Since the early days of software engineering, a number of methods, processes, and practices to design and develop software systems have been proposed and applied in industry, e.g., the Rational Unified Process, Agile Software Development, etc. However, since no silver bullet exists, organizations use rich combinations of agile and/or traditional methods and practices, rather than following a single process by the book. To investigate this reality, an international exploratory multistage research project named HELENA (Hybrid DEveLopmENt Approaches in software systems development) was initiated. Currently, the HELENA survey is conducted globally (second stage of HELENA project). This short paper presents and discusses the results of the survey in Danmark compared to the global results based on the data from August 15, 2017.</p

Pagh Schultz, Ulrik

Pfeiffer, Rolf-Helge

Tell, Paolo

Pfeiffer, Rolf Helge

Schultz, Ulrik Pagh

Syddansk Universitets Forskerportal

HELENA stage 2—danish overview

Since the early days of software engineering, a number of methods, processes, and practices to design and develop software systems have been proposed and applied in industry, e.g., the Rational Unified Process, Agile Software Development, etc. However, since no silver bullet exists, organizations use rich combinations of agile and/or traditional methods and practices, rather than following a single process by the book. To investigate this reality, an international exploratory multistage research project named HELENA (Hybrid DEveLopmENt Approaches in software systems development) was initiated. Currently, the HELENA survey is conducted globally (second stage of HELENA project). This short paper presents and discusses the results of the survey in Danmark compared to the global results based on the data from August 15, 2017

