pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.08895 · v1 · pith:SHPYNWCMnew · submitted 2019-06-20 · 💻 cs.SE

Plan-Driven approaches are alive and kicking in agile Global Software Development

Marcelo Marinho , John Noll , Ita Richardson , Sarah Beecham This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 18:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE
keywords Global Software DevelopmentAgile MethodsHybrid ApproachesSoftware ProcessSurveyDistributed Teams
0
0 comments X

The pith

Survey of 263 GSD projects finds 72% use hybrid agile-traditional methods, 25% agile only, and 5% traditional only.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper analyzes survey responses from 263 participants in globally distributed software projects across 33 countries to map current process adoption. It establishes that hybrids combining agile and traditional approaches predominate, pure agile appears mainly in very large projects, and purely traditional methods are rare. This matters for understanding whether distributed settings block agile adoption or instead prompt practical combinations that address coordination needs. The findings indicate that project size and the demands of global distribution shape the choice of methods rather than enforcing one category exclusively.

Core claim

In the sample, 72% of globally distributed projects implement a mix of both agile and traditional approaches (termed hybrid). 25% of GSD organisations are predominantly agile, with only very few (5%) opting for traditional approaches. GSD projects that used only agile methods tended to be very large.

What carries the argument

Survey-based classification of projects into agile, hybrid, or traditional categories according to self-reported method use in globally distributed settings.

If this is right

  • Globally distributed software development is compatible with agile practices.
  • Hybrid approaches are adopted to support project coordination and management alongside agile flexibility.
  • Pure agile use occurs mainly in very large projects within the sample.
  • Traditional plan-driven elements remain active even where agile methods are present.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Process models that permit controlled mixing of methods may better fit distributed environments than strict single-paradigm mandates.
  • Identifying the most frequent combinations of specific agile and traditional practices could guide practical hybrid templates.
  • The size correlation suggests scale enables pure agile more than distribution itself blocks it.

Load-bearing premise

Participants' self-reports accurately and consistently place their projects into agile, hybrid, or traditional categories, and the 263 responses represent wider GSD practice without major selection or reporting bias.

What would settle it

A follow-up survey or direct process audit of comparable GSD projects that produces markedly different shares (for example, under 50% hybrid) would contradict the reported distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.08895 by Ita Richardson, John Noll, Marcelo Marinho, Sarah Beecham.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Activities implementation in GSD projects ( 1=fully traditional to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Background: Agile methods are no longer restricted to small projects and co-located teams. The last decade has seen the spread of agile into large scale, distributed and regulated domains. Many case studies show successful agile adoption in GSD, however, taken as a whole, it remains unclear how widespread this trend is, and what form the agile adoption takes in a global software development (GSD) setting. Aims: Our objective is to gain a deeper understanding of how organisations adopt agile development methods in distributed settings. Specifically we aim to plot the current development process landscape in GSD. Method: We analyse industrial survey data from 33 different countries collected as part of the project that explored the wider use of hybrid development approaches in software development. We extract and analyse the results of 263 surveys completed by participants involved in globally distributed projects. Results: In our sample, 72 of globally distributed projects implement a mix of both agile and traditional approaches (termed `hybrid'). 25 of GSD organisations are predominantly agile, with only very few (5) opting for traditional approaches. GSD projects that used only agile methods tended to be very large. Conclusions: Globally Distributed Software Development (and project size) is not a barrier to adopting agile practices. Yet, to facilitate project coordination and general project management, many adopt traditional approaches, resulting in a hybrid approach that follows defined rules.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports results from an industrial survey of 263 participants involved in globally distributed software development (GSD) projects across 33 countries. It claims that 72% of such projects use hybrid agile-traditional approaches, 25% are predominantly agile, and only 5% are traditional, with agile-only projects tending to be very large. The conclusion is that GSD is not a barrier to agile adoption, though coordination needs often lead to hybrid methods.

