Study Report. Status Quo Agile 2014

(1)

Study Report

Status Quo Agile 2014

Second study on success and forms of usage

of agile methods

by the BPM-Laboratory of the

Koblenz University of Applied Sciences

Director Prof. Dr. Ayelt Komus

www.hs-koblenz.de

www.status-quo-agile.net

In cooperation with GPM - Deutsche Gesellschaft für

Projektmanagement and the International Project Management

Association (IPMA)

(2)

2

www.status-quo-agile.net

| © BPM-Lab, Prof. Dr. A. Komus

Version

First publication July 15, 2014

Version 1.0, July 2014

Copyright

BPM Laboratory, Koblenz University of Applied Sciences,

Prof. Dr. Komus

The usage of extracts or single diagrams is allowed

stating the source:

“Source: Study Status Quo Agile, BPM-Laboratory,

Koblenz University of Applied Sciences, Prof. Dr. Komus“

Permission can be revoked at anytime.

Disclaimer

The contents were carefully researched and evaluated.

However, errors can not be excluded.

We do not assume any liability for correctness and

completeness.

The authors explicitly exclude any liability for possible

damage, which is created by direct or indirect use of the

provided information.

Authors and realization:

Prof. Dr. Ayelt Komus (HS Koblenz)

Moritz Kuberg, B.Sc. (HS Koblenz)

Can Atinc

Lukas Franner

Fabian Friedrich

Tamara Lang

Anna Makarova

Dominik Reimer

Johanna Pabst

Contact:

Koblenz University of Applied Sciences

BPM-Laboratory

Konrad-Zuse-Str. 1

56075 Koblenz

+49261-9528-164

[email protected]

Twitter:

@sq_agile

www.hs-koblenz.de

|

www.status-quo-agile.de

Prof. Dr. Komus

[email protected]

Twitter:

@AyeltKomus

www.komus.de

Imprint

(3)

3

Highlights (1/4)



The majority of the users of agile methods use them selectively or in combination.

Only about one fourth of the participants use agile methods consistently.



Nearly two thirds of the participants have been using agile methods for four years.



As expected, agile methods are especially used in the area of software development. Even so, “only“

IT-related topics and activities without references to IT account for 41% respectively 27%.



The success rate of agile methods is evaluated more positively than the success rate of classical

project management. The positive evaluation of the success of agile methods in this survey

corresponds to the results of the survey from 2012. Once again consistently agile users had the

highest rate of success.



Only 7% of the respondents state that agile methods do not lead to an improvement in results and

efficiency.

(4)

4

Highlights (2/4)



Only 7% of the respondents stated that there is a disadvantageous relationship between

the improvement and the effort of introducing agile methods.



With 86%, the most used method is Scrum. Kanban, XP and Feature Driven

Development follow.



The respondents rated agile methods consistently better than classic project

management methods regarding specific success criteria like the “Quality of results“,

“Adherence to schedule“ and “Employee motivation”.



Regarding specific success criteria, Scrum is rated better than every other method .



Scrum, Kanban, Lean and Design Thinking are rated more positively than classical

project management in all criteria.



The motivation of the team and teamwork is evaluated remarkably positively for Scrum,

Kanban, XP and Design Thinking.



Regarding the adherence to schedule and the efficiency, Lean, Kanban and Scrum are

evaluated remarkably positively.

(5)

5

www.status-quo-agile.net

Highlights (3/4)



Six of the seven most often used techniques are specific Scrum techniques. 15 of 22 rated

techniques are used by a minimum of 70% of the users of consistently agile methods.



A team size of 5-9 persons dominates. The majority of users of classic project management work in

teams of this size, too.



93% of the respondents have a Scrum Master certificate, but about 40% stated that he is supported

by a traditional project manager or even acts like a traditional project manager.



75% of the respondents stated, that a Sprint does not run longer than three weeks.



Less than 50% of the Scrum-Users use an Impediment Backlog.

(6)

6

www.status-quo-agile.de

| © BPM-Labor, Prof. Dr. A. Komus

Highlights (4/4)



Only about 6% of the users of agile methods and 10% of the users of classic project management

evaluated project teams as being undisciplined.



74% of the users of agile methods stated that change is an integral part of the company policy. Only

55% of the users of classic project management stated the same.

