!"#$%&'()'*+,-%'.((-'/01+%'123'4%%30

Gayane Azizyan

Miganoush Magarian

Mira Kajko-Mattsson

Agile 2011, Salt Lake City

!"#$%&'(#)%"

An independent survey of Agile tool usage

What?

Lack of independent surveys and adoption

guidelines

Too many tools!

Why?

!"#$%&'(#)%"

How?

A simple web survey created with Google docs,

spread around LinkedIn groups, Yahoo! Groups,

*+,-.'$/,0Part I

Part II

Company

Role

Team type

Agile methods used

Tools used

Most satisfactory aspects of tools in place

Least satisfactory aspects of tools in place

Desired features

Comments

1,2'3#2-)"-4$),5

121 responses from different companies

35 countries

Over 14 different roles

67$#-!8-1%3,2

Distribution of respondents’ roles:

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Consultant

Owner/Founder

Other

High-Level Management

Mid-Level Management

Developer

Low-Level Management

67$#-!8-*,792

Reported team types:

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Large Collocated

Distributed

Small Collocated

67$#-!8-:;)3,-9,#+%&

Agile methods and practices used:

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

FDD

DSDM

Crystal

TDD

Kanban

XP

Scrum with XP

Scrum

67$#-!!8-*%%32-<2,&0% 25% 50%0% 25% 50%

Other

Assembla

XPlanner

TFS

JIRA

VersionOne

ScrumWorks

Mingle

Trac

Rally

Custom Tool

MS Project

Spreadsheets

Physical Wall and Paper

67$#-!!8-*%%32-<2,&

26%

23%

8%

43%

Physical wall and paper

Spreadsheets

MS Project

Other (including 31 different APM tools!)

67$#-!!8-6+02)(73-/2=-:6>

Summary of physical vs. APM tool usage:

31%

Agile Project

Management Tools

65%

Physical Walls

and Paper

61%

67$#-!!8-*%%32-?0-*,79-*0@,Usage of different types of tools in collocated

and distributed teams:

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Custom or In-House Tools

Traditional Project Management Tools

Spreadsheets

Physical Walls and Paper

Agile Project Management Tools

Collocated teams

Distributed Teams

67$#-!!8-6%2)#)/,-:2@,(#2

Most satisfactory aspects of the tools in place:

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Integration with Other Systems

Availability of Reports

Price

Customizability

Ease of Use

67$#-!!8-A,;7#)/,-:2@,(#2

Least satisfactory aspects of the tools in place:

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Too Many Customization Options

Price

Usability Issues

Lack of Custom Reports

Lack of Integration Options

67$#-!!8-A,;7#)/,-.'997$0

Summary of mentioned negative aspects:

93%

7%

At least one negative aspects

No negative aspects

67$#-!!8-B%99,"#2Comments grouped by features:

0% 4% 8% 13% 17% 21% 25%0% 4% 8% 13% 17% 21% 25%

Planning Elements

Comprehensive Tool

Requirements Management

Budget Tracking

Flexibility

Ease of Use

Project Status Tracking

Interface Improvements

New Ideas

Virtual Board Features

Integration

Improved Reporting

B%"(3'2)%"2===

....

*+7"C-0%'D

All external images used in this presentation have been taken from http://www.clker.com

B%"#7(#

Gaia:

gayane.azizyan@ericsson.com

Migan:

miganoush.magarian@ericsson.com

blog.klover.se