research-article

A Method to Support Continuous Planning at the Team Level

Authors:

Rafaela Sampaio,

Cristina Teles Cerdeiral,

Gleison SantosAuthors Info & Claims

SBQS '21: Proceedings of the XX Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality

Article No.: 2, Pages 1 - 10

https://doi.org/10.1145/3493244.3493257

Published: 14 December 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Background: Software development occurs in dynamic contexts subjected to events that must be carried off promptly and may lead to changes of previously defined plans. Although agile methods became popular by focusing on flexibility and constant adaptation, they still lack proper support for the continuous evolution of project plans. Continuous planning refers to the planning process in rapid and parallel cycles so that plans evolve according to the events. Objective: We present COPLAM (Continuous Planning Adoption Method), which supports continuous planning at the team level of agile software development, covering release, iteration, and day cycles, according to the organization’s context and projects’ needs. Method: We applied Design Science Research principles to define COPLAM. Results: We executed a case study to evaluate COPLAM’s ability to support continuous planning practices and the perceptions of usefulness, ease of use, and self-predicted future. The project planner was able to define planning cycles for projects and evolve plans accordingly to events. Conclusions: Initial evidence shows that COPLAM can support the adoption of continuous planning at the team level by fostering plan definition in rapid and parallel planning cycles and the management of events along with plans’ execution.

References

[1]

David Ameller, Carles Farré, Xavier Franch, Danilo Valerio, and Antonino Cassarino. 2017. Towards continuous software release planning. In 2017 IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). 402–406. https://doi.org/10.1109/SANER.2017.7884642

[2]

Richard L Baskerville. 1997. Distinguishing action research from participative case studies. Journal of Systems and Information Technology 1, 1 (jan 1997), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/13287269780000733

[3]

Bjarte Bogsnes. 2009. Implementing beyond budgeting: unlocking the performance potential. John Wiley and Sons.

[4]

Jan Bosch. 2014. Continuous Software Engineering. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated.

[5]

M Brenner and B Nebel. 2009. Continual planning and acting in dynamic multiagent environments. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 19, 3 (2009), 297–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-009-9081-1

[6]

Mike Cohn. 2005. Agile Estimating and Planning. Prentice Hall PTR, USA.

Digital Library

[7]

Fred D. Davis. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 3 (sep 1989), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Digital Library

[8]

Breno De França, Rachel Vital Simões, Valéria Silva, and Guilherme Horta Travassos. 2017. Escaping from the Time Box towards Continuous Planning: An Industrial Experience. In 2017 IEEE/ACM 3rd International Workshop on Rapid Continuous Software Engineering (RCoSE). 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1109/RCoSE.2017.5

[9]

Team Digital.ai. 2020. 14th Annual State of Agile Report. Technical Report. Digital.ai. 1–19 pages. https://stateofagile.com/ufh-i-615706098-14th-annual-state-of-agile-report/7027494

[10]

B Fitzgerald and K.-J. Stol. 2017. Continuous software engineering: A roadmap and agenda. Journal of Systems and Software 123 (2017), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.06.063

[11]

Ville T Heikkilä, Maria Paasivaara, Casper Lassenius, and Christian Engblom. 2013. Continuous release planning in a large-scale scrum development organization at ericsson. In Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 149. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38314-4_14

[12]

Alan R Hevner. 2007. A three cycle view of design science research. Scandinavian journal of information systems 19, 2 (2007), 4.

[13]

J Highsmith and A Cockburn. 2001. Agile software development: the business of innovation. Computer 34, 9 (2001), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1109/2.947100

Digital Library

[14]

Project Management Institute. 2017. A Guide To The Project Management Body Of Knowledge (PMBOK Guides). Project Management Institute.

[15]

R Knight, G Rabideau, S Chien, B Engelhardt, and R Sherwood. 2001. Casper: Space Exploration through Continuous Planning. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16, 5 (2001), 70–75. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2001.956084

[16]

Dean Leffingwell. 2011. Agile Software Requirements: Lean Requirements Practices for Teams, Programs, and the Enterprise(1st ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional.

[17]

Laura Lehtola, Marjo Kauppinen, Jarno Vähäniitty, and Marko Komssi. 2009. Linking Business and Requirements Engineering: Is Solution Planning a Missing Activity in Software Product Companies?Requir. Eng. 14, 2 (2009), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-009-0078-8

Digital Library

[18]

K L Myers. 1999. CPEF a continuous planning and execution framework. AI Magazine 20, 4 (1999), 63–69.

