Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

User Story Estimation Based on the Complexity Decomposition Using Bayesian Networks

  • Published:
Programming and Computer Software Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Currently, in Scrum, there are different methods to estimate user stories in terms of effort or complexity. Most of the existing techniques consider factors in a fine grain level; these techniques are not always accurate. Although Planning Poker is the most used method in Scrum to estimate user stories, it is primarily effective in experienced teams since the estimation mostly depends on the observation of experts, but it is difficult when is used by inexperienced teams. In this paper, we present a proposal for complexity decomposition in a coarse grain level, in order to consider important factors for complexity estimation. We use a Bayesian network to represent those factors and their relations. The edges of the network are weighted with the judge of professional practitioners about the importance of the factors. The nodes of the network represent the factors. During the user estimation phase, the Scrum team members introduce the values for each factor; in this way, the network generates a value for the complexity of a User story, which is transformed in a Planning Poker card number, which represents the story points. The purpose of this research is to provide to development teams without experience or without historical data, a method to estimate the complexity of user stories through a model focused on the human aspects of developers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Schwaber, K.S. and Sutherland, J., The Scrum Guide: the Definitive the Rules of the Game, Scrum, Org and Scrum Inc., 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Srivastava, A., Sukriti Bhardwaj, and Shipra Saraswat, SCRUM model for agile methodology, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Computing, Communication and Automation ICCCA 2017, Greater Noida, 2017.

  3. Rubin, K.S., Essential Scrum: a Practical Guide to the Most Popular Agile Process, Addison-Wesley, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  4. auly, D., Michalik, B., and Basten, D., Do daily scrums have to take place each day? A case study of customized scrum principles at an E-commerce company, Proc. Annu. Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Science, Kauai, 2015, pp. 5074–5083

  5. SCRUMstudy, A Guide to the Scrum Body of Knowledge (SBOK Guide), VMEdu Inc., 2016.

  6. Lucassen, G., Dalpiaz, F., van der Werf, J.M.E.M., and Brinkkemper, S., Improving agile requirements: the quality user story framework and tool, Requir. Eng., 2016, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 383–403.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Moreno, A.M. and Yagüe, A., Agile user stories enriched with usability, Lect. Notes Bus. Inf. Process., 2012, vol. 111 LNBIP, pp. 168–176.

    Google Scholar 

  8. López-Martínez, J., Ramírez-Noriega, A., Juárez-Ramírez, R., Licea, G., and Jiménez, S., User stories complexity estimation using Bayesian networks for inexperienced developers, Cluster Comput., 2017, vol. 21, pp. 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lopez-Martınez, J., Estimating user stories complexity and importance, Proc. WorldCIST 2017: Recent Advances in Information Systems and Technologies, Porto Santo Island, Madeira, 2017, pp. 205–214.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schwaber, K. and Sutherland, J., La Guía de Scrum, Scrumguides.Org., 2013, vol. 1, p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lopez-Martinez, J., Ramirez-Noriega, A., Juarez-Ramirez, R., Licea, G., and Martinez-Ramirez, Y., Analysis of planning poker factors between university and enterprise, Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering Research and Innovation CONISOFT 2017, Mérida, 2017, pp. 54–60.

  12. Dragicevic, S., Celar, S., and Turic, M., Bayesian network model for task effort estimation in agile software development, J. Syst. Software, 2017, vol. 127, pp. 109–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Alostad, J.M., Abdullah, L.R.A., and Aali, L.S., A fuzzy based model for effort estimation in scrum projects, Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl., 2017, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 270–277.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Scott, E. and Pfahl, D., Using developers’ features to estimate story points, ACM Int. Conf. Proc. Ser., 2018, no. 106, pp. 106–110.

  15. Lenarduzzi, V., Could social factors influence the effort software estimation?, Proc. 7th Int. Workshop on Social Software Engineering (SSE), Bergamo, 2015, pp. 21–24.

  16. Mahnič, V. and Hovelja, T., On using planning poker for estimating user stories, J. Syst. Software, 2012, vol. 85, no. 9, pp. 2086–2095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ziauddin, S.Z. and Shahid Kamal Tipu, An effort estimation model for agile software development, Adv. Comput. Sci. Its Appl., 2012, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 2166–2924.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Peischl, B., Zanker, M., Nica, M., and Schmid, W., Constraint-based recommendation for software project effort estimation, J. Emerg. Technol. Web Intell., 2010, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 282–290.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jennings, N.R. and Wooldridge, M., Agent-oriented software engineering, Artif. Intell., 2000, vol. 117, pp. 277–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ramirez-Noriega, A., Juarez-Ramirez, R., Navarro, R., and Lopez-Martinez, J., Using Bayesian networks to obtain the task’s parameters for schedule planning in scrum, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Software Engineering Research and Innovation CONISOFT 2016, Puebla, 2016, no. 1, pp. 167–174.

  21. Zare, F., Khademi Zare, H., and Fallahnezhad, M.S., Software effort estimation based on the optimal Bayesian belief network, Appl. Soft Comput. J., 2016, vol. 49, pp. 968–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Rath, S.K., Acharya, B.P., and Satapathy, S.M., Early stage software effort estimation using random forest technique based on use case points, IET Software, 2016, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 10–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hsu, S.C., Weng, K.W., Cui, Q., and Rand, W., Understanding the complexity of project team member selection through agent-based modeling, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 2016, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 82–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Malgonde, O. and Chari, K., An Ensemble-Based Model for Predicting Agile Software Development Effort, Empirical Software Engineering, 2018.