Significance. If the prevalence estimates hold after correcting for sampling, the work would provide useful quantitative evidence on the current state of agile adoption in GSD settings, documenting the persistence of hybrid approaches and the role of project size. The multi-country sample is a strength, though the lack of validated classification criteria limits its immediate impact.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract/Method: The sampling is described as 'collected as part of the project that explored the wider use of hybrid development approaches', which introduces a plausible selection bias toward hybrid projects and directly threatens the generalizability of the headline 72% hybrid / 25% agile / 5% traditional prevalence claims for broader GSD practice.
  2. [Method] Method/Results: No information is given on the survey items, operational definitions, or decision rules used to classify responses into 'agile', 'hybrid', or 'traditional' categories, nor on any validation of self-reports; this is load-bearing for the central prevalence findings and the claim of no self-report bias.
  3. [Results] Results: The statement that 'GSD projects that used only agile methods tended to be very large' is presented without supporting distributions, cross-tabulations, or statistical tests (e.g., size thresholds or significance levels), leaving the size-agile association unsupported.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract contains typographical omissions: '72 of globally' should read '72% of globally', and similarly for the 25% and 5% figures.
  2. [Conclusions] The Conclusions paragraph states that 'project size is not a barrier' to agile, which appears to sit in tension with the Results finding that agile-only projects 'tended to be very large'; a clarifying sentence would help.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below with clarifications and indicate planned revisions where the manuscript can be strengthened. The multi-country GSD sample remains a core contribution, but we agree that transparency and qualification of claims require improvement.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract/Method: The sampling is described as 'collected as part of the project that explored the wider use of hybrid development approaches', which introduces a plausible selection bias toward hybrid projects and directly threatens the generalizability of the headline 72% hybrid / 25% agile / 5% traditional prevalence claims for broader GSD practice.

    Authors: We acknowledge the potential for selection bias given the parent project's focus on hybrid approaches. The 263 responses were nevertheless drawn from practitioners explicitly involved in GSD projects across 33 countries, not restricted to hybrid users. The reported percentages reflect the observed distribution in this sample. In revision we will add an explicit limitations subsection discussing sampling context and will qualify the prevalence claims as descriptive of our GSD sample rather than asserting broad generalizability without caveat. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Method] Method/Results: No information is given on the survey items, operational definitions, or decision rules used to classify responses into 'agile', 'hybrid', or 'traditional' categories, nor on any validation of self-reports; this is load-bearing for the central prevalence findings and the claim of no self-report bias.

    Authors: We agree that the original manuscript did not provide sufficient detail on classification. The revised version will include the relevant survey items, the exact operational definitions and decision rules applied to categorize responses (e.g., thresholds for predominant agile vs. hybrid vs. traditional), and any steps taken to mitigate or assess self-report bias. This addition will directly support the prevalence results. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Results: The statement that 'GSD projects that used only agile methods tended to be very large' is presented without supporting distributions, cross-tabulations, or statistical tests (e.g., size thresholds or significance levels), leaving the size-agile association unsupported.

    Authors: We will expand the Results section to include project-size distributions by approach category, cross-tabulations, and statistical tests (e.g., appropriate non-parametric comparisons or chi-square tests) with reported thresholds and significance levels. This will provide the evidentiary support currently missing for the size association. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct empirical survey reporting with no derivation chain

full rationale

The paper presents raw survey percentages (72% hybrid, 25% agile, 5% traditional) from 263 self-reported responses collected in one project. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes appear anywhere in the text. The sampling frame note ('collected as part of the project that explored the wider use of hybrid development approaches') describes data provenance but does not create a self-referential loop in any claimed derivation. This is a standard empirical report whose central claims stand or fall on external validity of the sample, not on internal reduction to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the validity of self-reported survey data classifying projects into categories; no free parameters or new entities introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The classification of projects as agile, hybrid, or traditional based on survey responses accurately reflects their development processes.
    The results depend on how participants interpreted and reported their methods.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5783 in / 1378 out tokens · 32781 ms · 2026-05-25T18:59:26.935959+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Management challenges to implementing ag- ile processes in traditional development organizations,

