Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56Software Engineering Techniques and PracticesSoftware Engineering ResearchAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How Scrum adds value to achieving software quality?

Open access
Alami, Adam, Krancher, Oliver·2022·Empirical Software Engineering
DOI 10.1007/s10664-022-10208-4PMC PMC9486782
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Scrum remains the most popular agile software development method implementation for a variety of reasons; one important motive is to improve software quality. Yet many organizations fail to achieve quality improvements through the use of Scrum, and existing research sheds little light on the value-add of Scrum for software quality. More specifically, (1) how notions of software quality among Scrum practitioners relate to established quality perspectives, (2) how Scrum helps teams to achieve higher software quality and (3) why some teams fail to meet the objective of higher quality. We addressed these gaps through a two-phased qualitative study based on 39 interviews and two in-depth case studies. We find that Scrum practitioners emphasize established notions of external quality comprising of conformity to business needs and absence of defects, while they also value internal quality, especially sustainable software design. Our results show that Scrum helps teams achieve both dimensions of quality by promoting some social antecedents (collaboration, psychological safety, accountability, transparency) and process-induced advantages (iterative development, formal inspection, and adaptation). Our findings unveil how these factors contribute to achieving software quality and under what conditions their effects can fail to materialize. These conditions include inconsistent Scrum implementations, cultural constraints, team tensions, and inaccessibility of end-users. In addition, the complexity of the project aggravates the impact of these conditions. Taken together, these findings show that Scrum can complement established quality assurance and software engineering practices by promoting a social environment that is conducive to creating high-quality software. Based on our findings, we provide specific recommendations for how practitioners can create such an environment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10664-022-10208-4