The IT University of Copenhagen's Repository

HELENA Stage 2—Danish OverviewPaolo Tell1, Rolf-Helge Pfei↵er2, and Ulrik Pagh Schultz31 IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark,pate@itu.dk2 Copenhagen Business Academy, Denmark,rhp@cphbusiness.dk3 University of Southern Denmark, Denmark,ups@mmmi.sdu.dkAbstract. Since the early days of software engineering, a number ofmethods, processes, and practices to design and develop software systemshave been proposed and applied in industry, e.g., the Rational UnifiedProcess, Agile Software Development, etc. However, since no silver bulletexists, organizations use rich combinations of agile and/or traditionalmethods and practices, rather than following a single process by thebook. To investigate this reality, an international exploratory multistageresearch project named HELENA (Hybrid DEveLopmENt Approachesin software systems development) was initiated. Currently, the HELENAsurvey is conducted globally (second stage of HELENA project). Thisshort paper presents and discusses the results of the survey in Danmarkcompared to the global results based on the data from August 15, 2017.Keywords: Hybrid development approaches, HELENA1 Introduction to the HELENA ProjectHELENA is an international exploratory multistage survey-based study on theuse of “Hybrid dEveLopmENt Approaches in software systems development”.The project aims at: a) researching the practical application of methods, pro-cesses, and practices in software engineering, and b) development and deploy-ment of new systematic processes to enable more e cient and e↵ective soft-ware development. To achieve these goals the project is designed to collect datathrough a survey4, which has been refined over several iterations. After beingsuccessfully tested within Europe in project stage one [2], the HELENA projectis currently in stage two, in which the survey is conducted globally in morethan 25 countries. A third and final stage will conclude the project. In stagethree, focus groups will perform in depth research on community-defined topicsof interest, based on the results of stage two.With this paper, we aim (i) to identify potentially interesting similarities anddi↵erences of the current Danish results compared to the overall global ones; (ii)to assess whether results from stage one can be confirmed focusing on the Danish4 HELENA survey accessible from www.soscisurvey.de/HELENA/2population; and (iii) to establish a base for more in-depth research at the end ofthe survey, at the end of Sept. 2017.In particular, Section 2 presents and discusses an overview of the results ofthe survey in Danmark compared to the global results (including the Danishones) based on the data from August 15, 2017. Furthermore, focusing only onthe Danish data set, in Section 3 we replicate the analysis performed on thedata set from project stage one [3], and we assess whether the main results ofstage one are in line with the ones collected from Denmark in stage two. Finally,Section 4 wraps up the main finding and briefly suggests future directions thatthe Danish team will consider.1.1 The Danish ParticipationThe Danish HELENA research team consists of 4 members (see Table 1 forcontacts and a liations). Since the beginning of project stage two, the teaminvited 132 individuals via personal email (127) or mailing lists and physicalmeetings (5) to answer the survey. Of these, 22 fully completed the survey, i.e.,response rate of ca. 16.6%. Finally, at least 13 (ca. 9.8%) individuals started thesurvey but did not complete it.Table 1. Danish team—Contacts.Paolo Tell pate@itu.dk IT University of Copenhagen, CopenhagenRolf-Helge Pfei↵er rhp@cphbusiness.dk Copenhagen Business Academy, CopenhagenBrad Beach brbe@mmmi.sdu.dk University of Southern Denmark, OdenseUlrik Pagh Schultz ups@mmmi.sdu.dk University of Southern Denmark, Odense2 DemographicsExcept of two, all respondents have at least three years of working experience andthe majority (13 out of 32) are senior with more than ten years of experience,see Figure 1. This distribution is similar to the world-wide demographics, seeorange line in Figure 1.The Danish respondents are mostly product managers/owners, developers,and architects, see Figure 2. That is interesting, as it is firstly, di↵erent from theworld-wide population, see orange bars in Figure 2, and secondly, it suggests amore agile development environment in those companies as fewer project/teammanagers participated and no participant selected positions like analyst/require-ment engineer, quality manager, tester, and trainer. Of course, these Danishresults may be heavily biased by the selection of survey participants (in essencewe activated every practitioner we know) and may be not representative of theentire Danish software industry.30.0% 9.1% 22.7% 9.1% 59.1% 2.4% 4.6% 14.0% 16.0% 63.1% 010203040506070<1	year 1-2	years 3-5	years 6-10	years >10	yearsDenmark	 (N=22) World	(N=501) Fig. 1. Overview of the experience level as stated by the participants.0.0% 13.6% 9.1% 18.2% 22.7% 13.6% 0.0% 13.6% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 5.0% 8.4% 7.6% 25.0% 9.8% 21.4% 4.6% 7.0% 1.8% 1.2% 8.4% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30Analyst/Requirements	EngineerArchitectC-level	Management	 (e.g.,	CIO,	CTO,	etc.)DeveloperProduct	Manager/OwnerProject/Team	 ManagerQuality	ManagerScrum	Master/Agile	 CoachTesterTrainerOther:Denmark	 (N=22) World	(N=501) Fig. 2. Overview of the roles as stated by the participants.9.1% 31.8% 18.2% 9.1% 31.8% 0.0% 11.6% 15.0% 27.5% 24.0% 21.8% 0.2% 05101520253035Micro<10	employeesSmall11-50	emp.Medium51-250	emp.Large251-2499	emp.Very	Large>2500	emp.Not	answeredDenmark	 (N=22) World	(N=501) Fig. 3. Overview of the size of the companies as stated by the participants.40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Cloud	Applications	and	Services	(e.g.,	data	storage,	…Web	Applications	and	Services	(e.g.,	portals,	shops)OtherFinancial	Services	 (e.g.	