Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Date of publication xxxx 00, 0000, date of current version xxxx 00, 0000.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.1120000
Transition from Waterfall to Agile Methodology -
An Action Research Study
THAMIZHINIYAN NATARAJAN1, SHANMUGAVADIVU PICHAI2
1Department of Computer Science and Applications, The Gandhigram Rural Institute-Deemed to be University, Gandhigram , Tamil Nadu, India (email:
thamizhiniyan@gmail.com)
2Department of Computer Science and Applications, The Gandhigram Rural Institute-Deemed to be University, Gandhigram, Tamil Nadu, India (e-mail:
p.shanmugavadivu@ruraluniv.ac.in)
Corresponding author: Shanmugavadivu Pichai(e-mail: p.shanmugavadivu@ruraluniv.ac.in).
ABSTRACT In recent years, software companies have shifted from plan-based software develop-
ment(PBSD) to Agile software development (ASD) for improved efficiency and product delivery, with
ASD demonstrating superior benefits compared to traditional approaches. This paper presents an in-depth
exploration of an action research study detailing the transition of a software development team from a
plan-based paradigm to Agile methodology. The primary goal is to provide a comprehensive account of
the Agile transition journey within the context of action research and to underscore the associated benefits
derived from this iterative and participatory research approach. Spanning two years, the study progresses
through four cycles of iterations, allowing for continuous refinement of the Agile adoption process. Findings
derived from the action research study showcase positive and tangible outcomes of the transition to Agile
methodology. Notable improvements include heightened deliverable quality, enhanced intra-team commu-
nication, strengthened collaboration with stakeholders, and an increased frequency of software releases.
Comparative analysis with PBSD highlights Agile advantages, especially in defect trend, the number of
releases, defect lifecycle, and total automation percentage. Agile metrics, including the Burndown Chart,
Velocity, Say-Do Ratio, In-sprint Automation, Defect Density, Execution Maturity, and Defect-less Stories,
demonstrate substantial improvements, reinforcing the effectiveness of the Agile transition process. The
study concludes that the transition to Agile methodology demonstrates significant improvements in various
aspects of software development. Positive outcomes support the trend of adopting Agile methodologies in
the software industry, emphasizing the effectiveness of the Agile transition process.
INDEX TERMS Agile Methodology, Scrum, Agile Transition, Agile Transformation, Action Research
I. INTRODUCTION
IN the domain of software development methodologies,
there has been a significant shift from the traditional
approach of Plan-Based Software Development (PBSD) to
a more dynamic and flexible Agile Software Development
(ASD). While PBSD relied on creating a rigid plan at the
beginning of a project, ASD emphasizes adaptability, collab-
oration, and iterative development [1]. This transition from
PBSD to ASD has been driven by the recognition that tradi-
tional approaches often struggled to meet project deadlines
and deliver software that aligned with customer expectations
[2].
The PBSD approach followed a well-defined sequence
of phases, with different teams handling specific aspects of
software development. However, teams faced challenges in
delivering software on committed deadlines with the desired
quality. This prompted the need for a new approach that
could address these issues and enable the teams to respond
effectively to the changing requirements.
Agile Software Development emerged in 2001, introducing
a set of principles and practices that provided a solution to
the challenges faced by those teams following PBSD. Agile
emphasizes collaboration, adaptability, continuous improve-
ment, and iterative development, enabling teams to deliver
high-quality software in a more efficient manner [3]. The
transition from PBSD to ASD has gained significant trac-
tion as organizations seek to leverage the benefits of Agile
methodologies.
However, the adoption of Agile also presents its own set
of challenges. One significant challenge is the need for a
mindset change within teams accustomed to the structured
nature of PBSD. Moving from a plan-driven approach to an
Agile mindset can be a complex change management process
for companies [4].
VOLUME 11, 2023 1
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
Another challenge lies in the transition to self-organized
teams in Agile. Unlike PBSD, where different teams han-
dle specific phases of development, Agile promotes cross-
functional teams that collaborate on all aspects of the project.
This shift requires a redefinition of roles and responsibilities,
as well as adjustments in team dynamics and communica-
tion. Additionally, conflicts may arise between traditional
management roles and the new roles introduced in Agile,
such as Scrum Master and Product Owner. The traditional
command-and-control management style may not align with
the collaborative and empowered nature of Agile, leading to
potential conflicts and resistance to change [2].
Furthermore, Agile places less emphasis on extensive doc-
umentation, favouring working software and face-to-face
communication [1]. This shift in documentation practices
can be a challenge for organizations accustomed to com-
prehensive documentation requirements. Agile teams must
strike a balance between documentation needs and the Ag-
ile principle of delivering high-quality software increments.
The Agile approach also requires teams to deliver a smaller
number of features within shorter timeframes, often in iter-
ative cycles [5]. The shift towards frequent and incremental
delivery can pose challenges for teams accustomed to longer
development cycles. Moreover, Agile promotes a fail-fast and
fail-often mentality, encouraging teams to take risks, learn
from failures, and iterate quickly. This approach requires a
high level of confidence and psychological trust within the
team to foster experimentation and innovation. Lastly, the
implementation of Agile may require modifications to the
existing infrastructure and tools to support the collaborative
and iterative nature of Agile development.
Considering these challenges, organizations embarking on
the Agile transition can benefit from in-depth case studies
that provide valuable insights into the transition process.
This paper aims to contribute to the body of knowledge on
Agile adoption by presenting a detailed account of a software
development team’s successful transition from PBSD to ASD.
The paper explores the Agile transition strategy employed,
summarizes the action research cycles undertaken, presents
both qualitative and quantitative results of the transition, dis-
cusses the encountered challenges, and highlights the benefits
realized through the adoption of Agile practices.
The transition to Agile is a nuanced and complex journey,
characterized by a multitude of challenges that each team
confronts and addresses uniquely. The significance of doc-
umented evidence showcasing enhanced team performance
post the Agile transition becomes paramount, offering pro-
found insights not only into the intricacies of this transforma-
tive journey but also illuminating the diverse solutions teams
devise to surmount challenges. At the heart of this exploration
lies a fundamental research question:
"How does the transition from a plan-driven process to
Agile methodology impact the development outcomes and
practices of a software development team?"
By examining this action research study, organizations can
gain a better understanding of the critical success factors
and best practices for navigating the Agile transition. The
insights shared in this paper can serve as a practical guide
for organizations seeking to embrace Agile principles and
achieve successful outcomes in their software development
endeavours.
The structure of this paper is as follows: Section II presents
an overview of the related work in the research area. The
research design is explained in Section III. Summary of action
research cycles is provided in Section IV and the execution of
action research cycles are presented in Section V, which pro-
vides detailed explanations of the four iterations, including
results and lessons learned. Section VI presents the details of
results and interpretations and the validity evaluation is dis-
cussed in Section VII. Implications are discussed in Section
VIII and finally, Section IX presents the conclusions of this
research.
II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK
Over the past few years, software development teams have
embraced agile development methods and reaped the re-
wards outlined in the Agile manifesto and its accompanying
12 principles [3]. Agile methods prioritize customer satis-
faction, releasing software in smaller parts, teamwork, and
adaptability to changing requirements [5]. The advantages
of Agile include increased productivity, cost savings, en-
hanced employee engagement and job satisfaction, quicker
time to market, better quality deliverables, and heightened
stakeholder satisfaction [6]. Scrum, Extreme Programming,
Lean Software Development, and Kanban are among the agile
methods used by software development teams, with Scrum
and Extreme Programming being the most widely adopted
[7].
Agile transition is examined through two key dimensions:
Challenges in Agile transitions and their subsequent reso-
lution via case studies and frameworks. The former delves
into the multifaceted challenges inherent in the adoption of
Agile methodologies, addressing critical aspects such as cul-
tural shifts, organizational alignment, and the transformation
of mindsets. Meanwhile, the latter subsection meticulously
examines a varied collection of case studies and frameworks
that illuminate the concrete complexities of success in Agile
transitions. Simultaneously, these thematic explorations lay a
strong groundwork for understanding the complex dynamics,
challenges, and successes linked to the paradigm shift from
traditional to Agile software development methodologies.
A. AGILE TRANSITION CHALLENGES
Transitioning from traditional methods to Agile approaches in
software development is no easy feat, and it comes with its set
of challenges. These include issues like inadequate training,
communication problems, clashes of culture, and organiza-
tional structure mismatches. To tackle these challenges, it’s
crucial to treat Agile adoption as an improvement project
for the entire organization. This involves defining Agile pro-
cesses early on, creating a suitable organizational structure,
running pilot projects, providing training, assessing progress,
2VOLUME 11, 2023
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
gaining top management support, implementing ways to im-
prove processes, and recognizing the value of individuals in
the organization [8].
In the strategic planning phase of Agile transitions, meticu-
lous considerations play a pivotal role. Essential components
such as training, transition facilitators, frameworks, strategy,
assessments, and coaching must be carefully integrated. The
authentic rationale behind the transition, attention to human
aspects, project selection, and method selection are critical
elements that contribute to the success of the transition [9].
Effective management is a key factor in successfully nav-
igating the transition process. Focusing on individuals and
their support is essential. This approach involves preparing
a well-thought-out action plan, identifying potential chal-
lenges, establishing support structures, and conducting thor-
ough assessments throughout the transition [10].
The challenges also extend to the broader context of
software development methodologies. The dynamic nature
of technologies and user demands poses challenges when
migrating to Agile methodologies. Traditional methods are
criticized for being inflexible in adapting to these dynamic
processes. While Agile aligns with the principles of com-
plex adaptive systems, organizations are advised to carefully
assess their readiness for this shift, considering factors like
culture, readiness, and compatibility [1].
Insights from a survey among practitioners by A. S. Cam-
panelli et al provides a closer look at the difficulty of imple-
menting success factors in Agile transformation. According
to expert practitioners, the most challenging factors include
developing a measurement model and changing the mindset
of project managers [11]. A survey on Agile project manage-
ment by S. Obrutsky delves into prevalent obstacles hindering
the adoption of Agile methodologies, unveiling a spectrum
of challenges. These include organizational resistance, a lack
of available users, existing rigid frameworks, a shortage of
personnel experienced in Agile, concerns about losing man-
agement control, and worries about upfront planning [4].
The challenges in Agile adoption are further explored
through a systematic analysis of frameworks, issues, and
situational factor by M. Jovanović et al. Among the situa-
tional factors influencing Agile transition are organizational
or corporate culture, team size or scale, management support,
training, organizational maturity level, team distribution or
co-location, and the team’s previous experience [12].
The shift to Agile methodologies presents the challenge
of altering organizational mindsets, underscoring the neces-
sity for effective strategies. Successful transitions prioritize
clear communication, management support, training, and a
phased introduction of Agile practices aligned with organi-
zational culture. Collaborative and decentralized leadership
styles play a crucial role, underscoring the importance of har-
monizing Agile practices with existing organizational norms
for successful implementation [13].
Top management support emerges as a critical success
factor for Agile transformations, with an emphasis on its com-
monality in successful change efforts [14]. Evolving into an
Agile state broadens the conventional viewpoint, illustrating
agility as a continual network of transitions across various
dimensions, including software development practices, team
dynamics, management approach, reflective practices, and
organizational culture [15].
B. AGILE TRANSITION CASE STUDIES AND FRAMEWORKS
In a study spanning 2.5 years and involving three software-
intensive companies in Finland, M. Pikkarainen et al. in-
vestigated the strengths and barriers associated with Agile
deployment. The findings highlight the importance of man-
agement support, well-defined process models, and empow-
ering developers for continuous improvement. These insights
serve as a practical checklist for organizations planning and
monitoring the effectiveness of their Agile deployment [16].
A literature review on the role of project management in Agile
methodologies by T. J. Gandomani et al addresses the debate
on whether Agile teams require a project manager. Findings
suggest a structural difference between traditional project
managers and Agile roles, emphasizing the need for a tailored
approach. While Agile methodologies lack an independent
project manager role, pre-defined roles often assume project
management duties, providing valuable insights for Agile
teams seeking success [17].
