IEEE Access (Jan 2020)

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

  • Marta Fernandez-Diego,
  • Erwin R. Mendez,
  • Fernando Gonzalez-Ladron-De-Guevara,
  • Silvia Abrahao,
  • Emilio Insfran

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3021664
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 8
pp. 166768 – 166800

Abstract

Read online

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.

Keywords