(7)

7

Introductory remarks

8

Fields of application and usage of agile methods

15

Benefit and success rate of agile methods

26

Importance of single agile methods

37

Evaluation of agile methods

51

Forms of usage of agile methods

78

Specific questions about agile methods

93

General Assessments to agile methods

109

Change Process

114

Background of the participants and methods

123

Explanatory notes on the methodology

140

Contact

144

(8)

Back To Table Of Content

8

(9)

9

| © BPM-Lab, Prof. Dr. A. Komus



Introduction



Design of the study



Reading Hints



The term “project“

(10)

10

The first edition of “Status Quo Agile” was

conducted in 2012 with more than 300

participants. The feedback of participants, media

and conferences exceeded our expectations by

far. The interest to understand the fields of usage,

the success and the success factors of agile

methods seems to be high.

Two years later agile methods such as Scrum

and IT-Kanban are even more established and

used outside the software development in the

daily work. With “Design Thinking” there is

another method, which contains a lot of agile

elements. Because of this we included “Design

Thinking” in our study.

In 2014 our study was designed to allow an even

better understanding of how agile methods are

used in daily work, and how successful these

methods are.

On the basis of Status Quo Agile 2012 we

noticed that a hybrid or selective form of usage

together with classical project management is

very popular. In this study we also examined how

widespread the different agile techniques. For

the users of Scrum, IT-Kanban and Design

Thinking we added additional questions to

understand these practices better.

Even though there are always methodological

limitations for study like this*, we are confident

that the sample of more than 600 participants

from more than 30 countries is large enough to

allow conclusions that are highly informative and

meaningful.

We hope that you will have an inspiring and

informative reading.

The Team of “Status Quo Agile 2014”

Introduction

(11)

11

This is the new edition of the study “Status Quo

Agile 2012” from the BPM-Labor at the University

of Applied Sciences Koblenz. On basis of the

results from 2012 and the latest developments in

agile methods the design of the study was

adapted and improved.

Over six weeks the study was released for

participation. It reached 612 participants from 37

countries.

To get a more detailed questionnaire, we

distinguished four forms of usage, which you will

see on the next-but-one page. The different

forms of usage are displayed by four rectangular

symbols.

Additional questions were asked regarding the

forms of usage of Scrum, Design Thinking and

IT-Kanban. These results are included in the

report as well.

(12)

12

Highlights

Charts marked with a yellow star highlight results,

which are considered particularly interesting by

the authors.

This should help readers, who read the report

selectively.

Rounding deviation

Rounding of percentage values may lead to sums

deviating from 100%.

(13)

13

(Responses from the categories „Consistently agile“, „Hybrid“, _{und „Selective“ , „Consistently classic project management“)}

Within this report, it is distinguished between four

forms of usage of agile methods/ classic project

management.

To give a good orientation, these forms are

marked with the symbols explained on the

right-hand side.

Reading Hints:

Four Forms Of Usage

“

Consistently agile“

Projects/development processes are

(almost) exclusively controlled and

managed with agile methods.

“Hybrid“

Projects / development processes are

controlled and managed with a

combination of agile methods and classic

methods.

“Selective“

Some selected projects / development

processes are controlled and managed

with agile methods. Other projects are

processed with classic project

management methods.

agile

“Consistently classic project

management“

(almost) exclusively controlled and

managed with classic project

(14)

14

Agile methods are not project management

methods in the proper sense. A characteristic

feature of a project is the “uniqueness of the

conditions as a whole”. Projects have clear

targets and are limited by both time and financial

resources.

There is a big difference between classical

project management and agile methods, such as

Scrum or IT-Kanban. Agile methods do not strive

for a single one-time result, but the continues flow

and a continuous development and improvement

of the product by incremental deliveries.

Nevertheless, it is apparent that in practice both

methods are closely connected with each other.

Agile methods are very often used in classical

project management to complement or to expand

existing techniques. As a result we see hybrid

approaches as well as a selective usage of agile

methods in combination with classical project

management.

Following this approach the study takes into

account the different forms of usage of agile

methods and project management and compares

them systematically even though they are

fundamentally different.

Due to methodological limitations the results of

these comparisons have to be interpreted very

carefully. However, the results should be very

valuable for many companies using agile

methods or considering implementing them in

place of or in combination with classic project

management.

Eventually, it is fair to assume that the

appropriate perspective of the task – as a one

time effort or as continuous effort to develop,

maintain and improve a product – is far more

crucial than the question on how to apply a

method perfectly.