Drawing insights from Nokia’s transition journey, M.
Laanti et al emphasizes the widespread agreement on the
benefits of Agile, including increased satisfaction and trans-
parency. However, challenges in deployment, flexible plan-
ning, and visibility are identified. Despite these challenges,
the study suggests that positive attitudes toward Agile in-
crease with hands-on experience, highlighting the importance
of practical exposure to Agile practices, especially in large-
scale industrial settings [18]. A comparative investigation into
agile adoption strategies by B. Julian et al reveals two distinct
approaches: "big bang" and "gradual adoption." Teams adopt-
ing an entire agile framework upfront contrast with those in-
troducing specific practices gradually. The study underscores
the importance of continuous improvement, autonomy, flexi-
bility, and ongoing assessment in shaping the agile transition
process [19].
The LEGO Group’s Agile transformation stands out as a
compelling case, showcasing a significant reduction in re-
sponse time to change within a year of implementation. The
success stories have spurred interest across different depart-
ments, leading to Agile pilots in various areas. The emphasis
here is on exploring governance in a traditional manufactur-
ing firm and adapting job structures and financial processes,
highlighting the centrality of Agile values and principles in
the transformation journey [20]. An investigation into the evo-
lutionary shift to Agile in a German SME, as highlighted by P.
Diebold et al, underscores positive experiences and perceived
benefits throughout the transition. The study concludes that
an evolutionary approach is well-suited for small companies,
emphasizing the ongoing nature of the agile transition, driven
by employees adapting to a mindset shift towards agility
[21]. An action research initiative led by A. Anwar et al,
VOLUME 11, 2023 3
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
focused on Agile adoption, reveals promising outcomes with
a notable decrease in the rework rate. The study underscores
the significance of addressing challenges stemming from both
technical and human aspects in the agile adoption process.
Additionally, it suggests the extension of successful adoption
plans to other delivery units [22].
In a longitudinal case study conducted by K. Korhonen,
the assessment of agile transformation at Nokia Siemens Net-
works confirms positive outcomes, including enhanced mo-
tivation, increased visibility of achievements, and improved
reactive capabilities. The study highlights improvements in
defect data metrics, suggesting potential enhancements in
working practices and code quality over time. The findings
underscore the importance of organizational-wide implemen-
tation and active participation in realizing the full benefits of
agile transformation [23].
Shift from traditional to agile methodologies in large and
distributed projects has resulted in superior performance in
terms of product quality, customer perception, and employee
satisfaction. The agile framework’s benefits include accom-
modating late requirement changes, fostering improved team
communication, collaboration, and positively impacting the
development process. Despite these advantages, the need for
meticulous planning, particularly in large companies with
traditional processes is critical. Successful implementation
involves monitoring activities, addressing project-specific is-
sues, and crafting customized agile guiding principles aligned
with project requirements and individual competencies [24].
A case study of Cisco Systems by R. (Ronxin) Chen et al
identifies two major challenges in transitioning to the agile
product development model: assisting teams in the transition
and developing new management practices to support agile
development. The study advocates for a holistic, systematic
approach applicable to both large and small to medium-sized
companies, emphasizing the need to explore new manage-
ment practices [25].
A survey-based ex-post-facto study by S. C. Misra et al
identifies factors influencing the success of projects adopt-
ing Agile Software Development (ASD) practices. Factors
include customer satisfaction, collaboration, commitment,
decision time, corporate culture, control, personal charac-
teristics, societal culture, and training and learning [26]. A
longitudinal case study by J. Li et al explores the transition
from a plan-driven process to Scrum highlights the enhance-
ment of project success through early issue resolution and
improved defect fixing efficiency. Daily Scrum meetings fa-
cilitate knowledge sharing, leading to better understanding
of the system and early learning from mistakes. The study
acknowledges challenges, such as stress and time pressure
on developers, emphasizing the need for balancing pressure
with the need for supplementary tasks in future investigations
[27]. A systematic literature review by M. F. Abrar et al
identifies 21 motivators for large-scale Agile adoption from
a management perspective. Critical motivators include strong
executive support, agile development environment training,
agile development expertise, team competency, and briefing
of top management on agile [28].
III. RESEARCH DESIGN
The research design implemented in this study serves as a
guide for navigating the complex process of transitioning
a software development team from a plan-based approach
to Agile methodology. Rooted in the principles of action
research methodology, this approach is selected to actively
involve stakeholders in the transformation process, fostering
collaboration in problem-solving and decision-making [29].
The aim is not just observation but active participation in the
dynamic evolution of the Agile adoption journey. Covering
a period of two years from Jul 2019 to Jun 2021, this study
encompasses a sequence of distinct cycles, each symbolizing
an iteration within the continuous process. These iterative
cycles are crucial, providing the necessary structure to refine
and optimize the Agile adoption strategy.
A. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study employed the action research methodology to
facilitate the transition of the development team from a plan-
based development process to Agile Software Development
(ASD). Action research is a systematic and iterative approach
that involves cycles of diagnosis, planning, action taken, eval-
uation and learning [30]. The five phases of action research
are as follows:
•Diagnosis: The researcher identifies and examines the
problem or issue through data collection, observations,
and stakeholder engagement. The objective is to under-
stand the root causes and explore the context of the
problem.
•Action Planning: After diagnosing the problem, stake-
holders collaborate with the researcher to develop a clear
and strategic action plan. This plan outlines specific
interventions, objectives, and a timeline for implemen-
tation, providing a roadmap for subsequent activities.
•Action Taken: In this phase, planned interventions and
actions are implemented through active stakeholder en-
gagement. The researcher and stakeholders collaborate
to execute and monitor the planned strategies.
•Evaluation: The evaluation phase measures the effec-
tiveness of implemented actions and assesses their out-
comes. Data collection is conducted to determine if the
desired results were achieved and to gain insights for
future improvements.
•Learnings: The learning phase is about gathering the
outcomes and experiences gained from the action re-
search process. It involves critical analysis on data, iden-
tifying lessons learned, and generating new knowledge.
This research extended over two years, encompassing four
distinct cycles of interactions as essential elements of the
action research process. Each cycle involved collaborative
efforts between the research team and the development team
to identify challenges, devise strategies, implement changes,
and assess the outcomes. This iterative approach allowed for
4VOLUME 11, 2023
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
continuous learning, adaptation, and improvement through-
out the transition process, ultimately guiding the team to-
wards successful adoption of Agile practices.
Throughout the action research process, continuous reflec-
tion and adaptation occur. Findings and insights from each
cycle inform subsequent cycles, enabling continuous learning
and improvement. This collaborative and iterative approach
makes action research a powerful method for creating mean-
ingful change in organizations and communities.
B. CONTEXT
This research was initiated with a central objective: to en-
hance the overall development methodology employed by a
team within a well-established software company. The spe-
cific focus was on their ongoing project dedicated to develop-
ing and maintaining a web portal designed for user manage-
ment. In the initial phases of this study, the team grappled with
significant challenges arising from the constraints inherent in
a traditional waterfall model. Notably, the challenges man-
ifested in various facets, particularly concerning limitations
on flexibility, adaptability, and collaborative efforts. As the
team was tasked with developing and maintaining a user
management portal, they consistently received frequent and
time-sensitive requirements from teams such as marketing
and eCommerce. These recurring challenges, coupled with
the rapid pace of expected deliveries, made it evident that the
traditional waterfall model was ill-suited for this dynamic and
fast-paced environment. The recognition of these challenges
served as a catalyst for the imperative shift towards adopting a
more dynamic and responsive approach to the software devel-
opment process, marking the initiation of the Agile transition.
Comprising 40 members, the team underwent a transfor-
mative shift into four Scrum teams as part of their Agile tran-
sition. This structural change aimed at bolstering productivity,
efficiency, and responsiveness by integrating Agile principles
and practices into their workflow. The Scrum teams, charac-
terized by cross-functional collaboration, included develop-
ers, testers, designers, and other pertinent roles.
Driving the Agile adoption process was an integral action
research team, consisting of Scrum Masters, product owners,
architects, and development managers. Their pivotal role in-
volved not only facilitating the transition but also offering
guidance and support to ensure a seamless implementation
of Agile practices. This collaborative effort extended to con-
tinuous monitoring and evaluation, allowing the team to adapt
to evolving circumstances effectively.
C. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The theoretical framework of this research is anchored in
several key principles and methodologies that collectively
shape the trajectory of the study. At its core lies the Agile
approach, a contemporary methodology in software devel-
opment renowned for its emphasis on iterative processes,
collaboration, and adaptability. The Agile framework pro-
vides the fundamental structure for the study, guiding the
process of transitioning a software development team from a
traditional plan-driven approach to the dynamic and flexible
Agile methodology.
Drawing inspiration from T J Gandomani et al suggested
framework, shaped by the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Adjust)
methodology, this action research study underscores the sig-
nificance of iterative cycles in the selection, adaptation, as-
sessment, and adjustment of practices [31]. Complementing
the Agile framework is the methodological backbone of ac-
tion research. This systematic and iterative approach, involv-
ing cycles of diagnosis, planning, action taken, evaluation,
and learning, stands as a robust guide for actively engaging
stakeholders in the transformation process. Action research
facilitates collaboration, reflection, and adaptation, aligning
seamlessly with the dynamic nature of Agile principles. It
serves as more than just a methodological choice; it becomes
a philosophy guiding the study to actively participate in and
influence the evolving landscape of Agile adoption.
The waterfall model, a traditional plan-driven approach,
provides a contrasting backdrop against which the benefits
and challenges of Agile adoption are measured. This model,
with its sequential phases and rigid structure, sets the stage
for understanding the limitations that Agile seeks to address.
Concurrently, the Scrum framework, a specific Agile method-
ology chosen for this study, introduces a structured approach
to Agile implementation. With its distinctive roles, events,
and artifacts, Scrum guides the team through the intricacies
of Agile practices.
Continuous improvement, a central tenet of Agile philos-
ophy, underpins the entire theoretical framework. Regular
reflection, adaptation, and refinement, inherent in both Agile
and action research, create a cyclical process of enhancement.
Stakeholder engagement, another pivotal aspect, ensures that
the study incorporates diverse perspectives and fosters a sense
of ownership among team members. Lastly, productivity and
efficiency metrics serve as tangible indicators for evaluating
the impact of Agile adoption, providing a quantitative dimen-
sion to the qualitative insights garnered through the study. To-
gether, these theoretical underpinnings form a comprehensive
framework, guiding the exploration of the Agile transition
journey within the context of action research.
IV. SUMMARY OF ACTION RESEARCH CYCLES
The focus of this research paper is on four key action research
cycles: Assemble, Initiate, Build, and Enhance. These cy-
cles represent distinct phases within the Agile transformation
process, wherein specific goals and activities are undertaken.
Acting as a guiding roadmap, the stages of planning, imple-
mentation, and refinement are navigated through these cycles.
In the first cycle, Assemble, the groundwork is laid for the
Agile transformation. This phase involves the identification
of crucial stakeholders, sponsors, and champions who will
spearhead the initiative. A dedicated team is carefully assem-
bled, ensuring robust support and alignment with the organi-
zation’s strategic objectives. During this stage, the vision and
goals of the Agile transformation are clearly defined, specific
roles and responsibilities are assigned to each team member,
VOLUME 11, 2023 5
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
and training initiatives are initiated to equip the team with
essential Agile principles and practices.
Building upon the foundational steps of the Assemble cy-
cle, the second phase, Initiate, signifies the commencement
of the Agile transformation journey. In this critical stage, an
initial assessment of the organization’s readiness for Agile
adoption is meticulously conducted. This assessment yields
valuable insights into the current state, potential challenges,
and identifies suitable strategies for a successful transition.
Notably, the Initiate cycle introduces a pivotal element —
an Agile pilot project. This project serves as a controlled
experiment, allowing the team to test and validate Agile
practices in a real-world scenario. Simultaneously, an Agile
transition plan is meticulously developed, delineating specific
activities, timelines, and success criteria. The implementation
of training and education initiatives takes centre stage during
this phase, fostering a shared understanding and commitment
to the Agile journey among team members.