    B. Boehm and R. Turner, “Management challenges to implementing ag- ile processes in traditional development organizations,” IEEE software, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 30–39, 2005

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    12th Annual State of Agile Develop- ment Survey,

    VersionOne, Inc., “12th Annual State of Agile Develop- ment Survey,” https://explore.versionone.com/state-of-agile/ versionone-12th-annual-state-of-agile-report, 2018, [Online; accessed 27-June-2018]

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Agile uprising agile manifesto review,

    R. Lockard, A. Leff, C. Johnson, J. Gifford, J. Hrcsko, T. Lightfoot, A. Cleff, M. McCalla, J. Cusack, A. Bacon, C. Murman, and P. Elia, “Agile uprising agile manifesto review,” 2018, [accessed 19-November-2018]. [Online]. Available: http://podcast.agileuprising. com/manifesto-author-review/

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Uncertainty management for global software development teams,

    M. Marinho, J. Noll, and S. Beecham, “Uncertainty management for global software development teams,” in International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology . IEEE, 2018, pp. 238–246

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Can agile and traditional systems development approaches coexist? an ambidextrous view,

    V . Vinekar, C. W. Slinkman, and S. Nerur, “Can agile and traditional systems development approaches coexist? an ambidextrous view,” Infor- mation systems management , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 31–42, 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    A short review of global software development (gsd) and latest software development trends,

    R. Akbar and S. Safdar, “A short review of global software development (gsd) and latest software development trends,” in Computer, Communi- cations, and Control Technology (I4CT), 2015 International Conference on. IEEE, 2015, pp. 314–317

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Hybrid software and system development in practice: waterfall, scrum, and beyond,

    M. Kuhrmann, P. Diebold, J. M ¨unch, P. Tell, V . Garousi, M. Felderer, K. Trektere, F. McCaffery, O. Linssen, E. Hanseret al., “Hybrid software and system development in practice: waterfall, scrum, and beyond,” in Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Software and System Process. ACM, 2017, pp. 30–39

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Is water- scrum-fall reality? on the use of agile and traditional development practices,

    G. Theocharis, M. Kuhrmann, J. M ¨unch, and P. Diebold, “Is water- scrum-fall reality? on the use of agile and traditional development practices,” in International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. Springer, 2015, pp. 149–166

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    Empirical evidence in global software engineering: a systematic review,

    D. ˇSmite, C. Wohlin, T. Gorschek, and R. Feldt, “Empirical evidence in global software engineering: a systematic review,” Empirical software engineering, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 91–118, 2010. 9 PREPRINT This is the author’s version of the work. It is posted here by permission of ACM/IEEE for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version wa...

    work page 2010

  10. [10]

    Agile vs. structured distributed software development: A case study,

    H.-C. Estler, M. Nordio, C. A. Furia, B. Meyer, and J. Schneider, “Agile vs. structured distributed software development: A case study,” Empirical Software Engineering , vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 1197–1224, 2014

    work page 2014

  11. [11]

    A collaboration model for global multicultural software development,

    T. Ylikotila and P. Linna, “A collaboration model for global multicultural software development,” Information Modelling and Knowledge Bases XXII, vol. 225, p. 321, 2011

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    Agile practices for the global teaming model,

    J. Noll, A. Razzak, I. Richardson, and S. Beecham, “Agile practices for the global teaming model,” in 11th International Conference on Global Software Engineering Workshops (ICGSEW 2016) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 13–18

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    Can distributed software development be agile?

