-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathnotes_on_reject.txt
161 lines (113 loc) · 6.88 KB
/
notes_on_reject.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
----------------------- REVIEW 1 ---------------------
PAPER: 39 TITLE: Adopting agile in the large: motivations, success factors and
challenges AUTHORS: Kim Dikert, Maria Paasivaara and Casper Lassenius
OVERALL EVALUATION: -2 (reject)
----------- REVIEW -----------
- Paper aims at reporting systematic review on large companies to provide
evidence on the motivations, success factors and challenges reported. The
topic of the paper is valid and increasing amount of papers have lately been
focused on adopting agile in large enterprises.
- Unfortunately, the paper seems to be still very draft in terms of the focus,
data collection as well as in the application of systematic review approach.
Most of the papers listed are fairly old, excludes many recent papers –
especially journal papers seems to be nearly missing from the current list.
Also, half of the papers seem to be only from one conference.
- In the paper, the current definition used for large company is ≥50 persons.
Please, present definitions from different sources to back up using such a low
limit. It could be claimed that using this limitation for selecting papers will
now include most of the published papers.
- The selection criteria should be clarified more clearly. What if paper reports
results from one project only (not focusing on organizational deployment), yet
the organization is large? The scope of the paper should be sharpened, thus
having more clear paper selection criteria.
- In table2., Lean is listed incorrectly as one agile method reported in the
studies.
- Missing details in the list of primary studies, e.g. conference information
[S14, S12] as well as different syntax of naming references.
- In Table 3. The reasons for transformation include need to improve performance
and time to market. Please define what is the difference between these? Where
do the quality and cost issues fall in these categories, for instance?
- Paper has good topic but still needs more work and focus to be ready for publishing.
----------------------- REVIEW 2 ---------------------
PAPER: 39 TITLE: Adopting agile in the large: motivations, success factors and
challenges AUTHORS: Kim Dikert, Maria Paasivaara and Casper Lassenius
OVERALL EVALUATION: -2 (reject)
----------- REVIEW -----------
Agile in the large is clearly a relevant topic for the conference and for the
wider community. However, the manuscript has too many shortcomings to add to
the body-of-knowledge.
In the intro, the authors claim that the application of agile methods has proven
to be problematic in a larger scale. Nothing is ever proven in research, and
there are several examples of success that could have been referred to here to
*prove* the opposite.
Performing a "systematic review" without a research protocol or research
questions or visible inclusion/exclusion criteria isn't good practice. Neither
is it to perform it only by one researcher. And especially so when there are
three authors of the manuscript. So, what did the second and third authors do?
Didn't they check anything of what the first author did?
Mixing experience reports and research studies without qualifying which was
which in the results and analysis just clutters the overall results. Combined
with a lack of quality assessment, this leaves the reader with a question on
what the evidence and value of the current study really is.
Leaving out on agile management seems a bit odd, when the manuscript at the same
time mentions that "the central role of management in the change was evident in
many studies." Maybe this would have been even more evident if studies on agile
management also had been included?
The manuscript clearly represents unfinished work.
----------------------- REVIEW 3 ---------------------
PAPER: 39 TITLE: Adopting agile in the large: motivations, success factors and
challenges AUTHORS: Kim Dikert, Maria Paasivaara and Casper Lassenius
OVERALL EVALUATION: 1 (weak accept)
----------- REVIEW -----------
Review: Adopting agile in the large: motivations, success factors and challenges
The authors address a very interesting topic. There is a need for more knowledge
about agile in the large. The paper is only 8 pages (6 paper with text and 2
pages with references), and miss a discussion. Therefore I believe this is a
short paper.
***I therefore evaluate the paper as a short paper.***
The paper is easy to read.
Page 1:
Summary → abstract The authors write: “where development teams can not be
autonomous”. Even in large organizations teams can be autonomous.
1 Introduction:
“In a large organization development teams will need to interface with other
organizational units” I would argue that this is also the case with small
organizations.
The authors have forgotten to define what is a large organization.
Also does a large software organization mean a large software development
organizations? Is it related to large projects? Is it product companies only?
Some large organizations have small development departments.
“that encourages large organizations to consider adopting agile methods.” Today
large organizations and large projects are adopting agile, however there is
little evidence on how this is done and what works.
2 Background
I reccomende Vinekar et al, CAN AGILE AND TRADITIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT
APPROACHES COEXIST? AN AMBIDEXTROUS VIEW they have a section on "size"
the authors argue: “One significant difference between small and large scale
adoptions is that large organizations have more dependencies between projects
and teams”
from my experience it depends on the size of the projects. Some big companies
have several independent and small teams organized in departments. Then there is
often a low dependence between the teams.
3 Research method Which author did the work? The first author? How was the rest
of the authors involved?
This review was not an SLR, therefore I suggest removing the reference to
Kitchenham’s method for systematic literature reviews (SLR). Describe what was
done.
“The selection process of the primary studies is summarized in Figure 1. The
database search yielded 1603 matches which were filtered down to 31 selected
primary studies.” Please describe in detail how this was done
“One study was not available, which reduced the final number of primary studies
to 30.” Why?
“Secondly, the papers had to indicate that the development organization is
considered being large (smallest included reported 50 persons)” - this is not
the definition of large
“The presence of several development teams also had to be indicated”
- Why?
- Some companies report having one large team.
I´m not sure if “transformations” make sense in fig 2” Time of publications and
transformations”.
If you got an overview of the companies involved it would be interesting to have
a graph: e.g. which countries, continents.
A discussion is missing. It would be interesting to relate the finding to other
literature.