Entering the third cycle, Build, the focus shifts to the
practical implementation of Agile methodologies. Building
upon experiences from previous cycles, Agile ceremonies
and practices, including daily stand-ups, sprint planning, and
retrospectives, are refined. Collaboration tools and techniques
are actively employed to enhance communication and coor-
dination among team members. The Build cycle underscores
the importance of transparency, collaboration, and continuous
improvement as the team becomes more accustomed to Agile
practices. Following the successful execution of the pilot
project in Cycle 2, the plan is to extend the Agile transition to
all remaining projects.
Lastly, the fourth cycle, Enhance, represents an ongo-
ing phase of continuous improvement and scaling of Agile
practices. Within this cycle, the effectiveness of Agile im-
plementation is evaluated through metrics and assessments.
Feedback is collected from team members, stakeholders, and
customers to identify areas for improvement and refine Agile
practices. Lessons learned and best practices are disseminated
across the organization, fostering a culture of learning and
adaptability. The Enhance cycle encourages the optimization
of Agile practices, leading to greater success in the Agile
transformation journey.
The action research cycles are summarised in Table 1.
TABLE 1. Action Research Cycles
V. EXECUTION OF ACTION RESEARCH CYCLES
In this section, a detailed exploration is conducted into the
thoughtfully designed action research cycles: Assemble, Ini-
tiate, Build, and Enhance. Each cycle undergoes thorough ex-
amination across five distinct phases: Diagnosis, Action Plan-
ning, Action Taken, Evaluation, and Learnings. This section
offers a detailed insight into decisions made, actions taken,
and subsequent outcome evaluations, presenting a compre-
hensive view of the Agile transition journey. It will illumi-
nate the challenges faced, strategies employed, and valuable
insights gained at each phase.
A. ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE 1: ASSEMBLE
During Cycle 1 of the Agile transition, known as ASSEM-
BLE, the primary focus was on preparing the team for the
impending transformation. The ASSEMBLE cycle encom-
passed the execution of the ensuing action research phases.
1) DIAGNOSIS
In the diagnosis phase of Cycle 1, the primary emphasis
was on evaluating the team’s preparedness for the impending
Agile transition. The central question addressed was, "How
can we effectively equip the team for a successful Agile
transformation?" This entailed a comprehensive analysis of
the team’s existing state, pinpointing areas necessitating at-
tention and enhancement. Additionally, it was recognized that
training was imperative to ensure the team’s understanding
of Agile principles and their practical application to ongoing
projects.
2) ACTION PLANNING
Based on the diagnosis, an action plan was formulated to
guide the Agile transition process. The plan included com-
prehensive Agile training for team members, aiming to equip
them with the necessary knowledge and skills to embrace
Agile principles and practices. Additionally, defining Agile
roles, such as Scrum Master, Product Owner, and Architects,
played a crucial role in clarifying responsibilities and promot-
ing collaboration.
3) ACTION TAKEN
During this phase, the planned actions were implemented.
The team members underwent Agile training, which provided
them with a solid foundation for the transition. Agile roles
were assigned to streamline workflow and enhance team
organization and efficiency.
4) EVALUATION
In assessing the effectiveness of Cycle 1, a comprehensive
analysis of relevant data was conducted. The focus extended
to the outcomes of training sessions, team preparedness for
Agile practices, and the anticipated challenges of the im-
pending transition. By concentrating on these aspects, the
evaluation aimed to glean insights into the team’s readiness
for the Agile journey and identify areas for enhancement in
the subsequent cycles of the transition process.
5) LEARNINGS
In the Learnings phase, Cycle 1 illuminated several key in-
sights that shaped the Agile transition journey. The impor-
6VOLUME 11, 2023
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
tance of comprehensive Agile training emerged prominently,
as it not only equipped the team with essential knowledge
but also fostered a shared understanding of Agile princi-
ples. Clear delineation of Agile roles proved instrumental
in streamlining collaboration and enhancing accountability.
Additionally, the significance of effective communication
and regular feedback became apparent, paving the way for
improved team dynamics. The evaluation process, with its
focus on project metrics and stakeholder satisfaction, acted as
a compass for continuous learning, guiding the team towards
further refinements. The adaptability and openness of the
team to embrace change were recognized as crucial factors in
the success of the Agile transition, emphasizing the need for
a culture that values continuous improvement and embraces
the Agile mindset.
B. ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE 2: INITIATE
During the INITIATE cycle, which marks the second phase
of the Agile transition, the primary emphasis was on kick-
starting the Agile transformation. This involved a meticulous
exploration of the most effective approaches and a thorough
validation of the feasibility of Agile practices within the team.
A significant aspect of this cycle revolved around the initia-
tion of the Agile transformation process through the strategic
implementation of action research phases. These phases were
designed to provide a comprehensive overview of the steps
taken to initiate the Agile transformation journey. Central to
this initiation was the experimentation with a pilot project, a
crucial step that allowed the team to test and validate Agile
methodologies in a controlled setting. The outcomes and
learnings from this pilot project would serve as the foundation
for extending Agile practices to other projects within the
team. The execution of the following action research phases
was integral to the INITIATE cycle.
1) DIAGNOSIS
In the Diagnosis phase of Cycle 2, INITIATE, the team strate-
gically explored the initiation of the Agile transformation,
placing a specific focus on experimenting with a pilot project.
The central question guiding this phase was, "How can the
Agile transformation be effectively initiated through a pilot
project?" This necessitated a comprehensive exploration of
the existing state, a discerning identification of potential chal-
lenges, and the formulation of a precise action plan tailored
to steer the transition process successfully.
2) ACTION PLANNING
In response to the insights gained from the diagnosis, an ac-
tion plan is created, concentrating notably on the meticulous
planning of a pilot project. The primary objective behind this
pilot initiative was to create a controlled environment, en-
abling rigorous testing and validation of the efficacy of Agile
practices. This involved several strategic steps, including the
careful selection of a specific scope, the definition of clear
objectives and success criteria, the establishment of realistic
timelines and milestones, the setup of essential infrastructure
and tools, and the development of a comprehensive commu-
nication plan.
3) ACTION TAKEN
During the action taken phase, the team embarked on the
implementation of the pilot project, putting Agile practices
into action. They judiciously selected a subset of work items
conducive to Agile methodologies, breaking them down into
smaller, actionable tasks or user stories. The team, in this
dynamic Agile environment, maintained flexibility, closely
monitoring progress, adapting plans as needed, and engaging
in a continuous cycle of learning and refinement of their
practices throughout the pilot project.
4) EVALUATION
In the evaluation phase, the team meticulously examined the
results and extracted valuable insights from the pilot project.
Through this hands-on experience, they not only grasped
the core Agile principles but also effectively applied Agile
practices in their daily routines. The team gathered valu-
able insights, drawing attention to both commendable aspects
and areas requiring refinement in their Agile adoption. This
evaluation process encompassed feedback mechanisms such
as sprint retrospectives, one-on-one meetings between team
members and managers, and periodic surveys, ensuring a
comprehensive assessment of the Agile practices’ effective-
ness.
5) LEARNINGS
The INITIATE cycle emphasized the significance of com-
mencing the Agile transformation with a thoughtfully de-
signed pilot project. This initiative enabled the team to not
only validate the feasibility of Agile practices but also gar-
nered invaluable insights into their effectiveness. The expe-
riential knowledge acquired served as a robust foundation
for continual improvements and adaptations in subsequent
cycles, thereby ensuring a successful and progressive Agile
transition.
C. ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE 3: EXECUTE
During the EXECUTE cycle, which marks the third phase of
the Agile transition, the primary objective was to conclude the
Agile transformation initiated in the pilot project and extend
its application to a broader spectrum of projects. Leveraging
the successes and benefits obtained from the initial pilot,
the team aimed to fully integrate Agile methodologies into
their practices. This section outlines the strategic steps taken
to realize the objectives of the Agile transformation process
by detailing the action research phases executed during the
EXECUTE cycle:
1) DIAGNOSIS
In the diagnosis phase of Cycle 3, EXECUTE, the team
dedicated efforts to include the Agile transformation across
multiple projects, addressing the question: "How can Agile
VOLUME 11, 2023 7
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
practices be effectively scaled and integrated across multiple
projects?" Strategic initiatives were formulated to ensure the
effective scaling of Agile practices. This involved identifying
and allocating resources optimally, defining roles clearly to
enhance team dynamics, establishing robust communication
channels, and addressing potential challenges in extending
Agile methodologies to a broader project spectrum. The focus
was on creating a comprehensive framework for Agile adop-
tion that could be seamlessly applied across various projects
within the organization.
2) ACTION PLANNING
In the Action Planning phase, the team strategically devised
plans to extend the application of Agile practices, ceremonies,
and principles to a diverse range of projects. The objective
was to cultivate a collaborative, communicative, and em-
powered environment within Agile teams, tailoring practices
to align with the unique requirements of each project. The
emphasis lay on adapting Agile methodologies to suit the
specific dynamics and challenges presented by a broader
spectrum of projects.
3) ACTION TAKEN
In the Action Taken phase, the team adeptly implemented Ag-
ile methodologies across additional projects. The transition
involved fostering a culture of self-organization, empowering
team members to take ownership of their work and respon-
sibilities. To achieve this, the team initiated regular sprint
planning sessions, encouraging open communication and col-
laborative decision-making. Agile practices underwent con-
tinuous refinement through iterative project implementations,
with a particular focus on enhancing daily stand-ups, sprint
retrospectives, and backlog grooming sessions. Additionally,
the team established cross-functional collaboration channels
to ensure a holistic and streamlined approach to project deliv-
ery.
4) EVALUATION
In the Evaluation phase, the team conducted a thorough
and data-driven assessment of Agile practices and overall
progress. Metrics, including velocity, and burn-down charts,
were scrutinized to gain quantitative insights into the effi-
ciency and effectiveness of Agile implementation. Feedback
mechanisms were robust, encompassing insights from Sprint
retrospectives, regular 1:1 meetings between team members
and managers, team-wide surveys, and self-assessment ses-
sions. Challenges identified during this evaluation phase were
systematically addressed through continuous improvement
efforts. Collaborations with Agile coaches and external ex-
perts provided valuable perspectives and recommendations,
contributing to the refinement and optimization of Agile
practices. This multifaceted evaluation approach ensured a
comprehensive understanding of the team’s Agile journey and
guided targeted enhancements in subsequent cycles.
5) LEARNINGS
The Learnings phase of Cycle 3 provided deep insights ob-
tained from introspective activities and collaborative discus-
sions. Key takeaways emphasized the critical significance of
effective communication, seamless collaboration, and adapt-
ability in ensuring the success of Agile projects. The team
identified the pivotal role of clear and well-defined roles
and responsibilities, emphasizing alignment with core Agile
principles. Furthermore, a commitment to the continuous
development of Agile practices emerged as an essential el-
ement for sustained improvement. These learnings served as
guiding principles for the team, influencing their approach in
subsequent cycles and contributing to the ongoing refinement
of Agile methodologies.
D. ACTION RESEARCH CYCLE 4: ENHANCE
In the fourth cycle of the Agile transition, denoted as EN-
HANCE, the team directed its focus toward the perpetual
betterment of Agile practices. Recognizing the significance
of continuous improvement, the team aimed to cultivate a
culture of ongoing enhancement within its members. Building
upon the successful transition to Agile in the preceding cycle,
Cycle 4 was strategically designed to address specific areas
of enhancement and optimization within Agile practices. This
phase recognizes the dynamic nature of Agile methodologies,
where adaptability and responsiveness to evolving challenges
are key. The forthcoming sections detail the meticulously
executed action research phases that encapsulate the team’s
proactive efforts to elevate and fine-tune Agile practices dur-
ing the ENHANCE cycle.
