A influência de fatores críticos de sucesso na implementação de um ambiente de gestão e desenvolvimento de software ágil
|
Vitor Junior de Almeida Menandro Barboza |
Mestre em Sistemas de Gestão. Universidade Federal Fluminense
(UFF) – Brasil. E-mail. vitor.jr.rj.2010@gmail.com |
|
Mirian
Picinini Méxas |
Doutora em Engenharia
Civil. Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF) – Brasil. E-mail.
mirian_mexas@id.uff.br |
|
Priscilla Cristina Cabral Ribeiro |
Doutora em Engenharia de
Produção. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) – Brasil. E-mail.
priscillaribeiro@id.uff.br |
|
Geisa Meirelles Drumond |
Doutora em Sistemas de
Gestão Sustentáveis. Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF) – Brasil. E-mail.
Gmdrumond@id.uff.br |
ABSTRACT
This research study aims to analyze, rank, and
validate the influence of Critical Success Factors (CSFs)
on the implementation of agile software development environments, based on the
perception of Brazilian stakeholders. First,
a literature review was conducted, through which 21 CSFs were identified and
grouped into three categories: Personnel, Organizational, and
Technical/Process. Subsequently, a survey was administered to experts in
software management and development, resulting in a sample of 101 respondents.
Based on the survey results, a ranking of the factors influencing the adoption
of agile methods was established, with a particular focus on the quality of the
final software product. The findings revealed that Personnel factors were
considered the most important, followed by Technical/Process and Organizational
factors. The four highest-ranked CSFs were “Competence, Training, and
Specialization”, “Teamwork”, “Communication Skills”, and “Focus on Client
Satisfaction and Engagement”, all of which belong to the Personnel category.
This research highlights the importance of investing in the Personnel dimension
to enhance the management and development of high-quality software.
Furthermore, the identified CSFs can assist organizations in improving their
software development processes through the effective adoption of agile methods,
ultimately contributing to the delivery of higher-quality software products.
Keywords: Agile methodologies. Quality. Management
of software. Development of software. Critical success factors.
RESUMO
Este estudo tem como objetivo analisar, classificar
e validar a influência dos Fatores Críticos de Sucesso (FCSs) na implementação
de ambientes de desenvolvimento ágil de software, com base na percepção de
stakeholders brasileiros. Inicialmente, foi realizada uma revisão da
literatura, por meio da qual foram identificados 21 FCSs, posteriormente agrupados
em três categorias: Pessoas, Organizacional e Técnico/Processo. Em seguida, foi
aplicada uma pesquisa com especialistas em gestão e desenvolvimento de
software, resultando em uma amostra de 101 respondentes. Com base nos
resultados obtidos, foi elaborado um ranking dos fatores que influenciam a
adoção de métodos ágeis, com foco especial na qualidade do produto final de
software. Os resultados revelaram que os fatores relacionados à categoria
Pessoas foram considerados os mais importantes, seguidos pelos fatores
Técnico/Processo e Organizacional. Os quatro FCSs mais bem classificados foram
“Competência, Capacitação e Especialização”, “Trabalho em Equipe”, “Habilidades
de Comunicação” e “Foco na Satisfação e no Engajamento do Cliente”, todos
pertencentes à categoria Pessoas. Esta pesquisa destaca a importância de
investir na dimensão Pessoas para aprimorar a gestão e o desenvolvimento de
software de alta qualidade. Além disso, os FCSs identificados podem auxiliar as
organizações a melhorar seus processos de desenvolvimento de software por meio
da adoção eficaz de métodos ágeis, contribuindo, em última instância, para a
entrega de produtos de software de maior qualidade.
Palavras-chave:
Metodologias ágeis. Qualidade. Gestão de software. Desenvolvimento de software.
Fatores críticos de sucesso.
Received on April 28, 2024. Approved on April
28, 2026. Evaluated through a double-blind peer review process. Published in
accordance with APA guidelines.
https://doi.org/10.22279/navus.v18.1915
1 INTRODUCTION
When
analyzing the work of current organizations, according to Tabares Quiroz et al. (2021), it is observed that both
organizational and technological change occur simultaneously, and these changes
have been increasingly rapid. The incorporation of Information Technology (IT)
in organizations allows better access to information, facilitating access to
information that was previously difficult to reach and, on the other hand,
speeds up the time needed to obtain this information, ensuring its quick and
timely retrieval and delivery (Díaz Pinzón et
al., 2017). The implementation of these technologies leads to an
expectation, which is related to the conversion of digital media into an
important factor in customer decision-making in view of the organizations' need
for innovation, which will result in adding value to the service provided (Cruz Estrada
& Miranda Zavala, 2019).
However, the complexity and size of computing systems
required the use of software engineering techniques that aim to reduce costs
and effort applied in the several stages of software development and
maintenance (Pressman, 2010). In this direction, methodologies converge and
contribute to the reuse of successful techniques, mechanisms and experiences
(Oliveira, 2014). Among the several used methods, a group stands out: agile
methodologies.
In
general, agile methodologies follow some basic principles: short development
cycles; small and constant deliveries; cooperative, with active participation
and constant presence of the client during the development of the software;
and, mainly, adaptable, where the occurrence of changes is acceptable
throughout the development cycle (Costinhas & Santos, 2014). The use of
these methodologies with adaptations of other traditional models in the
academic environment allows the process to adjust to the needs of the company
and, thus, achieve the improvement of the desired development process. Besides,
the agile
principle of delivering solutions will often increase support from top
management and decrease resistance to change (Amorim et al., 2021, p. 3), knowing that these changes have their limits.
Schema-flexible databases have become popular among agile developers as they
ease the burden of adapting the database every time the application code
changes. However, this flexibility comes at the price of a certain structural
entropy, i.e., a disarray of the database (Hillenbrand et al., 2022). As pointed out by Souza et al. (2022, p. 96), the goal of agile methods is to achieve a
better performance with both the project and the final product.
This
adaptation should focus mainly on the quality of the final product delivered.
Currently, the agile method is being used with a focus only on delivering the
final product to the customer. The problem is that this scenario raises concerns
regarding how agile practices are implemented and how they may influence the
quality of the final software product, especially when key success factors are
not adequately addressed.
In this
context, factors such as the low quality of the software developed due to the
inappropriate use of tests, lack of documentation, inadequate processes for the
company and low use of tools adhering to the development process bring losses
mainly in the maintenance of the final product and, consequently, in its quality.
This maintenance brings future discomfort to the team, to the customer and to
the board, that is, the interested parties in the process. The guarantee of
quality, reliability, efficiency, safety and maintainability are metrics of the
development of a project in large companies (Carosia, 2004). The use of agile methods in any project to ensure quality
is essential. Currently, software development companies use agile methods in
their projects to reduce the production cost with high quality of services and
products (Neelu & Kavitha, 2021).
Therefore,
to achieve a successful implementation of a management and software development
environment, one of the techniques used is the identification of the main
critical success factors (CSFs) and their influence on the implementation of
this environment, according to research performed by Huerta Riveros et al. (2015). However, there is a lack
of empirical studies that quantitatively assess and rank the influence of CSFs
on agile software development environments, particularly from the perspective
of practitioners, which is the originality of the present study, which aims to analyze, rank, and validate the influence of CSFs on
the implementation of agile software development environments, based on the
perception of Brazilian stakeholders.
