Jefferson Ferreira Barbosa
ABSTRACT
Context: The current trend of employing agility in software development indicates the need to manage uncertainty through its cycles of inspection and adaptation to changes.
Problem: Despite the increasing agile methods and uncertainty management approaches, many agile software projects still fail. Some studies show that existing approaches to managing uncertainty do not consider the quantitative aspect of managing uncertainty in agile projects. The construction of approaches that fill the identified gap involves research methods that can generate results artifacts, methods, frameworks, or models. These approaches need to be evaluated before they are made available to practitioners of uncertainty management in the industry.
Solution: This article describes an empirical evaluation process of a model called Euler (version 1.0) built to deal with epistemic uncertainty in agile software project management.
IS Theory: This work was conceived under the aegis of Structured process modeling theory (SPMT), particularly concerning constructing process models as more effective and efficient.
Method: This study used the framework known as Proof of Concept Research (PoCR).
Summary of Results: As a result of applying the PoCR, four recommendations emerged. These recommendations resulted in version 2.0 of the model.
Contributions and Impact in the IS area: The industry can use it to improve the performance of organizations and the processes of managing uncertainties in agile projects.
- Roger Atkinson, Lynn Crawford, and Stephen Ward. 2006. Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management. International Journal of Project Management 24, 8 (2006), 687 – 698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.09.011 Rethinking Project Management.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- J. F. Barbosa, M. L. M. Marinho, and H. P. de Moura. 2021. Em Direção a um Modelo para Quantificação da Incerteza Epistêmica em Projetos de Software: uma Pesquisa-Ação. Revista Ibérica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informação 44 (2021), 67–83.Google Scholar
- S Basu. 2017. Evaluation of hazard and risk analysis.Google Scholar
- Chris Chapman and Stephen Ward. 2011. How to manage project opportunity and risk.Google Scholar
- Ali Chenarani and EA Druzhinin. 2017. A quantitative measure for evaluating project uncertainty under variation and risk effects. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research 7, 5 (2017), 2083–2088.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Torgeir Dingsøyr, Sridhar Nerur, VenuGopal Balijepally, and Nils Brede Moe. 2012. A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software 85, 6 (2012), 1213–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.02.033 Special Issue: Agile Development.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ademilton dos Santos and Moacyr Cardoso-Junior. 2018. Uso da teoria da evidência de Dempster-Shafer na avaliação da incerteza de prazos em projeto de P&D. 5 (12 2018), 19–29.Google Scholar
- Steve Elliott. 2021. Proof of Concept Research. Philosophy of Science 88, 2 (2021), 258–280.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rafaela Mantovani Fontana, Victor Meyer Jr, Sheila Reinehr, and Andreia Malucelli. 2015. Progressive Outcomes: A framework for maturing in agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software 102 (2015), 88–108.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patrick Hester. 2012. Epistemic uncertainty analysis: an approach using expert judgment and evidential credibility. Journal of Quality and Reliability Engineering 2012 (2012).Google Scholar
- David Howell, Charlotta Windahl, and Rainer Seidel. 2010. A project contingency framework based on uncertainty and its consequences. International Journal of Project Management 28, 3 (2010), 256–264.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John Jakeman, Michael Eldred, and Dongbin Xiu. 2010. Numerical approach for quantification of epistemic uncertainty. J. Comput. Phys. 229, 12 (2010), 4648–4663.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Catherine Elizabeth Kendig. 2016. What is proof of concept research and how does it generate epistemic and ethical categories for future scientific practice?Science and Engineering Ethics 22, 3 (2016), 735–753.Google Scholar
- Vahid Khodakarami, Norman Fenton, and Martin Neil. 2007. Project Scheduling: Improved Approach to Incorporate Uncertainty Using Bayesian Networks. Project Management Journal 38 (06 2007), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280703800205Google ScholarCross Ref
- Frank H. Knight. 1921. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Houghton Mifflin Co, Boston, MA. http://www.econlib.org/library/Knight/knRUP.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Thomas Kühne. 2004. What is a Model? (2004).Google Scholar
- M. Marinho, S. Sampaio, A. Luna, T. Lima, and H. Moura. 2015. Dealing with Uncertainties in Software Project Management. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology; Ubiquitous Computing and Communications; Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing; Pervasive Intelligence and Computing. 889–894. https://doi.org/10.1109/CIT/IUCC/DASC/PICOM.2015.133Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marcelo Luiz Marinho, Suzana Sampaio, and Hermano Moura. 2017. Managing uncertainty in software projects. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering 14 (08 2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-017-0297-yGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- Matthew B Miles, A Michael Huberman, and Johnny Saldaña. 2018. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage publications.Google Scholar
- Colin Robson and Kieran McCartan. 2016. Real world research. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Per Runeson and Martin Höst. 2009. Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical software engineering 14, 2 (2009), 131–164.Google Scholar
- Miroslaw Staron. 2020. Action Research as Research Methodology in Software Engineering. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32610-4_2Google ScholarCross Ref
- Priya Krishnan Sundarararajan, Ole J Mengshoel, and Ted Selker. 2013. Multi-focus and multi-window techniques for interactive network exploration. In Visualization and Data Analysis 2013, Vol. 8654. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 86540O.Google Scholar
- Edward Tufte. 2001. The visual display of quantitative information.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- An Empirical Evaluation of a Model for dealing with Epistemic Uncertainty in Agile Software Project Management
Recommendations
Numerical approach for quantification of epistemic uncertainty
In the field of uncertainty quantification, uncertainty in the governing equations may assume two forms: aleatory uncertainty and epistemic uncertainty. Aleatory uncertainty can be characterised by known probability distributions whilst epistemic ...
A flexible numerical approach for quantification of epistemic uncertainty
In the field of uncertainty quantification (UQ), epistemic uncertainty often refers to the kind of uncertainty whose complete probabilistic description is not available, largely due to our lack of knowledge about the uncertainty. Quantification of the ...
Epistemic Uncertainty Sampling
Discovery ScienceAbstractVarious strategies for active learning have been proposed in the machine learning literature. In uncertainty sampling, which is among the most popular approaches, the active learner sequentially queries the label of those instances for which its ...
Comments