=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2763/CPT2020_paper_s2-3
|storemode=property
|title=Development of an algorithm for selecting the optimal set of tools and techniques for Agile project management in industry and engineering
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2763/CPT2020_paper_s2-3.pdf
|volume=Vol-2763
|authors=V.V. Andreev,S.N. Malozemov
}}
==Development of an algorithm for selecting the optimal set of tools and techniques for Agile project management in industry and engineering==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2763/CPT2020_paper_s2-3.pdf
Development of an algorithm for selecting the optimal set of tools and
techniques for Agile project management in industry and engineering
V.V. Andreev, S.N. Malozemov
vyach.andreev@mail.ru | malozemovsage@mail.ru
Nizhny Novgorod State Technical University n.a. R.E. Alekseev, Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
Continuous development and the increase of the safety requirements in the field of engineering and industry, as well as the need to
comply with the planned timing and costs of the projects require the use of modern approaches to the management of complex
engineering systems and their interaction. To achieve the optimal balance between the deadlines and the resources expended, a project
approach is used in world practice. One of the new methods of the project approach is Agile management. The use of Agile project
management in industry and engineering requires a systematic adaptation of implementation approaches, taking into account internal
requirements, risks and organizational characteristics, and is due to the high complexity of decision-making. The paper considers an
approach to the formation of a generalized algorithm for the optimal set of tools selection for Agile project management in industry and
engineering based on system analysis methods. This algorithm is designed to provide decision support for the selection of the most
suitable tools and techniques for Agile project management with a view to their successful implementation.
Keywords: decision-making algorithm, system analysis, project, Agile management, risk, management tools.
1. Introduction Next, we compile a systematic list of typical project
Successful implementation of projects is largely due to risks in industry and engineering (table 2) [1-3].
competent, modern management. Today, there are many Table 2. Examples of typical project risks
methods and approaches to project management. One of № Risk name
these approaches is Agile, which has proven itself in IT 1 Conflicts of goals and interests between stakeholders
projects and in the banking sector. The first results of 2 Delays due to the change of performers
applying Agile approach in industry and engineering Changing customer requirements in the later stages
3
showed that using Agile similar to IT projects is of the project
impractical due to the different specifics of the activity and 4 Conflicts within the team
the impossibility of using a number of tools and 5 Implicit dependencies with other projects
techniques. When introducing this method in engineering 6 Excessive product complexity
and industry, it becomes difficult to select the optimal set 7 The need for unique experts
of Agile tools and techniques. The problem is due to the
large number of possible options and the lack of Thus, we get 2 sets of project tools and project risks.
experience in the application of Agile project management To determine the correlation of sets of risks and tools, we
in this area. To determine the tools and techniques of apply the Swiss Cheese model and the Bow-tie model. The
Agile, we need a mathematical method to optimize the Swiss Cheese model demonstrates the principle of multi-
decision-making process for selecting a set of tools and level protection against possible incidents, the Bow-tie
techniques. model determines the need to influence both the causes
The purpose is to determine the function and develop and consequences of events. Agile tools designed to
an algorithm for the optimal set of Agile management tools manage the project can serve as preventive measures,
selections for a specific project. monitoring and control tools, remedies for recovery and
mitigation. The principle of the correlation of risks and
2. Correlation of sets of risks and tools tools is presented in Fig. 1. The formation of correlation
Based on the existing experience of using Agile in between the elements of sets is carried out by the expert
various projects, we define many basic Agile tools and method, based on the experience of using Agile tools,
techniques, forming them into a specific data table with a personal professional experience in implementing projects
description (table 1). in the selected field, taking into account the characteristics
Table 1. Agile tools and techniques examples of the organization and the external environment.
№ Tool name In this correlation, we see that one risk can be blocked
1 Retrospective by different instruments; one tool can cover different risks.
2 Poker planning To select specific tools, we introduce expert assessments -
3 Work speed estimation project criteria: time (team’s time spent on using the tool)
4 Work in one room (t), budget (including additional resources or
competencies) (b), team satisfaction level (u). Each
5 Product backlog
criterion is assigned a range of possible weight, taking into
6 Task board
account pre-calculated costs [4-7].
