Scrum Language Use in a Software Engineering Firm: An Exploratory Study

Erin Friess University of North Texas

Abstract

Background: Although agile and Scrum have been important frameworks in software engineering for over a decade, little research has explored how teams use Scrum language within their sprints. Literature review: Most explorations of Scrum communication have been collected through self-reported means. These studies are inherently unable to explore how Scrum teams use Scrum-centric language in their meetings in ways that adhere or run counter to standard Scrum practice. Research questions: 1. In what ways is Scrum reflected in the language used by team members in various sprint meetings? 2. What associations exist between the job title of team members and their use of Scrum language? 3. What does a discourse analysis reveal about the ways in which this team uses language to value and discount Scrum? Research methodology: For three sprints over 10 weeks, I recorded meetings of 27 Scrum team members. I transcribed these meetings, developed a codebook for assigning Scrum language categories, conducted an interrater reliability agreement on the data, completed a correspondence analysis on how Scrum language associates with meeting types and job titles, and conducted a discourse analysis to determine in what ways these teams value and discount Scrum. Results/discussion: Scrum language was found in all recorded meetings across all three sprints, with much language found in the planning meetings. Few associations existed between Scrum language and job title, suggesting that Scrum at this engineering firm is an egalitarian process. In addition, the discourse analysis revealed that this engineering firm valued User Story and Sprint Execution language while discounting Capacity and Story Pointing language. Conclusions: Although this group broadly adheres to Scrum practices about 68% of the time, this study finds that several current standard components of Scrum are routinely discounted. This exploratory study suggests that more research into the in-situ use of Scrum language in engineering workplaces is necessary to better inform engineering professionals about the communicative expectations of Scrum and to better enable engineering communication educators to prepare future engineers for Scrum realities.

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Published
2019-06-01
DOI
10.1109/tpc.2019.2911461
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (3)

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  2. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  3. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication

Cites in this index (13)

  1. Communication Design Quarterly
  2. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  3. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  4. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  5. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Show all 13 →
  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  2. Technical Communication Quarterly
  3. Technical Communication Quarterly
  4. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  5. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  6. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
  7. Technical Communication Quarterly
  8. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Also cites 46 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.4324/9780203850992
  2. 10.1007/978-3-319-18612-2_4
  3. 10.1145/1723028.1723101
  4. 10.1016/j.im.2015.08.003
  5. 10.1016/j.infsof.2017.12.004
  6. 10.1109/ITNG.2015.139
  7. 10.1049/iet-sen:20070038
  8. 10.17706/jsw.12.3.173-179
  9. 10.15439/2016F362
  10. 10.1016/j.infsof.2010.08.004
  11. 10.24251/HICSS.2018.679
  12. 10.1371/journal.pone.0012426
  13. 10.1002/pa.385
  14. 10.1145/3084226.3084277
  15. 10.1109/HICSS.2007.180
  16. 10.1145/1060710.1060712
  17. 10.1016/j.jss.2016.09.028
  18. 10.1007/978-3-319-16262-1
    Managing Agile Strategy Implementation Organization and People  
  19. 10.1002/9781118085950
  20. 10.4324/9781315750231
  21. 10.1177/1750481318766935
  22. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.002
  23. 10.1177/1750481317691858
  24. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.046
  25. 10.1007/978-3-642-38314-4_4
  26. 10.1111/isj.12053
  27. 10.1109/ESEM.2013.53
  28. 10.1109/AGILE.2011.34
  29. 10.1016/j.infsof.2013.02.013
  30. 10.1007/978-3-319-57633-6_20
  31. 10.1109/SEAA.2015.31
  32. 10.1016/j.jss.2016.11.024
  33. 10.1007/978-3-319-91602-6_19
  34. 10.1109/CCAA.2016.7813837
  35. 10.1002/pmj.21410
  36. 10.1016/j.jss.2016.06.013
  37. 10.1109/EUROMICRO.2007.23
  38. 10.1177/1609406915624575
  39. 10.1109/HICSS.2014.579
  40. 10.1109/TSE.2010.91
  41. 10.1109/ICSEA.2010.20
  42. 10.1145/2379057.2379076
  43. 10.1007/s10664-008-9065-9
  44. 10.1007/s12599-013-0282-4
  45. 10.1007/978-3-642-20677-1_8
  46. 10.1109/MS.2010.132