4.5 Article

Kanban in software engineering: A systematic mapping study

Journal

JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE
Volume 137, Issue -, Pages 96-113

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.11.045

Keywords

Kanban; Lean; Software engineering; Software development

Funding

  1. Tekes (the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation)
  2. Science Foundation Ireland [13/RC/2094]
  3. European Regional Development Fund through the Southern & Eastern Regional Operational Programme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Following a well-established track record of success in other domains such as manufacturing, Kanban is increasingly used to achieve continuous development and delivery of value in the software industry. However, while research on Kanban in software is growing, these articles are largely descriptive, and there is limited rigorous research on its application and with little cohesive building of cumulative knowledge. As a result, it is extremely difficult to determine the true value of Kanban in software engineering. This study investigates the scientific evidence to date regarding Kanban by conducting a systematic mapping of Kanban literature in software engineering between 2006 and 2016. The search strategy resulted in 382 studies, of which 23 were identified as primary papers relevant to this research. This study is unique as it compares the findings of these primary papers with insights from a review of 23 Kanban experience reports during the same period. This study makes four important contributions, (i) a state-of-the-art of Kanban research is provided, (ii) the reported benefits and challenges are identified in both the primary papers and experience reports, (iii) recommended practices from both the primary papers and experience reports are listed and (iv) opportunities for future Kanban research are identified. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available