Banking,	Insurance,	Trading)Mobile	ApplicationsRobotics	(e.g.,	autonomous	robots,	UAVs/drones)Other	Information	Systems	(e.g.	ERP,	SAP,	etc.)Other	Embedded	Systems	and	ServicesEnergy	 (e.g.,	Smart	Grid,	renewable	 energy)Home	Automation	and	Smart	BuildingsGamesAutomotive	Software	and	SystemsMedia	and	Entertainment	 (e.g.,	 photos,	TV)Denmark	 (N=37)Fig. 4. Overview of the application domain of the companies as stated by the partici-pants. Note: multiple selection was enabled.Nonetheless, Figure 3 illustrates, that not only small and medium-sized en-terprises are represented—which might favor a more agile development environ-ment—but that approx. a third of the respondents works in large companies.The application domain of the companies is very diverse. Most respondentswork in the areas of cloud-, web-applications and services, see Figure 4. However,also robotics, home automation, and automotive software is represented, whichis interesting for a country without car manufacturing. Even though existent inDanmark, there are no responses from the healthcare domain. This particulardomain has been discussed within the ‘safety’ focus point identified during thefirst HELENA workshop5 [4].3 Applied Methods and Practices in DanmarkCurrently, our hypothesis is that the Danish software industry is more inclined toapply agile software development. To investigate this, we focused on the data setgenerated by Danish respondents, and we analyzed the list of methods and prac-tices selected. This section presents the breakdown of the methods and practicesbased on the company size and the industry sectors (see see Figure 2).This analysis was first done on the HELENA data set for stage one [3].However, this analysis di↵ers in a few ways. First, since stage one, the list ofmethods and practices alphabetically listed in the survey has changed to im-prove the instrument, and the HELENA team has yet to discuss and agree on acategorization of both the methods and the practices before the end of projectstage two. Therefore, this analysis relies on a categorization based on prior ex-perience and previously used classifications (e.g., [1]). Appendix A provides the5 The first international HELENA workshop was held co-located with the 2017 Inter-national Conference on Software and Systems Process (ICSSP).5Table 2. Overview of the relative use of the di↵erent approaches based on (a) companysize and (b) industry sector. For each item, the quantity is computed by counting thenumber of companies of, e.g., a particular size that have marked, e.g., a traditionalmethod with at least a 5 (i.e., “we sometimes use it”). Note: while participants had toselect exactly one company size, they could select multiple industry sectors in whichtheir company is engaged.QTY Traditional Agile BothApproachesSelected Traditional Agile BothApproachesSelectedMicro (<10) 2 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% 5 10.5% 36.8% 52.6% 19Small (11-50) 7 0.0% 79.4% 20.6% 34 8.3% 56.5% 35.2% 108Medium (51-250) 4 21.1% 57.9% 21.1% 19 12.9% 55.7% 31.4% 70Large (>250) 2 21.1% 63.2% 15.8% 19 12.1% 53.4% 34.5% 58Very Large (>2500) 7 24.4% 58.5% 17.1% 41 15.4% 52.3% 32.2% 149Average  13.3% 63.8% 22.9% 11.8% 51.0% 37.2%Deviation  10.6% 6.2% 6.8% 1.9% 5.6% 6.2%Cloud Applications and Services (e.g., data storage, SaaS) 6 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% 32 9.0% 54.1% 36.9% 111Web Applications and Services (e.g., portals, shops) 5 0.0% 70.8% 29.2% 24 10.9% 51.1% 38.0% 92Other 5 26.7% 60.0% 13.3% 30 16.3% 52.0% 31.6% 98Financial Services (e.g. Banking, Insurance, Trading) 3 13.3% 80.0% 6.7% 15 8.0% 60.0% 32.0% 50Mobile Applications 3 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% 12 7.8% 52.9% 39.2% 51Robotics (e.g., autonomous robots, UAVs/drones) 3 20.0% 55.0% 25.0% 20 16.1% 46.4% 37.5% 56Other Information Systems (e.g. ERP, SAP, etc.) 2 30.0% 50.0% 20.0% 10 13.0% 50.0% 37.0% 46Other Embedded Systems and Services 2 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 3 19.0% 47.6% 33.3% 21Energy (e.g., Smart Grid, renewable energy) 2 23.8% 61.9% 14.3% 21 12.7% 52.7% 34.5% 55Home Automation and Smart Buildings 2 42.9% 50.0% 7.1% 14 19.5% 51.2% 29.3% 41Games 2 11.1% 66.7% 22.2% 9 6.9% 58.6% 34.5% 29Automotive Software and Systems 1 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 4 12.5% 50.0% 37.5% 16Media and Entertainment (e.g., photos, TV) 1 0.0% 83.3% 16.7% 6 5.3% 57.9% 36.8% 19Average  16.8% 63.0% 20.2% 12.1% 52.7% 35.3%Deviation  14.3% 11.7% 6.6% 3.8% 3.1% 2.5%Method Practicefull categorization for reference. Second, the scale used for these variables in thesurvey changed from being binary to a 7-point Likert scale6. Third, di↵erentlyfrom the analysis performed in stage one, the data aggregation herein performedhave been executed by keeping the methods and the practices separated.Table 2, shows clearly that the majority of Danish software producers applyagile methods—on average   63.0%—independent of company size and sector,see Figure 5. A notable exception are companies producing automotive software,which tend more to apply traditional methods.On average, more than half of the Danish companies—disregarding size andsectors—apply agile practices, even those developing automotive software. How-ever, companies with less than ten employees appear to be less agile in practice,likely due to the lack of ‘teams’ as such.Furthermore, the analysis in Table 2 supports one of the main results ofproject stage one [3], namely, that hybrid approaches emerge regardless of com-pany size and industry sector (  20.2%).Notably, and di↵erently from earlier results [3], it seems that companies withless than 50 employees in Denmark do not use ‘traditional’ methods and onlysome ‘traditional’ practices. Similarly, it seems that ‘younger’ sectors, such asmedia and entertainment, games, and mobile applications are least ‘traditional’6 The survey variables PU09 and PU10 changed scale from project stage one to two.Earlier they were binary, now they are on a 7-point Likert scale: 1: ‘Do not knowthe framework’; 2: ‘Do not know if we use it’; 3: ‘We never use it’; 4: ‘We rarely useit’; 5: ‘We sometimes use it’; 6: ‘We often use it’; 7: ‘We always use the framework’.616.8% 13.3% 63.0% 63.8% 20.2% 22.9% 12.1% 11.8% 52.7% 51.0% 35.3% 37.