The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Continuous Integration, Delivery and Deployment: A Systematic Review on Approaches, Tools, Challenges and Practices
Open accessAbstract
Continuous practices, i.e., continuous integration, delivery, and deployment, are the software development industry practices that enable organizations to frequently and reliably release new features and products. With the increasing interest in the literature on continuous practices, it is important to systematically review and synthesize the approaches, tools, challenges, and practices reported for adopting and implementing continuous practices. This paper aimed at systematically reviewing the state of the art of continuous practices to classify approaches and tools, identify challenges and practices in this regard, and identify the gaps for future research. We used the systematic literature review method for reviewing the peer-reviewed papers on continuous practices published between 2004 and June 1, 2016. We applied the thematic analysis method for analyzing the data extracted from reviewing 69 papers selected using predefined criteria. We have identified 30 approaches and associated tools, which facilitate the implementation of continuous practices in the following ways: (1) reducing build and test time in continuous integration (CI); (2) increasing visibility and awareness on build and test results in CI; (3) supporting (semi-) automated continuous testing; (4) detecting violations, flaws, and faults in CI; (5) addressing security and scalability issues in deployment pipeline; and (6) improving dependability and reliability of deployment process. We have also determined a list of critical factors, such as testing (effort and time), team awareness and transparency, good design principles, customer, highly skilled and motivated team, application domain, and appropriate infrastructure that should be carefully considered when introducing continuous practices in a given organization. The majority of the reviewed papers were validation (34.7%) and evaluation (36.2%) research types. This paper also reveals that continuous practices have been successfully applied to both greenfield and maintenance projects. Continuous practices have become an important area of software engineering research and practice. While the reported approaches, tools, and practices are addressing a wide range of challenges, there are several challenges and gaps, which require future research work for improving the capturing and reporting of contextual information in the studies reporting different aspects of continuous practices; gaining a deep understanding of how software-intensive systems should be (re-) architected to support continuous practices; and addressing the lack of knowledge and tools for engineering processes of designing and running secure deployment pipelines.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Despite the popularity of DevOps, security is among the major concerns that hinder the adoption of DevOps in software enterprises [5].”
From Prioritization based taxonomy of DevOps security challenges using PROMETHEE (2020) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“We have also identified lack of automated testing tool performance measures for security [2], [5], [20], [23], [24] as a critical challenge that have a negative impact on DevOps security.”
From Prioritization based taxonomy of DevOps security challenges using PROMETHEE (2020) · cites this paper as [5]
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
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414
Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – A tertiary study
Kitchenham, B., Pretorius, R., Budgen, D., Pearl Brereton, O., Turner, M., Niazi, M., & Linkman, S. (2010) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2010.03.006 · Cited by 1,230
Loveday Ph., D., Clement, E., & Phd, I. (2014) · doi:10.4337/9781783473069.00009 · Cited by 1,227
Requirements engineering paper classification and evaluation criteria: a proposal and a discussion
Wieringa, R., Maiden, N., Mead, N., & Rolland, C. (2006) · Requirements Engineering · doi:10.1007/s00766-005-0021-6 · Cited by 940
Continuous Delivery: Reliable Software Releases Through Build, Test, and Deployment Automation
Humble, J., & Farley, D. R. (2010) · Cited by 911
Challenges and success factors for large-scale agile transformations: A systematic literature review
Dikert, K., Paasivaara, M., & Lassenius, C. (2016) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2016.06.013 · Cited by 890
Newman, S. (2015) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 768
Continuous software engineering: A roadmap and agenda
Fitzgerald, B. F., & Stol, K.-J. (2015) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2015.06.063 · Cited by 742
Identifying relevant studies in software engineering
Zhang, H., Babar, M. A., & Tell, P. (2010) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2010.12.010 · Cited by 570
Devops: A Software Architect's Perspective
Bass, L., Weber, I. M., & Zhu, L. (2015) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 561
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
4 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- 0, Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Online
- luke, 2016, No One Agrees How to Define CI or CD
- 0, Camera Dictionary
- phillips, 2015, The IT Manager’s Guide to Continuous Delivery Delivering Business Value in Hours
- humble, 2016, Continuous delivery vs continuous deployment
- 2016, What is Continuous Deployment
- humble, 2016, What is Continuous Delivery?
- reed, 2016, The Business Case for Continuous Delivery
- skelton, 2016, Continuous Delivery With Windows and NET
- humble, 2015, Principle 2 Decouple Deployment and Release
- 2016, Five Habits of Highly Successful Continuous Delivery Practitioners
- thiele, 2016, Continuous Delivery An Easy Must-Have for Agile Development
- 2015, State of DevOps Report
- sundman, 2013, Continuous delivery vs continuous deployment
- suzie, 2016, The Product Managers Guide to Continuous Delivery and DevOps
- sato, 2015, Canary Release
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Economics of artificial intelligence in healthcare: Diagnosis vs. treatment
Khanna, N. N., Maindarkar, M. A., Viswanathan, V., Fernandes, J. F. E., Paul, S., Bhagawati, M., Ahluwalia, P., Ruzsa, Z., Sharma, A., Kolluri, R., et al. (2022) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare10122493 · Cited by 347
Challenges and solutions when adopting DevSecOps: A systematic review
Rajapakse, R. N., Zahedi, M., Babar, M. A., & Shen, H. (2022) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106700 · Cited by 235
DevOps and software quality: A systematic mapping
Mishra, A., & Otaiwi, Z. (2020) · Computer Science Review · doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2020.100308 · Cited by 177
A Survey on Industrial Information Integration 2016–2019
Chen, Y. (2019) · Journal of Industrial Integration and Management · doi:10.1142/s2424862219500167 · Cited by 124
Dissanayake, N., Jayatilaka, A., Zahedi, M., & Babar, M. A. (2021) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106771 · Cited by 119
Metadata
- Authors
- Shahin, M., Ali Babar, M., & Zhu, L.
- Affiliations
- The University of Adelaide (AU)
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
- Venue
- IEEE Access
- Published
- 2017
- Volume
- 5
- Pages
- 3909-3943
- ISSN
- 2169-3536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2603119212
- Cited by
- 680
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 86 · 2025: 111 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 97 · 2022: 89 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 5
- FWCI
- 10.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- IEEE Access (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (acceptedVersion)
- RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library) (acceptedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Data61, a business unit of CSIRO, Australia
- Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Keywords
- continuous integration, continuous delivery, continuous deployment, continuous practice, deployment pipelines, scalability, barriers to adoption
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