Constructing Questions for Round3

The first task undertaken in Round3was to identify what content should be included in each important document (the previous round was designed to identify the important documents for each role-play) for each of the three role categories (PO, SM, and DT), given the QMS requirements stipulated in ISO 9001:2008. The second task undertaken in Round 3 followed from the first task. The objective of the second task was to identify what stage of a Scrum project the documents should be prepared. Round 3 also included accomplishing two other tasks (i.e. Task 3 and Task 4).

To participate for the Round 3, 9 participants were chosen, 3 from each role: PO, SM, and DT. Table 3.9 provides the details of the participants.

Table 3.9: Summary of the Participants on Round2 from Case Study Organization

Role Years of Service in the

Role Category Years of Service as an IT Professional Development Team (DT) DT1 10+ 10+ DT2 5+ 8+ DT3 4+ 7+ Scrum Master (SM) SM1 2+ 10+ SM2 7+ 10+ SM3 1+ 3+

Product Owner (PO)

PO1 1+ 5+

PO2 1+ 4+

PO3 2+ 3+

Task 1: Identifying what should be written in a document by taking the role category into account

In Task1 participants were requested to state what content (the headings/captions for each content was mentioned in the questionnaire) and sections that they would like to see on each document—identified as “important” in the previous round—when they are playing the role of PO, DT and SM respectively.

The following content (more specifically content headings) for general sections and main sections (it is typical for software document to have general sections as a forerunner to the main sections) were listed (Table 3.10) for each document (identified as important based on Round 2 results); for each document, each respondent was asked to select (by indicating a “yes”) which content (more specifically content headings) are relevant to SM, PO, and DT respectively.

Table 3.10: Content Headings the Respondents Were Asked to Choose from as Relevant for Each Document and Each Role Category

General Sections Main Sections

* Purpose * Author

* Approvers/Reviewers/Sign off * Internal communication records * Corrective action records * Preventive action records

* Comments on validity (dated/relevant)

* User stories

* Flow charts/diagrams * Development instructions * Release schedules/notes * Known issues

* Verification and validation information

The reader should note that the content headings were generated based requirements stipulated in ISO 9001:2008 under sub-clause 4.2.4 (Control of Records). Further information is given in section 2.4.13.

Task 2: Identifying when the documents should be prepared in a Scrum project

Task 2 was designed to identify at which stage of a project a document should be produced /written /generated. In this regard, the following 8 stages (these stages cover

the full project cycle, as depicted in Figure 3.5) of a Scrum project were listed in the questionnaire and each respondent was asked to indicate the relevant stage (by means of a “Yes”) each document should be prepared. The 8 stages listed in the questionnaire were: (1) project initiation, (2) at the commencement of project development, (3) at the commencement of a sprint, (4) whilst the sprint is in progress, (5) at the end of a sprint, (6) at the end of a release, (7) Anytime during the project cycle, and (8) After the end of product release.

Figure 3.5: Stages of a Scrum project.

Task 3: Recollecting Negative Consequences

Task 3 was designed to enable the researcher (who acts as the facilitator in the 3-stage problem solving process) to focus on collecting information pertaining to situations that the respondents have come across where non-inclusion of relevant/important content (see Table 3.5 in Task 1) for the relevant roles has resulted in product quality issues (e.g. re-work, customer complaints). The researcher collected the relevant information (negative experiences) by way of conducing short interviews (30-45 min) on a one-on- one basis with each of the 9 respondents. The interviews, which initiated through the open-ended question “tell me some situations that you have come across where non-

inclusion of the content which you have rated as relevant and important”, were

interviews were transcribed (using MS Word) and the transcripts of the 9 interviews (corresponding to 9 responds) were shown to the respective respondent. Similar themes between the 9 transcripts were identified using a separate color for each theme (MS Word’s text highlight function was used). These common themes were then tabulated to be produced as results on Task 3.

Task 4: Identifying Difficulties on Creating Relevant Documents in a Scrum Project

The final task of Round 3, Task 4 was designed to understand the difficulties Scrum teams face (as individual members as well as a team) in creating important/relevant documents for the project. The definition of relevant/important documents was the same as that used for Task 3.

The researcher collected the relevant information (difficulties the respondents face in creating important documents) by way of conducing short interviews (30-45 min) on a one-on-one basis with each of the 9 respondents. The approach used for Task 4 was similar to that used in Task 3. The interviews initiated through the open-ended question

“please tell me the difficulties that you/your team faces when producing important

documents in your project”. To facilitate the answer examples of constraints

(difficulties) a team may face were given: resource limitations, time pressure, budget, team member motivation or attitudes, company policy, and rules and regulations. As in the case of Task 3, the interviews were recorded using the researcher’s iPhone, with the permission of the respondents. The interviews were transcribed (using MS Word) and the transcripts of the 9 interviews (corresponding to 9 responds) were shown to the respective respondent. Similar themes between the 9 transcripts were identified using a separate color for each theme (MS Word’s text highlight function was used). These common themes were then tabulated to be produced as results on Task 4.

The reader will note that Task 4 shares many similarities with Task 3. However, Task 4 was executed subsequent to Task 3 on a separate day to eliminate respondent burnout.