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Industry	SectorCompany	SizeMethod:Traditional Method:Agile Method:Both Practice:Traditional Practice:Agile Practice:BothFig. 5.Overview of the breakdown provided in Table 2 generated based on the averages.in their practices. Interestingly, financial services report similar low applicationof ‘traditional’ practices, all below 10%.We are aware that this analysis is premature and potentially misleading asonly 22 respondents from Danmark are registered so far. To strengthen ouranalysis and to confirm the tendencies we encourage more participants from theDanish software industry to take the survey.4 Conclusion and Final RemarksIn this short paper, we have presented and analyzed the current results of theDanish HELENA stage two survey, based on the data from August 15, 2017.The trends seem to be in line with the entire data set as well as the resultsidentified during the first stage of the project: traditional and agile methodsand practices are combined with each other regardless of company size and in-dustry sector. Nevertheless, some interesting di↵erences are present in both thepopulation and the data, which seem to indicate that Danish enterprises mightfavor a more agile development environment. The grounds for these di↵erencesand the extend to which methods and practices are combined will be furtherinvestigated once the survey will be closed. To this end, the Danish team willcertainly attempt to promote and advertise more the HELENA survey, as at-tracting additional participation will be crucial to reach deeper and statisticallysound insights.Acknowledgements. We would like to thank—also on behalf of the entire HE-LENA team—all those who took part in the survey and that helped us collectingdata.References1. P. Diebold and T. Zehler. The right degree of agility in rich processes. In Kuhrmannet al. (Eds.) Managing Software Process Evolution, pages 15–37. Springer, 2016.2. M. Kuhrmann, P. Diebold, J. Münch, P. Tell, V. Garousi, M. Felderer, K. Trektere,F. McCa↵ery, O. Linssen, E. Hanser, and C. R. Prause. Hybrid software and systemdevelopment in practice: Waterfall, scrum, and beyond. In Proceedings of the 20177International Conference on Software and System Process, ICSSP 2017, pages 30–39, New York, NY, USA, 2017. ACM.3. M. Kuhrmann, P. Diebold, J. Münch, P. Tell, K. Trektere, F. McCa↵ery, V. Garousi,M. Felderer, O. Linssen, E. Hanser, and C. R. Prause. Hybrid software developmentapproaches in practice: A european perspective. IEEE Software., (in press) 2017.4. M. Kuhrmann, J. Münch, P. Tell, and P. Diebold. Summary of the 1st interna-tional workshop on hybrid development approaches in software systems develop-ment. ACM, 2017.A Categorization of Methods and PracticesVariable Categorization7DescriptionMethodsPU09 01 Traditional Classic Waterfall ProcessPU09 15 Traditional Phase / Stagegate modelPU09 16 Traditional PRINCE2PU09 17 Traditional Rational Unified ProcessPU09 21 Traditional* Spiral ModelPU09 22 Traditional Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method (SSADM)PU09 24 Traditional Vshaped Process (VModel)PU09 03 Agile DevOpsPU09 05 Agile Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM)PU09 06 Agile eXtreme Programming (XP)PU09 07 Agile Feature Driven Development (FDD)PU09 09 Agile KanbanPU09 10 Agile LargeScale Scrum (LESS)PU09 11 Agile Lean Software DevelopmentPU09 13 Agile NexusPU09 18 Agile Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe)PU09 19 Agile ScrumPU09 20 Agile ScrumBanPU09 02 Both Crystal FamilyPU09 04 Both DomainDriven DesignPU09 08 Both Iterative DevelopmentPU09 12 Both ModelDriven Architecture (MDA)PU09 14 Both Personal Software ProcessPU09 23 Both Team Software ProcessPracticesPU10 01 Traditional Architecture SpecificationsPU10 03 Traditional Automated Theorem ProvingPU10 16 Traditional Detailed Designs/Design SpecificationsPU10 19 Traditional Expert/Team based estimation (e.g. Planning Poker)PU10 20 Traditional* Formal estimation (e.g. COCOMO, FP)PU10 21 Traditional Formal SpecificationPU10 24 Traditional Model CheckingPU10 36 Traditional Use Case Modeling (as Requirements Engineering Practice)PU10 05 Agile Backlog ManagementPU10 06 Agile BurnDown Charts (as Progress Monitoring Practice)PU10 09 Agile Collective code ownershipPU10 10 Agile Continuous deploymentPU10 11 Agile Continuous integrationPU10 12 Agile Daily StandupPU10 13 Agile Definition of done / readyPU10 15 Agile* Destructive TestingPU10 23 Agile Iteration/Sprint ReviewsPU10 17 Agile Limit WorkinProgress (e.g., using Kanban board)PU10 25 Agile OnSite CustomerPU10 28 Agile* RefactoringPU10 29 Agile Release planningPU10 30 Agile RetrospectivesPU10 31 Agile ScrumofScrumsPU10 34 Agile User Stories (as Requirements Engineering Practice)PU10 35 Agile Velocitybased planningPU10 02 Both Automated Code GenerationPU10 04 Both Automated Unit TestingPU10 07 Both Code reviewPU10 08 Both Coding standardsPU10 14 Both Design ReviewsPU10 18 Both EndtoEnd (System) TestingPU10 22 Both Iteration PlanningPU10 26 Both Pair ProgrammingPU10 27 Both PrototypingPU10 32 Both Security TestingPU10 33 Both Testdriven Development (TDD)7 Note that the items which categorization is marked in italic with a * symbol areconsidered particularly debatable.

