This master thesis project has also some limitations and possibilities for further research, which will be discussed within this section.
Limitations
First, it cannot be claimed that the lists of criteria for the software versus paper analysis and the Scrum software tools evaluation are complete. However, multiple sources (e.g. literature review and expert opinions) were used to identify and evaluate the criteria. Besides, the criteria have their roots within different fields: economics (costs), psychology (motivation, haptic quality) or technology (integration, availability, archiving), only to name a few examples. Therefore, both lists are quite comprehensive if one considers the limited time and manpower behind this master thesis project.
Second, due to the small sample size of companies, it cannot be claimed that the results of the field research are complete. However, due to the fact that four of the five usage scenarios presented in section 5.1 were experienced, it does indicate a trend and supports the other findings of this master thesis project.
Third, the same is true in terms of the above-mentioned task board scenarios described in section 5.1; it cannot be guaranteed that this list of scenarios is complete. Yet again, using multiple sources (literature review and expert opinions) helped to identify the existing task board scenarios. Since the results of the field research support the identified task board scenarios and the other way round, it is arguable that this limitation and the previous one are insignificant.
Fourth, due to constraints of this master thesis project, only five Scrum software tools were subject of the software evaluation in chapter 4. As a result, the decision graph only offers a choice between those
five tools for companies that need to select a software-based task board. However, the rationale behind choosing these five tools was based on a recent study (West & Hammond 2010), which identified the top ten vendors of agile software tools. This list was then reduced to five tools by applying selection criteria (the vendors have to offer a free trial and the tool has to be browser-based to avoid time consuming setups). Thus the five Scrum software tools that were evaluated are the most important ones that are currently available and therefore it is again arguable that this limitation is also negligible. Yet, adding more tools will make the decision graph more complete as is written below.
Finally, although the companies that were subject of the field study offered a rather complete spectrum, all of these companies are located in Germany. The same is true for the company experts, who are also from Germany. It is therefore unknown whether the findings of this master thesis project are applicable in other countries as well. However, there are a few arguments that show that the results of this master thesis project are not just national applicable. First, all Scrum software tools are made by vendors that are located in foreign countries, most of them in the US. It is unlikely that these companies would build Scrum software tools that target the German market only, especially since most of their websites are in English – one could argue that if these vendors target the German market, they would also build German websites. Second, two of the companies that were subject of the field research had foreign sites for which these findings are also applicable. Finally, the principle of a Scrum task board is defined within the Scrum framework, which is used globally. Therefore, it is unlikely that these findings are not applicable in foreign countries.
Further Research
Based on the described limitations, a few suggestions for further research can be made.
First, in order to improve the paper versus software analysis as well as the Scrum software tools evaluation in an even more thorough manner, some of the criteria could be extended, e.g. the integration criterion of the Scrum software tool evaluation (see section 4.2.4) could also include a quality property. But also other criterions, like the haptic quality criterion could form the basis for a dedicated study in the field of psychology.
Second, next to the criteria that were identified, it is possible to extent this list, for example because criteria might exist that are currently not known or do not exist yet due to limited technology.
Third, in terms of the field research it would be beneficial to include more companies to make the company-related findings more objective. It would be interesting to evaluate non-German companies to investigate whether the findings of this master thesis project are also applicable outside of Germany, although it is assumed that they are, as shown before.
Fourth, the decision graph would be even more complete if more Scrum software tools could be evaluated and added. However, the current version with its five tools is a good starting point for companies, since these five tools represent the most important ones that are currently available, as has been explained in the limitations section above.
Finally, consulting different company experts could reveal that there might also exist other task board scenarios next to the five that were identified in section 5.1, although it has been shown that the field research supported these task board scenarios and vice versa. One can therefore assume that the list of scenarios is quite complete.