    B. Ramesh, L. Cao, K. Mohan, and P. Xu, “Can distributed software development be agile?” Communications of the ACM , vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 41–46, 2006

    work page 2006

  14. [14]

    HELENA stage 2 results,

    M. Kuhrmann, P. Tell, J. Kl ¨under, R. Hebig, S. Licorish, S. MacDonell, and Eds., “HELENA stage 2 results,” ResearchGate, 2018, doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.14807.52649. [Online]. Available: https://www. researchgate.net/publication/329246439 HELENA Stage 2 Results/

    work page doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.14807.52649 2018

  15. [15]

    Assessing the strength of global teaming practices: A pilot study,

    S. Beecham, I. Richardson, and J. Noll, “Assessing the strength of global teaming practices: A pilot study,” in 10th International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE 2015). IEEE, 2015, pp. 110–114

    work page 2015

  16. [16]

    What motivates software engineers working in global software development?

    S. Beecham and J. Noll, “What motivates software engineers working in global software development?” in International Conference on Product- Focused Software Process Improvement. Springer, 2015, pp. 193–209

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Global software develop- ment: practices for cultural differences,

    M. Marinho, A. Luna, and S. Beecham, “Global software develop- ment: practices for cultural differences,” in International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement . Springer, 2018, pp. 299–317

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    Challenges of project management in global software development: A client-vendor analysis,

    M. Niazi, S. Mahmood, M. Alshayeb, M. R. Riaz, K. Faisal, N. Cerpa, S. U. Khan, and I. Richardson, “Challenges of project management in global software development: A client-vendor analysis,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 80, pp. 1–19, 2016

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    A process framework for global software engineering teams,

    I. Richardson, V . Casey, F. McCaffery, J. Burton, and S. Beecham, “A process framework for global software engineering teams,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 54, no. 11, pp. 1175–1191, 2012

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    Using scrum in distributed agile development: A multiple case study,

    M. Paasivaara, S. Durasiewicz, and C. Lassenius, “Using scrum in distributed agile development: A multiple case study,” in Fourth Inter- national Conference on Global Software Engineering, (ICGSE 2009) . IEEE, 2009, pp. 195–204

    work page 2009

  21. [21]

    Using scrum in global software development: a systematic literature review,

    E. Hossain, M. A. Babar, and H.-Y . Paik, “Using scrum in global software development: a systematic literature review,” in Fourth Inter- national Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE 2009) . IEEE, 2009, pp. 175–184

    work page 2009

  22. [22]

    Using agile practices to solve global software development problems–a case study,

    S. Beecham, J. Noll, and I. Richardson, “Using agile practices to solve global software development problems–a case study,” in International Conference on Global Software Engineeering Workshops (ICGSEW 2014). IEEE, 2014, pp. 5–10

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    The agile manifesto,

    M. Fowler and J. Highsmith, “The agile manifesto,” Software Develop- ment, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 28–35, 2001

    work page 2001

  24. [24]

    Agility from first principles: Reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development,

    K. Conboy, “Agility from first principles: Reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development,” Information Systems Research, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 329–354, 2009

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    Scaling agile,

    C. Ebert and M. Paasivaara, “Scaling agile,” IEEE Software , vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 98–103, 2017

    work page 2017

  26. [26]

    Adopting SAFe to scale agile in a globally distributed organization,

    M. Paasivaara, “Adopting SAFe to scale agile in a globally distributed organization,” in 12th International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE 2017) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 36–40

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    Agile software development, the people factor,

    A. Cockburn and J. Highsmith, “Agile software development, the people factor,” Computer, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 131–133, 2001

    work page 2001

  28. [28]

    What do we know about agile software development?

    T. Dyba and T. Dingsoyr, “What do we know about agile software development?” IEEE software, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 6–9, 2009

    work page 2009

  29. [29]

    A comparative analysis of traditional software engineering and agile software development,

    A. Aitken and V . Ilango, “A comparative analysis of traditional software engineering and agile software development,” in 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Jan 2013, pp. 4751–4760

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies,

    S. Nerur, R. Mahapatra, and G. Mangalaraj, “Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies,” Communications of the ACM , vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 72–78, 2005

    work page 2005

  31. [31]

    Challenges and recom- mended practices for software architecting in global software develop- ment,

    O. Sievi-Korte, S. Beecham, and I. Richardson, “Challenges and recom- mended practices for software architecting in global software develop- ment,” Information and Software Technology , vol. 106, pp. 234 – 253, 2019

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Using risk to balance agile and plan-driven methods,

    B. Boehm and R. Turner, “Using risk to balance agile and plan-driven methods,” Computer, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 57–66, 2003

    work page 2003

  33. [33]

    The right degree of agility in rich processes,

    P. Diebold and T. Zehler, “The right degree of agility in rich processes,” in Managing Software Process Evolution . Springer, 2016, pp. 15–37

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    Key Lessons from Tailoring Agile Methods for Large-Scale Software Development

    T. Dingsøyr, T. Dyb ˚a, M. Gjertsen, A. O. Jacobsen, T.-E. Mathisen, J. O. Nordfjord, K. Røe, and K. Strand, “Key lessons from tailoring agile methods for large-scale software development,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.05118, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    Customising agile methods to software practices at intel shannon,

    B. Fitzgerald, G. Hartnett, and K. Conboy, “Customising agile methods to software practices at intel shannon,” European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 200–213, 2006

    work page 2006

  36. [36]

    J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches . Sage publications, 2017

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    Walking through the method zoo: does higher education really meet software industry demands?

    M. Kuhrmann, J. Nakatumba-Nabende, R.-H. Pfeiffer, P. Tell, J. Kl¨under, T. Conte, S. G. MacDonell, and R. Hebig, “Walking through the method zoo: does higher education really meet software industry demands?” in Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineer- ing: Software Engineering Education and Training . IEEE Press, 2019, pp. 1–11

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Catching up with method and process practice: An industry- informed baseline for researchers,

    J. Kl ¨under, R. Hebig, P. Tell, M. Kuhrmann, J. Nakatumba-Nabende, R. Heldal, S. Krusche, M. Fazal-Baqaie, M. Felderer, M. F. G. Bocco et al. , “Catching up with method and process practice: An industry- informed baseline for researchers,” in Proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering, ser. ICSE-SEIP . IEEE, 2019

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    What are hybrid development methods made of? an evidence-based characterization,

    P. Tell, J. Kl ¨under, S. K ¨upper, D. Raffo, S. G. MacDonell, J. M ¨unch, D. Pfahl, O. Linssen, and M. Kuhrmann, “What are hybrid development methods made of? an evidence-based characterization,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and System Processes . IEEE Press, 2019, pp. 105–114

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    HELENA study: Reasons for combining agile and traditional software development approaches in german companies,

    J. Kl ¨under, P. Hohl, M. Fazal-Baqaie, S. Krusche, S. K¨upper, O. Linssen, and C. R. Prause, “HELENA study: Reasons for combining agile and traditional software development approaches in german companies,” in International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Im- provement. Springer, 2017, pp. 428–434

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    Hybrid software and system de- velopment in practice: Initial results from austria,

    M. Felderer, D. Winkler, and S. Biffl, “Hybrid software and system de- velopment in practice: Initial results from austria,” in International Con- ference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement . Springer, 2017, pp. 435–442

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    HELENA study: Initial observations of software development practices in argentina,

    N. Paez, D. Fontdevila, and A. Oliveros, “HELENA study: Initial observations of software development practices in argentina,” in Interna- tional Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement . Springer, 2017, pp. 443–449

    work page 2017

  43. [43]

    Initial results of the HELENA survey conducted in estonia with comparison to results from sweden and worldwide,

    E. Scott, D. Pfahl, R. Hebig, R. Heldal, and E. Knauss, “Initial results of the HELENA survey conducted in estonia with comparison to results from sweden and worldwide,” in International Conference on Product- Focused Software Process Improvement. Springer, 2017, pp. 404–412

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Practical experiences in the design and conduct of surveys in empirical software engineering,