1) DIAGNOSIS
In Cycle 4, appropriately named "ENHANCE," the team
diligently explored the task of consistently improving its
Agile practices addressing the question: "How can the team
foster a culture of continuous improvement within its Agile
processes?" Recognizing the pivotal role of continuous im-
provement, the team aimed to instil a culture valuing and ac-
tively seeking ongoing enhancements. The analysis, drawing
insights from metrics and retrospective feedback, uncovered
specific areas for advancement. This encompassed not only
refining sprint planning and communication but also optimiz-
ing the agile infrastructure, including areas like agile automa-
tion, continuous integration, and deployment. The Diagnosis
phase emerged as a crucial step, not only identifying existing
strengths and areas for growth but also laying the foundation
for strategic action planning in subsequent phases.
2) ACTION PLANNING
In response to the insights gathered during the Diagnosis
phase of Cycle 4, the Action Planning phase took shape as
a strategic endeavour to chart the course for continuous im-
provement within the Agile framework. The team, propelled
by a commitment to refinement, commenced the planning
process with a holistic perspective. It involved not only ad-
dressing the nuances identified in sprint planning and com-
8VOLUME 11, 2023
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
munication but also formulating a comprehensive strategy for
optimizing the agile infrastructure.
The Action Planning phase unfolded as a collaborative
effort between stakeholders and the research team. Together,
they devised a clear and strategic roadmap that delved into
specific interventions aimed at enhancing various facets of
Agile practices. The planning process considered the intrica-
cies of refining sprint ceremonies, bolstering communication
channels, and strategically augmenting the agile infrastruc-
ture with a focus on automation, continuous integration, and
deployment.
3) ACTION TAKEN
The Action Taken phase marked the execution of the metic-
ulously crafted action plan designed during the preceding
phase. As the team embarked on implementing the planned
interventions, the emphasis was not only on refining sprint
ceremonies and communication channels but also on bolster-
ing the agile infrastructure, incorporating automation, contin-
uous integration, and deployment practices.
Active collaboration between the research team and stake-
holders was paramount during this phase. The planned strate-
gies were put into motion, and the team demonstrated agility
in its approach. Refinement of sprint ceremonies involved
realigning team practices with agile principles, ensuring a
seamless and efficient workflow. Communication channels
were enhanced to foster a culture of transparency, collabo-
ration, and rapid feedback.
Simultaneously, the team delved into optimizing the ag-
ile infrastructure. Automation processes were introduced to
streamline repetitive tasks, while continuous integration and
deployment practices were implemented to facilitate a more
fluid and iterative development lifecycle. The Action Taken
phase was characterized by a dynamic and iterative process,
with the team actively monitoring progress, adapting plans as
necessary, and continuously learning and refining practices.
4) EVALUATION
In the Evaluation phase of Cycle 4, the team employed various
metrics and feedback mechanisms to assess the impact of
their refined Agile practices:
•Self-Assessment Surveys: The results of self-assessment
surveys indicated that the team excelled in Agile cere-
monies, showcasing a strong understanding and adher-
ence to Agile principles.
•Retrospective Feedback: Insights gathered from retro-
spective feedback highlighted the team’s positive senti-
ment towards Agile, with members expressing a prefer-
ence for Agile over the traditional waterfall model.
•Metrics Analysis: Comprehensive metrics analysis re-
vealed notable improvements in feature delivery and
overall team productivity, signifying the positive out-
comes of the enhanced Agile practices.
•Automation Advancements: Automation efforts
demonstrated substantial improvements, empowering
the testing teams to shift focus from repetitive testing
tasks to strategic activities such as scripting, thereby
enhancing overall efficiency.
•CI/CD Enhancements: The team leveraged en-
hanced Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment
(CI/CD) capabilities, resulting in improved efficiency
across the development lifecycle. This streamlined pro-
cess facilitated faster and more reliable software re-
leases.
5) LEARNINGS
In the Learnings phase of Cycle 4, the team gained the fol-
lowing valuable insights:
•Proficiency in Agile Ceremonies:Surveys confirmed
the team’s proficiency in Agile ceremonies, demonstrat-
ing a mature execution of rituals like sprint planning and
retrospectives.
•Positive Team Sentiment: Retrospective feedback
highlighted a positive shift, with team members favour-
ing Agile for its increased collaboration and adaptability.
•Quantifiable Improvements: Metrics reflected overall
progress in feature delivery and team productivity, vali-
dating the effectiveness of continual enhancements.
•Empowered Testing Teams: Automation metrics
showed substantial efficiency gains, allowing testing
teams to focus on strategic activities over repetitive
tasks.
•Streamlined CI/CD: Enhanced CI/CD capabilities sig-
nificantly contributed to a more efficient development
life cycle and a streamlined release process.
These insights not only strengthened the team’s Agile
foundation but also provided targeted guidance for ongoing
refinement. The team emerged from Cycle 4 with enhanced
practices and a clear understanding of areas poised for con-
tinued growth.
VI. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS
In this section, a comprehensive examination of the outcomes
and interpretations arising from the transition journey is un-
dertaken.
A. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PRE-AGILE AND
POST-AGILE PERFORMANCE
Comparative Study involves a meticulous analysis of the
team’s performance in the Pre-Agile and Post-Agile Adoption
phases. The "Pre-Agile" phase signifies the period before
the adoption of Agile methodologies, while the "Post-Agile
Adoption" phase denotes the timeframe after the incorpora-
tion of Agile practices into the development workflow. The
comparative study aims to thoroughly analyse the team’s per-
formance during these two phases by examining key metrics
such as defects trend, number of releases, defect lifecycle and
percentage of automation executed. This analysis provides
valuable insights into the tangible improvements and changes
brought about by the transition to Agile methodologies.
VOLUME 11, 2023 9
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
1) DEFECT TREND
The defect trend involves analyzing patterns in the number
of reported defects over a specified period, offering valuable
insights into the quality of software development [32, 33].
It functions as an indicator of the effectiveness of defect
management practices, showcasing the trajectory of reported
issues. In Fig 1, a visual representation illustrates the defect
trend, enabling a comparative analysis between the pre-Agile
and post-Agile phases. A reference period of 75 days during
the pre-Agile and post-Agile phases is chosen for the compar-
ative analysis. The aim of this analysis is to assess the impact
of Agile practices on the overall defect rate, furnishing essen-
tial information about the efficacy of the Agile transition in
improving defect management and ensuring software quality.
The defect trend analysis reveals significant improvements
in defect management following the Agile transition. The
peak defects during the pre-agile period were as high as 59,
with an average of 27 defects. However, in the post-agile
period, the peak defects reduced to 14, with an average of 6
defects. This demonstrates a substantial decrease in defects,
highlighting the positive impact of Agile practices on soft-
ware quality.
The consistent reduction in both peak and average defects
indicate the effectiveness of Agile methodologies in identify-
ing and addressing issues more efficiently. Agile principles
such as early and continuous testing, frequent feedback, and
iterative development contribute to the early detection and
resolution of defects. This allowed the team to proactively
address quality issues, resulting in a significant improvement
in software quality.
Furthermore, the stable state of defect counts in the post-
agile period suggests that the team had established a more
controlled and predictable software development process. By
continuously refining their Agile practices, the team had
achieved a steady state in defect management, enabling them
to deliver higher quality software products.
2) NUMBER OF RELEASES
The analysis of the number of releases during the pre-agile
and post-agile phases provides valuable insights into the im-
pact of the Agile transition on the frequency of software re-
leases. Fig 2 provides a visual representation of the quarterly
release count over a span of 8 quarters.
The data on release frequency during the Agile transition
clearly demonstrates a substantial increase in the number
of releases per quarter. In the pre-Agile phase, the average
number of releases per quarter was around 2, while in the
post-Agile phase, this number consistently rose to 6 releases
per quarter. This significant improvement signifies the suc-
cessful implementation of Agile practices, enabling the team
to deliver software increments more frequently and respond
to customer needs with enhanced speed and flexibility. The
higher release frequency reflects the team’s improved effi-
ciency and their ability to adapt to changing requirements in
a more agile and responsive manner.
3) DEFECT LIFECYCLE
The defect lifecycle metric, capturing the journey of defects
from identification to resolution, is a crucial aspect of soft-
ware development [33]. It provides valuable insights into the
efficiency and effectiveness of defect management processes
within an organization. The time taken to detect, triage, fix,
and validate defects is tracked, offering a comprehensive view
of the defect resolution process.
The understanding of defect lifecycle is vital for software
development teams as bottlenecks, areas for improvement,
and the overall quality of the development process can be
identified. The analysis of defect lifecycle data enables orga-
nizations to assess their defect management strategies, iden-
tify trends, and make informed decisions to optimize their
software development practices.
Fig 3 visually presents the defect lifecycle across 12 re-
leases, highlighting the various stages and transitions that
defects undergo during the software development process.
The data clearly shows a substantial decrease in the number
of days required to resolve defects during the post-Agile
period compared to the pre-Agile period. This reduction in-
dicates that the implementation of Agile practices has led to
more efficient defect resolution and shorter defect lifecycles.
The shorter defect lifecycles in the post-Agile period indicate
an increased level of responsiveness to defect identification
and resolution. Agile practices, such as daily stand-ups and
regular retrospectives, have fostered a collaborative environ-
ment where defects are identified and addressed in a timely
manner, leading to improved software quality.
4) AUTOMATION PERCENTAGE
The metric of automation percentage, representing the pro-
portion of automated testing in relation to the overall testing
effort, was analyzed to assess the level of automation imple-
mented during the pre-agile and post-agile phases. Automa-
tion percentage is defined as the ratio of automated test cases
to the total number of test cases, providing insights into the
extent of automated testing within a software development
process. This metric serves as a crucial indicator of testing
efficiency and resource optimization. The objective of this
analysis was to comprehend the impact of Agile adoption on
the automation practices within the organization. Fig 4 and 5
illustrate the automation percentage during the pre-Agile and
post-Agile phases, respectively.
The data collected during the pre-Agile phase revealed
relatively lower automation percentages, indicating a higher
reliance on manual processes. This finding aligns with the
common challenges faced by organizations prior to adopting
Agile methodologies, where manual efforts dominated the
development and testing activities.
However, with the implementation of Agile methodolo-
gies, a significant improvement in automation percentages
was observed. The data from the post-agile phase exhibited
a consistent upward trend, indicating a deliberate focus on
automation and the successful integration of Agile.
10 VOLUME 11, 2023
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71
NUMBER OF DEFECTS
DAYS
DEFECTS IN PRE-AGILE ADOPTION PHASE DEFECTS IN POST-AGILE ADOPTION PHASE
FIGURE 1. Defect Trend in Pre-Agile and Post-Agile Adoption
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
NUMBER OF RELEASES
QUARTER
RELEASE S IN PRE-A GILE ADOPTION PH ASE RELE ASES IN POS T-AGIL E ADOPTION P HASE
FIGURE 2. Number of Releases in Pre-Agile and Post-Agile Adoption
Following the implementation of Agile methodologies, a
remarkable enhancement in automation percentages became
evident. The data obtained from the post-Agile phase con-
sistently portrayed an upward trend, reflecting a deliberate
emphasis on automation and the successful assimilation of
Agile principles into the development process.
The surge in automation percentages post-Agile signifies a
heightened reliance on automated testing. This shift is indica-
tive of potential benefits such as accelerated feedback cycles,
minimized manual testing efforts, and an overall improve-
ment in software quality. This evaluation provides valuable
insights into the transformative journey of testing practices
during the Agile transition, illuminating the organization’s
dedication to bolstering efficiency and upholding software
quality standards.
The notable increase in automation percentages during
the post-Agile phase highlights the successful transition to a
more automated development environment. The integration
of automated tools, frameworks, and practices has played a
pivotal role in fostering increased efficiency, reduced time-to-
market, and an overall enhancement of software quality. This
substantiates the successful execution of Agile methodologies
and showcases the organization’s commitment to embracing
modern development practices for sustained excellence.
