=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1796/priore-paper-5
|storemode=property
|title=State of the Practice on Software Release Planning
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1796/priore-paper-5.pdf
|volume=Vol-1796
|authors=Carles Farré,Xavier Franch,Tudor Ionescu
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/refsq/FarreFI17
}}
==State of the Practice on Software Release Planning==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1796/priore-paper-5.pdf
State of the Practice on Software Release Planning
Carles Farré1, Xavier Franch1, and Tudor Ionescu2
1Universtitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
2Siemens AG, Vienna, Austria
{farre, franch}@essi.upc.edu, tudor.ionescu@siemens.com
Abstract. In the recent years, the academic literature has reported many different
proposals addressing the problem of Software Release Planning (SRP). However,
nearly none of these results has been transferred to commercial tools for project
management, although many of these tools claim to support some SRP tasks. In
this paper, we present a study on 119 project management tools to know to which
extent they use advanced AI-assisted algorithms/techniques to support SRP tasks.
Keywords: Software Release Planning · Project Management Tools · AI-
assisted techniques
1 Introduction
Software Release Planning (SRP) is the problem of finding the best combination of
features to implement in a sequence of releases. SRP seeks to maximize business value
and stakeholder satisfaction without neglecting the constraints imposed by the availa-
bility of adequate resources and the existence dependencies between features [5].
In [2], we presented a literature review on scientific approaches to SRP. This review
was based on the results of a former systematic literature review by Svahnberg et al.
[6] and helped to update the current knowledge on the area from a research-oriented
point of view. One of the conclusions of [2] is that, except for one case, none of the
reviewed proposals went beyond presenting a proof-of-concept tool to prove their fea-
sibility, let alone a mature tool ready for the general use.
In this paper, we complement the results of [2] with an analysis of the state of the
practice which focuses on finding tools available in the IT market and analyse which
are the capabilities that are not satisfactorily covered in relation to SRP. These are tools
for project management, and in particular those that claim to provide scheduling facil-
ities. In particular, we are interested in the algorithms and techniques that these tools
use to plan the releases.
2 Research Method
The paper presents a review of project management tools. The tools were selected by
considering reviews from specialized magazines as well as by using simple Internet
search. The following selection and categorization criteria were used:
Copyright 2017 for this paper by its authors. Copying permitted for private and academic purposes.
What was the last release date of the tool? Tools with last release older than 18
months were discarded.
What is the current version of the tool? Alpha versions were not considered
What are the key features of the tool and what type of scheduling support does it
offer?
Do they offer features for agile development (e.g., Burndown Charts, Product Back-
log, User Stories, Scrum Methodology, Kanban)
Is it web-based or a desktop application?
What is the price?
Other relevant remarks
This choice of criteria is motivated by the fact that for commercial products, it is
usually very hard to find out more publicly available information about them.
A total number of 119 tools were analyzed out of which a short list was selected for
a more detailed qualitative analysis.
2.1 Research Questions
In order to generate (semi-)automatically effective software release plans, with optimal
selection of features and optimal assignment to developers, advanced algorithms are
needed. The state of the art conducted at [2] confirmed that such algorithms are still
object of interest by researchers. To complement this study, we want to know if any of
the tools currently available on the market uses this kind of algorithms. Even if none of
them uses it, it is worthwhile to point this out. In this case, it may also well happen that
tools have some level of automation (e.g., artificial intelligence (AI)-based assistants)
as part of the tool features.
This preamble motivates our research question:
RQ1: What kind of AI-assisted feature release planning and/or task scheduling capa-
bilities are supported by project management tools currently available on the market?
2.2 Selection of studies
We started with a list of project management software from Wikipedia
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_project_management_software) which
contained 119 tools at the moment of the search (December 2015). Then we searched
for more information about each product using Google web search and Google Scholar.
Different combinations of the following keywords were used in this process: automated
scheduling / planning; project management + scheduling / planning; task scheduling;
critical path scheduling; critical chain scheduling; queue based scheduling; constraint-
based scheduling; feedback scheduling
This search lead to the websites of the developers of the tools, where all the required
data was collected according to the selection and categorization criteria stated at the
beginning of this section. After analyzing and filtering the collected data, we obtained
a shortlist of 11 candidate tools (see Annex) at the end of this first iteration.
In a second iteration, these 11 tools were analysed with respect to RQ1. To this end,
the documentation of each individual tool was examined. The exclusion criteria were:
Low maturity of the tool
Poor functionality and features
Unavailability of automated project planning methods and algorithms
2.3 Threats to validity
The two main threats to validate are related to the fact that: 1) some tools may have not
been located, 2) some tools may not have been examined in detail due to the impossi-
bility of probing all their features for free. An external validity threat also emerges in
the sense that we are restricting our study to project management tools, while release
planning may be also included in some other type of tools.