English

HELENA Stage 2—Danish Overview

HELENA Stage 2—Danish OverviewPaolo Tell1, Rolf-Helge Pfei↵er2, and Ulrik Pagh Schultz31 IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark,pate@itu.dk2 Copenhagen Business Academy, Denmark,rhp@cphbusiness.dk3 University of Southern Denmark, Denmark,ups@mmmi.sdu.dkAbstract. Since the early days of software engineering, a number ofmethods, processes, and practices to design and develop software systemshave been proposed and applied in industry, e.g., the Rational UnifiedProcess, Agile Software Development, etc. However, since no silver bulletexists, organizations use rich combinations of agile and/or traditionalmethods and practices, rather than following a single process by thebook. To investigate this reality, an international exploratory multistageresearch project named HELENA (Hybrid DEveLopmENt Approachesin software systems development) was initiated. Currently, the HELENAsurvey is conducted globally (second stage of HELENA project). Thisshort paper presents and discusses the results of the survey in Danmarkcompared to the global results based on the data from August 15, 2017.Keywords: Hybrid development approaches, HELENA1 Introduction to the HELENA ProjectHELENA is an international exploratory multistage survey-based study on theuse of “Hybrid dEveLopmENt Approaches in software systems development”.The project aims at: a) researching the practical application of methods, pro-cesses, and practices in software engineering, and b) development and deploy-ment of new systematic processes to enable more e cient and e↵ective soft-ware development. To achieve these goals the project is designed to collect datathrough a survey4, which has been refined over several iterations. After beingsuccessfully tested within Europe in project stage one [2], the HELENA projectis currently in stage two, in which the survey is conducted globally in morethan 25 countries. A third and final stage will conclude the project. In stagethree, focus groups will perform in depth research on community-defined topicsof interest, based on the results of stage two.With this paper, we aim (i) to identify potentially interesting similarities anddi↵erences of the current Danish results compared to the overall global ones; (ii)to assess whether results from stage one can be confirmed focusing on the Danish4 HELENA survey accessible from www.soscisurvey.de/HELENA/2population; and (iii) to establish a base for more in-depth research at the end ofthe survey, at the end of Sept. 2017.In particular, Section 2 presents and discusses an overview of the results ofthe survey in Danmark compared to the global results (including the Danishones) based on the data from August 15, 2017. Furthermore, focusing only onthe Danish data set, in Section 3 we replicate the analysis performed on thedata set from project stage one [3], and we assess whether the main results ofstage one are in line with the ones collected from Denmark in stage two. Finally,Section 4 wraps up the main finding and briefly suggests future directions thatthe Danish team will consider.1.1 The Danish ParticipationThe Danish HELENA research team consists of 4 members (see Table 1 forcontacts and a liations). Since the beginning of project stage two, the teaminvited 132 individuals via personal email (127) or mailing lists and physicalmeetings (5) to answer the survey. Of these, 22 fully completed the survey, i.e.,response rate of ca. 16.6%. Finally, at least 13 (ca. 9.8%) individuals started thesurvey but did not complete it.Table 1. Danish team—Contacts.Paolo Tell pate@itu.dk IT University of Copenhagen, CopenhagenRolf-Helge Pfei↵er rhp@cphbusiness.dk Copenhagen Business Academy, CopenhagenBrad Beach brbe@mmmi.sdu.dk University of Southern Denmark, OdenseUlrik Pagh Schultz ups@mmmi.sdu.dk University of Southern Denmark, Odense2 DemographicsExcept of two, all respondents have at least three years of working experience andthe majority (13 out of 32) are senior with more than ten years of experience,see Figure 1. This distribution is similar to the world-wide demographics, seeorange line in Figure 1.The Danish respondents are mostly product managers/owners, developers,and architects, see Figure 2. That is interesting, as it is firstly, di↵erent from theworld-wide population, see orange bars in Figure 2, and secondly, it suggests amore agile development environment in those companies as fewer