B. ANALYZING TEAM PROGRESS: TRANSITIONING FROM
ADOPTING TO EMBRACING AGILE PRACTICES
Exploring the team’s evolution from initial adoption to a
more profound acceptance of Agile practices, this section
investigates crucial metrics. Metrics including the Burndown
Chart, Velocity, Say-Do Ratio, In-sprint Automation, Defect
Density, Execution Maturity, and Defect-less Stories are in-
VOLUME 11, 2023 11
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
NUMBER OF DAYS REQUIRED TO SOLVE A DEFECT
RELEASE
PRE-AGILE ADOPTION PHASE POST-AGILE ADOPTION PHASE
FIGURE 3. Defect Lifecycle during Pre-Agile and Post-Agile Adoption
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
AUTOMATION PERCENTAGE
RELEASES
FIGURE 4. Automation Percentage during Pre-Agile Adoption Period
tricately examined. These metrics contribute to a nuanced
understanding of the team’s progress and effectiveness in
embracing Agile practices.
1) BURNDOWN CHART
The Burndown chart, a vital instrument in Agile project man-
agement, visually represents a team’s progress throughout a
sprint, providing a dynamic depiction of work completion
against time [34]. This chart is instrumental in offering real-
time insights into a team’s ability to meet its sprint goals. It
is constructed by plotting the work planned against the time
available, enabling teams to track their performance and make
informed decisions. In this comparative analysis, the Burn-
down charts for June 2020 and June 2021 are meticulously
examined to discern the evolution of the team’s efficiency in
both adopting and embracing Agile practices. This scrutiny of
the Burndown charts serves as a valuable lens into the team’s
adaptive journey, illustrating their responsiveness to changing
requirements and iterative improvement.
June 2020 signifies the initial phase of the team’s Agile
journey, and Fig 6 visually showcases their initial adoption
of Agile practices through the Burndown chart. The sprint
begins with a backlog of 170 story points, and over the course
of ten days, the team diligently works through the tasks. The
chart displays a distinctive downward trend as story points
are completed, yet there are noticeable fluctuations in the
completion rate.
Notably, the team faces challenges during the mid-sprint
phase, where the completion rate temporarily slows. How-
ever, a remarkable surge towards the end of the sprint results
in the successful completion of all planned story points. The
actual trajectory is not aligned to the ideal burndown line,
12 VOLUME 11, 2023
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
AUTOMATON PERCENTAGE
RELEASES
FIGURE 5. Automation Percentage during Post-Agile Adoption Period
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
12345678910
STORY POINTS
DAYS IN SPRINT
STORY PO INTS COMP LETE D STORY POINTS REMAINING IDEAL BURNDOWN
FIGURE 6. Burndown chart in June 2020
indicating that there is room for improvement in the team’s
Sprint execution. Additionally, the team should focus on en-
hancing their ability to recover from setbacks.
Fast forward to June 2021, and the Burndown chart de-
picted in Fig 7 reveals a more refined and consistent approach
to Agile execution. The sprint begins with a backlog of 94
story points, and the team proceeds to complete tasks with a
steady and controlled pace. Unlike the fluctuations observed
in the previous year, the completion rate in June 2021 follows
a smoother trajectory.
The team’s ability to maintain a consistent pace throughout
the sprint is evident, with minimal deviations from the ideal
burndown line. By the tenth day, the team successfully com-
pletes all planned story points, demonstrating a higher level
of maturity and control in Agile practices.
Comparing the two Burndown charts provides valuable
insights into the team’s progress in transitioning from adopt-
ing to embracing Agile practices. June 2021 reflects a more
stable and predictable workflow, indicating a higher level of
maturity in Agile execution. The team has moved beyond
initial challenges and fluctuations, embracing a steady and
controlled pace for delivering work.
This evolution in Burndown chart patterns suggests that the
team has not only adopted Agile practices but has internalized
and optimized them, resulting in improved predictability and
efficiency. The journey from June 2020 to June 2021 signifies
the team’s growth and maturation in Agile methodologies,
setting the stage for continued success in future sprints.
VOLUME 11, 2023 13
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
0
20
40
60
80
100
12345678910
STORY POINTS
DAYS IN SPRING
STORY PO INTS COMP LETE D STORY POINTS REMAINING IDEAL BURNDOWN
FIGURE 7. Burndown chart in June 2021
2) EXECUTION MATURITY ANALYSIS USING BURNDOWN
CHARTS
Execution maturity, a pivotal dimension in Agile methodolo-
gies, is intricately linked with a team’s performance, and a key
gauge of this is the intersection point on the Burndown chart.
This critical juncture represents the day within a sprint when
the team’s completed work aligns with the ideal trajectory,
serving as a tangible indicator of their efficiency in meeting
sprint goals. The intersection point is a significant milestone
reflecting the team’s ability to manage workload and adapt to
evolving requirements. The evolution of execution maturity
is illuminated by a comparative analysis of the intersection
points on Burndown charts for 2020 and 2021. In Fig 8, a
visual representation offers insights into the team’s journey,
showcasing the tracking of intersection points on the Burn-
down charts. This comparative exploration delves into the
team’s capacity for iterative improvement and adaptability,
providing a nuanced understanding of their maturation in
executing Agile practices over time.
In the Sprint 1 of 2020, the team demonstrates an initial
intersection on Day 8, indicating that they could not achieve
an alignment with the ideal trajectory during the course of
Sprint execution. As subsequent sprints unfold, the team un-
dergoes consistent efforts to enhance execution maturity, yet
the intersection points persistently range from Day 7 to Day
9. Notably, by Sprint 6, the team achieves an intersection on
Day 7, showcasing a trend towards improved efficiency and
synchronization with the ideal trajectory.
Advancing to 2021, the team showcases a refined execu-
tion maturity. In Sprint 1, the intersection occurs on Day 5,
highlighting a more rapid alignment with the ideal trajectory
compared to the previous year. As the sprints unfold, the team
maintains a consistently earlier intersection point, ranging
from Day 5 to Day 7. This signifies a higher level of execution
maturity, with the team consistently delivering work ahead
of schedule and in closer adherence to the ideal trajectory.
The ideal intersection, set at Day 6 for both years, serves
as a benchmark for optimal execution maturity. In 2020, the
team occasionally met the ideal intersection, but in 2021, they
consistently exceeded expectations by aligning with the ideal
trajectory earlier during most sprints.
Comparing the intersection points between year 2020 and
2021 reveals a significant improvement in execution maturity.
In 2021, the team consistently reached intersections with the
ideal trajectory earlier in the sprints, indicating enhanced
efficiency, predictability, and a more refined mastery of Agile
practices. This evolution in execution maturity suggests that
the team has not only adopted but has embraced and opti-
mized Agile methodologies for enhanced performance and
timely delivery.
3) SAY-DO-RATIO VS VELOCITY
Within the domain of Agile practices, the Say-Do Ratio and
Velocity serve as vital metrics for gauging a team’s commit-
ment to their planned work and their actual delivery perfor-
mance, respectively. The Say-Do Ratio serves as a powerful
indicator, revealing the team’s commitment to planned tasks
by measuring the alignment between stated intentions and ac-
tualized actions. It serves as a guide for the team’s dedication
and execution consistency [35]. At the same time, Velocity
functions as an indicator of delivery efficiency, encapsulating
the team’s capability to transform plans into tangible results
within specified timeframes [34]. The comparison of these
metrics between year 2020 and 2021 offers valuable insights
into the team’s evolving efficiency and alignment with com-
mitments. Fig 9 depicts the Say-Do-Ratio and Velocity during
the 2020 timeframe.
In 2020, the team’s Say-Do Ratio exhibited fluctuations
across sprints, with values spanning from 59 to 95. The
Velocity, representing the actual delivery performance, shows
14 VOLUME 11, 2023
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
DAY OF THE SPRINT
SPRINT
DAY OF THE BURNDOWN CHART LINE INTERSECTS - 2020
DAY OF THE BURNDOWN CHART LINE INTERSECTS - 2021
IDEAL INTERSECTION DAY
FIGURE 8. Execution Maturity in 2020 and 2021
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Sprin t 1 2345678910 11 12
STORY POINTS
SPRINT
SAY-DO- RATIO VELOCITY
FIGURE 9. Say-Do-Ratio and Velocity in 2020
a parallel variation, ranging from 138 to 172. Sprint-wise, an
observable pattern of synchronization is noted between the
Say-Do Ratio and Velocity, with higher Say-Do Ratios often
corresponding to higher Velocities.
Noteworthy is the peak in Sprint 12, where a high Say-
Do Ratio of 95 aligns with a Velocity of 152, showcasing
a strong commitment to planned work translated into sub-
stantial delivery. Overall, the correlation between Say-Do
Ratio and Velocity in 2020 suggests a team striving to meet
commitments effectively.
Advancing to 2021, the team’s Say-Do Ratio depicted in
Fig 10 experiences less fluctuation, ranging from 91 to 100
across sprints. In tandem, Velocity maintains a consistently
high performance, fluctuating between 76 and 108. Sprint by
sprint, the team showcases a remarkable alignment between
Say-Do Ratio and Velocity, indicating a robust commitment
translating into consistently high delivery performance.
Comparing the two years, 2021 reflects a more mature and
stable state of affairs. The team not only maintains a high
Say-Do Ratio but also exhibits a consistently strong Velocity,
demonstrating an enhanced ability to commit to planned work
and successfully deliver on those commitments.
This evolution suggests that the team has moved beyond
fluctuations in commitment and delivery seen in 2020 to es-
tablish a more refined and reliable workflow. The correlation
between Say-Do Ratio and Velocity in 2021 signifies a higher
level of predictability, efficiency, and maturity in the team’s
Agile practices. This improvement bodes well for the team’s
ability to meet commitments and deliver valuable increments
consistently.
VOLUME 11, 2023 15
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Sprin t 1 2345678910 11 12 13
STORY POINTS
SPRINT
SAY-DO- RATIO VELOCITY
FIGURE 10. Say-Do-Ratio and Velocity in 2021
4) DEFECT DENSITY
Defect Density, a critical metric in software development,
is instrumental in assessing software quality by quantifying
the number of defects identified per unit of software size or
functionality [36]. In the context of this study, Defect Density
is specifically applied to measure the quality of software
development at the story level within a sprint. A story refers to
a user story, a concise, user-focused description of a software
feature from an end user’s perspective, typically expressed in
plain language. The comparative analysis of Defect Density
between the years 2020 and 2021 unveils intriguing patterns
in the team’s defect management. Figure 11 displays the
trends in defect density for the periods of 2020 and 2021,
providing a visual representation of the quality metrics over
these two years.
In 2020, the journey commenced with the initial sprint
exhibiting a relatively high defect density of 1.25, indicating
potential challenges at the outset of the Agile adoption. As
subsequent sprints unfolded, the graph depicted fluctuations
in defect densities, with noticeable peaks observed in Sprint
1, Sprint 7, and Sprint 8. These variations suggested diverse
challenges and areas requiring improvement in defect man-
agement and overall software quality control.
In 2021,the team showcased a consistent reduction in
defect densities across all twelve sprints compared to the
previous year. Particularly noteworthy were the low defect
densities observed in Sprints 3, 6, and 10, reflecting opti-
mized performance and effective defect management during
these periods. The graph in 2021 demonstrates a stable and
descending pattern, indicative of the team’s enhanced control
over the software development process and their ability to
deliver high-quality software consistently.
This comparative analysis suggests that the team has not
only addressed historical challenges but has also adopted
effective measures to prevent and manage defects in new
releases. The evolving trend towards lower Defect Densities
signifies a commitment to software quality and continuous
improvement in the development process. This improvement
is crucial for delivering reliable and high-quality software
products to end-users.
5) DEFECT-LESS STORIES
A Defect-less Story is characterized by the absence of any
reported defects during a given sprint. It signifies that a user
story, from conception to implementation, has successfully
met the specified requirements without introducing any func-
tional or technical issues that require correction. The Defect-
less Stories metric provides valuable insights into the team’s
ability to deliver stories without encountering any defects
during a sprint execution. The analysis of Defect-less Stories
in 2020 and 2021 reveals trends and improvements in the
team’s defect management and overall sprint performance.
Figure 12 illustrates the Defect-less metric across 12 sprints
for the years 2020 and 2021.