Thus,
it is expected that the identification of the main CSF can help companies to
avoid failures during the implementation of this environment with agile
methods, as well as taking the necessary actions to improve this implementation
by observing the CSF that most need attention throughout this process.
Besides this introduction, Section
2 presents information on agile methods. The third section describes the used
methodology and the stages of the research study, as well as the foundation of
the applied survey. The fourth one presents the result analysis of the survey
and the ranking of CSFs, and lastly, in the fifth section, there are the
conclusions of the work.
2 AGILE METHODS
Software Engineering seeks to balance multiple and often competing
project objectives, including scope, cost, schedule, and quality. In this
context, software development methodologies have evolved to support
organizations in managing increasing levels of technological complexity and
market uncertainty. Traditionally, software projects relied on predictive
approaches characterized by extensive planning and detailed documentation.
However, the growing need for flexibility, rapid delivery, and continuous
adaptation has contributed to the widespread adoption of agile methodologies
(Ayat et al., 2021; Muhammad et al., 2021).
Agile Software Development (ASD) emerged as a response to the limitations
of traditional approaches in dynamic environments. According to Cockburn and
Highsmith (2001), agile methods were designed to address contexts characterized
by constant technological and business changes, where customer requirements
evolve throughout the project lifecycle. Rather than emphasizing comprehensive
upfront planning, agile approaches promote iterative development, continuous
feedback, and incremental value delivery (Biesialska et al., 2021; Sommerville, 2007).
The literature highlights several benefits associated with agile
adoption, including increased responsiveness to changing requirements, enhanced
customer involvement, improved collaboration among stakeholders, and faster
delivery cycles (Fronza & Wang, 2021; Pacheco et al., 2020; Šmite et al.,
2021). These characteristics have contributed to the growing diffusion of agile
practices across software organizations. Nevertheless, the literature also
emphasizes that agile methods shouldn’t be viewed as universally applicable
solutions. Their effectiveness depends on project characteristics,
organizational context, team capabilities, and management practices (Conceição
& Silveira, 2018). In other words, successful implementation cannot be
explained solely by the adoption of agile practices. Therefore, understanding
the factors that contribute to successful agile implementation remains a
relevant research challenge.
Previous studies have identified numerous CSFs associated with agile
software development. However, the existing literature presents these factors
in a fragmented manner, emphasizing isolated dimensions. Consequently, there
remains a need to integrate these factors into a coherent analytical framework
capable of supporting both theoretical understanding and empirical
investigation.
Based on the literature review, this study adopts a framework composed
of CSFs that were derived from the recurring factors identified in previous
research and grouped according to three complementary dimensions: Personnel
Factors, Organizational Factors, and Technical/Process Factors. This categorization
in three dimensions follows the perspective adopted by Abdalhamid and Mishra
(2017), Aldahmash et al. (2017), and Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017), who argue
that successful agile adoption depends on the interaction between human, organizational
and technical elements. The proposed framework establishes the theoretical
basis for the empirical investigation presented in the subsequent sections and
provides a structured approach for evaluating the relative importance of the
identified CSFs.
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
We conducted the present study
by following the subsequent stages:
First stage:
Aiming to provide the theoretical support to the study, we conducted a
literature review, using the SCOPUS and SCIELO databases to select articles, which are relevant databases of qualified and
reviewed scientific journals. We
accessed the databases through the Capes Journals Portal between 2018 and 2022. Lastly, we searched the Web through the
Google Scholar, and also through books, dissertations and theses that deal with
the theme of this work. The search methodology of the SCOPUS and SCIELO
databases was based on Costa (2010).
For the searches of the SCOPUS and SCIELO databases,
we used the following terms about the theme in an isolated way: “Agile Method”;
“Software Quality” and “Software Engineering”. These terms were selected
because of their connection with the theme of this work: CSFs in development of agile software. Initially, the
referred search aimed to identify and investigate the overall number of
publications in the mentioned databases, with search filter restrictions to
streamline the search results. The filters were: Years: 2014 to 2022. Areas: Computer
Science; Business, Management and Accounting; fand Engineering; Document type:
Article, Article in Press and Review.
The verification of the
records found in the databases with the three keywords researched individually
evidenced varied themes about the subjects Agile Method, Software
Quality and Software Engineering, for example: Scalability of Agile Methods;
Adopting the Principles of Agile Methods, Acceptance of Agile Methods; Quality of
Algorithms; Models of Quality; Life Cycle of Software; Production Processes,
among others.
Due to high dispersion and
variety of the found records related to the context of this research study, an additional
search strategy was adopted to increase the specificity of the results. The
term “Critical Success Factors” was combined with the previously defined
keywords in order to identify studies directly related to the factors
influencing the quality of software developed using agile methods.
After applying the inclusion
criteria (peer-reviewed articles, alignment with the research topic,
publication between 2014 and 2022, and availability
of full text) and the exclusion criteria (duplicate records, studies unrelated
to agile software development, and publications that didn’t address Critical
Success Factors), 56 records were identified. Subsequently, the titles and
abstracts of these studies were screened for relevance. The process resulted in
the selection of eight articles for full-text analysis.
To complement the review, the
references cited in the selected articles, which are highly relevant to the
topic, were also considered. This supplementary search resulted in the
inclusion of five additional studies that met the same eligibility criteria.
Therefore, the final bibliographic portfolio comprised 13 articles, which
constituted the theoretical basis for the identification and categorization of
the Critical Success Factors analyzed in this study.
The search strings, databases,
inclusion and exclusion criteria, and screening procedures were defined a
priori to improve the transparency and reproducibility of the literature review
process.
Second stage:
With the selected articles, we analyzed the Critical Success Factors that were
most mentioned by the authors regarding the final quality of software product
developed with agile methods, by addressing such factors in this study.
Third stage: The
selected Critical Success Factors were then grouped in three categories (Personnel, Organizational and Technical/Process). The authors Abdalhamid and Mishra
(2017), Aldahmash et al. (2017), and
Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017) addressed
this categorization.
Fourth stage: Based
on the Critical Success Factors identified in the literature review, a
structured questionnaire was developed and applied to 101 respondents responsible for software development, from project
managers, through analysts to developers. The sample of 101 respondents, obtained through convenience
sampling due to the lack of a clearly defined target population, is
acknowledged as a limitation of this study. To support the analysis, a ranking approach
based on a Likert-scale responses and a scoring criterion (VH + H – L – NI) was
employed.
Before
sending the questionnaire, a pre-test stage was carried out with five experts
in software development, to validate the questions, options of answers and
streamline the questionnaire.
Table 1 presents the categories
proposed based on the bibliographic review in databases and the other
researched references and related to the authors who mentioned them.
Table 1
Theoretical Foundation of the Survey
|
Question |
Author(s) |
|
Questions in the
Category Personnel: |
|
|
“Answer the
items according to your perception of the category/theme People Management. What is the necessity for:” |
|
|
1.
The company to invest in training, competence and specialization CSF1:
Competence, training and specialization |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Medeiros et al. (2018); Medeiros et al. (2015); Digalwar et al. (2014); Silva and Santos
(2015); Abdalhamid and Mishra (2017); Pekki (2016); Mohanarajah and Jabar
(2015); Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017); Tsoy and Staples (2020); Dikert et al. (2016) |
|
2.
Top management support for the deployment of new methodologies CSF2: Top
management support |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Medeiros et al. (2018); Medeiros et al. (2015); Digalwar et al. (2014); Abdalhamid and Mishra
(2017); Pekki (2016); Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017); Tsoy and Staples (2020);
Dikert et al. (2016) |
|
3.