[19]

H H Olsson, J Bosch, and H Alahyari. 2013. Towards R&D as innovation experiment systems: A framework for moving beyond agile software development. In IASTED Multiconferences - Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Software Engineering, SE 2013. 798–805. https://doi.org/10.2316/P.2013.796-008

[20]

Robert C Rickards and Rolf Ritsert. 2012. Rediscovering Rolling Planning: Controller’s Roadmap for Implementing Rolling Instruments in SMEs. Procedia Economics and Finance 2 (2012), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(12)00073-1

[21]

Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Austen Rainer, and Björn Regnell. 2012. Case Study Research in Software Engineering: Guidelines and Examples (1o ed.). John Wiley and Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118181034

[22]

Rafaela Sampaio, Cristina Cerdeiral, and Gleison Santos. 2021. COPLAM Description and Evaluation. Technical Report 0002/2021. UNIRIO, Rio de Janeiro. http://www.seer.unirio.br/monografiasppgi/article/view/11253

[23]

T Suomalainen, R Kuusela, and M Tihinen. 2015. Continuous planning: An important aspect of agile and lean development. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management 8, 2 (2015), 132–162. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJASM.2015.070607

[24]

Roel Wieringa and Maya Daneva. 2015. Six strategies for generalizing software engineering theories. Science of Computer Programming 101 (2015), 136–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2014.11.013

[25]

Roel J Wieringa. 2014. Design science methodology for information systems and software engineering. Springer.

Digital Library

[26]

L Williams and A Cockburn. 2003. Agile software development: it’s about feedback and change. Computer 36, 6 (2003), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2003.1204373

Digital Library

Cited By

Barcellos MSantos GConte TTrinkenreich BMatsubara P(2022)Organizing Empirical Studies as Learning Iterations in Design Science Research ProjectsProceedings of the XXI Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality10.1145/3571473.3571474(1-10)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3571473.3571474

Index Terms

A Method to Support Continuous Planning at the Team Level

Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

Recommendations

Defining Continuous Planning Through a Multiple-Case Study
PROFES 2015: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement - Volume 9459

New and innovative approaches that support continuous development and planning throughout organisations are needed. Continuity is required in all levels of an organisation, from business strategy and planning to software development and operational ...
Interleaving Planning and Robot Execution for Asynchronous User Requests
Special issue on autonomous agents

ROGUE is an architecture built on a real robot which provides algorithms for the integration of high-level planning, low-level robotic execution, and learning. ROGUE addresses successfully several of the challenges of a dynamic office gopher environment. ...
Research Plan - Planning Product Releases in Global Multi-team Agile Development Projects
ICGSE-W '11: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Global Software Engineering Workshop

Release planning is a challenging part of market-driven product development and a success factor in agile software development projects. Release planning in an environment where multiple globally distributed teams are developing the same product ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

SBQS '21: Proceedings of the XX Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality

November 2021

320 pages

ISBN:9781450395533

DOI:10.1145/3493244

Editors:
Rodrigo Santos
UNIRIO
,
Sandro Ronaldo Bezerra Oliveira
UFPA
,
Ismayle de Sousa Santos
UFC
,
Sabrina Marczak
PUCRS
,
Davi Viana
UFMA
,
Edna Dias Canedo
UnB
,
Adriano Bessa Albuquerque
UNIFOR
,
Marco Paludo
PUCPR
,
Ana Regina Rocha
UFRJ
,
Ivan Machado
UFBA
,
Uirá Kulesza
UFRN
,
Vinícius Garcia
UFPE
,
Gleison Santos
UNIRIO
,
Natasha Valentim
UFPR
,
Monalessa Barcellos
UFES
,
Adriano Bessa Albuquerque
UNIFOR
,
Ana Regina Cavalcanti da Rocha
COPPE/UFRJ
,
Gleison Santos
UNIRIO
,
Ivan Machado
UFBA
,
Monalessa Perini Barcellos
UFES
,
Sheila Reinehr
PUCPR
,
Tayana Conte
UFAM
,
Awdren Fontão
UFMS
,
Crescêncio Lima
IFBA

Copyright © 2021 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 14 December 2021

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

UNIRIO
CAPES

Conference

SBQS '21

SBQS '21: XX Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality

November 8 - 11, 2021

Virtual Event, Brazil

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 35 of 99 submissions, 35%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

1
Total Citations
View Citations
59
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)15
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Barcellos MSantos GConte TTrinkenreich BMatsubara P(2022)Organizing Empirical Studies as Learning Iterations in Design Science Research ProjectsProceedings of the XXI Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality10.1145/3571473.3571474(1-10)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3571473.3571474

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents