Skip to content
naulon
Not checkedNot checked for notices yet.

An Update on Effort Estimation in Agile Software Development: A Systematic Literature Review

Marta Fernandez-Diego, Erwin R. Mendez, Fernando Gonzalez-Ladron-De-Guevara and 2 more

IEEE Access · 2020

doi:10.1109/access.2020.3021664 (opens in a new tab)

We email you when a new notice or a question about this paper appears.

Abstract

Software developers require effective effort estimation models to facilitate project planning. Although Usman et al. systematically reviewed and synthesized the effort estimation models and practices for Agile Software Development (ASD) in 2014, new evidence may provide new perspectives for researchers and practitioners. This article presents a systematic literature review that updates the Usman et al. study from 2014 to 2020 by analyzing the data extracted from 73 new papers. This analysis allowed us to identify six agile methods: Scrum, Xtreme Programming and four others, in all of which expert-based estimation methods continue to play an important role. This is particularly the case of Planning Poker, which is very closely related to the most frequently used size metric (story points) and the way in which software requirements are specified in ASD. There is also a remarkable trend toward studying techniques based on the intensive use of data. In this respect, although most of the data originate from single-company datasets, there is a significant increase in the use of cross-company data. With regard to cost factors, we applied the thematic analysis method. The use of team and project factors appears to be more frequent than the consideration of more technical factors, in accordance with agile principles. Finally, although accuracy is still a challenge, we identified that improvements have been made. On the one hand, an increasing number of papers showed acceptable accuracy values, although many continued to report inadequate results. On the other, almost 29% of the papers that reported the accuracy metric used reflected aspects concerning the validation of the models and 18% reported the effect size when comparing models.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND

References59

    40 more references, whose wording the paper’s licence keeps private.

    All 59 references

    Reads

    Read by people on this page

    None yet.

    Checked or read by AI through naulon

    None yet.

    A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

    Are you an author?

    Is this your paper?

    Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.