Motivation and acknowledgement of the good work performed CSF3:
Motivation and acknowledgement of good work |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Medeiros et al. (2015); Digalwar et al. (2014); Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017) |
|
4.
Having communication skills to work and engage the client of the software
project CSF4: Communication skills |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Medeiros et al. (2018); Digalwar
et al. (2014); Silva and Santos
(2015); Abdalhamid and Mishra (2017); Gren et al. (2018); Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017); Tsoy and Staples
(2020); Dikert et al. (2016) |
|
5.
The whole team to work together and be committed to the final goal of the work CSF5: Teamwork |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Digalwar et al. (2014); Silva
and Santos (2015); Abdalhamid and Mishra (2017); Gren et al. (2018); Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017); Tsoy and Staples
(2020); Dikert et al. (2016) |
|
6.
Accepting group or individual changes in order to reach improvements in the
company CSF6: Group/individual resistance |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Silva and Santos
(2015); Abdalhamid and Mishra (2017); Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017); Dikert et al. (2016) |
|
Questions in
the Category Organization: |
|
|
“Answer the
items according to your perception of the category/theme Organization. What is the necessity for:” |
|
|
7.
Cooperative cultural practice CSF7:
Cooperative organizational culture |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Medeiros et al. (2018); Medeiros et al. (2015); Silva and Santos
(2015); Abdalhamid and Mishra (2017); Mohanarajah and Jabar (2015); Gren et al. (2018); Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017); Tsoy
and Staples (2020); Dikert et al. (2016) |
|
8.
Human resources management practice CSF8: Human
resources management |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Medeiros et al. (2015);
Digalwar et al. (2014); Abdalhamid
and Mishra (2017) |
|
9.
Establishment of project management norms and procedures CSF9: Project
management norms and procedures |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Medeiros et al. (2018); Aldahmash et al. (2017); Pekki (2016);
Mohanarajah and Jabar (2015); Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017); Tsoy
and Staples (2020); Dikert et al. (2016) |
|
Questions in
the Category Software Techniques and Processes: |
|
|
“Answer the items
according to your perception of the category/theme Software Techniques and
Processes in big and widely documented projects through the use of waterfall
models like RUP” and “Answer the items according to your perception of
the category/theme Software Techniques and Processes in projects through the
use of agile methods, like Scrum or XP” |
|
|
10.
Satisfaction level of client’s requirements CSF10: Focus,
client’s satisfaction and engagement |
Medeiros
et al. (2018); Aldahmash et al. (2017); Medeiros et al. (2015); Digalwar et al. (2014); Silva and Santos
(2015); Mohanarajah and Jabar (2015); Gren et al. (2018); Tsoy and Staples (2020) |
|
11.
Probability the project will not overrun the client’s budget CSF11: Poorly
characterized risk planning |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Silva and Santos
(2015); Gren et al. (2018);
Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017); Tsoy and Staples (2020) |
|
12.
Capacity of the project to not miss the opportunity window or client’s
deadline CSF11: Poorly
characterized risk planning |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Silva and Santos
(2015); Gren et al. (2018);
Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017); Tsoy and Staples (2020) |
|
“Answer the
items according to your perception of the category/theme Software
Documentation. What is the necessity
for:” |
|
|
13.
Documentation of the project requirements, especially in big projects that
require future maintenance CSF12:
Efficient requirement gathering technique, traceability and scope definition. |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Aldahmash et al. (2017); Digalwar et al. (2014); Silva and Santos (2015);
Gren et al. (2018); Chiyangwa and
Mnkandla (2017); Tsoy and Staples (2020); Dikert et al. (2016) |
|
14.
Keeping the requirement traceability with the other project artifacts CSF12:
Efficient requirement gathering technique, traceability and scope definition. |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Aldahmash et al. (2017); Digalwar et al. (2014); Silva and Santos
(2015); Gren et al. (2018);
Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017) |
|
“Answer the
items according to your perception of the category/theme Software
Configuration Management. What is the necessity for:” |
|
|
15.
The use of versioning tools, like SVN and Git CSF13: Tools support |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Digalwar et al. (2014); Silva and Santos (2015) |
|
“Answer the
items according to your perception of the category/theme Tests. What is the
necessity for:” |
|
|
16.
The Use of Test Plans, Unit Tests and Test Cases CSF14:
Inspections / Reviews / Software validation |
Aldahmash
et al. (2017); Digalwar et al. (2014); Pekki (2016); Chiyangwa
and Mnkandla (2017); Tsoy and Staples (2020) |
|
17.
The use of regression Tests, like the ones used in Selenium or JBehave CSF14:
Inspections / Reviews / Software validation |
Aldahmash
et al. (2017); Digalwar et al. (2014); Pekki (2016); Chiyangwa
and Mnkandla (2017); Tsoy and Staples (2020) |
|
“Answer the
items according to your perception of the category/theme Automation. What is
the necessity for:” |
|
|
18.
The use of facility, compilation and packaging management tools like Ant,
Maven, Gradle, NPM CSF13: Tools
support |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Digalwar et al. (2014); Silva and Santos (2015); Tsoy and Staples (2020) |
|
19.
The use of Continuous Integration tools, like Jenkins or Gitlab CI/CD CSF13: Tools
support |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Digalwar et al. (2014); Silva and Santos (2015); Tsoy and Staples (2020) |
|
20. The
use of code analysis tools, like Firebugs and SonarQube CSF13: Tools
support |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Digalwar et al. (2014); Silva and Santos (2015); Tsoy and Staples (2020) |
|
“Answer the
items according to your perception of the category/theme Project Management.
What is the necessity for:” |
|
|
21.
Evaluating the characteristics of the software project in order to choose the
adequate management and development methods CSF15:
Characteristics of the software project and adequate methodology |
Aldahmash
et al. (2017); Silva and Santos
(2015); Abdalhamid and Mishra (2017); Mohanarajah and Jabar (2015); Chiyangwa
and Mnkandla (2017); Tsoy and Staples (2020) |
|
22.
The use and deployment of agile processes CSF16:
Deployment of agile development techniques |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Medeiros et al. (2018); Aldahmash et al. (2017); Digalwar et al. (2014); Silva and Santos
(2015); Mohanarajah and Jabar (2015); Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017); Tsoy and
Staples (2020); Dikert et al. (2016) |
|
23.
Impacts related to changes in the planned tasks for iteration delivery CSF17:
Altering iteration/ Story change |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Aldahmash et al. (2017); Silva and Santos
(2015); Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017); Tsoy and Staples (2020); Dikert et al. (2016) |
|
24.
The use of task management tools, like Redmine, JIRA CSF13: Tools
support |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Digalwar et al. (2014); Silva and Santos (2015); Tsoy and Staples (2020) |
|
25.
The use of frequent project follow-up meetings and team alignment meetings CSF16:
Deployment of agile development techniques |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Aldahmash et al. (2017); Digalwar et al. (2014); Silva and Santos
(2015); Gren et al. (2018);
Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017); Tsoy and Staples (2020) |
|
26.
Follow-up metrics to improve the delivery of software projects with quality CSF18: Metrics and Quality |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Medeiros et al. (2015);
Abdalhamid and Mishra (2017); Pekki (2016); Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017);
Dikert et al. (2016) |
|
27. Well-defined
and well-known coding standards CSF19:
Well-defined coding standards |
Digalwar
et al. (2014); Abdalhamid and
Mishra (2017); Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017); Tsoy and Staples (2020) |
|
28.