(15)

15

www.status-quo-agile.net

Fields Of Application And

Usage Of Agile Methods

(16)

16



Methods used



Personal use of agile methods



Usage of agile methods in the company



Field of application – IT-Focus of agile

activities

Fields Of Application And

(17)

17

21%

39% 25%

15%

controlled and managed…

Durchgängig agil „Mischform“ (Hybrid) „Sowohl als auch“ (Selektiv) Durchgängig klassisch

39% of the respondents stated that single projects/

development processes are controlled and managed

selectively.

25% stated that projects/ development processes are

processed as a combination of agile methods and classic

methods, which is referred to here as “Hybrid”.

Particularly remarkable is the fact that only 21% of the

participants control and manage projects/ development

processes almost exclusively with the help of agile

methods.

Though this survey carries the word “agile” in its title,

users of classic project management also participated,

which was wanted.

Finally, the majority of the respondents do not use

either

classic methods nor agile methods

exclusively!

Methods Used

n=601 (Nur eine Antwort möglich, Pflichtangabe)

Consistently agile

Hybrid

Selective

Consistently classic project management

(18)

18

www.status-quo-agile.net

(Responses from the categories „Consistently agile“, „Hybrid“, _{und „Selective“)}

Personal Use Of Agile Methods (1/4)

About 61% of the participants first got in contact

with agile methods in the last four years.

Since 2010 the use of agile methods has

increased.

It is to be noted that the answer “2014” has to

interpreted carefully as the study has been

performed at the middle of the year 2014.

Regarding the comparison, it is remarkable that

more participants who use agile methods

exclusively use them since 2005 or earlier than all

of the other agile users do.

n=386 (Nur eine Antwort möglich)

1% 9% 3% 3% 6% 8% 6% 14% 14% 21% 12% 3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Since when do you personally use agile

methods?

(single choice)

(19)

19

1% 9% 3% 3% 6% 8% 6% 14% 14% 21% 12% 3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

methods? (2014)

methods? (2012)

Survey 2012, n=156 13% 6% 6% 3% 10% 19% 20% 19% 3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% vor 2005 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

n=386 (Nur eine Antwort möglich) before

(single choice)

(20)

20

| © BPM-Lab, Prof. Dr. A. Komus

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Keine Angabe vor 2005 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Since when do you personally use agile methods?

Durchgängig agil n=100 Hybrid n=165 Selektiv n=121

no statement

Consistently agile n=100 Hybrid n=165 Selective n=121

before 2005

(21)

21

Personal Use Of Agile Methods (4/4)

Since when do you personally use agile methods? (2012)

0,0% 5,0% 10,0% 15,0% 20,0% 25,0% 30,0% 35,0% vor 2005 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

"Durchgängig agil"

"Mischform"

"Sowohl-als-auch"

n=37

n=66

n=53

(Survey 2012) Consistently agile n=37 Hybrid n=53 Selective n=66

2012 – agile users by groups

before 2005

(22)

22

5% 4% 1% 1% 4% 7% 7% 15% 16% 21% 15% 4% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Since when are agile methods used in your

area of the company?

The use of agile methods in companies increased

since 2010, which corresponds to the results of

the personal use.

Even so, the use of agile methods of companies

generally started later than the personal use of

agile methods. (35% before 2010 personal, 24%

before 2010 companies)

In The Company (1/2)

n=386 (Nur eine Antwort möglich) (single choice)

(23)

23

In The Company (2/2)

5% 4% 1% 1% 4% 7% 7% 15% 16% 21% 15% 4% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Since when are agile methods used in your

area of the company? (2014)

Since when are agile methods used in your area of

the company? (2012)

7%

6%

4%

6%

15% 16%

22% 22%

2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

vor

2005

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Survey 2012, n=138 before (single choice)

(24)

24

Software-Development as a field of application of

agile methods still outweighs all other areas.

Nevertheless for more than 25% of the

participants, activities without IT-reference are a

relevant field of application for agile methods.

This distribution does not significantly change

when differentiated by the form of usage

(Consistently agile, Hybrid, Selective).

Field Of Application -

IT-Focus Of Agile Activities (1/2)

90% 41% 27% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Software-Entwicklung IT-nahe Themen (bspw. SAP-Projekte)

Aktivitäten ohne besonderen IT-Bezug

In which areas do you use agile

methods/project management?

n=387 (Mehrfachantworten möglich)

Software-Development IT-related topics (for example SAP-projects)

Activities without references to IT

(multiple choice)

(25)

25

www.status-quo-agile.net

Field Of Application -

IT-Focus Of Agile Activities (2/2)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Software-Entwicklung IT-nahe Themen (bspw. SAP-Projekte) Aktivitäten ohne besonderen IT-Bezug

In which areas do you use agile methods/project management?