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. Abbas N, Gravell A M, Wills G B (2010a) The impact of organization, project and governance variables on software quality and project success. In: 2010 Agile conference. IEEE, pp 77–86 · DOI
  2. Abbas N, Gravell A M, Wills G B (2010b) Using factor analysis to generate clusters of agile practices (a guide for agile process improvement). In: 2010 Agile conference. IEEE, pp 11–20 · DOI
  3. Alami A, Paasivaara M (2021) How do agile practitioners interpret and foster “technical excellence”?. In: Evaluation and assessment in software engineering. ACM, pp 10–19 · DOI
  4. Alami A, Wąsowski A (2019) Affiliated participation in open source communities. In: 2019 ACM/IEEE International symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement (ESEM). IEEE, pp 1–11 · DOI
  5. Alami A, Cohn M L, Wąsowski A (2020) How do foss communities decide to accept pull requests?. In: Proceedings of the evaluation and assessment in software engineering. ACM, pp 220–229 · DOI
  6. Alami A, Krancher O, Paasivaara M (2022) The journey to technical excellence in agile software development. Information and Software Technology 106959 · DOI
  7. Arcos-Medina G, Mauricio D (2019) Aspects of software quality applied to the process of agile software development: a systematic literature review. Int J Syst Assurance Eng Manag 10(5):867–897 · DOI
  8. Bag P K, Pepito N (2011) Double-edged transparency in teams. J Public Econ 95(7-8):531–542 · DOI
  9. Benbasat I, Goldstein D K, Mead M (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Q 369–386 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Bjarnason E, Gislason Bern B, Svedberg L (2022) Inter-team communication in large-scale co-located software engineering: a case study. Empir Softw Eng 27(2):1–43 · DOI
  11. Burga R, Spraakman C, Balestreri C, Rezania D (2021) Examining the transition to agile practices with information technology projects: agile teams and their experience of accountability. Int J Project Manag · DOI
  12. Çaglayan B, Bener A B (2016) Effect of developer collaboration activity on software quality in two large scale projects. J Syst Softw 118:288–296 · DOI
  13. Chong J (2005) Social behaviors on xp and non-xp teams: a comparative study. In: Agile development conference (ADC’05). IEEE, pp 39–48 · DOI
  14. Chuang S -W, Luor T, Lu H -P (2014) Assessment of institutions, scholars, and contributions on agile software development (2001–2012). J Syst Softw 93:84–101 · DOI
  15. Cohn M (2004) User stories applied: for agile software development. Addison-Wesley Professional
  16. Creswell J W, Poth CN (2016) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications
  17. Deemer P, Benefield G, Larman C, Vodde B (2012) A lightweight guide to the theory and practice of scrum. Ver 2:2012
  18. Dingsøyr T, Nerur S, Balijepally V, Moe NB (2012) A decade of agile methodologies: towards explaining agile software development. J Syst Softw 6(85):1213–1221 · DOI
  19. Duhigg C (2016) What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. New York Times Mag 26(2016):2016
  20. Edmondson A (1999b) A safe harbor: social psychological conditions enabling boundary spanning in work teams. Elsevier Science/JAI Press
  21. Edmondson A (2018) The fearless organization: creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley
  22. Eloranta V -P, Koskimies K, Mikkonen T (2016) Exploring scrumbut—an empirical study of scrum anti-patterns. Inf Softw Technol 74:194–203 · DOI
  23. English M, Buckley J, Collins J (2016) Investigating software modularity using class and module level metrics. In: Software quality assurance. Elsevier, pp 177–200 · DOI
  24. Green P (2011) Measuring the impact of scrum on product development at adobe systems. In: 2011 44th Hawaii international conference on system sciences. IEEE, pp 1–10 · DOI
  25. Hanson A (2017) Negative case analysis. The international encyclopedia of communication research methods, pp 1–2 · DOI
  26. Hanssen G K, Fægri TE (2006) Agile customer engagement: a longitudinal qualitative case study. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering, pp 164–173 · DOI
  27. Hassani-Alaoui S, Cameron A -F, Giannelia T (2020) “We use scrum, but...”: agile modifications and project success. In: Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii international conference on system sciences · DOI
  28. Hennel P, Rosenkranz C (2021) Investigating the “socio” in socio-technical development: the case for psychological safety in agile information systems development. Proj Manag J 52(1):11–30 · DOI
  29. Hoda R, Noble J (2017) Becoming agile: a grounded theory of agile transitions in practice. In: 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th international conference on software engineering (ICSE). IEEE, pp 141–151 · DOI
  30. Hofstede G (2001) Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage Publications
  31. Ilieva S, Ivanov P, Stefanova E (2004) Analyses of an agile methodology implementation. In: Proceedings. 30th Euromicro conference, 2004. IEEE, pp 326–333 · DOI
  32. Issac G, Rajendran C, Anantharaman R (2003) Determinants of software quality: customer’s perspective. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 14(9):1053–1070 · DOI
  33. Jain P, Sharma A, Ahuja L (2018) The impact of agile software development process on the quality of software product. In: 2018 7th International conference on reliability, Infocom technologies and optimization (trends and future directions)(ICRITO). IEEE, pp 812–815 · DOI
  34. Jalote P, Agrawal N (2005) Using defect analysis feedback for improving quality and productivity in iterative software development. In: 2005 International conference on information and communication technology. IEEE, pp 703–713 · DOI
  35. Khadjavi M, Lange A, Nicklisch A (2014) The social value of transparency and accountability: experimental evidence from asymmetric public good games. ZBW-deutsche Zentralbibliothek für..., Kiel und Hamburg
  36. Kitchenham B, Pfleeger S L (1996) Software quality: the elusive target [special issues section]. IEEE Softw 13(1):12–21 · DOI
