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. Based on the assessment of improvements, the transition continued with three Kanban practices. Experiences with the improvement process and the selected practices were elicited by means of qualitative interviews for data collection. Our case study reports details on the implementation of the first practices as well as the way the resulting agile transition has taken so far. The positive experiences reported by all employees during the agile transition indicate that an evolutionary transition is suitable for small companies. The experiences concerning the transition process and the positive effects of the selected practices motivate practitioners to start their own agile transition.

The three pillars of sustainability and agile project management: How do they influence each other

“…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).…”

Scrum, Kanban or a Mix of Both? A Systematic Literature Review

“…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…”

Research opportunities about measuring agility in software development: a constructivist perspective

“…(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.…”