Durchgängig agil n=100 hybrid n=166

selektiv n=121

Mehrfachantworten möglich

Software-Development IT-related topics (for example SAP-projects) Activities without references to IT

Consistently agile n=100 Hybrid n=166

Selective n=122

(multiple choice)

(26)

Back To Table Of Content

26

(27)

27



Success rate of agile & classical methods



Improvement of results and efficiency due to

agile methods



Improvement in comparison to the efforts

Benefit

(28)

28

The success rate of projects / development processes is very high when agile methods are in use

(majority over 79%).

A comparison with the study from 2012 shows that the answers are more diversified, but in the whole

similar. The median is again 80-89%.

The success rate of classic project management, rated by classic user is significantly worse than the

success rate of agile methods, rated by agile user (t-Test: p<0,001).

The difference of the success rate of classic project management rated by consistently agile user and

classic project management user are significant worse (chi-square-test: p<0,006).

Again like in 2012 consistently agile users have the highest percentage of highly successful activities

(90%-100%).

Success Rate

Of Agile & Classical Methods (1/7)

Introduction - All groups

(29)

29

(Responses from the category „Consistently classic project _{management“)}

(Responses from the categories „Consistently agile“, „Hybrid“, und „Selective“)

24% 28% 26% 8% 9% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% 90-100 % 80-89 % 70-79 % 60-69 % 50-59 % 40-49 % 30-39 % 20-29 % 10-19 % 0-9% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

How would you estimate the success rate of

projects/development processes performed

with agile methods?

Success Rate

n=375 (Nur eine Antwort möglich) (single choice) Median

Comparison agile user and classical user

5% 21% 33% 22% 9% 2% 4% 1% 4% 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 90-100% 80-89% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 20-29% 10-19% 0-9%

How would you estimate the success rate

of projects/development processes

performed with classic methods?

n=82 der Teilnehmer, die durchgängig klassische Methoden verwenden (Nur eine Antwort möglich)

(single choice)

o

Median

The success rate of classic project management, rated by classic user is significantly worse than the success rate of agile methods, rated by agile user (t-Test: p<0,001).

(30)

30

www.status-quo-agile.net

Success Rate

n=375 (Nur eine Antwort möglich) 21% 34% 34% 6% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 90-100 % 80-89 % 70-79 % 60-69 % 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 20-29 % 10-19% 0-9%

performed with agile methods? (2012)

Survey 2012, n=173 (single choice) Median (single choice) Median 24% 28% 26% 8% 9% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% 90-100 % 80-89 % 70-79 % 60-69 % 50-59 % 40-49 % 30-39 % 20-29 % 10-19 % 0-9 % 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

of projects/development processes

performed with agile methods? (2014)

Comparison 2012/2014 – All agile users

(31)

31

Success Rate

n=375 (Nur eine Antwort möglich) Survey 2012, n=115 (single choice)

5% 16% 23% 25% 10% 10% 4% 6% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 90-100 % 80-89 % 70-79 % 60-69 % 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 20-29 % 10-19% 0-9%

Wie hoch würden Sie Ihre Erfolgsquote der

mit klassischen Methoden durchgeführten

Projekte/Entwicklungsprozesse

einschätzen? (2012)

6% 13% 15% 14% 21% 11% 9% 8% 2% 1% 90-100 % 80-89 % 70-79 % 60-69 % 50-59 % 40-49 % 30-39 % 20-29 % 10-19 % 0-9 % 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

performed with classic methods? (2014)

Median Median

projects/development processes performed

with classic methods? (2012)

(single choice)

(32)

32

www.status-quo-agile.net

(Responses from the category „Consistently classic project _{management“)}

(Responses from the categories „Consistently agile“, „Hybrid“, und „Selective“)

6% 13% 15% 14% 21% 11% 9% 8% 2% 1% 90-100 % 80-89 % 70-79 % 60-69 % 50-59 % 40-49 % 30-39 % 20-29 % 10-19 % 0-9 % 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

with classic methods?

Success Rate

n=82 der Teilnehmer, die durchgängig klassische Methoden verwenden (Nur eine Antwort möglich)

n=373 (Nur eine Antwort möglich) Median _Median

5% 21% 33% 22% 9% 2% 4% 1% 4% 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 90-100% 80-89% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 20-29% 10-19% 0-9%

How would you estimate the success rate

performed with classic methods?