project/teammanagers participated and no participant selected positions like analyst/require-ment engineer, quality manager, tester, and trainer. Of course, these Danishresults may be heavily biased by the selection of survey participants (in essencewe activated every practitioner we know) and may be not representative of theentire Danish software industry.30.0% 9.1% 22.7% 9.1% 59.1% 2.4% 4.6% 14.0% 16.0% 63.1% 010203040506070<1	year 1-2	years 3-5	years 6-10	years >10	yearsDenmark	 (N=22) World	(N=501) Fig. 1. Overview of the experience level as stated by the participants.0.0% 13.6% 9.1% 18.2% 22.7% 13.6% 0.0% 13.6% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 5.0% 8.4% 7.6% 25.0% 9.8% 21.4% 4.6% 7.0% 1.8% 1.2% 8.4% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30Analyst/Requirements	EngineerArchitectC-level	Management	 (e.g.,	CIO,	CTO,	etc.)DeveloperProduct	Manager/OwnerProject/Team	 ManagerQuality	ManagerScrum	Master/Agile	 CoachTesterTrainerOther:Denmark	 (N=22) World	(N=501) Fig. 2. Overview of the roles as stated by the participants.9.1% 31.8% 18.2% 9.1% 31.8% 0.0% 11.6% 15.0% 27.5% 24.0% 21.8% 0.2% 05101520253035Micro<10	employeesSmall11-50	emp.Medium51-250	emp.Large251-2499	emp.Very	Large>2500	emp.Not	answeredDenmark	 (N=22) World	(N=501) Fig. 3. Overview of the size of the companies as stated by the participants.40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7Cloud	Applications	and	Services	(e.g.,	data	storage,	…Web	Applications	and	Services	(e.g.,	portals,	shops)OtherFinancial	Services	 (e.g.	Banking,	Insurance,	Trading)Mobile	ApplicationsRobotics	(e.g.,	autonomous	robots,	UAVs/drones)Other	Information	Systems	(e.g.	ERP,	SAP,	etc.)Other	Embedded	Systems	and	ServicesEnergy	 (e.g.,	Smart	Grid,	renewable	 energy)Home	Automation	and	Smart	BuildingsGamesAutomotive	Software	and	SystemsMedia	and	Entertainment	 (e.g.,	 photos,	TV)Denmark	 (N=37)Fig. 4. Overview of the application domain of the companies as stated by the partici-pants. Note: multiple selection was enabled.Nonetheless, Figure 3 illustrates, that not only small and medium-sized en-terprises are represented—which might favor a more agile development environ-ment—but that approx. a third of the respondents works in large companies.The application domain of the companies is very diverse. Most respondentswork in the areas of cloud-, web-applications and services, see Figure 4. However,also robotics, home automation, and automotive software is represented, whichis interesting for a country without car manufacturing. Even though existent inDanmark, there are no responses from the healthcare domain. This particulardomain has been discussed within the ‘safety’ focus point identified during thefirst HELENA workshop5 [4].3 Applied Methods and Practices in DanmarkCurrently, our hypothesis is that the Danish software industry is more inclined toapply agile software development. To investigate this, we focused on the data setgenerated by Danish respondents, and we analyzed the list of methods and prac-tices selected. This section presents the breakdown of the methods and practicesbased on the company size and the industry sectors (see see Figure 2).This analysis was first done on the HELENA data set for stage one [3].However, this analysis di↵ers in a few ways. First, since stage one, the list ofmethods and practices alphabetically listed in the survey has changed to im-prove the instrument, and the HELENA team has yet to discuss and agree on acategorization of both the methods and the practices before the end of projectstage two. Therefore, this analysis relies on a categorization based on prior ex-perience and previously used classifications (e.g., [1]). Appendix A provides the5 The first international HELENA workshop was held co-located with the 2017 Inter-national Conference on Software and Systems Process (ICSSP).5Table 2. Overview of the relative use of the di↵erent approaches based on (a) companysize and (b) industry sector. For each item, the quantity is computed by counting thenumber of companies of, e.g., a particular size that have marked, e.g., a traditionalmethod with at least a 5 (i.e., “we sometimes use it”). Note: while participants had toselect exactly one company size, they could select multiple industry sectors in whichtheir company is engaged.QTY Traditional Agile BothApproachesSelected Traditional Agile BothApproachesSelectedMicro (<10) 2 