    M. Ciolkowski, O. Laitenberger, S. Vegas, and S. Biffl, “Practical experiences in the design and conduct of surveys in empirical software engineering,” in Empirical methods and studies in software engineering . Springer, 2003, pp. 104–128

    work page 2003

  45. [45]

    Shull, J

    F. Shull, J. Singer, and D. I. Sjøberg, Guide to advanced empirical software engineering. Springer, 2007

    work page 2007

  46. [46]

    Robson and K

    C. Robson and K. McCartan, Real world research. John Wiley & Sons, 2016

    work page 2016

  47. [47]

    Iterative and incremental development: A brief history,

    C. Larman and V . R. Basili, “Iterative and incremental development: A brief history,” Computer, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 47–56, 2003

    work page 2003

  48. [48]

    Fake news: Simply agile,

    J. Kl ¨under, A. Schmitt, P. Hohl, and K. Schneider, “Fake news: Simply agile,” Projektmanagement und Vorgehensmodelle 2017-Die Spannung zwischen dem Prozess und den Mensch im Projekt , 2017

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    Systematic literature review on agile practices in global software development,

    R. Vallon, B. J. da Silva Est ´acio, R. Prikladnicki, and T. Grechenig, “Systematic literature review on agile practices in global software development,” Information and Software Technology , vol. 96, pp. 161– 180, 2018

    work page 2018

  50. [50]

    Is scrum fit for global software engineering?

    P. Lous, M. Kuhrmann, and P. Tell, “Is scrum fit for global software engineering?” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Global Software Engineering . IEEE Press, 2017, pp. 1–10

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    The future of software development methods,

    B. Fitzgerald and S. Klaas-Jan, “The future of software development methods,” The Routledge Companion to Management Information Sys- tems, pp. 125–137, 2018

    work page 2018

  52. [52]

    What works for whom, where, when, and why?: on the role of context in empirical software engineering,

    T. Dyb ˚a, D. I. Sjøberg, and D. S. Cruzes, “What works for whom, where, when, and why?: on the role of context in empirical software engineering,” in Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement . ACM, 2012, pp. 19–28

    work page 2012

  53. [53]

    Artefacts and agile method tailoring in large-scale offshore software development programmes,

    J. M. Bass, “Artefacts and agile method tailoring in large-scale offshore software development programmes,” Information and Software Technol- ogy, vol. 75, pp. 1–16, 2016

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    Richter, F

    I. Richter, F. Raith, and M. Weber, “Problems in agile global software 10 PREPRINT This is the author’s version of the work. It is posted here by permission of ACM/IEEE for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM) engineer...

    work page 2016

  55. [55]

    Global software engineering and agile prac- tices: a systematic review,

    S. Jalali and C. Wohlin, “Global software engineering and agile prac- tices: a systematic review,” Journal of software: Evolution and Process , vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 643–659, 2012

    work page 2012

  56. [56]

    What do prac- titioners vary in using scrum?

    P. Diebold, J.-P. Ostberg, S. Wagner, and U. Zendler, “What do prac- titioners vary in using scrum?” in International Conference on Agile Software Development. Springer, 2015, pp. 40–51

    work page 2015

  57. [57]

    Challenges and success factors for large-scale agile transformations: A systematic literature review,

    K. Dikert, M. Paasivaara, and C. Lassenius, “Challenges and success factors for large-scale agile transformations: A systematic literature review,” Journal of Systems and Software , vol. 119, pp. 87–108, 2016

    work page 2016

  58. [58]

    Leffingwell, Scaling software agility: best practices for large enter- prises

    D. Leffingwell, Scaling software agility: best practices for large enter- prises. Pearson Education, 2007

    work page 2007

  59. [59]

    Benefits and challenges of adopting the scaled agile framework (safe): Preliminary results from a multivocal literature review,

    A. Putta, M. Paasivaara, and C. Lassenius, “Benefits and challenges of adopting the scaled agile framework (safe): Preliminary results from a multivocal literature review,” in International Conference on Product- Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES) . Springer, 2018, pp. 334–351. 11

    work page 2018