(single choice) _{(single choice)}

o

Comparison agile user and classical user

_{The difference of the success rate of classic project management}

rated by consistently agile user and classic project management user are significant worse (chi-square-test: p<0,006).

(33)

33

(Responses from the category „Consistently agile“)

Success Rate

3% 8% 11% 19% 19% 17% 11% 11% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 90-100 % 80-89 % 70-79 % 60-69 % 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 20-29 % 10-19% 0-9%

3% 4% 17% 18% 19% 24% 8% 3% 1% 3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 90-100 % 80-89 % 70-79 % 60-69 % 50-59 % 40-49 % 30-39 % 20-29 % 10-19 % 0-9 %

Median _Median

o o

n=96 of the participants, who use agile methods consistently (single choice)

Survey 2012, n=36 of the participants, who use agile methods consistently (single choice)

(34)

34

www.status-quo-agile.net

Success Rate

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 0-9% 10-19 % 20-29 % 30-39 % 40-49 % 50-59 % 60-69 % 70-79 % 80-89 % 90-100 %

Wie hoch würden Sie Ihre Erfolgsquote der mit agilen Methoden durchgeführten Projekte

/ Entwicklungsprozesse einschätzen? (2014)

Durchgängig agil n=98 hybrid n=161 selektiv n=116

Agile users by groups

How would you estimate the success rate of projects/development processes performed

with agile methods? (2014)

(35)

35

80% 7%

13%

Did the usage of agile methods lead to

improved results and efficiency?

Ja Nein

Keine Angabe

Improvement Of Results And Efficiency

Due To Agile Methods

80% of the participants said, that the usage of

agile methods makes development processes

more successful and efficient.

Yes No

No statement

(single choice)

(36)

36

The data shows that the improvements due to the

implementation of agile methods are much higher

than the efforts of the implementation. Only 7%

believe the contrary.

29%

64% 6%

1%

If so,* how do you evaluate the

improvement compared to the effort of the

implementation and usage of agile

methods?

Verbesserung sehr viel höher als der Aufwand

Verbesserung höher als der Aufwand

Verbesserung geringer als der Aufwand

Verbesserung sehr viel geringer als der Aufwand

Improvement

In Comparison To The Efforts

Improvement much higher than effort

Improvement higher than effort

Improvement lower than effort

Improvement much lower than effort

(single choice) * Referring to the question: Did the usage of agile methods lead to improved results and efficiency?

(37)

Back To Table Of Content

37

(38)

38



Importance of agile methods for the own field

Importance Of

(39)

39

| © BPM-Lab, Prof. Dr. A. Komus

Scrum, Kanban, XP and Feature Driven Development have the highest importance, which confirms

the results of “Status Quo Agile 2012“. The Order of the three most important methods did not change.

It must be noticed that the methods Lean, Design Thinking, Lean Startup and Unified Process were

picked up first in this survey as additional options.

Still, Crystal has the lowest importance.

Importance Of Agile

(40)

40

Importance Of Agile

Methods For The Own Field (2/12)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Crystal Unified Process (incl. RUP, AUP, OUP) Dynamic System Development Method Lean Startup Usability Driven Development Agile Modeling Adaptive Software Development Design Thinking Lean Feature Driven Development Extreme Programming (XP)(inkl. Test Driven

Development)

Kanban ("IT-Kanban") Scrum

How important are the following methods for your area?

zentrale Bedeutung für meinen Tätigkeitsbereich

wird für meinem Tätigkeitsbereich neben anderen Methoden genutzt

geringe Bedeutung für meinem Tätigkeitsbereich

keine Bedeutung für meinen Tätigkeitsbereich

Keine Angabe n=368 n=351 n=378 n=362 n=363 n=326 n=367 n=366 n=362 n=350 n=363 n=361 n=363

Very important to my area

Is used in my area next to other methods

Low importance in my area

Not relevant in my area

No statement

incl.

(41)

41

www.status-quo-agile.net

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Design Thinking Lean Feature Driven Development Extreme Programming (XP)(inkl. Test Driven

Development)

How important are the following methods for your area?

keine Bedeutung für meinen Tätigkeitsbereich

Keine Angabe n=96 n=93 n=96 n=93 n=95 n=83

Importance Of Agile

No statement

(42)

42

(Responses from the category „Hybrid“)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Design Thinking

Lean Feature Driven Development Extreme Programming (XP)(inkl. Test

Driven Development)

How important are the following methods for your area?

keine Bedeutung für meinen Tätigkeitsbereich Keine Angabe n=156 n=147 n=158 n=157 n=154 n=140

Importance Of Agile

incl.