  37. Kitchenham B, Brereton O P, Budgen D, Turner M, Bailey J, Linkman S (2009) Systematic literature reviews in software engineering–a systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol 51(1):7–15 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Krancher O (2020) Agile software development practices and success in outsourced projects: the moderating role of requirements risk. In: International conference on agile software development. Springer, pp 56–72 · DOI
  39. Krancher O, Luther P, Jost M (2018) Key affordances of platform-as-a-service: self-organization and continuous feedback. J Manag Inf Syst 35(3):776–812 · DOI
  40. Kraus W A, Kraus WA (1980) Collaboration in organizations: alternatives to hierarchy. Human Sciences Press, New York
  41. Layman L, Williams L, Cunningham L (2004) Exploring extreme programming in context: an industrial case study. In: Agile development conference. IEEE, pp 32–41 · DOI
  42. Li J, Moe N B, Dybå T (2010) Transition from a plan-driven process to scrum: a longitudinal case study on software quality. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement, pp 1–10 · DOI
  43. Lincoln Y S, Guba E G (1985) Establishing trustworthiness. Natural Inq 289(331):289–327
  44. Mahoney J, Goertz G (2004) The possibility principle: choosing negative cases in comparative research. Am Polit Sci Rev 98(4):653–669 · DOI
  45. Maximilien E M, Williams L (2003) Assessing test-driven development at ibm. In: 25th International conference on software engineering, 2003. Proceedings. IEEE, pp 564–569 · DOI
  46. Maxwell J (2012) Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. Sage Publications
  47. McHugh O, Conboy K, Lang M (2011) Agile practices: the impact on trust in software project teams. IEEE Softw 29(3):71–76 · DOI
  48. Mero-Jaffe I (2011) ‘Is that what I said?’ Interview transcript approval by participants: an aspect of ethics in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods 10(3):231–247 · DOI
  49. Messner M (2009) The limits of accountability. Acc Organ Soc 34 (8):918–938 · DOI
  50. Miles M B, Huberman A M, Saldana J et al (2014) Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks
  51. Müller R (2010) Project governance. Routledge · DOI
  52. Oliver G (2011) Organisational culture for information managers. Elsevier · DOI
  53. Patton M Q (1999) Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res 34(5 Pt 2):1189
  54. Patton MQ (2014) Qualitative research & evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice. Sage Publications
  55. Prechelt L, Schmeisky H, Zieris F (2016) Quality experience: a grounded theory of successful agile projects without dedicated testers. In: 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th international conference on software engineering (ICSE). IEEE, pp 1017–1027 · DOI
  56. Roberts J (1991) The possibilities of accountability. Account Organ Soc 16(4):355–368 · DOI
  57. Rodríguez P, Markkula J, Oivo M, Turula K (2012) Survey on agile and lean usage in Finnish software industry. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM-IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement. IEEE, pp 139–148 · DOI
  58. Runeson P, Höst M (2009) Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empir Softw Eng 14(2):131–164 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Schein E, Bennis W G (1965) Personal and organizational change through group methods: the laboratory approach, Wiley, New York
  60. Schwaber K, Sutherland J (2020) The scrum guide. Scrum Alliance 21(19):1
  61. Sharp H, Dittrich Y, De Souza C R (2016) The role of ethnographic studies in empirical software engineering. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 42(8):786–804 · DOI
  62. Sutherland J, Schoonheim G, Rijk M (2009) Fully distributed scrum: replicating local productivity and quality with offshore teams. In: 2009 42nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences. IEEE, pp 1–8
  63. Tarhan A, Yilmaz S G (2014) Systematic analyses and comparison of development performance and product quality of incremental process and agile process. Inf Softw Technol 56(5):477–494 · DOI
  64. Tucker A L, Nembhard I M, Edmondson A C (2007) Implementing new practices: an empirical study of organizational learning in hospital intensive care units. Manag Sci 53(6):894–907 · DOI
  65. ul Musawir A, Abd-Karim S B, Mohd-Danuri M S (2020) Project governance and its role in enabling organizational strategy implementation: a systematic literature review. Int J Proj Manag 38(1):1–16 · DOI
  66. Vijayasarathy L, Turk D (2008) Agile software development: a survey of early adopters. J Inf Technol Manag 19(2):1–8
  67. Williams L, Brown G, Meltzer A, Nagappan N (2011) Scrum+ engineering practices: experiences of three microsoft teams. In: 2011 International symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement. IEEE, pp 463–471 · DOI
  68. Yarnold P R, Mueser K T, Lyons J S (1988) Type a behavior, accountability, and work rate in small groups. J Res Pers 22(3):353–360 · DOI

Cited by

See all 56

Metadata

Authors
Alami, A., & Krancher, O.
Affiliations
  • Aalborg University (DK)
  • IT University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
  • Alami, Adam
  • Krancher, Oliver
ORCID
Venue
Empirical Software Engineering
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-09-20
Volume
27
Issue
7
Pages
165-165
ISSN
  • 1382-3256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7616
DOI
10.1007/s10664-022-10208-4
PMC
PMC9486782
OpenAlex
W4296396451
Cited by
56
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 2
FWCI
10.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Empirical Software Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • IT University Of Copenhagen (IT University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Keywords
Scrum, software quality, agile software development, external quality, internal quality, psychological safety, collaboration, accountability, transparency, iterative development, quality assurance, organizational culture, project complexity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.