Copyright © 2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY
4.0)
Fig. 1. The principle of the correlation of risks and tools
implementation of the project, and also sets the limit
3. Application of system analysis methods values and factors of importance of the project parameters
There are many decision-making methods. Due to the (time, budget, team satisfaction). We get the source data:
presence of several criteria in the tools and the presence of − preset project parameters (tpp; bpp; upp);
links between the sets of risks and tools, we will choose − project risk list (set ri);
the main methods of system analysis, which we will use − importance factor (w).
when selecting the optimal set of tools. For Agile Through the selected risks, the tools are determined
approach, consider a group of descriptive models (that is, based on predefined relationships. Get the matrix of M
simulate human behavior in a decision-making situation). relations (risk - tool) – mri (matrix element showing the
Based on what we will build a phased decision-making presence of communication, possibly in the binary system:
algorithm. At each stage, depending on the task, we will 1-connection is, 0-communication is not).
use the most appropriate method. Each tool consists of three previously defined criteria
The methods that we will use in the definition of a and (t; b; u). We divide the matrix of connections into three
function are: the matrix method of multicriteria analysis, matrices for each of the criteria. We get three matrices with
the logical-linguistic model, the cause-effect model, the values that have previous relations (risk - tool).
method of pairwise comparisons, the axiomatic method. We use the method of pairwise comparisons to find the
The matrix method of multicriteria analysis allows one to smallest values in the first two matrices and the largest
find a balanced estimate through the construction of values in the third matrix that evaluates the qualitative
matrices of values and the importance of alternatives. characteristic - team satisfaction.
A logical-linguistic model will make it possible to To find a set of tools on each of the matrices, a
determine the most suitable set of all possible risks from condition must meet, each risk must be assigned a
the set of possible tools. In this model, when making a minimum value (matrix element). We get the column of
decision, there is no way to consider the importance of the minimum values in two matrices and the maximum value
element (risk), which affects the accuracy of the decision. in the third matrix.
With a causal decision-making model, a function is We use the logical-linguistic decision-making model.
determined with a possible consideration of the We transform the given project parameters into a vector
importance of the element. With this model, multicriteria whose starting point is 0 and tends to a point — the given
analysis involves comparing a number of criteria with project parameters (xtbu), according to each of the criteria,
possible options, including alternative ones that arise in the these will be the points U(t), U(b), U(u). Then get many
process of solving the tasks. alternative solutions P (p1, p2, ..., pn), where, for example:
p1 = u1 + u2 + u4, p2 = u6 + u9, p3 = u3 + u4 + u7.
4. Decision making algorithm for tools Next, we check that all the parameters are fulfilled for
selection each of the alternative solutions found and find the optimal
Define a general decision making algorithm for tools solution. We will use the causal decision-making model.
selection. At the first stage, the decision maker (DM) The criteria c (c1 = t, c2 = b, c3 = u) were determined in
selects the possible risks that may arise during the advance, we introduce the correction factor (cr1 = 1, cr2 =
1, cr3 = -1) for the convenience of comparison, W - project parameters and the minimum possible, and the
importance of the element (w1, w2, w3). value u - no less than the specified project parameter and
Now, for each of the alternatives, we make a separate the maximum possible.
assessment for the entire range of criteria х (хt, xb, xu) – We use the axiomatic method to identify the correct
table 3. solution.
Table 3. Decision matrix for each criterion 𝑋𝑋�𝑡𝑡𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 ; 𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 ; 𝑢𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 � ≥ 𝑝𝑝(𝑡𝑡; 𝑏𝑏; 𝑢𝑢),
p1 p2 … pn cr W 𝑝𝑝(𝑡𝑡; 𝑏𝑏; 𝑢𝑢) = ∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=1 𝑈𝑈𝑖𝑖 (𝑡𝑡; 𝑏𝑏; 𝑢𝑢), Х(tpp;bpp;upp) – set
t xt1 xt2 … xtn 1 w1 parameters, i – tool serial number.
b xb1 xb2 … xbn 1 w2 𝑝𝑝(𝑡𝑡; 𝑏𝑏; 𝑢𝑢)
u xu1 xu2 … xun -1 w3 𝑛𝑛
R1 R2 … Rn ⎧ � 𝑈𝑈(𝑡𝑡) ≤ 𝑥𝑥�𝑡𝑡 � ;
𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝
⎪
⎪ 𝑖𝑖=1
Thus, the most appropriate solutions рj will be ⎪ 𝑛𝑛
(4)
determined through the function: = � 𝑈𝑈(𝑏𝑏) ≤ 𝑥𝑥�𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 � ;
𝑅𝑅 = 𝐹𝐹(𝑋𝑋, 𝑊𝑊), (1) ⎨ 𝑖𝑖=1
where X is the vector of values хсj (хtj, xbj, xuj), cr – ⎪ 𝑛𝑛
⎪
correction factor, W – element importance, F – value ⎪� 𝑈𝑈(𝑢𝑢) ≤ 𝑥𝑥�𝑢𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 � .
convolution function. ⎩ 𝑖𝑖=1
For the most balanced assessment, we can consider the If there are several alternatives, it is possible to use the
sum of the products of the criterion and importance: pairwise comparison method to find the most optimal
𝑛𝑛 solution.