In 2020, the team experienced varying levels of success
in achieving Defect-less Stories across different sprints. No-
tably, Sprint 1 started with a relatively low percentage of
Defect-less Stories at 0.2, indicating that a small portion of
stories did not encounter any defects. Subsequent sprints saw
fluctuations, with some sprints achieving higher percentages
of Defect-less Stories, while others showed a decrease.
Fast forward to 2021, and there is a notable improvement
in the team’s ability to deliver Defect-less Stories. Many
sprints consistently achieve higher percentages of Defect-less
Stories, demonstrating enhanced efficiency in defect manage-
ment. Sprint 6 stands out with a remarkable 0.62 Defect-less
Stories percentage, indicating that a significant portion of the
delivered stories in that sprint did not have any associated
defects.
The Ideal Benchmark set at 0.4 serves as a target for the
16 VOLUME 11, 2023
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
DEFECT DENSITY
SPRINT
DEFECT DENSITY - 2020 DEFECT DENSITY - 2021
FIGURE 11. Defect Density in 2020 and 2021
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PERCENTAGE OF DEFECT-LESS STORIES
Sprint
DEFECT-LESS STORIES - 2020 DEFECT-LESS STORIES - 2021 IDEAL BENCHMARK
FIGURE 12. Defect-less Stories Metric in 2020 and 2021
team to achieve a significant percentage of Defect-less Stories
in each sprint. Interestingly, some sprints in both 2020 and
2021 surpass this benchmark, showcasing instances where the
team’s performance exceeded expectations.
Comparing 2020 and 2021, there is a clear improvement in
the team’s ability to deliver Defect-less Stories consistently.
The increased percentages in several sprints in 2021 suggest
that the team has implemented effective defect prevention and
resolution strategies. The positive trend in achieving Defect-
less Stories aligns with the overall improvement observed in
other metrics, such as Defect Density.
This analysis indicates a maturation in the team’s defect
management practices and emphasizes their commitment to
delivering high-quality software by minimizing the occur-
rence of defects in the delivered stories. The consistent pursuit
of the ideal benchmark and the surpassing of expectations in
certain sprints highlight the team’s dedication to continuous
improvement in defect management and overall sprint perfor-
mance.
C. QUALITATIVE INSIGHTS INTO AGILE ADOPTION
Examining the team’s viewpoint on Agile adoption, insights
are shared through self-assessment surveys, contributing to
a collective understanding of our Agile journey. Addition-
ally, experiences, challenges, and successes are expressed by
individual team members in quarterly anonymous surveys.
Through this combined approach, capturing both the team’s
overall perspective and individual insights, a comprehensive
view of our Agile transition is provided.
VOLUME 11, 2023 17
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
TABLE 2. Self-Assessment Survey on Agile Performance
1) Self-Assessment as a Team to Evaluate the Progress of
Agile Transition
The aim was to evaluate the success of the Agile transition
through a comprehensive self-assessment survey as a team.
The survey focused on Agile parameters, with participants
rating them on a scale of 1 to 3. Conducted over four quarters,
the data allowed for meaningful comparisons and progress
analysis.
•Survey Design:Development of a comprehensive ques-
tionnaire designed to capture essential Agile parameters
and gather insights into the team’s experiences.
•Data Collection: Administration of the survey to the
entire team, with participants providing their ratings and
feedback.
•Data Analysis: Rigorous examination of the collected
data to calculate average scores for each parameter dur-
ing both the first and fourth quarters.
•Drawing Inferences: Thorough analysis of the scores to
evaluate the success of the Agile transition and identify
areas for improvement and refinement.
Table 2 depicts the scores for each parameter in Q1 and Q4
and analysis of the survey scores.
The in-depth examination of score differentials between
Q1 and Q4 yields a comprehensive understanding of the
team’s dynamic journey in Agile practices throughout the
year. This comparative analysis enables us to carefully exam-
ine different aspects of the team’s performance and perceive
the meaningful implications arising from changes in the as-
signed scores.
a: POSITIVE TRENDS
The positive trends identified through the comparative analy-
sis underscore areas where the team has demonstrated signif-
icant improvement and progress in their Agile practices from
Q1 to Q4. These trends underscore the team’s dedication to
continuous enhancement and their adeptness in adapting and
refining their processes over time.
•Daily Stand-up: The improvement from a score of 2
in Q1 to 3 in Q4 signifies the team’s commitment to
enhancing their daily stand-up meetings. This likely
indicates better communication, increased participation,
and a more focused approach to daily planning and
coordination.
•Sprint Planning: The score increased from 2 in Q1 to 3 in
Q4, suggesting that the team worked on improving the
planning process. This positive trend indicates a more
effective and efficient sprint planning process, contribut-
ing to better alignment and clarity on sprint goals.
•Sprint Retrospective: There was notable progress in this
area, with the score increasing from 1 in Q1 to 3 in Q4.
This signifies the team’s enhanced ability to reflect and
improve during sprint retrospectives. The positive trend
suggests a proactive approach to continuous improve-
ment and a culture of learning within the team.
•Sprint Demo & Review: Like the sprint retrospective, the
score improved from 2 in Q1 to 3 in Q4, indicating the
team’s effectiveness in showcasing their work and gath-
ering feedback. This positive trend suggests improved
transparency and stakeholder engagement in the sprint
review process.
•Team Collaboration: The score increased from 2 in Q1
to 3 in Q4, highlighting improved collaboration among
team members. This positive trend indicates strength-
ened teamwork, better communication, and a more co-
hesive working environment.
•Delivery - Say-Do Ratio/Throughput: There was signif-
icant advancement, with the score rising from 1 in Q1 to
3 in Q4. This suggests that the team became more reli-
able in delivering what they committed to. The positive
trend indicates enhanced predictability and consistency
in meeting delivery commitments.
•Delivery Defect Ratio: The score improved from 2 in
Q1 to 3 in Q4, indicating reduced defects in the team’s
deliverables. This positive trend signifies a maturation
in the team’s quality assurance practices, leading to
higher-quality software releases and increased customer
satisfaction.
•Product Owner: Backlog Management: The score im-
proved from 2 in Q1 to 3 in Q4, suggesting that the team
and product owner met for more grooming sessions to in-
crease the understanding of product requirements. This
positive trend indicates a proactive approach to backlog
refinement, contributing to better sprint planning and
execution.
•Unit Testing: The score increased from 1 in Q1 to 3 in
Q4, indicating improvement in the team’s unit testing
practices. This positive trend suggests a focus on code
quality and thorough testing, leading to more reliable
18 VOLUME 11, 2023
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
software.
•Continuous Integration: The score improved from 1.5
in Q1 to 3 in Q4, suggesting increased effectiveness
in continuous integration practices. This positive trend
indicates streamlined development processes, quicker
identification of integration issues, and a more efficient
workflow.
•Definition of Done / Explicit Policies: The score in-
creased from 1 in Q1 to 3 in Q4, indicating a clearer defi-
nition of done and explicit policies within the team. This
positive trend suggests improved clarity and agreement
on the acceptance criteria for user stories, contributing
to higher-quality deliverables.
•Release Planning: The score improved from 2.5 in Q1 to
3 in Q4, reflecting enhanced planning for releases. This
positive trend signifies the team’s commitment to align-
ing release plans with business objectives, improving
coordination, and ensuring successful release outcomes.
•Impediments: The score increased from 1 in Q1 to 3
in Q4, suggesting the team’s ability to effectively ad-
dress impediments. This positive development indicates
improved collaboration and communication within the
team and with external stakeholders, resulting in quicker
issue resolution.
•Product Vision / Roadmaps: The score improved from
1 in Q1 to 3 in Q4, indicating team and product owner
worked together to increase clarity in the product vision
and roadmaps. This positive trend suggests a shared
understanding of long-term goals and better alignment
between development efforts and overall product direc-
tion.
b: AREAS FOR FURTHER FOCUS
The identification of areas for further focus directs attention
to aspects where the team has made strides but recognizes the
potential for additional refinement. This section underscores
the team’s proactive approach to continual improvement,
pinpointing specific domains that could benefit from con-
centrated efforts and strategic interventions in future Agile
iterations.
•Functional Testing: While there is improvement from 2
to 2.5, the team should continue focusing on enhanc-
ing their functional testing practices to achieve higher
scores. A more robust testing process contributes to in-
creased software reliability and a higher level of product
quality.
•Quality Improvements: While there is improvement from
2 to 2.5, there is still potential for further improvement
in this area. The team should continue their efforts to en-
hance overall quality practices, addressing any identified
areas of weakness.
c: CONSISTENT EXCELLENCE
The consistent high scores across various assessment areas in
both Q1 and Q4 affirm the team’s unwavering commitment
to maintaining exceptional standards and practices. It show-
cases a stable and reliable performance that contributes to the
overall success and efficiency of the team in its Agile journey.
•Product Owner: Collaboration: The consistent high
score of 3 in both Q1 and Q4 indicates strong collab-
oration between the team and the Product Owner. This
stable excellence suggests an ongoing positive relation-
ship, effective communication, and shared alignment on
product goals.
•Release Delivery: The consistent high score of 3 in both
Q1 and Q4 indicates the team’s continued success in
delivering releases. This stability suggests that the team
has maintained a reliable and efficient release delivery
process throughout the year.
•Scrum Master / Facilitator: The score remained con-
sistently high at 3 in both Q1 and Q4, indicating the
team’s satisfaction with the ScrumMaster’s facilitation.
This stability implies continued effective facilitation,
fostering a positive team environment and removing
impediments.
2) REFLECTIONS: QUARTERLY TEAM SURVEY
The Agile transition demands a shift in mindset, practices,
and organizational culture. Regular evaluation of the team’s
performance is essential to ensure sustained effectiveness.
To facilitate this evaluation, a non-anonymous survey named
"Reflections" was implemented. This survey assessed the
team’s performance in crucial areas such as Process, Product,
Innovation, People, and Leadership. The primary objective
was to pinpoint challenges or gaps requiring attention and to
gather insights for continuous improvement.
By bringing the team together in a conference room, Re-
flections facilitates face-to-face interactions and discussions.
This collaborative environment allows team members to share
their perspectives, exchange feedback, and gain a collective
understanding of the team’s strengths and areas for improve-
ment. The open dialogue nurtured by Reflections promotes a
shared sense of purpose and aligns the team towards contin-
uous improvement.
The assessment process involved the following steps:
•Survey Design: The action research team identified five
crucial assessment areas — process, product, innova-
tion, people, and leadership. Team members marked
their feedback on a whiteboard, categorizing sentiments
as "Doing Good," "Doing Okay," or "Disaster" for each
parameter.
•Data Collection: Participants rated each parameter, and
the data collection process involved tallying the re-
sponses as "Doing Good," "Doing Okay," or "Disaster."
This systematic approach provided a comprehensive
view of the team’s perceptions.
•Data Analysis: A collaborative data analysis session
helped the team identify patterns and insights within
each parameter. This thorough examination informed the
team about current standings and areas for improvement.
VOLUME 11, 2023 19
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
•Drawing Inferences: The team drew meaningful in-
ferences from the analysis, guiding subsequent actions.
Defined actionable items aimed at improving scores in
the next survey, emphasizing a culture of continuous
improvement.
The Table 3 and 4 represents the Reflections survey con-
ducted in quarter June 2020 and June 2021.
TABLE 3. Reflections Survey in June 2020
TABLE 4. Reflections Survey in June 2021
a: POSITIVE TRENDS
Following are the positive trends observed in the survey,
representing parameters that have shown improvement com-
pared to previous quarters. These positive trends reflect the
team’s commendable progress and enhanced satisfaction in
various parameters, showcasing a continuous commitment to
improvement and adaptability in their practices.
•Agile Process: The team progressed significantly from
June 2020 to June 2021. Initially balanced, with 15
members indicating "Doing Good," 20 "Doing Okay,"
and 5 "Disaster" in June 2020, there was a notable im-
provement in June 2021. Now, 33 members perceive Ag-
ile practices as "Doing Good," 7 as "Doing Okay," with
none marking it as a "Disaster." This signals increased
satisfaction and mastery of Agile methodologies.