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% 5 10.5% 36.8% 52.6% 19Small (11-50) 7 0.0% 79.4% 20.6% 34 8.3% 56.5% 35.2% 108Medium (51-250) 4 21.1% 57.9% 21.1% 19 12.9% 55.7% 31.4% 70Large (>250) 2 21.1% 63.2% 15.8% 19 12.1% 53.4% 34.5% 58Very Large (>2500) 7 24.4% 58.5% 17.1% 41 15.4% 52.3% 32.2% 149Average  13.3% 63.8% 22.9% 11.8% 51.0% 37.2%Deviation  10.6% 6.2% 6.8% 1.9% 5.6% 6.2%Cloud Applications and Services (e.g., data storage, SaaS) 6 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% 32 9.0% 54.1% 36.9% 111Web Applications and Services (e.g., portals, shops) 5 0.0% 70.8% 29.2% 24 10.9% 51.1% 38.0% 92Other 5 26.7% 60.0% 13.3% 30 16.3% 52.0% 31.6% 98Financial Services (e.g. Banking, Insurance, Trading) 3 13.3% 80.0% 6.7% 15 8.0% 60.0% 32.0% 50Mobile Applications 3 0.0% 75.0% 25.0% 12 7.8% 52.9% 39.2% 51Robotics (e.g., autonomous robots, UAVs/drones) 3 20.0% 55.0% 25.0% 20 16.1% 46.4% 37.5% 56Other Information Systems (e.g. ERP, SAP, etc.) 2 30.0% 50.0% 20.0% 10 13.0% 50.0% 37.0% 46Other Embedded Systems and Services 2 0.0% 66.7% 33.3% 3 19.0% 47.6% 33.3% 21Energy (e.g., Smart Grid, renewable energy) 2 23.8% 61.9% 14.3% 21 12.7% 52.7% 34.5% 55Home Automation and Smart Buildings 2 42.9% 50.0% 7.1% 14 19.5% 51.2% 29.3% 41Games 2 11.1% 66.7% 22.2% 9 6.9% 58.6% 34.5% 29Automotive Software and Systems 1 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 4 12.5% 50.0% 37.5% 16Media and Entertainment (e.g., photos, TV) 1 0.0% 83.3% 16.7% 6 5.3% 57.9% 36.8% 19Average  16.8% 63.0% 20.2% 12.1% 52.7% 35.3%Deviation  14.3% 11.7% 6.6% 3.8% 3.1% 2.5%Method Practicefull categorization for reference. Second, the scale used for these variables in thesurvey changed from being binary to a 7-point Likert scale6. Third, di↵erentlyfrom the analysis performed in stage one, the data aggregation herein performedhave been executed by keeping the methods and the practices separated.Table 2, shows clearly that the majority of Danish software producers applyagile methods—on average   63.0%—independent of company size and sector,see Figure 5. A notable exception are companies producing automotive software,which tend more to apply traditional methods.On average, more than half of the Danish companies—disregarding size andsectors—apply agile practices, even those developing automotive software. How-ever, companies with less than ten employees appear to be less agile in practice,likely due to the lack of ‘teams’ as such.Furthermore, the analysis in Table 2 supports one of the main results ofproject stage one [3], namely, that hybrid approaches emerge regardless of com-pany size and industry sector (  20.2%).Notably, and di↵erently from earlier results [3], it seems that companies withless than 50 employees in Denmark do not use ‘traditional’ methods and onlysome ‘traditional’ practices. Similarly, it seems that ‘younger’ sectors, such asmedia and entertainment, games, and mobile applications are least ‘traditional’6 The survey variables PU09 and PU10 changed scale from project stage one to two.Earlier they were binary, now they are on a 7-point Likert scale: 1: ‘Do not knowthe framework’; 2: ‘Do not know if we use it’; 3: ‘We never use it’; 4: ‘We rarely useit’; 5: ‘We sometimes use it’; 6: ‘We often use it’; 7: ‘We always use the framework’.616.8% 13.3% 63.0% 63.8% 20.2% 22.9% 12.1% 11.8% 52.7% 51.0% 35.3% 37.2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Industry	SectorCompany	SizeMethod:Traditional Method:Agile Method:Both Practice:Traditional Practice:Agile Practice:BothFig. 5.Overview of the breakdown provided in Table 2 generated based on the averages.in their practices. Interestingly, financial services report similar low applicationof ‘traditional’ practices, all below 10%.We are aware that this analysis is premature and potentially misleading asonly 22 respondents from Danmark are registered so far. To strengthen ouranalysis and to confirm the tendencies we encourage more participants from theDanish software industry to take the survey.4 Conclusion and Final RemarksIn this short paper, we have presented and analyzed the current results of theDanish HELENA stage two survey, based on the data from August 15, 2017.The trends seem to be in line with the entire data set as well as the resultsidentified during the first stage of the project: traditional and agile methodsand practices are combined with each other regardless of company size and in-dustry sector. Nevertheless, some