International journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN:2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 6, Issue 10 (October 2019), Pages: 25-31

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Title: Towards continuous value delivery with review meetings in agile methodologies: A structured review

 Author(s): Khalid Khan 1, *, Anam Siddiqui 2, Usman Waheed 3, Fadzil Hassan 4, Anh Nguyen Duc 5

 Affiliation(s):

 1Department of Computer Science, PAF Karachi Institute of Economics and Technology, Karachi, Pakistan
 2Department of Computer Science, Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi, Pakistan
 3Department of Computer Engineering, Usman Institute of Technology, Karachi, Pakistan
 4Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar, Malaysia
 5Department of Business and IT, University of Southeastern Norway, Notodden, Norway

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6580-1624

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2019.10.005

 Abstract:

Continuous value delivery (CVD) is the practice to ensure the delivery of user and business value via a fast, reliable, and repeatable process. The change management lies at the core of CVD as the adjustments in value propositions often take place. Review meetings play an important role in change management because the review is a formal assessment with the intention of instituting change, if necessary. A thorough discussion of different agile methods in terms of review meetings as needed. Different papers were studied to extract the data regarding these meetings. It is observed that the sprint review meeting is important to the development team as it is an opportunity for the team to show its work explicitly and get appreciated. Development team spirits are increased by such environments. The sprint review establishes a firm level of sociable comparative competition between scrum teams that keeps everyone focused. It is actually equivalent to a user acceptance test. This paper discusses the importance of review meetings and their impact on CVD in well-known agile methods and using a structured review methodology. It evaluates the processes of review meetings such as planning, adaptability, integration in increment and reevaluation in well-known agile methods in order to find their effectiveness towards achieving CVD. It is found that Scrumban when strengthened with the EVO’s increment inspection process, can help in achieving CVD. 

 © 2019 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Agile, Continuous value, Scrum, Continuous software engineering

 Article History: Received 13 March 2019, Received in revised form 20 July 2019, Accepted 20 July 2019

 Acknowledgement:

No Acknowledgement.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest:  The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

 Citation:

 Khan K, Siddiqui A, and Waheed U et al. (2019). Towards continuous value delivery with review meetings in agile methodologies: A structured review. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 6(10): 25-31

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 No Figure

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3

----------------------------------------------

 References (21) 

  1. Bittner K, Kong P, Naiburg E, and West D (2017). The nexus framework for scaling scrum: Continuously delivering an integrated product with multiple scrum teams. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  2. Boehm B (2003). Value-based software engineering: Reinventing. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 28(2): 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1145/638750.638775   [Google Scholar]
  3. Brereton P, Kitchenham BA, Budgen D, Turner M, and Khalil M (2007). Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(4): 571-583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.07.009   [Google Scholar]
  4. Conboy K (2009). Agility from first principles: Reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Information Systems Research, 20(3): 329-354. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0236   [Google Scholar]
  5. de Gea JMC, Nicolás J, Fernández-Alemán JL, Toval A, Ebert C, and Vizcaıno A (2015). Commonalities and differences between requirements engineering tools: A quantitative approach. Computer Science and Information Systems, 12(1): 257-288. https://doi.org/10.2298/CSIS131201001C   [Google Scholar]
  6. Fagerholm F, Guinea AS, Mäenpää H, and Münch J (2014). Building blocks for continuous experimentation. In the 1st International Workshop on Rapid Continuous Software Engineering, ACM, Hyderabad, India: 26-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/2593812.2593816   [Google Scholar]
  7. Fitzgerald B and Stol KJ (2017). Continuous software engineering: A roadmap and agenda. Journal of Systems and Software, 123: 176-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.06.063   [Google Scholar]
  8. Hossain E, Babar MA, Paik HY, and Verner J (2009). Risk identification and mitigation processes for using scrum in global software development: A conceptual framework. In The 16th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference, IEEE, Penang, Malaysia: 457-464. https://doi.org/10.1109/APSEC.2009.56   [Google Scholar]
  9. Jayatilleke S, Lai R, and Reed K (2018). Managing software requirements changes through change specification and classification. Computer Science and Information Systems, 15(2): 321-346. https://doi.org/10.2298/CSIS161130041J   [Google Scholar]
  10. Johansen T and Gilb T (2005). From waterfall to evolutionary development (Evo): How we rapidly created faster, more user-friendly, and more productive software products for a competitive multi-national market. International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), San Diego, USA. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2005.tb00781.x   [Google Scholar]
  11. Ladas C (2009). Scrumban-essays on kanban systems for lean software development. Lulu Press, Morrisville, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  12. Larman C and Vodde B (2016). Large-scale scrum: More with LeSS. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Matkovic P, Maric M, Tumbas P, and Sakal M (2018). Traditionalisation of agile processes: Architectural aspects. Computer Science and Information Systems, 15(1): 79-109. https://doi.org/10.2298/CSIS160820038M   [Google Scholar]
  14. Paetsch F, Eberlein A, and Maurer F (2003). Requirements engineering and agile software development. In the 12th IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises, IEEE, Linz, Austria: 308-313. https://doi.org/10.1109/ENABL.2003.1231428   [Google Scholar]
  15. Phillips A, Sens M, De Jonge A, and Van Holsteijn M (2015). The IT manager’s guide to continuous delivery: Delivering business value in hours, not months. Xebia Labs, Burlington, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  16. Reddy A (2015). The Scrumban [r]evolution: Getting the most out of agile, scrum, and lean Kanban. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  17. Ries E (2011). The lean startup: How today's entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Books, Largo, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  18. Shahin M, Babar MA, and Zhu L (2017). Continuous integration, delivery and deployment: A systematic review on approaches, tools, challenges and practices. IEEE Access, 5: 3909-3943. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2685629   [Google Scholar]
  19. Srinivasan J and Lundqvist K (2009). Using agile methods in software product development: A case study. In the 6th International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations, IEEE, Las Vegas, USA: 1415-1420. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITNG.2009.334   [Google Scholar]
  20. Sutherland J and Schwaber K (2010). The scrum papers: Nuts, bolts and origins of an agile process. Available online at: https://bit.ly/2yS501D
  21. Vranic V and Laslop M (2016). Aspects and roles in software modeling: A composition based comparison. Computer Science and Information Systems, 13(1): 199-216. https://doi.org/10.2298/CSIS151207065V   [Google Scholar]