•Accepting New Requirements: The team exhibited a pos-
itive shift from June 2020 to June 2021. Initially, the ma-
jority perceived it as "Doing Okay," with 27 members,
and 10 marked it as a "Disaster" in June 2020. However,
by June 2021, there was a notable improvement, with
35 members perceiving it as "Doing Good," only 5 as
"Doing Okay," and none indicating a "Disaster." This
positive trend suggests an enhanced level of adaptability
within the team, reflecting a more flexible and respon-
sive approach to evolving requirements.
•Product Quality: There has been a notable improvement
from June 2020 to June 2021. Initially, in June 2020,
the majority perceived it as "Doing Okay," with 34
members, and 6 marked it as a "Disaster." However, by
June 2021, there was a significant positive shift, with
37 members now perceiving product quality as "Doing
Good," and only 3 expressing "Doing Okay." Impor-
tantly, no members marked it as a "Disaster," indicating
a considerable enhancement in the team’s perception
of product quality, reflecting increased satisfaction and
confidence in the delivered products.
•Delivering Value: There was a significant positive shift
from June 2020 to June 2021. Initially, in June 2020, the
majority, with 29 members, felt that the team was "Doing
Okay," and 3 marked it as a "Disaster." However, by
June 2021, there was a substantial improvement, with all
40 members now perceiving the team as "Doing Good,"
and none marking it as a "Disaster." This remarkable
progress indicates the team’s enhanced confidence in
their ability to deliver the expected value to the customer.
The improvement suggests a refined and more effective
approach to value delivery, contributing to increased
satisfaction and trust in the team’s outcomes.
•Roadmap: There has been a noticeable improvement
from June 2020 to June 2021. Initially, in June 2020,
the majority of the team felt the roadmap was "Doing
Okay," with 31 members, and 3 marked it as a "Disaster."
However, by June 2021, there was a positive shift, with
36 members feeling "Doing Okay," and none marking
it as a "Disaster." This improvement suggests that the
team has made strides in refining and communicating
their roadmap effectively. The enhanced satisfaction and
understanding among team members indicate a more co-
hesive and aligned approach to planning and executing
the team’s strategic objectives.
•Learning: There has been a positive evolution from June
2020 to June 2021. Initially, in June 2020, there was
a positive sentiment, with 21 members feeling "Doing
Good" about learning and 5 expressing a positive out-
look for idea generation. Fast forward to June 2021,
20 VOLUME 11, 2023
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
the team has achieved consistent excellence, with all
40 members perceiving learning as "Doing Good," and
10 members also marking idea generation as "Doing
Good." This signifies a collective and sustained commit-
ment to continuous learning and creative idea generation
within the team, showcasing a positive and evolving
mindset towards innovation and knowledge acquisition.
•Fun: There has been a noticeable positive shift in the
"Fun" aspect from June 2020 to June 2021. Initially, in
June 2020, the sentiments were mixed, with 22 members
feeling "Doing Okay" and 10 marking it as a "Disas-
ter." However, by June 2021, a significant improvement
was evident, with 35 members feeling "Doing Okay," 5
marking it as "Doing Good," and none perceiving it as
a "Disaster." This positive change indicates an improved
team atmosphere, reflecting a more positive and engag-
ing work environment that fosters a sense of enjoyment
and camaraderie among team members.
•Team and Leadership Support : The assessment of team
and leadership support reveals a positive trajectory from
June 2020 to June 2021. This reflects a sustained and
collective satisfaction with the support structures in
place, highlighting the team’s ability to maintain high
standards of collaboration and leadership assistance over
time.
b: AREAS FOR FURTHER FOCUS
The following areas warrant further focus and attention.
These parameters are identified as focus areas due to the
presence of at least one team member rating them as "Dis-
aster." It is imperative for the team to prioritize these aspects
and take appropriate actions to address any underlying issues
effectively.
•Empowerment: There has been a positive transformation
from June 2020 to June 2021. Initially, in June 2020, the
majority perceived it as "Doing Okay," with 30 mem-
bers, and 2 marked it as a "Disaster." In contrast, by June
2021, there was a notable improvement, with 34 mem-
bers feeling "Doing Good," 4 expressing "Doing Okay,"
and 2 marking it as a "Disaster." This positive change
indicates an enhanced sense of empowerment within the
team, reflecting improved satisfaction and confidence in
their ability to make decisions and contribute effectively.
•Release Validation: Notable improvements have been
observed from June 2020 to June 2021. Initially, in June
2020, 30 members expressed a sentiment of "Doing
Okay," while 2 members marking it as a "Disaster."
However, by June 2021, there was a positive shift in out-
look, with 36 members now feeling "Doing Okay," and
1 member marking it as a "Disaster." This improvement
indicates that the team has worked towards refining their
release validation processes, leading to a more optimistic
perception of their capabilities in this area. The positive
shift suggests increased efficiency and effectiveness in
ensuring the quality and reliability of their releases.
•Idea Generation: Idea Generation: A significant im-
provement has transpired from June 2020 to June 2021.
Initially, in June 2020, 20 members perceived idea gen-
eration as "Doing Okay," while 15 marked it as a "Disas-
ter." However, by June 2021, a positive shift was evident,
with 29 members feeling "Doing Okay," 10 marking it
as "Doing Good," and only 1 member marking it as a
"Disaster." The team management proactively organized
periodic hackathons and fostered a culture that encour-
ages and supports the exploration of new ideas in the
development efforts. This deliberate effort contributed
to the observed positive transformation in the team’s
approach to idea generation.
c: CONSISTENT EXCELLENCE
The following parameters have consistently received high
ratings in the quarterly surveys. It is imperative for the team
to persistently maintain this level of performance through
continuous efforts and dedication.
•Help and Appreciation: The parameters of "Help" and
"Appreciation" have consistently reflected excellence
from June 2020 to June 2021. Initially, in June 2020, the
majority of the team felt that "Help" was "Doing Good,"
with 32 members, and "Appreciation" was perceived
positively by 36 members. This positive trend contin-
ued and even strengthened by June 2021, where all 40
members consistently perceived both "Help" and "Ap-
preciation" as "Doing Good." This consistent excellence
suggests a supportive team culture, emphasizing mutual
assistance and recognition, contributing to a positive and
collaborative work environment.
•Leadership Focus: The parameter of "Focus" has demon-
strated consistent excellence from June 2020 to June
2021. Initially, in June 2020, the majority of the team
perceived leadership focus as "Doing Good," with 36
members. This positive trend continued and solidified by
June 2021, with all 39 members consistently perceiving
leadership focus as "Doing Good." This sustained ex-
cellence indicates strong and effective leadership, with
a continued ability to maintain a focused and strategic
approach, fostering a sense of direction and purpose
within the team.
VII. VALIDITY EVALUATION
This section critically examines the validity of the research
conducted on Agile Transition within a software develop-
ment team. Four important validity concerns, namely mono-
operation bias, experimenter expectancies, selection bias, in-
ternal and external validity are considered and discussed.
A. MONO-OPERATION BIAS
One primary concern is the potential presence of mono-
operation bias. The research was carried out in a single spe-
cific setting, which may limit the generalizability of the find-
ings. To address this concern, it is recommended to extend the
VOLUME 11, 2023 21
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
research to include multiple teams within the same organiza-
tion and across different software development organizations.
By broadening the study’s scope to encompass a diverse range
of teams, the validity and applicability of the findings can be
enhanced.
B. EXPERIMENTER EXPECTANCIES
Experimenter expectancies can introduce bias in the research.
In this study, the experiment was conducted with a mature
Agile team that exhibited a high willingness to adopt new
initiatives, along with cohesive team leadership. However, it
should be acknowledged that not all software development
teams possess the same level of cooperation and leadership
qualities. To mitigate this bias, future projects should care-
fully assess the characteristics of the teams before undertak-
ing the research. Establishing specific criteria or prerequisites
related to team maturity, cooperation, and leadership qualities
can ensure a more representative sample, thereby improving
the reliability and generalizability of the results.
C. SELECTION BIAS
An additional concern is the potential for selection bias. The
research was conducted within a specific software develop-
ment team, which may not be representative of all teams.
It is important to consider that different teams may have
varying levels of experience, skill sets, and prior exposure to
agile practices. To mitigate this bias, future studies should
aim to include a diverse range of teams, ensuring a more
comprehensive representation of the software development
context.
By acknowledging and addressing these validity concerns,
the research aims to enhance the trustworthiness and ap-
plicability of the findings. Future studies should endeavour
to expand the research scope by including multiple teams,
considering specific team selection criteria, and mitigating
any potential biases that may influence the outcomes of the
Agile Transition research.
D. INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL VALIDITY
Internal validity is crucial in ensuring that the observed effects
of the Agile transition can be directly attributed to the im-
plemented interventions or practices. To strengthen internal
validity, future research endeavors could consider incorporat-
ing control groups or adopting more rigorous experimental
designs. By doing so, the study can effectively isolate the ef-
fects of specific Agile practices, thereby establishing a clearer
causal relationship between these practices and the observed
outcomes.
External validity is another important consideration, focus-
ing on the extent to which the findings of the Agile Transition
Action Research Study can be generalized to diverse set-
tings or contexts. To enhance external validity, future studies
should aim to include a broader range of organizations, teams,
and projects. This approach should account for variations
in size, industry, and cultural aspects, thereby validating the
findings across different Agile environments and increasing
the practical relevance and applicability of the proposed Agile
transition framework.
VIII. IMPLICATIONS
The comprehensive action research study detailed in this
paper holds profound implications for both academia and
the software development industry. The transition from a
plan-driven process to Agile methodology undertaken by
the software development team offers valuable insights into
the nuanced dynamics and transformative potential of Agile
adoption. Here, the implications of this study are explored
across various dimensions:
A. ENHANCED DEVELOPMENT APPROACH
The transition from a traditional waterfall model to Agile
methodology has demonstrated tangible improvements in the
development approach of the software development team.
Through meticulous action research cycles, the team not only
identified challenges but actively engaged in addressing them.
The emphasis on flexibility, adaptability, and collaboration,
which were initially constrained by the waterfall model, saw
marked improvements. This suggests that a more dynamic
and responsive approach, as facilitated by Agile practices,
positively impacts the overall development process.
B. ITERATIVE AND PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH APPROACH
The adoption of an action research methodology has impli-
cations for the research community. The iterative and partic-
ipatory nature of action research, demonstrated through the
four cycles - Assemble, Initiate, Build, and Enhance, provides
a robust framework for studying complex phenomena like
Agile transitions. This approach offers a systematic way to
engage with the evolving dynamics of a transitioning team,
making it a valuable methodology for researchers studying
organizational change and software development methodolo-
gies.
C. CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT CULTURE AND AGILE
INFRASTRUCTURE
The ENHANCE cycle (Cycle 4) unearthed the significance
of cultivating a culture of continuous improvement within
Agile processes. By addressing the question - "How can
the team foster a culture of continuous improvement within
its Agile processes?" - the study emphasizes the ongoing
nature of Agile improvement. Moreover, the optimization of
Agile infrastructure, including agile automation, continuous
integration, and deployment, showcases the importance of
not only refining processes but also leveraging tools and
technologies to enhance efficiency.
D. QUANTIFIABLE METRICS AND QUALITATIVE INSIGHTS
The Results and Interpretations section provides a compre-
hensive analysis, both quantitative and qualitative, of the
Agile transition. Comparative studies between pre-Agile and
post-Agile performance, metrics such as defect trends, burn-
down charts, and qualitative insights from self-assessment
22 VOLUME 11, 2023
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
surveys collectively offer a holistic view of the transition’s
impact. This data-driven approach enhances the credibility
and applicability of the study’s findings.
IX. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this paper presents a thorough examination of a
software development team’s transition from plan-based soft-
ware development (PBSD) to Agile software development
(ASD) through a comprehensive action research study. The
two-year journey, structured across four cycles, showcases a
successful Agile adoption with positive outcomes.