No statement

(43)

43

www.status-quo-agile.net

(Responses from the category „Selective“ )

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Design Thinking

Lean Feature Driven Development Extreme Programming (XP)(inkl. Test

Driven Development)

How important are the following methods for your area?

keine Bedeutung für meinen Tätigkeitsbereich Keine Angabe n=116 n=111 n=116 n=112 n=114 n=103

Importance Of Agile

incl.

No statement

(44)

44

26% 42% 32% durchgängig agil Hybrid Selektiv n = 368

Participants who rated Scrum

Importance Of Agile

48% 34%

9% 4% 3%

Zentrale Bedeutung Wird neben anderen benutzt geringe Bedeutung Keine Bedeutung Keine Angabe n = 116 91% 5% 1% 2% 1% Zentrale Bedeutung Wird neben anderen benutzt geringe Bedeutung Keine Bedeutung Keine Angabe n = 96 53% 30% 12% 4% 1% Zentrale Bedeutung Wird neben anderen benutzt geringe Bedeutung Keine Bedeutung Keine Angabe n = 156

Evaluate Scrum regarding the importance of this method for your own field

Consistently agile

Selective

Is used in my area next to other methods Low importance in my area

Not relevant in my area No statement

No statement

(45)

45

www.status-quo-agile.net

Importance Of Agile

n=318 (Mehrfachantworten möglich) * Compare: "Importance Of Agile Methods For The Own Field "

25% 27% 3% 24% 13% 46% 42% 51% 38% 18% 11% 23% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Adaptive Software Development

Agile Modeling Crystal Design Thinkink Dynamic System Development Method Extreme Programming (XP)(inkl. Test Driven Development) Feature Driven Development

Kanban Lean Lean Startup Unified Process (incl. RUP, AUP, OUP)

Usability Driven Development

Participants who rated Scrum as follows:*

A = very important to my area

B = is used in my area next to other methods

also rated the following methods with A or B

(multiple choice)

(46)

46

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Adaptive Software Development

Agile Modeling Crystal Design Thinking Dynamic System Development Method Extreme Programming (XP)(inkl. Test Driven Development) Feature Driven Development

Kanban Lean Lean Startup Unified Process (incl. RUP, AUP, OUP)

Participants who rated Scrum as follows:*

Durchgängig agil n=93 Hybrid n=129 Selektiv n=96

Importance Of Agile

* Compare: "Importance Of Agile Methods For The Own Field "

Consistently agile n=93 Selective n=96

(47)

47

www.status-quo-agile.net

Importance Of Agile

n=187 (Mehrfachantworten möglich) * Compare: "Importance Of Agile Methods For The Own Field "

27% 27% 4% 26% 11% 56% 49% 52% 26% 87% 10% 28% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Adaptive Software Development

Agile Modeling Crystal Design Thinkink Dynamic System Development Method Extreme Programming (XP)(inkl. Test Driven Development) Feature Driven Development

Lean Lean Startup Scrum Unified Process (incl. RUP, AUP, OUP)

Participants who rated Kanban as follows:*

(multiple choice)

(48)

48

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Adaptive Software Development

Agile Modeling Crystal Design Thinking Dynamic System Development Method Extreme Programming (XP)(inkl. Test Driven Development) Feature Driven Development

Participants who rated Kanban as follows:*

Durchgängig Agil n=60 Hybrid n=77 Selektiv n=50

Importance Of Agile

* Compare: "Importance Of Agile Methods For The Own Field "

Consistently agile n=60 Selective n=50

(49)

49

www.status-quo-agile.net

47% _46% 10% 29% 49% 63% 54% 56% 31% 84% 14% 48% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Adaptive Software Development

Agile Modeling Crystal Dynamic System Development Method Extreme Programming (XP)(inkl. Test Driven Development) Feature Driven Development Kanban ("IT-Kanban")

Participants who rated Design Thinking as follows:*

Importance Of Agile

* Compare: "Importance Of Agile Methods For The Own Field " n=90 (Mehrfachantworten möglich) (multiple choice)

(50)

50

Importance Of Agile

* Compare: "Importance Of Agile Methods For The Own Field " 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Adaptive Software Development

