Comparing Measured Agile Software Development Metrics Using an Agile Model-Based Software Engineering Approach versus Scrum Only
This study compares the <i>reliability of estimation</i>, <i>productivity</i>, and <i>defect rate</i> metrics for sprints driven by a specific instance of the agile approach (i.e., scrum) and an agile model-Bbased software engineering (MBSE) approach called the in...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2023-07-01
|
| Series: | Software |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2674-113X/2/3/15 |
| _version_ | 1797576809496182784 |
|---|---|
| author | Moe Huss Daniel R. Herber John M. Borky |
| author_facet | Moe Huss Daniel R. Herber John M. Borky |
| author_sort | Moe Huss |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This study compares the <i>reliability of estimation</i>, <i>productivity</i>, and <i>defect rate</i> metrics for sprints driven by a specific instance of the agile approach (i.e., scrum) and an agile model-Bbased software engineering (MBSE) approach called the integrated Scrum Model-Based System Architecture Process (sMBSAP) when developing a software system. The quasi-experimental study conducted ten sprints using each approach. The approaches were then evaluated based on their effectiveness in helping the <i>product development team</i> estimate the backlog items that they could build during a time-boxed sprint and deliver more product backlog items (PBI) with fewer defects. The <i>commitment reliability (<inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>C</mi><mi>R</mi></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>)</i> was calculated to compare the <i>reliability of estimation</i> with a measured average scrum-driven value of 0.81 versus a statistically different average sMBSAP-driven value of 0.94. Similarly, the average <i>sprint velocity</i> (<inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>S</mi><mi>V</mi></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>) for the scrum-driven sprints was 26.8 versus 31.8 for the MBSAP-driven sprints. The average <i>defect density</i> (<inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>D</mi><mi>D</mi></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>) for the scrum-driven sprints was 0.91, while that of the sMBSAP-driven sprints was 0.63. The average <i>defect leakage</i> (<inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>D</mi><mi>L</mi></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>) for the scrum-driven sprints was 0.20, while that of the sMBSAP-driven sprints was 0.15. The <i>t</i>-test analysis concluded that the sMBSAP-driven sprints were associated with a statistically significant larger mean <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>C</mi><mi>R</mi></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>S</mi><mi>V</mi></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>D</mi><mi>D</mi></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>D</mi><mi>L</mi></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> than that of the scrum-driven sprints. The overall results demonstrate formal quantitative benefits of an agile MBSE approach compared to an agile alone, thereby strengthening the case for considering agile MBSE methods within the software development community. Future work might include comparing agile and agile MBSE methods using alternative research designs and further software development objectives, techniques, and metrics. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T21:59:59Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-00efe77c6c534c28ab28d978da87666d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2674-113X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T21:59:59Z |
| publishDate | 2023-07-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Software |
| spelling | doaj.art-00efe77c6c534c28ab28d978da87666d2023-11-19T12:59:37ZengMDPI AGSoftware2674-113X2023-07-012331033110.3390/software2030015Comparing Measured Agile Software Development Metrics Using an Agile Model-Based Software Engineering Approach versus Scrum OnlyMoe Huss0Daniel R. Herber1John M. Borky2Department of Systems Engineering, Walter Scott, Jr. College of Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USADepartment of Systems Engineering, Walter Scott, Jr. College of Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USADepartment of Systems Engineering, Walter Scott, Jr. College of Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USAThis study compares the <i>reliability of estimation</i>, <i>productivity</i>, and <i>defect rate</i> metrics for sprints driven by a specific instance of the agile approach (i.e., scrum) and an agile model-Bbased software engineering (MBSE) approach called the integrated Scrum Model-Based System Architecture Process (sMBSAP) when developing a software system. The quasi-experimental study conducted ten sprints using each approach. The approaches were then evaluated based on their effectiveness in helping the <i>product development team</i> estimate the backlog items that they could build during a time-boxed sprint and deliver more product backlog items (PBI) with fewer defects. The <i>commitment reliability (<inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>C</mi><mi>R</mi></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>)</i> was calculated to compare the <i>reliability of estimation</i> with a measured average scrum-driven value of 0.81 versus a statistically different average sMBSAP-driven value of 0.94. Similarly, the average <i>sprint velocity</i> (<inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>S</mi><mi>V</mi></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>) for the scrum-driven sprints was 26.8 versus 31.8 for the MBSAP-driven sprints. The average <i>defect density</i> (<inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>D</mi><mi>D</mi></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>) for the scrum-driven sprints was 0.91, while that of the sMBSAP-driven sprints was 0.63. The average <i>defect leakage</i> (<inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>D</mi><mi>L</mi></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>) for the scrum-driven sprints was 0.20, while that of the sMBSAP-driven sprints was 0.15. The <i>t</i>-test analysis concluded that the sMBSAP-driven sprints were associated with a statistically significant larger mean <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>C</mi><mi>R</mi></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>S</mi><mi>V</mi></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>D</mi><mi>D</mi></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><mi>D</mi><mi>L</mi></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> than that of the scrum-driven sprints. The overall results demonstrate formal quantitative benefits of an agile MBSE approach compared to an agile alone, thereby strengthening the case for considering agile MBSE methods within the software development community. Future work might include comparing agile and agile MBSE methods using alternative research designs and further software development objectives, techniques, and metrics.https://www.mdpi.com/2674-113X/2/3/15software developmentmodel-based software engineering (MBSE)agilescrumsystem architecturemodeling |
| spellingShingle | Moe Huss Daniel R. Herber John M. Borky Comparing Measured Agile Software Development Metrics Using an Agile Model-Based Software Engineering Approach versus Scrum Only Software software development model-based software engineering (MBSE) agile scrum system architecture modeling |
| title | Comparing Measured Agile Software Development Metrics Using an Agile Model-Based Software Engineering Approach versus Scrum Only |
| title_full | Comparing Measured Agile Software Development Metrics Using an Agile Model-Based Software Engineering Approach versus Scrum Only |
| title_fullStr | Comparing Measured Agile Software Development Metrics Using an Agile Model-Based Software Engineering Approach versus Scrum Only |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparing Measured Agile Software Development Metrics Using an Agile Model-Based Software Engineering Approach versus Scrum Only |
| title_short | Comparing Measured Agile Software Development Metrics Using an Agile Model-Based Software Engineering Approach versus Scrum Only |
| title_sort | comparing measured agile software development metrics using an agile model based software engineering approach versus scrum only |
| topic | software development model-based software engineering (MBSE) agile scrum system architecture modeling |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2674-113X/2/3/15 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT moehuss comparingmeasuredagilesoftwaredevelopmentmetricsusinganagilemodelbasedsoftwareengineeringapproachversusscrumonly AT danielrherber comparingmeasuredagilesoftwaredevelopmentmetricsusinganagilemodelbasedsoftwareengineeringapproachversusscrumonly AT johnmborky comparingmeasuredagilesoftwaredevelopmentmetricsusinganagilemodelbasedsoftwareengineeringapproachversusscrumonly |