A comparative analysis between Waterfall and ASD high-
lights the advantages of Agile practices, revealing positive
shifts in defect trends, the number of releases, defect life-
cycle, and total automation percentage. Furthermore, the
study incorporates the insights derived from the team’s self-
assessment survey and quarterly team surveys, providing an
additional layer of positive outcomes. These assessments un-
derscore the team’s progress in embracing Agile methodolo-
gies, contributing to enhanced communication, collaboration,
and a more positive team culture. Agile improvement metrics,
including the Burndown Chart, Velocity, Say-Do Ratio, In-
sprint Automation, Defect Density, Execution Maturity, and
Defect-less Stories, further solidify the efficacy of the Agile
transition process.
Derived from the experiences gained during the transi-
tion from Waterfall to Agile Software Development (ASD),
several key learnings were identified that organizations can
leverage when embarking on a similar journey:
•Cultural Adaptation: The critical importance of cultural
adaptation was highlighted by the transition journey.
Embracing Agile principles necessitates a shift in mind-
set and values, emphasizing collaboration, adaptability,
and continuous improvement. A culture conducive to
Agile practices was found to be essential for driving
successful adoption.
•Continuous Learning: Throughout the transition pro-
cess, the value of continuous learning and improvement
was emphasized. Agile adoption is not a one-time event
but an ongoing journey of discovery and refinement.
Encouraging teams to embrace a mindset of continu-
ous learning and experimentation proved instrumental in
navigating the complexities of Agile practices.
•Leadership Engagement: Leadership engagement and
support were identified as fundamental drivers of the
Agile transition. The importance of leadership commit-
ment, active participation, and alignment with Agile
values was underscored by experiences. A pivotal role in
shaping the transition journey was played by leaders who
championed the Agile mindset and provided resources
and guidance.
•Iterative Approach: An iterative and incremental ap-
proach to Agile adoption allowed us to manage risk,
learn from experiences, and adapt our strategies accord-
ingly. Starting small, experimenting with Agile prac-
tices, and gradually scaling our efforts helped mitigate
challenges and maximize the benefits of Agile method-
ologies.
•Stakeholder Collaboration: Stakeholder engagement
throughout the transition process proved invaluable.
Collaboration and alignment between development
teams, management, customers, and other stakeholders
fostered shared understanding and commitment to Agile
principles. Regular communication and collaboration
helped build trust and facilitate buy-in for Agile prac-
tices.
•Measurement and Feedback : Clear metrics and feedback
mechanisms were established to monitor progress and
evaluate the effectiveness of Agile practices. Regularly
collecting feedback, measuring outcomes, and solicit-
ing input from team members and stakeholders allowed
identification of areas for improvement and adaptation
of strategies accordingly.
•Change Management: Effective change management
strategies were critical for managing resistance and facil-
itating smooth transitions. Transparent communication,
stakeholder engagement, and proactive change manage-
ment approaches addressed concerns, mitigated risks,
and built momentum for Agile adoption.
In considering future work, it is imperative to conduct
long-term evaluations to assess the sustainability of Agile
practices. Additionally, exploring the applicability of Ag-
ile methodologies in different organizational contexts and
industries could provide further insights and broaden the
understanding of Agile adoption beyond the scope of this
study. Continuous monitoring, learning, and adaptation will
be crucial to ensuring the enduring success of Agile practices
in the evolving landscape of software development.
REFERENCES
[1] 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.
[2] T. J. Gandomani and M. Z. Nafchi, “Agile transition and adoption human-
related challenges and issues: A Grounded Theory approach,” Computers
in Human Behavior, vol. 62, pp. 257–266, 2016.
[3] K. Beck, M. Beedle, A. van Bennekum, A. Cockburn, W. Cunningham,
M. Fowler,J. Grenning, J Highsmith, A. Hunt, R. Jeffries, J. Kern, B.
Marick, R.C. Martin, S. Mellor, K. Schwaber, J. Sutherland, D. Thomas,
Manifesto for Agile Software Development, 2007. [Online]Available:
https://agilemanifesto.org/
[4] S. Obrutsky and E. Erturk, “The Agile transition in software development
companies: The most common barriers and how to overcome them,” Busi-
ness and Management Research, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 40, 2017.
[5] S. Nerur and V. Balijepally, “Theoretical reflections on agile development
methodologies,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 79–83,
2007.
[6] M. Cohn, “Succeeding with agile: software development using Scrum”.
Pearson Education, 2010.
[7] T. Dingsøyr, S. Nerur, V. Balijepally, and N. B. Moe, “A decade of
agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development,”
Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., & Moe, N. B. (2012). A decade
of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development.
Journal of systems and software, vol. 85, no. 6, pp. 1213–1221, 2012.
[8] F. Reginaldo and G. Santos, “October). challenges in agile transformation
journey: A qualitative study,” in Proceedings of the XXXIV Brazilian
Symposium on Software Engineering, 2020, pp. 11–20
VOLUME 11, 2023 23
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Thamizhiniyan et al.: Transition from a Plan-Driven Process to Agile Methodology - An Action Research Study
[9] T. J. Gandomani, H. Zulzalil, and M. Z. Nafchi, “Agile transformation:
What is it about?” in 2014 8th. Malaysian Software Engineering Confer-
ence (MySEC), 2014.
[10] T. J. Gandomani, H. Zulzalil, A. A. A. Ghani, A. B. Md. Sultan, and K.
Y. Sharif, “An exploratory study on managing agile transition and adop-
tion,” in Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Cham: Springer
International Publishing, 2014, pp. 177–188.
[11] S. Campanelli, D. Bassi, and F. S. Parreiras, “Agile transformation success
factors: A practitioner’s survey,” in Advanced Information Systems Engi-
neering, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 364–379.
[12] M. Jovanović, A. -L. Mesquida, A. Mas and R. Colomo-Palacios, "Ag-
ile Transition and Adoption Frameworks, Issues and Factors: A Sys-
tematic Mapping," in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 15711-15735, 2020, doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2967839.
[13] M. Pinton and A. S. Torres Junior, “Human aspects of agile transition in tra-
ditional organizations,” Journal of technology management & innovation,
vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 62–73, 2020.
[14] D. Naslund and R. Kale, “Is agile the latest management fad? A review of
success factors of agile transformations,” International Journal of Quality
and Service Sciences, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 489–504, 2020.
[15] R. Hoda and J. Noble, “Becoming agile: A grounded theory of agile
transitions in practice,” in 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference
on Software Engineering (ICSE), 2017.
[16] M. Pikkarainen, O. Salo, R. Kuusela, and P. Abrahamsson, “Strengths and
barriers behind the successful agile deployment—insights from the three
software intensive companies in Finland,” Empirical Software Engineer-
ing., vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 675–702, 2012.
[17] T. J. Gandomani, Z. Tavakoli, H. Zulzalil and H. K. Farsani, "The Role
of Project Manager in Agile Software Teams: A Systematic Literature
Review," in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 117109-117121, 2020.
[18] M. Laanti, O. Salo, and P. Abrahamsson, “Agile methods rapidly replacing
traditional methods at Nokia: A survey of opinions on agile transforma-
tion,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 276–290,
2011.
[19] B. Julian, J. Noble, and C. Anslow, “Agile practices in practice: Towards
a theory of agile adoption and process evolution,” in Lecture Notes in
Business Information Processing, Cham: Springer International Publish-
ing, 2019, pp. 3–18.
[20] A. Sommer, “Agile Transformation at LEGO Group: Implementing Agile
methods in multiple departments changed not only processes but also
employees’ behavior and mindset,” Research-Technology Management,
vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 20–29, 2019.
[21] P. Diebold, S. Theobald, J. Wahl, and Y. Rausch, “Stepwise transition
to agile: From three agile practices to Kanban adaptation,” Journal of
Software: Evolution and Process, vol. 31, no. 5, p. e2167, 2019.
[22] A. Anwar, A. A. Kamel, and E. Ahmed, “Agile Adoption Case Study, Pains,
Challenges & Benefits,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Africa and Middle East
Conference on Software Engineering, 2016.
[23] K. Korhonen, “Evaluating the impact of an agile transformation: a longi-
tudinal case study in a distributed context,” Software Quality Journal, vol.
21, no. 4, pp. 599–624, 2013.
[24] G. Papadopoulos, “Moving from traditional to agile software development
methodologies also on large, distributed projects,” Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, vol. 175, pp. 455–463, 2015
[25] R. (Ronxin) Chen, R. Ravichandar, and D. Proctor, “Managing the tran-
sition to the new agile business and product development model: Lessons
from Cisco Systems,” Business Horizons, vol.59, no. 6, pp. 635–644, 2016.
[26] S. C. Misra, V. Kumar, and U. Kumar, “Identifying some important suc-
cess factors in adopting agile software development practices,” Journal of
systems and software, vol. 82, no. 11, pp. 1869–1890, 2009.
[27] J. Li, N. B. Moe, and T. Dybå, “Transition from a plan-driven process
to scrum: a longitudinal case study on software quality,” in Proceedings
of the 2010 ACM-IEEE international symposium on empirical software
engineering and measurement, 2010, pp. 1–10.
[28] M. F. Abrar et al., “Motivators for large-scale agile adoption from manage-
ment perspective: A systematic literature review,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp.
22660–22674, 2019.
[29] K. Petersen, C. Gencel, N. Asghari, D. Baca, and S. Betz, “Action research
as a model for industry-academia collaboration in the Software Engineer-
ing Context,” Proceedings of the 2014 international workshop on Long-
term industrial collaboration on software engineering, 2014.
[30] M. Staron, Action research in software engineering theory and applica-
tions. Cham:Springer, 2020.
[31] T. J. Gandomani and M. Z. Nafchi, “An empirically-developed framework
for Agile transition and adoption: A Grounded Theory approach,” Journal
of Systems and Software, vol. 107, pp. 204–219, 2015.
[32] M. Staron, W. Meding, and B. Söderqvist, “A method for forecasting
defect backlog in large streamline software development projects and its
industrial evaluation,” Information Software Technology, vol. 52, no. 10,
pp. 1069–1079, 2010.
[33] K. Korhonen, “Exploring defect data, quality and engagement during
agile transformation at a large multisite organization,” in Lecture Notes
in Business Information Processing, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 88–102.
[34] K. V. J. Padmini, H. M. N. Dilum Bandara, and I. Perera, “Use of soft-
ware metrics in agile software development process,” in 2015 Moratuwa
Engineering Research Conference (MERCon), 2015.
[35] J. Smart, "To Transform to Have Agility, Dont Do a Capital A, Capital T
Agile Transformation", IEEE Software, vol. 35, no. 06, pp. 56-60, 2018.
[36] S. M. A. Shah, M. Morisio, and M. Torchiano, “The impact of process
maturity on defect density,” in Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE international
symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement, 2012.
THAMIZHINIYAN NATARAJAN received his master’s degree in computer
applications from the Gandhigram Rural Institute, India. He is currently pur-
suing his PhD from Gandhigram Rural Institute. Previously he was working
as Director of Software Development in Gen Digital, India and has expe-
rience delivering products based on mobile, virtualization and eCommerce
domains. His research interest include software engineering, Agile software
development, Agile metrics, automated software engineering, continuous
testing, behaviour driven development and continuous integration /delivery.
SHANMUGAVADIVU PICHAI serves as a Professor of Computer Science
and Applications, at The Gandhigram Rural Institute (Deemed to be Uni-
versity), with 30 years of academic experi-ence. Her research areas include
Medical Im-age amp; Data Analytics, Machine Vision, Par-allel Comput-
ing, Software Engineering, Content-Based Image Retrieval and AI Models.
Dr.Pichai holds a Master’s degree in Computer Applications (REC, Tiruchi-
rapalli, 1990), Ph.D. in Digital Image Restoration (GRI-DTBU, Gandhigram,
2008), MBA (IGNOU, New Delhi 2017) and M.Sc.-Applied Psychology
(Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, 2019).
24 VOLUME 11, 2023
This article has been accepted for publication in IEEE Access. This is the author's version which has not been fully edited and
content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3384097
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. For more information, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