3 Results
A detailed analysis of the eleven selected tools can be found at [1]. The overall finding
is that the tools put little focus on automated scheduling capabilities and methods.
The following tools provide more advanced features for (automatic) task scheduling:
Workfront. Soft constraint-based task scheduling.
Genius Project. Simulation capabilities.
Oracle Primavera. Critical path scheduling.
LibrePlan. Queue-based (automated) resources planning.
Sciforma. Critical chain scheduling.
JIRA. Automated scheduling of tasks.
Microsoft Project. Automated scheduling of tasks.
These scheduling methods are generally aimed at supporting project managers in the
beginning of a project or a sprint in the case of agile development projects. These meth-
ods do not generally feed back into the scheduling problem the results of an automated
assessment of the "is"-state of the tasks being scheduled.
There seems to be a method and feature gap concerning the ability of tools to dy-
namically adapt the schedule according to decision-support algorithms. On the one
hand, this is caused by the fact that developers only report a task when it is finished,
while there is no such thing as a progress-meter for each task. This impedes a fast and
accurate automated re-scheduling of tasks depending on their current progress state.
4 Conclusions
We have found some commercial project management tools that provide means for
automating the scheduling of tasks. However, none of the tools analyzed in this review
provide algorithms-assisted features for release planning and task schedule optimiza-
tion. On the one hand, this seems to call for further approaches that transfer well to
commercial tools. A promising step in this direction is the tool described in [4]. On the
other hand, it is reasonable to ask why AI-assisted features (with the exceptions of some
simulation, prediction, and forecasting features, which are all semi-automated and re-
quire users to provide the tools with suitable input data) are not provided by project
management tools currently available on the market.
One possible explanation is that, in its present state, the market does not demand
such features from different reasons (e.g., unknown employee reaction, mistrust in AI-
assisted optimization, etc.). Another explanation could be that companies are still ex-
perimenting with such features without finding a good way to release them.
In any case, entering the market with a brand new project management tool, which
also offers AI-assisted features, would be a difficult task because (1) it must also beat
other widespread, massively adopted tools in what regards other, more conventional
features; (2) it must be able to explain the benefits of AI-assisted features for planning
and optimization; and (3) it has to fulfill its promises in a real development environ-
ment, which is not the same as an experimental research-oriented one.
In this context, one feasible approach for any novel component would be to start by
providing AI-assisted plug-ins for one or two popular tools (such as JIRA and Work-
front). Alternatively, if a complete new tool is envisioned, it should have means for
seamlessly integrating with these tools in the way described in [3].
Acknowledgements. This work is a result of the SUPERSEDE project, funded by the
EU’s H2020 Programme under the agreement number 644018.
References
1. Ameller, D., Farré, C., Franch, X., Kifetew, F., Munante, D., Susi, A., Ionescu, T.:
SUPERSEDE D4.1: Methods and tools to enact software evolution, v1 (2016).
https://www.supersede.eu/owncloud/index.php/s/jxQmyr9xkRuCrdr
2. Ameller, D., Farré, C., Franch, X., Rufian, G.: A Survey on Software Release Planning Mod-
els. In: 17th International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement
(PROFES), pp. 48–65 (2016)
3. Ameller, D., Farré, C., Franch, X., Valerio, D., Cassarino, A.: Towards Continuous Software
Release Planning. In: 24th IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution,
and Reengineering (SANER 2017)
4. Ameller, D., Farré, C., Franch, X., Valerio, D., Cassarino, A., Elvassore, V.: Replan: A Re-
lease Planning Tool. In: 24th IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolu-
tion, and Reengineering (SANER 2017)
5. Ruhe, G., Saliu, M.O.: The art and science of software release planning. IEEE Software
22(6), 47-53 (2005)
6. Svahnberg, M., Gorschek, T., Feldt, R., Torkar, R., Saleem, S.B., Shafique, M.U.: A sys-
tematic review on strategic release planning models. Information & Software Technology
52(3), 237-248 (2010)
Annex
Table 1. List of the 11 candidate tools after the first iteration
Product Name Web site Version Release Date
Workfront www.workfront.com - July 2015
Hansoft hansoft.com 9.0022 October 2015
Planisware www.planisware.com V6 April 2015
Assembla www.assembla.com - October 2015
Genius Project www.geniusproject.com V8.0 September 2015
Oracle’s Primavera www.oracle.com/applica- 15.2 October 2015
6 tions/primavera/pro-
ducts/project-manage-
ment.html
Planbox www.planbox.com - July 2014
LibrePlan www.libreplan.org 1.4.1 April 2015
Sciforma www.sciforma.com 7.0 December 2014
JIRA www.atlassian.com/soft- 6.4.8 July 2015
ware/jira
Microsoft Project products.office.com/en- 2016 September 2015
us/project/project-and-
portfolio-management-
software