Agile Modeling Crystal Dynamic System Development Method Extreme Programming (XP)(inkl. Test Driven Development) Feature Driven Development Kanban ("IT-Kanban")

Participants who rated Design Thinking as follows:*

Durchgängig agil n=24 Hybrid n=42 Selektiv n=24 Consistently agile n=24 Selective n=24

(51)

51

(52)

52

www.status-quo-agile.net



Evaluation Agile Modeling



Evaluation Usabilitiy Driven Development



Evaluation Lean Startup



Evaluation Dynamic System Development

Method



Evaluation Unified Process



Evaluation Crystal



Evaluation Classic Project Management



Comparison

Evaluation Of Agile Methods



Evaluation of entire practiced agile methods



Evaluation Scrum



Evaluation Kanban



Evaluation Extreme Programming



Evaluation Feature Driven Development



Evaluation Lean



Evaluation Design Thinking

(53)

53

The participants were asked to evaluate the methods they named before as highly relevant for their

field of activity.

It is notable that Unified Process and classic project management were evaluated worst. On the other

hand the evaluation of Scrum varies and is comparable to the data from 2012.

The evaluation of the adherence to a schedule is evaluated as bad for all methods. Already in the

2012 study it has been noted that the applicability of adherence to schedules makes only limited sense

for iterative methods like Scrum as the basic idea is to work in short cycles that are always determined

in advance and the work contents are variable. Nevertheless – i.e. for reasons of comparability - the

question was asked again.

(54)

54

Evaluation

Entire Practiced Agile Methods (1/4)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Ergebnisqualität Mitarbeitermotivation Teamwork Termintreue Effizienz Kundenorientierung Transparenz Gesamte Leistungsfähigkeit der Methode

Evaluation of the entire practiced agile methods based on the following criteria.

Sehr gut Gut Ausreichend Mangelhaft Keine Erfahrung

n=1403

n=1396

n=1367

n=1402

n=1399

n=1405

n=1402

n=1407

All agile users

The number of answers is larger than the number of respondents, because many participants evaluated more than one method (all methods rated “A“ or “B“ ).

Overall performance of method

Transparency Customer orientation Efficency Adherence to schedule Teamwork Employee motivation Quality of results very good good

not very good

poor

no experience

(55)

55

www.status-quo-agile.net

Evaluation

Evaluation of the entire practiced agile methods based on the following criteria.

n=463

n=464

n=429

n=465

n=464

n=467

n=465

not very good poor

no experience (single choice)

The number of answers is larger than the number of respondents of this category, because many participants evaluated more than one method (all methods rated “A“ or “B“ ).

(56)

56

www.status-quo-agile.net

(Responses from the category „Hybrid“)

Evaluation

n=555

n=550

n=555

n=551

n=554

n=551

n=556

not very good poor

no experience (single choice)

(57)

57

www.status-quo-agile.net

(Responses from the category „Selective“ )

Evaluation

n=394

n=382

n=383

n=384

n=383

n=386

no experience poor

not very good good

very good Overall performance of method

Transparency Customer orientation Efficency Adherence to schedule Teamwork Employee motivation Quality of results (single choice)

(58)

58

www.status-quo-agile.net

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Durchgängig klassisch n=84 Selektiv n=383 Hybrid n=551 Durchgängig agil n=465

Employee motivation

Sehr gut Gut Ausreichend Mangelhaft Keine Erfahrung 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Durchgängig klassisch n=84 Selektiv n=386 Hybrid n=556 Durchgängig agil n=465

Quality of results

Teamwork

Adherence to schedule

Evaluation

All Groups

The difference betweeen all agile groups / “consistently classic“ and the goups “consistently agile“ / “consistently classic“ are significant for each criterion (chi-square-test: p<0,001).

very good good not very good poor no experience

Consistently agile Hybrid Selective Consistently classic project management Consistently agile Hybrid Selective Consistently classic project management Consistently agile Hybrid Selective Consistently classic project management Consistently agile Hybrid Selective Consistently classic project management

(59)

59

www.status-quo-agile.net

Efficency

Customer orientation

Transparency

Evaluation

All Groups

very good good not very good poor no experience

Consistently agile Hybrid Selective Consistently classic project management Consistently agile Hybrid Selective Consistently classic project management Consistently agile Hybrid Selective Consistently classic project management

The difference betweeen all agile groups / “consistently classic“ and the goups “consistently agile“ / “consistently classic“ are significant for each criterion (chi-square-test: p<0,001).