Constant evaluation of the lessons learned for the continuous improvement of
techniques and processes CSF20: Continuous improvement |
Medeiros
et al. (2015); Abdalhamid and
Mishra (2017) |
|
29.
Simplicity in coding and software design CSF21: Simple
Code and Design/Simplicity |
Ghayyur et al. (2018); Medeiros et al. (2015); Digalwar et al. (2014); Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017); Tsoy and
Staples (2020) |
Based on Gray (2012), we
elaborated the degree of influence of the CSFs and the value correspondences according to
the following Likert scale:
Degree of influence of
the Critical Success Factor: (5) – Very High (VH); (4) – High (H); (3) – Medium
(M); (2) – Low (L); (1) – No Influence (NO); (0) – Do Not Know (DK).
Fifth stage:
After data gathering through the survey, we treated and analyzed the data in
order to verify whether the most mentioned critical success factors by authors
in the literature review stage are the same ones that most influence the
success of the quality of software developed with agile methods, according to
the practical view of the professionals responsible for software development. The
ranking of the most influential CSFs in the adoption of agile methods focused
on the quality of the final product was then presented. We presented the frequency distributions of the
researched CSFs, and then, we made observations in the light of the
bibliographic review about the theme of the research study. We described this stage in the Section 4:
Result Analysis.
Sixth stage:
Finally, in the research consolidation, we described the conclusions and
contributions towards the study.
The
universe of this research study is the group of professionals responsible for
the development of software in Brazil, encompassing the whole process, from
project managers and analysts, to developers. Based on it, we obtained emails
through the sites of technology companies, education institutions and
contribution of respondents.
After
the pre-test stage, we sent emails to the identified universe, with information
about the research purposes and the importance of answering the survey. We
conducted the field research and reached the sample of 101 respondents.
Based
on the answers to the closed questions of the survey, we conducted the analysis
of the gathered data and of the tabulated results, enabling data compilation.
We presented the frequency distributions of the researched CSFs, and it was
possible to identify convergences and gaps between the perceptions of the
professionals in the sample and the authors of the bibliography used in this
study. Such analyses form a relevant set of conclusions for the study.
4.1 Profile of Respondents
The
research study shows that the highest number of respondents is located in the
southeast region and the lowest in the north region of Brazil. In addition, some respondents live abroad. It is
possible to highlight that 18% of the respondents are college graduate
professionals, 56% hold Master’s degrees, 21% hold doctor’s degrees and 2% hold
extension course degrees. Yet, the distribution of job positions of the
respondents is: 35% are Project Managers or Coordinators, 23% are System
Analysts, 6% are Programmers and 7% are Business Analysts. A high number stated
that they have other positions–29%–the ones we identified as Engineers and
Managers, among others.
We
requested information about how long they have been in the profession: 9% have
been for more than 25 years; 12% have been between 16 and 25 years; 31% have been
between 10 and 15 years; 33% between 3 and 9 years and 15% for less than 3
years. We note that the majority of the participants of the survey are in the
ranges 3 to 9 years and 10 to 15 years, with a total of 64.35%. The survey also
shows that 57% of the respondents do not work in technology companies, that is,
they are professionals that work in the IT department of companies in other
segments.
Finally,
in the profile stage, we asked how long the professional has been working in
the current company: 6% for more than 25
years; 7% between 16 and 25 years in the company; 17% between 10 and 15 years;
46% between 3 and 9 years and 24% for less than 3 years. It is possible to
verify a reality of the technology employee: the high turnover in companies,
since 70% of the respondents have been working for a short time in the company,
9 years the most.
4.2
Perception Analysis of the CSFs
The
tables that show the percentage of answers for each question present the
results of the survey. Although the survey was administered to 101 respondents,
the valid number of responses varies across questions because the category “Do
Not Know” was excluded from the analysis, as indicated in the research design.
Consequently, the totals reported in the tables represent only valid responses
for each item, which explains the variation observed. This procedure was
adopted to avoid distortions in the assessment of CSFs. Therefore, comparisons
across items should consider differences in the number of valid responses.
The
purpose is to present the main Critical Success Factors, grouped in categories
(Personnel, Organizational and Technical/Process) and frequency of answers, in
percentage terms.
4.2.1 Category Personnel
Table
2
Survey
Answers for the Category Personnel
|
“Answer the items according to your perception of
the category/theme Project Management. What is the necessity for:” |
||||||||||||
|
|
Very High |
High |
Medium |
Low |
No Influence |
Total |
||||||
|
The
company to invest in training, competence and specialization CSF1: Competence, training and specialization |
53.0% |
53 |
38.0% |
38 |
5.0% |
5 |
4.0% |
4 |
0.0% |
0 |
100 |
|
|
Top
management support for the deployment of new methodologies CSF2: Top management support |
45.0% |
45 |
45.0% |
45 |
8.0% |
8 |
2.0% |
2 |
0.0% |
0 |
100 |
|
|
Motivation
and acknowledgement of the good work performed CSF3: Motivation and acknowledgement of good work |
56.5% |
57 |
30.7% |
31 |
5.9% |
6 |
6.9% |
7 |
0.0% |
0 |
101 |
|
|
4.
Having communication skills to work and engage the client of the software
project CSF4:
Communication Skills |
52.5% |
52 |
35.4% |
35 |
8.1% |
8 |
3.0% |
3 |
1.0% |
1 |
99 |
|
|
The
whole team to work together and be committed to the final goal of the work CSF5:
Teamwork |
61.3% |
62 |
29.7% |
30 |
5.0% |
5 |
4.0% |
4 |
0.0% |
0 |
101 |
|
|
Accepting
group or individual changes in order to reach improvements in the company CSF6:
Group/individual resistance |
39.3% |
39 |
45.5% |
45 |
9.1% |
9 |
6.1% |
6 |
0.0% |
0 |
99 |
|
By analyzing
the answers of the survey in Table 2, the results reinforce the central role of
human factors in software project success. Teamwork, motivation, recognition,
and professional competence received the highest levels of perceived influence,
indicating that respondents associate project performance more strongly with
interpersonal and organizational capabilities than with formal structures
alone.
These findings
are consistent with previous studies by Ghayyur et al. (2018), Medeiros et
al. (2015), Digalwar et al. (2014), Silva and Santos (2015),
Abdalhamid and Mishra (2017), Gren et al.
(2018), and Chiyangwa and Mnkandla (2017),
which emphasize collaboration, employee competence, stakeholder engagement, and
team commitment as
critical success factors in software development projects.
However, an
interesting aspect emerges from the comparatively lower ratings attributed to
top management support and resistance to change. While the literature presents
management sponsorship as a prerequisite for organizational transformation,
respondents appear to prioritize operational and team-level factors. This
divergence may suggest that practitioners perceive project outcomes as being
influenced more directly by day-to-day team dynamics than by executive
involvement. Such results shouldn’t be interpreted as evidence that these
factors are unimportant, but rather as an indication that their contribution
may be perceived differently from factors with immediate operational effects.