𝑅𝑅 = � 𝑝𝑝(𝑥𝑥𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 ∙ 𝑤𝑤𝑖𝑖 ). (2) Having found the optimal solution in a list form, it is
𝑖𝑖=1 necessary to ensure the conclusion of a set of tools for a
When finding the smallest number of alternative specific project, with a description of each tool and the
solutions (satisfying the given parameters), we check their necessary time, budget and impact on team satisfaction.
fulfillment of the conditions without taking into account As a result, the DM makes the final decision on the use
the correction factor: of these tools and forms a project management plan
𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖 (𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑖 , 𝑏𝑏𝑖𝑖 , 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖 ) (management action plan) based on the selected tools. Fig.
(3)
≤ 𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖 (𝑡𝑡𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 , 𝑏𝑏𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 , 𝑢𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 ). 2 shows the general decision making algorithm for
That is, some solution R must satisfy the conditions: selecting tools.
the values of t and b - should be no more than the specified
Fig. 2. Decision making algorithm for tools selection
can be evaluated by analogy in different projects. An
5. Recommendations for using the tool example about the "retrospective" tool was described
selection algorithm above.
As part of the application of this algorithm, the difficult Based on the decision-making methods used, it is
questions will be: recommended to approach each project individually for
− initial definition of the scope of application of Agile the optimal Agile tools selection in industry and
project management in engineering and industry; engineering. Use the generated algorithm and systematic
− determination of the importance of the criterion and lists of risks, tools to improve the quality of managerial
its value for qualitative indicators (for example, the impact decision-making. Pay special attention to the
on team satisfaction) in determining the overall indicator; methodological work on the formation of criteria and
factors of importance for each of them. In some projects,
− combination of a formalized algorithm for selecting
it will be advisable to consider a wider range of
tools and difficult formalized practical experience of
alternatives, which will minimize the risks of the project
decision makers in the field of project management.
and choose the optimal solution in terms of design
First, a preliminary analysis of the applicability of
parameters.
Agile to specific projects is needed. For many types of
activities (for example, construction and installation 6. Conclusions
works, commissioning) Agile is not applicable. For quick
analysis, Agile applicability models (filters) can be used. The paper investigates the decision-making process
However, there are currently no filters for projects in the when choosing tools for Agile project management. In the
field of industry and engineering. Analytical work is framework of this article, the following issues were
necessary to supplement the existing models of Agile considered:
applicability with criteria that are essential for the − determining the principle of the Correlation of sets
implementation of projects in the field of industry and of risks and tools;
engineering. Effective application of the obtained − definitions of the decision-making function for
algorithm is possible only in the field of applicability of applying the Agile tools;
Agile. − development of an algorithm for the optimal set of
Secondly, the project team, project stakeholders, and Agile tools selection in industry and engineering.
the expert community can be involved in working with To determine the function and develop the algorithm,
criteria of tools. It is necessary to develop a common scale methods of system analysis were used. At the same time,
of assessments of tools, considering various points of further application of system analysis methods for making
view. The value of the criteria for each tool must be multi-criteria decisions in terms of determining the scope
determined taking into account the specifics of the of applicability of flexible project management and
organization’s activities and corporate culture (for working with tool criteria also looks perspectively.
example, in one project the “retrospective” tool will be a The paper gives recommendations on the application
significant improvement and will positively affect team of the obtained algorithm and its further development.
satisfaction, as in others it will be an obstacle). Two cases of application are considered:
Multicriteria analysis should be complemented by − subject to your organization has Agile knowledge
significant methodological support. Statistics on other and experience in this field;
projects of companies in this field of activity can also be − subject to initial application of Agile project
used. management approaches.
Thirdly, it is necessary to provide for the possibility of The results obtained can be applied to implement Agile
choosing some Agile management tools, or to adjust the approaches to project management in industry and
final set based on the decision of the project engineering at the stages of initiation and planning. Using
methodologist. If there is a lot of informal experience in the right Agile tools and techniques can help you achieve
using some Agile tools in a given company, an your project goals on time and with significant resource
understanding of the internal corporate culture, a large savings.
number of quality criteria and implicit restrictions, various
alternative solutions can be evaluated using the presented Acknowledgments
algorithm. In this case, it will also be useful to use ready- The study was supported by the RFBR, grant № 19-07-
made lists of data (risks / tools) of the algorithm. In the 00455
absence of significant experience in the company using
Agile, the algorithm should be applied in its original form References
[12-14].
