Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T02:57:28.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mapping the Progress in Agile Product Development: A Multi-Case Study

Part of: Design Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Tobias Sebastian Schmidt ,
Jan Behrenbeck ,
Kevin Burger ,
Rafael Hostettler ,
Kristin Paetzold  and
Markus Zimmermann
Tobias Sebastian Schmidt*
Affiliation:
University of the German Federal Armed Forces Munich;
Jan Behrenbeck
Affiliation:
Technical University of Munich
Kevin Burger
Affiliation:
Technical University of Munich
Rafael Hostettler
Affiliation:
Technical University of Munich
Kristin Paetzold
Affiliation:
University of the German Federal Armed Forces Munich;
Markus Zimmermann
Affiliation:
Technical University of Munich
*
Contact: Schmidt, Tobias Sebastian, University of the German Federal Armed Forces Munich Institute of Technical Product Development, Germany, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The more dynamic and unpredictable the development constraints, the more agile the development project should be to cope with and utilize inherent change. Especially in such contexts, aligning with the project's mission and vision, committing to next steps, and documenting the development path is challenging. To support the decision making process of self-organized agile development teams with an overview, a recent research paper proposes the Progress Map. The investigation at hand applies the Progress Map in semi-industrial development projects to empirically validate its applicability and performance in the form of a multi-case study. The results indicate that, given future refinements, this instrument can be valuable to plan, document, and communicate the progress of an agile development project.

Keywords

Design managementDesign practiceCase studyAgile Development in MechatronicsKnowledge management
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1215 - 1224
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Agogué, M. and Kazakçi, A. (2014), “10 Years of C-K Theory”, In: Chakrabarti, A. and Blessing, L.T.M. (Ed.), An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design, Springer, London, pp. 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6338-1Google Scholar
Baltes, G. and Selig, C. (2017), “Organisationale Veränderungsintelligenz”, In: Baltes, G. and Freyth, A. (Ed.), Veränderungsintelligenz, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 81–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04889-1_2Google Scholar
Beck, K., Beedle, M., Bennekum, A., van Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., et al. (2001), Manifesto for Agile Software Development. [online]. Available at: agilemanifesto.org (30 November 2018).Google Scholar
Bennett, N. and Lemoine, G.J. (2014), “What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world”, Business Horizons, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 311–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.01.001Google Scholar
Böhmer, A., Beckmann, A. and Lindemann, U. (2015), “Open Innovation Ecosystem - Makerspaces within an Agile Innovation Process”, ISPIM Innovation Summit, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
Böhmer, A.I., Richter, C., Hostettler, R., Schneider, P., Plum, I., Böhler, D., et al. (2016), “Think.Make.Start. - An Agile Framework”, 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, pp. 917–926.Google Scholar
Hatchuel, A. and Weil, B. (2003), “A new approach of innovative design: An introduction to C-K theory”, 14th International Conference on Engineering Design, pp. 109–125.Google Scholar
Hostettler, R. and Böhmer, A.I. (2017), “Reducing Uncertainty within Minimum Time and Resources”, 23th International ICE Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation, Madeira, Portugal.Google Scholar
Oestereich, B. and Weiss, C. (2007), “APM - Agiles Projektmanagement, dpunkt.verlag”, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Reinertsen, D. (2009), The Principles of Product Development Flow: Second Generation Lean Product Development, Celeritas Publishing, Redondo Beach.Google Scholar
Schmidt, T.S., Gerdzhikov, G. and Paetzold, K. (2018a), “Set-based Design in Agile Development: Reinterpreting the Repository Tree”, International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Schmidt, T.S., Weiss, S. and Paetzold, K. (2018b), “Expected vs. Real Effects of Agile Development of Physical Products - Apportioning the Hype”, International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 2121–2132. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0198Google Scholar
Schwaber, K. and Sutherland, J. (2017), “The Scrum Guide”, Scrum.Org and ScrumInc, p. 19.Google Scholar
Sobek Ii, D.K. Ward, A.C. and Liker, J.K. (1999), “Toyota's principles of set-based concurrent engineering”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 67–83.Google Scholar
Stelzmann, E.S. (2011), Agile Systems Engineering: Eine Methodik Zum besseren Umgang mit Veränderungen bei der Entwicklung komplexer Systeme, Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University Graz, Austria.Google Scholar