4.2.2 Category Organizational
Table 3
Survey Answers for the Category
Organizational
|
“Answer the items according to your perception of
the category/theme Organizational. What is the necessity for:” |
|||||||||||
|
|
Very High |
High |
Medium |
Low |
No Influence |
Total |
|||||
|
Cooperative
cultural practice CSF7: Cooperative organizational culture |
31% |
31 |
53% |
53 |
12% |
12 |
3% |
3 |
1% |
1 |
100 |
|
Human
resources management practice CSF8: Human resources management |
37% |
37 |
43% |
43 |
14% |
14 |
2% |
2 |
4% |
4 |
100 |
|
Establishment
of project management norms and procedures CSF9: Project management norms and procedures |
33% |
33 |
44% |
44 |
15% |
15 |
5% |
5 |
3% |
3 |
100 |
Through
the analysis of the gathered data in Table 3, the organizational culture factor
emerged as the strongest element within this category, reinforcing the argument
that agile adoption extends beyond technical implementation and requires
alignment of organizational values and behaviors. The result is consistent with
studies by Ghayyur et al. (2018), Medeiros et al. (2018), Medeiros et al. (2015), Silva and Santos (2015),
Abdalhamid and Mishra (2017), Mohanarajah and Jabar (2015), Gren et al. (2018), and Chiyangwa and
Mnkandla (2017) that present this CSF as the
most important one for the success of the quality of agile methods projects in
the category Organizational.
According to Aldahmash et al. (2017), the organizational culture can be defined as a set
of organizational factors or variables that may influence the development of
agile software in an organization. The organizational culture factor is a vital
factor in the transition into agility. The organization should have a dynamic
culture to respond to the different changes during the agile development cycle.
Yet, Abdalhamid and Mishra (2017) mention that the adoption of agile methods by
an organization requires a change in the culture and attitude of the
organization. The agile idea is based on the way professionals must work to
deliver new practices to team members and managers and, usually, agile methods
affect the culture of the organization.
Nevertheless, the CSFs “Human resources
management” and “Project management norms and procedures” had a relatively
lower emphasis, if compared with other factors. The inferior number of votes
for these factors is also explained by their lower number of mentions by the
authors in the literature.
This finding contributes to the discussion by
suggesting that organizational culture may function as an integrating factor
that amplifies or constrains the effectiveness of other organizational practices.
Consequently, investments in formal processes alone may not produce the
expected outcomes if cultural conditions are not simultaneously addressed.
4.2.3 Category
Technical/Process
Table
4
Answers regarding the Methodology for the Category Technical/Process
|
“Answer the items according to your perception of
the category/theme: Software Techniques and Processes in big projects and
widely documented projects through the use of waterfall methods like RUP” |
|||||||||||
|
|
Very High |
High |
Medium |
Low |
No Influence |
Total |
|||||
|
Satisfaction
level of client’s requirements CSF10: Focus, client’s satisfaction and engagement |
13.6% |
11 |
29.6% |
24 |
34.6% |
28 |
16.0% |
13 |
6.2% |
5 |
81 |
|
Probability
the project will not overrun the client’s budget. CSF11: Poorly characterized risk planning |
16.5% |
13 |
21.5% |
17 |
24.0% |
19 |
31.7% |
25 |
6.3% |
5 |
79 |
|
Capacity
of the project to not miss the opportunity window or client’s deadline CSF11: Poorly characterized risk planning |
16.0% |
13 |
21.0% |
17 |
32.1% |
26 |
24.7% |
20 |
6.2% |
5 |
81 |
|
“Answer the items according to your perception of
the category/theme: Software Techniques and Processes in agile methodology projects,
like Scrum or XP” |
|||||||||||
|
|
Very High |
High |
Medium |
Low |
No Influence |
Total |
|||||
|
Satisfaction
level of client’s requirements CSF10: Focus, client’s satisfaction and engagement |
31.9% |
29 |
50.5% |
46 |
13.2% |
12 |
1.1% |
1 |
3.3% |
3 |
91 |
|
Probability
the project will not overrun the client’s budget. CSF11: Poorly characterized risk planning |
20.9% |
18 |
27.9% |
24 |
34.9% |
30 |
12.8% |
11 |
3.5% |
3 |
86 |
|
Capacity
of the project to not miss the opportunity window or client’s deadline CSF11: Poorly characterized risk planning |
18.8% |
17 |
45.6% |
41 |
25.6% |
23 |
6.7% |
6 |
3.3% |
3 |
90 |
By evaluating the result of the two questions addressing
the CSF “Poorly characterized risk planning”, in Table 4, the comparison
between traditional and agile approaches indicates that budget and schedule
performance remain significant challenges regardless of the development
methodology adopted. In reality, keeping within the budget and meeting the
deadline of the project are difficulties found in all projects and approaches.
“Risk planning” is an important CSF simply because it reduces alterations in
the software project plan. Aldahmash et
al. (2017) describe that it is essential to launch the project plan, which
must be dimensioned correctly, during the initial stages of the agile
development project. The finding suggests that project constraints associated
with planning uncertainty and risk management are persistent issues that
transcend methodological choices.
The notable distinction emerges in relation to
customer satisfaction and engagement. Agile methodologies were perceived more
positively in this regard, which is consistent with the literature emphasizing
iterative delivery, continuous feedback, and closer customer involvement. However,
the findings shouldn’t be interpreted as evidence of the superiority of agile
methods in all contexts. Rather, they indicate that respondents associate agile
practices with greater responsiveness to changing requirements and stakeholder
expectations.
Table
5
Answers
regarding Software Documentation for the Category Technical/Process
|
“Answer the items according to your perception of
the category/theme Software Documentation. What is the necessity for:” |
|||||||||||
|
|
Very High |
High |
Medium |
Low |
No Influence |
Total |
|||||
|
Documentation
of the project requirements, especially in big projects that require future
maintenance. CSF12: Efficient requirement gathering technique,
traceability and scope definition |
54.7% |
52 |
28.4% |
27 |
11.6% |
11 |
4.3% |
4 |
1.0% |
1 |
95 |
|
Keeping
the requirement traceability with the other project artifacts. CSF12: Efficient requirement gathering technique,
traceability and scope definition |
38.4% |
36 |
43.6% |
41 |
10.6% |
10 |
5.3% |
5 |
2.1% |
2 |
94 |
In
Table 5, regarding software documentation, the results challenge the common
perception that agile environments place limited value on documentation. Respondents
clearly recognized the importance of documenting requirements and maintaining
traceability, particularly in projects that require long-term maintenance. This
suggests that practitioners perceive documentation not as a contradiction to
agility, but as a complementary mechanism that assists in the maintenance and
in the understanding of the software itself. It is important for the tests, and
also for future maintenance, whether it be corrective or developmental.
According
to Abdalhamid and Mishra
(2017), agile methods are more appropriate for projects in which the
requirements are not well known, because they accept changes without
difficulties.