(60)

60

www.status-quo-agile.net

Evaluation

Scrum (1/2)

Please evaluate Scrum with the characteristics stated below according to your

experiences in your area of the company

n=306

n=305

n=306

n=308

n=306

not very good poor

no experience

Participants who rated method as follows:

“A” = very important to my area or “B” = is used in my area next to other methods Single choice for each success criterion

(61)

61

www.status-quo-agile.net

Evaluation

Scrum (2/2)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Ergebnisqualität Mitarbeitermotivation Teamwork Termintreue Effizienz Kundenorientierung Transparenz Gesamte Leistungsfähigkeit der Methode

Please evaluate Scrum with the

characteristics stated below according to

your experiences in your area of the

company

(2012).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Ergebnisqualität Mitarbeitermotivation Teamwork Termintreue Effizienz Kundenorientierung Transparenz Gesamte Leistungsfähigkeit der Methode

Please evaluate Scrum with the

characteristics stated below according to

your experiences in your area of the

company (2014).

Sehr gut Gut Ausreichend Mangelhaft Keine Erfahrung n=306 n=305 n=306 n=306 n=306 n=308 n=306 n=306

n=90

Transparency Customer orientation Efficency Adherence to schedule Teamwork Employee motivation Quality of results

very good good not very good poor no experience very good good not very good poor no experience Overall performance of method

Transparency Customer orientation Efficency Adherence to schedule Teamwork Employee motivation Quality of results

Participants who ratedmethod as follows:

(62)

62

www.status-quo-agile.net

Evaluation

Kanban

Please evaluate Kanban with the characteristics stated below according to your

n=174

n=171

n=173

n=172

n=173

not very good poor

no experience

Participants who ratedmethod as follows:

(63)

63

www.status-quo-agile.net

Evaluation

Extreme Programming

n=162

n=160

n=161

n=163

n=161

n=163

n=162

Please evaluate Extreme Programming (incl. Test Driven Development and Pair

Programming) with the characteristics stated below according to your experiences in

your area of the company

Sehr gut Gut

Ausreichend Mangelhaft Keine Erfahrung Overall performance of method

not very good poor

no experience

Participants who ratedmethod as follows:

(64)

64

www.status-quo-agile.net

Evaluation

Feature Driven Development

Please evaluate Feature Driven Development with the characteristics stated below

according to your experiences in your area of the company

n=142

n=143

n=141

n=140

n=142

n=143

not very good poor

no experience

Participants who ratedmethod as follows:

(65)

65

www.status-quo-agile.net

Evaluation

Lean

Please evaluate Lean with the characteristics stated below according to your experiences

in your area of the company

n=123

n=122

n=121

n=123

n=121

n=122

not very good poor

no experience

Participants who ratedmethod as follows:

(66)

66

www.status-quo-agile.net

Please evaluate Design Thinking with the characteristics stated below according to your

n=80

n=79

n=80

Evaluation

Design Thinking

not very good poor

no experience

Participants who ratedmethod as follows:

(67)

67

www.status-quo-agile.net

Evaluation

Adaptive Software Development

Please evaluate Adaptive Software Development with the characteristics stated below

n=90

n=91

n=69

n=91

n=92

not very good poor

no experience

Participants who ratedmethod as follows:

Velocity tracking

/customer orientation

(68)

68

Evaluation

Agile Modeling

Please evaluate Agile Modeling with the characteristics stated below according to your

n=90

n=91

n=92

not very good poor

no experience

Participants who ratedmethod as follows:

(69)

69

www.status-quo-agile.net

Evaluation

Usabilitiy Driven Development

Please evaluate Usability Driven Development with the characteristics stated below

n=82

n=83

n=80

n=83

not very good poor

no experience

Participants who ratedmethod as follows:

(70)

70

www.status-quo-agile.net

Evaluation

Lean Startup

Please evaluate Lean Startup with the characteristics stated below according to your

n=59

n=58

n=46

n=59

n=58

n=59

not very good poor

no experience

Participants who ratedmethod as follows:

All agile users

Velocity tracking

/customer orientation

(71)

71

Evaluation

Dynamic System Development Method

Please evaluate Dynamic System Development Method with the characteristics stated

below according to your experiences in your area of the company

n=42

n=41

n=42

not very good poor

no experience

Participants who ratedmethod as follows:

(72)

72

www.status-quo-agile.net

Please evaluate Unified Process (incl. RUP ,