In addition, when making decisions on tools selection, [1] AGILE Alliance [Electronic resource] – ©2020 Agile
various kinds of misconceptions are possible. One of the Alliance – URL: https://www.agilealliance.org/ (date
sources of error in decision-making is premature of access: 15.03.2020).
generalization. No matter how universal the tools are, it is [2] «Project Management Assessment and Development
impossible to rely on the consideration of criteria on the Center » [Electronic resource] – © ANO «CADPM»
basis of a perfectly successful project from another field of – URL: https://www.isopm.ru/ (date of access:
activity. Also misconception can be attributed to reasoning 15.03.2020).
by analogy. In some cases, not all instruments and risks
[3] Agile Russia [Electronic resource] – URL:
http://agilerussia.ru/category/methodologies/ (date of
access 17.03.2020).
[4] Krogerus Michael Book of solutions. 50 models of
strategic thinking / Michael Krogerus, Roman
Cheppeler - Publisher: Olymp-Business, 2018 – 208
p. - ISBN 978-5-9693-0309-6, 978-3-0369-5529-2.
[5] «Three-level Russian instrumental project
management model (RIM-M)» [Electronic resource]
– URL: https://rim-iii.postach.io/ (date of access
18.03.2020).
[6] Informatika [Electronic resource] // Bow-tie Model –
URL: http://5informatika.net/ (date of access
17.03.2020).
[7] GOST R ISO / IEC 31010-2011 Risk management.
Risk assessment methods. [Electronic resource] –
© Codex JSC, 2020 - URL:
http://docs.cntd.ru/document/gost-r-iso-mek-31010-
2011 (date of access 17.03.2020).
[8] Podinovsky V.V. Ideas and methods of the theory of
the importance of criteria in multicriteria decision-
making problems / V.V. Podinovsky - M: Science,
2019 – 103 p. – ISBN 978-5-02-040241-6.
[9] Kochkina M.V. Analysis of multicriteria management
decision-making methods (on the example of the task
of selecting suppliers of material and technical
resources) / M.V. Kochkina, A.N. Karamyshev, I.I.
Makhmutov, A.G. Isavnin, A.K. Rosenzweig -
Naberezhnye Chelny: Publishing and Printing Center
NCHI K (P) FU, 2017 – 31 p. – UDC 338.2; 658.7.
[10] Kravchenko T.K., Druzhayev A.A. Adaptation of the
ELECTRE family methods for inclusion in the expert
decision support system [Electronic resource] / T.K.
Kravchenko, A.A. Druzhayev // Business Informatics.
– 2015. – № 2 (32). – URL: http://cyberleninka.ru
/article/n/adaptatsiya-metodov-semeystva-electre-
dlyavklyucheniya-v-ekspertnuyu-sistemu-
podderzhki-prinyatiya-resheniy (date of access:
18.03.2020).
[11] Kozlov, V.N. System analysis, optimization and
decision- making. Textbook / V.N. Kozlov. - M.:
Prospect, 2016. – 173 p. – ISBN: 978-5-392-20185-3.
[12] Agafonov V.A. System analysis in strategic
management. Tutorial. / V.A. Agafonov - M: Rusyns,
2020 – 229 p. – ISBN: 978-5-4365-4407-6.
[13] Madera A.G. Mathematical models and decision-
making in management: A guide for top managers /
A.G. Madera - Vol. 3, stereotype - M: Lenand, 2019
– 688 p. – ISBN 978-5-382-01845-4.
[14] Zak, Yu.A. Decision making in fuzzy and blurry data:
Fuzzy-technology / Yu.A. Zak - Vol. 2 - M: Lenand,
2016 - 352 p. - ISBN 978-5-9710-3411-7.
About the autors
Vyacheslav V. Andreev, head of the department “Nuclear
Reactors and Power Plants”, Doctor of Technical Sciences,
Professor, NNSTU n.a. R.E. Alekseev. Е-mail:
vyach.andreev@mail.ru.
Sergei N. Malozemov, graduate student of the department
"Nuclear Reactors and Power Plants", NNSTU n.a. R.E.
Alekseev. Е-mail: malozemovsage@mail.ru.