Table
6
Answers
regarding Tool support and Inspections / Reviews / Software validation for the
Category Technical/Process
|
“Answer the items according to your perception of
the category/theme Software Configuration Management. What is the necessity for:” |
||||||||||||
|
|
Very High |
High |
Medium |
Low |
No Influence |
Total |
||||||
|
The
use of versioning tools, like SVN and Git CSF13: Tools support |
62.3% |
48 |
23.4% |
18 |
10.4% |
8 |
2.6% |
2 |
1.3% |
1 |
77 |
|
|
“Answer the items according to your
perception of the category/theme Tests. What is the necessity for:” |
||||||||||||
|
|
Very High |
High |
Medium |
Low |
No Influence |
Total |
||||||
|
The
use of Test Plans, Unit Tests and Test Cases CSF14: Inspections / Reviews / Software validation |
43.8% |
39 |
42.7% |
38 |
7.9% |
7 |
4.5% |
4 |
1.1% |
1 |
89 |
|
|
The
use of regression Tests, like the ones used in Selenium or JBehave CSF14: Inspections / Reviews / Software validation |
23.9% |
16 |
52.2% |
35 |
17.9% |
12 |
6.0% |
4 |
0.0% |
0 |
67 |
|
|
“Answer the items according to your perception of
the category/theme Automation. What is the necessity for:” |
||||||||||||
|
|
Very High |
High |
Medium |
Low |
No Influence |
Total |
||||||
|
The
use of facility, compilation and packaging management tools like Ant, Maven,
Gradle, NPM CSF13: Tools support |
37.2% |
23 |
38.7% |
24 |
17.7% |
11 |
4.8% |
3 |
1.6% |
1 |
62 |
|
|
The
use of Continuous Integration tools, like Jenkins or Gitlab CI/CD CSF13: Tools support |
31.7% |
20 |
42.9% |
27 |
22.2% |
14 |
0.0% |
0 |
3.2% |
2 |
63 |
|
|
The
use of code analysis tools, like Firebugs and SonarQube CSF13: Tools support |
21.0% |
13 |
43.5% |
27 |
32.3% |
20 |
0.0% |
0 |
3.2% |
2 |
62 |
|
In Table 6, the findings related to the CSFs “Tools
support” and “Inspections, Reviews and Software
validation” reveal
another relevant aspect. Although the literature consistently emphasizes these
practices as contributors to software quality, the responses suggest uneven
adoption across organizations. This may indicate that implementation barriers
are associated not only with technical complexity but also with organizational
maturity and resource availability.
In this sense, Chiyangwa
and Mnkandla (2017) state that the companies need to plan the use of agile
methodologies, by investing in tools that sponsor and assist in the fast
development of iterations, configuration management and other agile
techniques.
Table
7
Answers regarding Project Management for the Category
Technical/Process
|
“Answer the items according to your perception of
the category/theme Project Management. What is the necessity for:” |
|||||||||||
|
|
Very High |
High |
Medium |
Low |
No Influence |
Total |
|||||
|
Evaluating
the characteristics of the software project in order to choose the adequate
management and development methods. CSF15: Characteristics of the software project and
adequate methodology |
47.4% |
46 |
40.2% |
39 |
8.3% |
8 |
1,0% |
1 |
3,1% |
3 |
97 |
|
The
use and deployment of agile processes. CSF16: Deployment of agile development techniques |
35.0% |
34 |
47.5% |
46 |
16.5% |
16 |
0.0% |
0 |
1.0% |
1 |
97 |
|
Impacts
related to changes in the planned tasks for iteration delivery CSF17: Altering iteration/ Story change |
26.4% |
23 |
59.8% |
52 |
10.3% |
9 |
2.3% |
2 |
1.2% |
1 |
87 |
|
The
use of task management tools, like Redmine, JIRA CSF13: Tools support |
35.3% |
30 |
40.0% |
34 |
20.0% |
17 |
2.4% |
2 |
2.3% |
2 |
85 |
|
The
use of frequent project follow-up meetings and team alignment meetings CSF16: Deployment of agile development techniques |
46.9% |
46 |
33.7% |
33 |
15.3% |
15 |
3.1% |
3 |
1.0% |
1 |
98 |
|
Follow-up
metrics to improve the delivery of software projects with quality CSF18:
Metrics and Quality |
41.7% |
40 |
41.7% |
40 |
12.4% |
12 |
2.1% |
2 |
2.1% |
2 |
96 |
|
Well-defined
and well-known coding standards CSF19: Well-defined coding standards |
41.9% |
39 |
41.9% |
39 |
11.8% |
11 |
3.3% |
3 |
1.1% |
1 |
93 |
|
Constant
evaluation of the lessons learned for the continuous improvement of
techniques and processes CSF20:
Continuous improvement |
39.8% |
39 |
45.9% |
45 |
11.3% |
11 |
1.0% |
1 |
2.0% |
2 |
98 |
|
29.
Simplicity in coding and software design CSF21: Simple Code and Design/Simplicity |
40.4% |
38 |
47.9% |
45 |
9.6% |
9 |
0.0% |
0 |
2,1% |
2 |
94 |
In
Table 7, project management factors received consistently high evaluations,
reinforcing their importance in software development environments. Nevertheless,
the predominance of respondents occupying management or analytical positions
may have influenced these perceptions. Therefore, the findings should be
interpreted considering the professional profile of the sample.
Overall,
the results confirm the importance of people, organizational culture, and project
management practices, while also revealing that respondents attribute greater
influence to factors that directly affect project execution and day-to-day
activities.
These
findings are also supported by the literature. In particular, Aldahmash et
al. (2017) argue that, before adopting an agile method or technique,
project members must be familiar with the selected approach. Furthermore, the
tools, principles, and terminology associated with the chosen agile methodology
should be clearly understood by all team members to facilitate its effective
implementation and contribute to project success.
4.2.4 Ranking of the
Critical Success Factors
Table 8 presents the ranking of the most
influential CSFs in the adoption of agile methods focused on the quality of the
final product and on the use of complementary tools. Based only on the answer
options NO INFLUENCE, LOW, HIGH and VERY HIGH for each factor, according to Paixão (2014), we
classified the Critical Success Factors according to a specific and detailed
criterion, right after the following table. This ranking organizes the CSFs
from the most voted one to the least voted one. In the cases where the survey
presents more than one question for the same CSF, we used the highest score for
developing the ranking. This classification was simply based on the answers to
the objective questions of the survey.
Table
8
Ranking of the critical success factors
|
Category |
CSF |
Very |
High |
Low |
No |
Score |
Position |
|
Personnel |
CSF5:
Team work Question(s):
5 |
62 |
30 |
4 |
0 |
88 |
1 |
|
Personnel |
CSF2:
Support from top management Question(s):
2 |
45 |
45 |
2 |
0 |
88 |
2 |
|
Personnel |
CSF1:
Competence, training and specialization Question(s):
1 |
53 |
38 |
4 |
0 |
87 |
3 |
|
Personnel |
CSF4:
Communication skills Question(s):
4 |
52 |
35 |
3 |
1 |
83 |
4 |
|
Personnel |
CSF3:
Motivation and acknowledgement of the good work Question(s):
3 |
57 |
31 |
7 |
0 |
81 |
5 |
|
Technical/Process |
CSF15:
Characteristics of the software project and adequate methodology Question(s):
21 |
46 |
39 |
1 |
3 |
81 |
6 |
|
Technical/Process |
CSF20:
Continuous improvement Question(s):
28 |
39 |
45 |
1 |
2 |
81 |
7 |
|
Technical/Process |
CSF21:
Simple Code and Design/Simplicity Question(s):
29 |
38 |
45 |
0 |
2 |
81 |
8 |
|
Organizational |
CSF7:
Cooperative organizational culture Question(s):
7 |
31 |
53 |
3 |
1 |
80 |
9 |
|
Technical/Process |
CSF16:
Deployment of agile development techniques Question(s):
22, 25 |
34 |
46 |
0 |
1 |
79 |
10 |
|
Personnel |
CSF6:
Group/individual resistance Question(s):
6 |
39 |
45 |
6 |
0 |
78 |
11 |
|
Technical/Process |
CSF18:
Metrics and Quality Question(s):
26 |
40 |
40 |
2 |
2 |
76 |
12 |
|
Technical/Process |
CSF12:
Efficient requirement gathering technique, traceability and scope definition. Question(s):
13, 14 |
52 |
27 |
4 |
1 |
74 |
13 |
|
Technical/Process |
CSF19:
Well-defined coding standards Question(s):
27 |
39 |
39 |
3 |
1 |
74 |
14 |
|
Organizational |
CSF8:
Human resources management Question(s):
8 |
37 |
43 |
2 |
4 |
74 |
15 |
|
Technical/Process |
CSF14:
Inspections / Reviews / Software validation Question(s):
16, 17 |
39 |
38 |
4 |
1 |
72 |
16 |
|
Technical/Process |
CSF17:
Altering iteration/ Story change Question(s):
23 |
23 |
52 |
2 |
1 |
72 |
17 |
|
Technical/Process |
CSF10:
Focus, client’s satisfaction and engagement Question(s):
10 |
29 |
46 |
1 |
3 |
71 |
18 |
|
Organizational |
CSF9:
Project management norms and procedures Question(s):
9 |
33 |
44 |
5 |
3 |
69 |
19 |
|
Technical/Process |
CSF13:
Tools support Question(s):
15, 18, 19, 20, 24 |
48 |
18 |
2 |
1 |
63 |
20 |
|
Technical/Process |
CSF11:
Poorly characterized risk planning Question(s):
11, 12 |
17 |
41 |
6 |
3 |
49 |
21 |
In
order to develop the ranking of CSFs, we adopted the criterion based on Paixão (2014), which is detailed as follows:
·
The sum
of the answers with the degrees of influence VERY HIGH and HIGH, represented in
the formula (VH + H).
