to suggest planning improvements that can be applicable in similar project contexts. Design/methodology/approach: Semi-structured interviews, literature review and documentation analysis were used as research methods. 509 different IT projects of software outsourcing companies were analyzed in the terms of exceeding estimated time. Findings: As a result, one project type has been indicated as underestimated. A planning approach incorporating user story prioritization, based on the Kano model has been suggested. Prioritizing project tasks if often used in Agile context, but prioritization process is usually very subjective and performed only by one person (Product Owner). The approach presented in this paper suggests to extend prioritizing techniques to all parties that might be interested (like team members or stakeholders) by collecting questionnaire answers. The process can be done iteratively, which is characteristic for Agile. Research limitations/implications: The limitation is the superficial analysis of the quality of the approach. Only a general scheme has been presented. Performing detailed quality analysis is planned as future research. Practical implications: Improving standard prioritization techniques should be valuable for Agile practitioners, because it means better planning. In particular it helps to quicker develop a Minimal Viable Product (MVP) and achieve users’ satisfaction. The research indicates one particular Agile project type, for which this approach should be helpful. Originality/value: According to the literature review research performed by the authors, this paper fills in the gap in the literature of mid-term planning in Agile context.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

project planning; agile approach; Kano model; prioritization

PL

planowanie projektów; podejście zwinne; model Kano; priorytetyzacja

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Śląskiej
• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska
• Rocznik: 2025
• Tom: z. 215
• Strony: 355--373
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 27 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Marchwicka Ewa

• Wroclaw University of Science and Technology

• https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6097-784X

autor

Cybulski Tomasz

Bibliografia

• 1. Ali, N., Lai, R. (2021). Global software development: A review of IT practices. Malaysian Journal of Computer Science, 34.
• 2. Aslamiyah, S. (2023). Implementation of the Kano model and importance and performance analysis in the development of a web-based knowledge management system. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Research.
• 3. Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R.C., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., Thomas, D. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Retrieved from: https://agilemanifesto.org, April 2023.
• 4. Benzaghta, M.A., Elwalda, A., Mousa, M.M. (2012). SWOT analysis applications: An integrative literature review. Journal of Global Business Insights.
• 5. Campese, C., Hornos da Costa, J.M. (2019). Requirements management methods: Does the literature need an update? Product Management and Development, 17(1).
• 6. Cao, L., Ramesh, B., Abdel-Hamid, T. (2010). Modeling dynamics in agile software development. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems.
• 7. Cohn, M. (2006). Agile estimating and planning. Pearson Education, Inc.
• 8. Fernández-Diego, M., Méndez, E.W.R., González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, F., Abrahão, S., Insfran, E. (2020). An update on effort estimation in agile software development: A systematic review. IEEE Access, 8.
• 9. Francisco, M.G., Sant'Anna, O.C. (2019). Design for Six Sigma integrated product development reference model through systematic review. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma.
• 10. Ghodeswar, B., Vaidyanathan, J. (2008). Business process outsourcing: An approach to gain access to world-class capabilities. Business Process Management Journal.
• 11. Golrizgashti, S., Hejaz, A.R., Farshianabbasi, K. (2019). Assessing after-sales services quality: Integrated SERVQUAL and fuzzy Kano's model. International Journal of Services Economics and Management, 137-166.
• 12. Kelly, A. (2004). Why do requirements change? Overload.
• 13. Kosztyan, Z.T. (2022). MFPP: Matrix-based flexible project planning. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(9).
• 14. Kosztyan, Z.T., Jakab, R., Novak, G., Hegedus, C. (2020). Survive IT! Survival analysis of IT project planning approaches. Operations Research Perspective, 7.
• 15. Kosztyán, Z.T., Novák, G., Jakab, R., Szalkai, I., Hegedűs, C. (2023). A matrix-based flexible project-planning library and indicators. Expert Systems with Applications, 216.
• 16. Krancher, O. (2020). Agile software development practices and success in outsourced projects: The moderating role of requirements risk. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, 383.
• 17. Lee, S., Geum, Y. (2021). How to determine a minimum viable product in app-based lean start-ups: Kano-based approach. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 32.
• 18. Li, M., Zhang, J. (2021). Integrating Kano model, AHP, and QFD methods for new product development based on text mining, intuitionistic fuzzy sets, and customers' satisfaction. Mathematical Problems in Engineering.
• 19. Maguire, M., Bevan, N. (2002). User requirements analysis: A review of supporting methods. Proceedings of the IFIP 17th World Computer Congress - TC13 Stream on Usability: Gaining a Competitive Edge.
• 20. Nicolas, J., Carrillo De Gea, J.M., Nicolás B., Fernández-Alemán J.L, Toval A. (2018). On the Risks and Safeguards for Requirements Engineering in Global Software Development: Systematic Literature Review and Quantitative Assessment. IEEE Access, 6, 59628-59656.
• 21. Project Management Institute, Inc. (2013). Software extension to the PMBOK® Guide (5th ed.). Project Management Institute, Inc.
• 22. Saher, N., Baharom, F., Romli, R. (2018). A review of requirement prioritization techniques in agile software development. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research.
• 23. Shirazi, F., Kazemipoor, H., Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R. (2017). Fuzzy decision analysis for project scope change management. Decision Science Letters, 6, 395-406.
• 24. Stupnicki, R. (2015). Analiza i prezentacja danych ankietowych. Wydawnictwo AWF.
• 25. Vavpotič, D., Robnik-Šikonja, M., Hovelja, T. (2019). Exploring the relations between net benefits of IT projects and CIOs' perception of quality of software development discipline. Business & Information Systems Engineering.
• 26. Wautelet, Y., Heng, S., Kolp, M., Mirbel, I. (2014). Unifying and extending user story models. 26th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering.
• 27. Young, R, Grumman, N. (2002). Recommended Requirements Gathering Practices. Computer Science.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa nr POPUL/SP/0154/2024/02 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki II" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki (2025).