  25. Sholiqa, Dewi, R.S., and Subriadi, A.P., A comparative study of software development size estimation method: UCPabc vs function points, Procedia Comput. Sci., 2017, vol. 124, pp. 470–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Qazi, A., Quigley, J., Dickson, A., and Kirytopoulos, K., Project complexity and risk management (ProCRiM): towards modelling project complexity driven risk paths in construction projects, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 2016, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 1183–1198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Drahý, C. and Pastor, O., Relationship between project complexity and risk kinds identified on projects, Econ. Manag. Innov., 2016, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 42–50.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Abdou, S.M., Yong, K., and Othman, M., Project complexity influence on project management performance – the Malaysian perspective, MATEC Web Conf., 2016, vol. 66, p. 00065.

  29. Singh, R., A MCDM approach for measuring project complexity, Archit. Eng. Design Manag., 2016, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 187-202; no. 1, pp. 294–302.

  30. Yong, A.S.M.K. and Othman, M., Categorization of project complexity factors in Malaysian construction industry, Int. J. Prop. Sci., 2018, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kayes, I., Sarker, M., and Chakareski, J., Product backlog rating: a case study on measuring test quality in scrum, Innov. Syst. Software Eng., 2016, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 303–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Bakker, H., and Hertogh, M., Comparing project complexity across different industry sectors, Complexity, 2018, no. 2, pp. 1–15.

  33. Zahraoui, H. and Janati Idrissi, M.A., Adjusting story points calculation in scrum effort & time estimation, Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on Intelligent Systems: Theories and Applications, SITA 2015, Rabat, 2015.

  34. Mendes, E., Knowledge representation using Bayesian networks a case study in web effort estimation, Proc. World Congress on Information and Communication Technologies WICT 2011, Mumbai, 2011, pp. 612–617.

  35. Silhavy, R., Prokopova, Z., and Silhavy, P., Algorithmic optimization method for effort estimation, Program. Comput. Software, 2016, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 161–166.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Durán, M., Juárez-ramírez, R., Jiménez, S., and Tona, C., Taxonomy for complexity estimation in agile methodologies: a systematic literature review, Proc. 7th Int. Conf. in Software Engineering Research and Innovation (CONISOFT), Chetumal, 2020, pp. 1–10.

  37. Usman, M., Mendes, E., Weidt, F., and Britto, R., Effort estimation in agile software development: a systematic literature review, Proc. Int. Conf. on Predictive Models in Software Engineering – PROMISE 2014, Turin, 2014.

  38. Georgsson, A., Introducing story points and user stories to perform estimations in a software development organisation – a case study at Swedbank IT, Master’s Thesis, Umeå Univ., 2011.

  39. Popli, R. and Chauhan, N., A sprint-point based estimation technique in Scrum, Proc. Int. Conf. on Information Systems and Computer Networks, Mathura, 2013, pp. 98–103.

  40. Pandit, P. and Tahiliani, S., AgileUAT: a dramework for user acceptance testing based on user stories and acceptance criteria, Int. J. Comput. Appl., 2015, vol. 120, no. 10, pp. 16–21.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Cristóbal, J.R.S., Complexity in project management, Procedia Comput. Sci., 2017, vol. 121, pp. 762–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jensen, F.V., Bayesian networks, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat., 2009, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 307–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Rodríguez, D. and Dolado, J., Redes bayesianas en la ingeniería del software, Proc. 15th Workshop de Investigadores en Ciencias de la Computación, Parana, 2013.

  44. Linåker, J., Muhammad Sulaman, S., Maiani de Mello, R., and Höst, M., Guidelines for Conducting Surveys in Software Engineering v. 1.1, 2015, pp. 0–63.

  45. Sirois, L.M.M.J., Spearman Correlation Coefficients, Differences between, John Wiley and Sons2006.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the students of the Software Engineering course enrolled in 2019-1 and 2019-2 of the computer engineering degree at Universidad Autónoma de Baja California who participated in the Scrum projects and the professionals in the area who participated from various companies in the region. Thanks to your participation we managed to collect data and information for the formation of our study. We also have special thanks to Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT) for the scholarship to realize the master in science studies, which support this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Autonomous University of Baja California (UABC), Avenida Universidad no. 14418, UABC, Parque Internacional Industrial Tijuana, 22424, Tijuana, B.C., Mexico

    M. Durán, R. Juárez-Ramírez & C. Tona

  2. Tijuana Institute of Technology (Instituto Tecnológico de Tijuana) Tomas Aquino, 22414, Tijuana, B.C., Mexico

    S. Jiménez

Authors
  1. M. Durán
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Juárez-Ramírez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Jiménez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Tona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to M. Durán, R. Juárez-Ramírez, S. Jiménez or C. Tona.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Durán, M., Juárez-Ramírez, R., Jiménez, S. et al. User Story Estimation Based on the Complexity Decomposition Using Bayesian Networks. Program Comput Soft 46, 569–583 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0361768820080095

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0361768820080095

Keywords:

Search

Navigation