·
The sum
of the answers with the degrees of influence LOW and NO INFLUENCE, displayed by
the formula (L + NI).
·
The result of the formula (VH + H) – (L + NI) will be the final score of each
factor. If there is a draw among the CSFs in the result of the formula, the one
with the higher number of answers VERY HIGH will prevail.
We
based the adopted criterion on Paixão (2014) because it is a previously used
criterion for establishing a ranking among critical success factors. It is the
most adequate method for the ranking due to the fact it uses the low degrees of
influence LOW and NO INFLUENCE as depreciation rates for the score of each
factor (Cicco, 2017).
It is
possible to verify that a distribution among the categories of CSFs happened in
Table 8: the factors in the category Personnel were the most important ones,
followed by a mix between the ones in the categories Technical/Process and
Organizational. It shows how important it is for the company to invest in the
Personnel area for the management and development of quality software.
Something
curious is the fact that the CSF “Poorly Characterized Risk Planning” obtained
the last place in the ranking of importance. This factor is quite important for
a good project plan, and consequently important to meet the budget and delivery
goals. Likewise, the CSF “Tools Support” obtained the penultimate place,
evidencing the lack of concern by the companies about the necessity to invest
in development tools, tests and project follow-ups. Lastly, the position of the
CSF “Project Management Norms and Procedures” in the ranking should be more
relevant, because many respondents of the survey belong to the project
management area.
5 CONCLUSION
The purpose of
this study, in addition to identifying the CSFs associated with agile software
development environments, was to examine how professionals perceive the
relative influence of these factors on software quality and process
improvement. By integrating evidence from the literature with empirical data
collected from Brazilian software professionals, this research provides a
structured understanding of the factors that are perceived as most relevant to
successful agile implementation.
The literature
review identified 21 CSFs, grouped into Personnel, Organizational and
Technical/Process dimensions. While previous studies have often discussed these
factors individually, this research contributes by consolidating them into an
integrated framework and empirically assessing their perceived influence within
a specific national context. The survey results reinforce the central role of
human-centered factors in agile environments, particularly competence, training
and specialization, teamwork, communication skills, and customer engagement. The
predominance of these factors suggests that organizational investments in agile
transformation should extend beyond the adoption of methodologies and tools,
emphasizing the development of human capabilities and collaborative practices.
A significant
finding emerging from the comparison between literature and empirical evidence
is the relative prominence of Personnel-related CSFs over Technical/Process
factors. This result contributes to the ongoing debate in the agile software
development literature by suggesting that technical practices and tool
integration, while necessary, may not be sufficient conditions for achieving
quality outcomes. Instead, their effectiveness appears to depend on the
existence of organizational and human capabilities that support collaboration,
learning and knowledge sharing.
The study also highlights the
importance of integrated development environments and process automation. We
can notice the necessity of an environment with tools that are integrated with
the process, based on development, tests, activity control, generating products
with quality. The development environment must also have the integration of the
whole team, by exchanging information, content and knowledge.
From a
theoretical standpoint, this study, rather than proposing new factors, refines
existing knowledge by demonstrating how the perceived importance of CSFs is distributed
across different dimensions and by providing evidence that human-related
factors consistently occupy the highest positions in the influence ranking. This
finding contributes to the maturation of the CSF literature by offering a more
nuanced understanding of the relative weight of these factors in practice.
This research shows that the CSFs
found in the literature and validated by the answers obtained in the survey
lead to improvement in the development process with the use of agile methods,
and provide quality to the delivered software. Integrating tools into the
process is possible and essential for the success of the implementation.
Besides, training and integrated environment for the team is quite important to
meet the challenge of developing quality software.
Therefore, we expect that this
research study may contribute to researchers and managers, and that they may be
able to apply it and measure the CSFs and the proposed tools in development
systems. As a suggestion, the identified CSFs can be used in the measurement
area, or as a knowledge basis for other studies.
Nevertheless,
the scope of the contribution should be interpreted within the boundaries of
the research. The findings are based on the perceptions of 101 Brazilian
respondents and therefore reflect a specific cultural, organizational, and
professional context. Consequently, the study´s contribution lies in providing
contextual evidence that can serve as a basis for comparison with other
national and organizational settings.
Future research
should extend the investigation to other countries and organizational contexts,
enabling comparative analyses that examine whether the prominence of
Personnel-related CSFs remains consistent across different cultural and
industrial environments.
REFERENCES
Abdalhamid, S., & Mishra, A. (2017). Factors in agile methods adoption. TEM Journal,
6(2), 416–421. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM62-29
Aldahmash,
A., Gravell, A. M., & Howard, Y. (2017). A review on the critical success factors
of agile software development. In J. Stolfa, S. Stolfa, R. O'Connor, & R. Messnarz (Eds.), Systems, software and services process improvement.
EuroSPI 2017. Communications in
Computer and Information Science, vol. 748
(pp. 504–512). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64218-5_41
Amorim, A. C., Silva, M. M. da, Pereira, R., & Gonçalves,
M. (2021). Using agile methodologies for adopting
COBIT. Information Systems, 101, Article 101496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2020.101496
Ayat, M., Imran, M., Ullah, A., & Kang, C. W. (2021).
Current trends analysis and prioritization of success factors: A systematic literature
review of ICT projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, 14(3), 652–679. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-02-2020-0075
Biesialska, K., Franch, X., & Muntés-Mulero, V.
(2021). Mining dependencies in large-scale agile
software development projects: A quantitative industry study. In EASE 2021: Evaluation and Assessment in
Software Engineering (pp. 20–29). https://doi.org/10.1145/3463274.3463323
Carosia,
J. S. (2004). Levantamento da qualidade do processo de software
com foco em pequenas organizações [Dissertação de Mestrado, INPE,
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais]. http://mtc-m16.sid.inpe.br/col/sid.inpe.br/jeferson/2003/12.03.10.17/doc/publicacao.pdf
Chiyangwa, T., & Mnkandla, E. (2017).