interesting di↵erences are present in both thepopulation and the data, which seem to indicate that Danish enterprises mightfavor a more agile development environment. The grounds for these di↵erencesand the extend to which methods and practices are combined will be furtherinvestigated once the survey will be closed. To this end, the Danish team willcertainly attempt to promote and advertise more the HELENA survey, as at-tracting additional participation will be crucial to reach deeper and statisticallysound insights.Acknowledgements. We would like to thank—also on behalf of the entire HE-LENA team—all those who took part in the survey and that helped us collectingdata.References1. P. Diebold and T. Zehler. The right degree of agility in rich processes. In Kuhrmannet al. (Eds.) Managing Software Process Evolution, pages 15–37. Springer, 2016.2. M. Kuhrmann, P. Diebold, J. Mu¨nch, P. Tell, V. Garousi, M. Felderer, K. Trektere,F. McCa↵ery, O. Linssen, E. Hanser, and C. R. Prause. Hybrid software and systemdevelopment in practice: Waterfall, scrum, and beyond. In Proceedings of the 20177International Conference on Software and System Process, ICSSP 2017, pages 30–39, New York, NY, USA, 2017. ACM.3. M. Kuhrmann, P. Diebold, J. Mu¨nch, P. Tell, K. Trektere, F. McCa↵ery, V. Garousi,M. Felderer, O. Linssen, E. Hanser, and C. R. Prause. Hybrid software developmentapproaches in practice: A european perspective. IEEE Software., (in press) 2017.4. M. Kuhrmann, J. Mu¨nch, P. Tell, and P. Diebold. Summary of the 1st interna-tional workshop on hybrid development approaches in software systems develop-ment. ACM, 2017.A Categorization of Methods and PracticesVariable Categorization7 DescriptionMethodsPU09 01 Traditional Classic Waterfall ProcessPU09 15 Traditional Phase / Stagegate modelPU09 16 Traditional PRINCE2PU09 17 Traditional Rational Unified ProcessPU09 21 Traditional* Spiral ModelPU09 22 Traditional Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method (SSADM)PU09 24 Traditional Vshaped Process (VModel)PU09 03 Agile DevOpsPU09 05 Agile Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM)PU09 06 Agile eXtreme Programming (XP)PU09 07 Agile Feature Driven Development (FDD)PU09 09 Agile KanbanPU09 10 Agile LargeScale Scrum (LESS)PU09 11 Agile Lean Software DevelopmentPU09 13 Agile NexusPU09 18 Agile Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe)PU09 19 Agile ScrumPU09 20 Agile ScrumBanPU09 02 Both Crystal FamilyPU09 04 Both DomainDriven DesignPU09 08 Both Iterative DevelopmentPU09 12 Both ModelDriven Architecture (MDA)PU09 14 Both Personal Software ProcessPU09 23 Both Team Software ProcessPracticesPU10 01 Traditional Architecture SpecificationsPU10 03 Traditional Automated Theorem ProvingPU10 16 Traditional Detailed Designs/Design SpecificationsPU10 19 Traditional Expert/Team based estimation (e.g. Planning Poker)PU10 20 Traditional* Formal estimation (e.g. COCOMO, FP)PU10 21 Traditional Formal SpecificationPU10 24 Traditional Model CheckingPU10 36 Traditional Use Case Modeling (as Requirements Engineering Practice)PU10 05 Agile Backlog ManagementPU10 06 Agile BurnDown Charts (as Progress Monitoring Practice)PU10 09 Agile Collective code ownershipPU10 10 Agile Continuous deploymentPU10 11 Agile Continuous integrationPU10 12 Agile Daily StandupPU10 13 Agile Definition of done / readyPU10 15 Agile* Destructive TestingPU10 23 Agile Iteration/Sprint ReviewsPU10 17 Agile Limit WorkinProgress (e.g., using Kanban board)PU10 25 Agile OnSite CustomerPU10 28 Agile* RefactoringPU10 29 Agile Release planningPU10 30 Agile RetrospectivesPU10 31 Agile ScrumofScrumsPU10 34 Agile User Stories (as Requirements Engineering Practice)PU10 35 Agile Velocitybased planningPU10 02 Both Automated Code GenerationPU10 04 Both Automated Unit TestingPU10 07 Both Code reviewPU10 08 Both Coding standardsPU10 14 Both Design ReviewsPU10 18 Both EndtoEnd (System) TestingPU10 22 Both Iteration PlanningPU10 26 Both Pair ProgrammingPU10 27 Both PrototypingPU10 32 Both Security TestingPU10 33 Both Testdriven Development (TDD)7 Note that the items which categorization is marked in italic with a * symbol areconsidered particularly debatable.

HELENA Stage 2—Danish Overview

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Syddansk Universitets Forskerportal

The IT University of Copenhagen's Repository

Syddansk Universitets Forskerportal

The IT University of Copenhagen's Repository

Crossref