Modelling the critical success factors of agile software development projects
in South Africa. SAJIM South African
Journal of Information Management, 19(1), Article 838. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v19i1.838
Cicco, L. R. (2017). Fatores
críticos de sucesso na implantação de electronic document management system
[Dissertação de Mestrado, Departamento de Engenharia de Produção, Universidade
Federal Fluminense, Niterói, RJ]. Repositório Institucional da UFF. https://app.uff.br/riuff/bitstream/handle/1/9037/Dissert%20Leandro-De%20Cicco.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Cockburn, A., & Highsmith, J. (2001).
Agile software development: The business of innovation. Computer,
34(9), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1109/2.947100
Conceição, J., & Silveira, S. R. (2018). Aplicação de metodologias ágeis para desenvolvimento
de software: Um estudo de caso na empresa Alliance Software. Revista Eletrônica de Sistemas de Informação
e Gestão Tecnológica, 9(1), 136–155.
Costa, H. G. (2010). Modelo para webibliomining: Proposta e
caso de aplicação. Revista da FAE,
13(1), 115–126.
Costinhas,
C. E., & Santos, G. (2014). Adoção de práticas ágeis em um ambiente
Tradicional: Um estudo de caso. Anais do XIII Simpósio Brasileiro de
Qualidade de Software (pp. 239-246). https://sol.sbc.org.br/index.php/sbqs/article/view/15256/15100
Cruz Estrada, I., & Miranda Zavala, A. (2019). La
adopción de las tic en restaurantes de Puerto Nuevo, Rosarito, Baja California.
Innovar, 29(72), 59–76.
https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v29n72.77932
Díaz
Pinzón, B. H., Gómez Medina, J. S., García González, J. D., Melo Román, H. A.,
& Sanabria Villamizar, F. E. (2017). Contribución de las iniciativas de
tecnologías de la información en las organizaciones: Una revisión de la
literatura. Innovar, 27(66),
41–55. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v27n66.66710
Digalwar, A. K., Haridas, P., & Joseph, I. N. (2014). Development and validation of quality
management constructs for software industries: An empirical investigation from
India. International Journal of Services
and Operations Management, 17(4), 453–478.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2014.060003
Dikert, K., Paasivaara, M., &
Lassenius, C. (2016). Challenges and success factors for large-scale agile
transformations: A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 119, 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.06.013
Fronza,
I., & Wang, X. (2021). Social loafing prevention in agile
software development teams using team expectations agreements. IET
Software, 15(3), 214–229. https://doi.org/10.1049/sfw2.12019
Ghayyur, S. A. K., Ahmed, S., Ali, M.,
Razzaq, A., Ahmed, N., & Naseem, A. (2018). A systematic literature review
of success factors and barriers of agile software development. International Journal of Advanced Computer
Science and Applications, 9(3), 278–291.
https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2018.090339
Gray, D. E. (2012). Pesquisa
no mundo real. Penso.
Gren, L., Knauss, A., & Stettina, C. J. (2018). Non-technical individual skills are weakly
connected to the maturity of agile practices. Information and Software Technology, 99, 11–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2018.02.006
Hillenbrand, A., Störl, U., Nabiyev, S., &
Klettke, M. (2022). Self-adapting data migration in the context of schema
evolution in NoSQL databases. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 40, 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10619-021-07334-1
Huerta
Riveros, P. C., Almodóvar Martínez, P., & Pedraja Rejas, L. M. (2015). Factores
que impactan los resultados empresariales: Un estudio comparativo entre
empresas chilenas y españolas. Innovar, 25(56),
21–41. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v25n56.48987
Medeiros, J. D. R. V., Alves, D. C.
P., Vasconcelos, A. M. L., Schuenemann, C. T. L. L. S., & Wanderley, E.
(2015). Engenharia de requisitos em projetos ágeis: Uma revisão sistemática da
literatura. Revista Principia: Divulgação Científica e Tecnológica do IFPB, 28, 11–24.
https://doi.org/10.18265/1517-03062015v1n28p11-24
Medeiros, J., Vasconcelos, A. M. L.,
Silva, C., & Goulão, M. (2018). Quality of software requirements specification in agile projects: A cross-case
analysis of six companies. Journal of
Systems and Software, 142, 171–194.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.04.064
Mohanarajah, S.,
& Jabar, M. (2015). An improved adaptive and dynamic hybrid agile
methodology to enhance software project success deliveries. Journal of Theoretical and Applied
Information Technology, 75(3), 301–325.
Muhammad, A., Siddique, A., Naveed, Q. N.,
Saleem, U., Hasan, M. A., & Shahzad, B. (2021). Investigating crucial factors
of agile software development through composite approach. Intelligent
Automation and Soft Computing, 27(1),
15–34. https://doi.org/10.32604
Neelu, L., & Kavitha, D. (2021). Estimation
of software quality parameters for hybrid agile process model. SN
Applied Sciences, 3(3),
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04305-0
Oliveira, B. H. (2014). Qualidade
de software no desenvolvimento com métodos ágeis [Dissertação de Mestrado,
Instituto de Ciências Matemáticas e de Computação, Universidade de São Paulo]. https://teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/55/55134/tde-12082014-165244/publico/BrunoOliveira_revisada.pdf
Pacheco, D. A. D. J., Reis, C. E.
D., & Jung, C. F. (2020). Método de estratégia de manufatura para
terceirizadas calçadistas orientado à agile manufacturing. Innovar, 30(75), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v30n75.83260
Paixão, T. R. (2014). A
influência dos fatores críticos de sucesso na gestão por processos de negócio
do BPM [Dissertação de Mestrado, Departamento de Engenharia de Produção,
Universidade Federal Fluminense]. Repositório Institucional da Universidade
Federal Fluminense. https://app.uff.br/riuff/handle/1/20786
Pekki, J. (2016).
How the company manages critical success factors in software process improvement
initiatives: Pilot case-study in finnish software company. In C. Kreiner, R. O'Connor, A. Poth, & R. Messnarz (Eds.),
Systems, software and services
process improvement. EuroSPI 2016. Communications in Computer and Information
Science, vol. 633. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44817-6_15
Pressman, R. S. (2010). Software engineering – A practitioner’s approach
(7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Silva, K. M. B.,
& Santos, S. C. (2015). Critical factors in agile software projects
according to people, process and technology perspective. Proceedings of the 6th Brazilian Workshop on Agile Methods, 48–54.
https://doi.org/10.1109/WBMA.2015.19
Šmite,
D., Moe, N. B., & Gonzalez-Huerta, J. (2021). Overcoming cultural barriers to being agile in distributed teams. Information
and Software Technology, 138,
Article 106612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106612
Sommerville, I. (2007). Software
engineering (8th ed.). Pearson Addison Wesley.
Souza, M. L. P., Souza, W. C., Freitas, J. S., Melo Filho, L.
D. R., & Bagno, R. B. (2022). Agile roadmapping: A management tool for
digital entrepreneurship. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(1), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.3027918
Tabares Quiroz, J., Correa Vélez, S., & Herrera
Caballero, J. M. (2021). Metamorfosis organizacionales del cambio tecnológico: Integración
de sistemas informáticos en una organización de salud colombiana. Innovar, 31(79), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v31n79.91894
Tsoy, M., & Staples, D. S. (2020). Exploring
critical success factors in agile analytics projects. Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2020.122