2019 volume 13 issue 1 2019 volume 13 issue 1 Editors Zbigniew Huzar ([email protected]) Lech Madeyski ([email protected], http://madeyski.e-informatyka.pl) Department of Software Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science and Management, Wrocław University of Science and Technology, 50-370 Wrocław, Wybrzeże Wyspiańskiego 27, Poland e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal www.e-informatyka.pl, DOI: 10.5277/e-informatica Editorial Office Manager: Wojciech Thomas Typeset by Wojciech Myszka with the LATEX 2ε Documentation Preparation System All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publishers. © Copyright by Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej, Wrocław 2019 OFICYNA WYDAWNICZA POLITECHNIKI WROCŁAWSKIEJ Wybrzeże Wyspiańskiego 27, 50-370 Wrocław www.oficyna.pwr.edu.pl; e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] ISSN 1897-7979 Print and binding: beta-druk, www.betadruk.pl Editorial Board Co-Editors-in-Chief Zbigniew Huzar (Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Poland) Lech Madeyski (Wrocław University of Science and Technology, Poland) Editorial Board Members Pekka Abrahamsson (NTNU, Norway) Jerzy Nawrocki (Poznan University Apostolos Ampatzoglou (University of of Technology, Poland) Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece) Mirosław Ochodek (Poznan University Sami Beydeda (ZIVIT, Germany) of Technology, Poland) Miklós Biró (Software Competence Center Janis Osis (Riga Technical University, Latvia) Hagenberg, Austria) Mike Papadakis (Luxembourg University, Markus Borg (SICS Swedish ICT AB Lund, Luxembourg) Sweden) Kai Petersen (Hochschule Flensburg, University Pearl Brereton (Keele University, UK) of Applied Sciences, Germany) Mel Ó Cinnéide (UCD School of Computer Łukasz Radliński (West Pomeranian University Science & Informatics, Ireland) of Technology in Szczecin, Poland) Steve Counsell (Brunel University, UK) Guenther Ruhe (University of Calgary, Canada) Norman Fenton (Queen Mary University Krzysztof Sacha (Warsaw University of London, UK) of Technology, Poland) Joaquim Filipe (Polytechnic Institute Martin Shepperd (Brunel University London, of Setúbal/INSTICC, Portugal) UK) Thomas Flohr (University of Hannover, Rini van Solingen (Drenthe University, Germany) The Netherlands) Francesca Arcelli Fontana (University Miroslaw Staron (IT University of Göteborg, of Milano-Bicocca, Italy) Sweden) Félix García (University of Castilla-La Mancha, Tomasz Szmuc (AGH University of Science and Spain) Technology Kraków, Poland) Carlo Ghezzi (Politecnico di Milano, Italy) Iwan Tabakow (Wrocław University of Science Janusz Górski (Gdańsk University of Technology, and Technology, Poland) Poland) Guilherme Horta Travassos (Federal Tracy Hall (Lancaster University, UK) University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) Andreas Jedlitschka (Fraunhofer IESE, Adam Trendowicz (Fraunhofer IESE, Germany) Germany) Burak Turhan (University of Oulu, Finland) Barbara Kitchenham (Keele University, UK) Rainer Unland (University of Duisburg-Essen, Stanisław Kozielski (Silesian University Germany) of Technology, Poland) Sira Vegas (Polytechnic University of Madrit, Ludwik Kuźniarz (Blekinge Institute Spain) of Technology, Sweden) Corrado Aaron Visaggio (University of Sannio, Pericles Loucopoulos (The University Italy) of Manchester, UK) Bartosz Walter (Poznan University Kalle Lyytinen (Case Western Reserve of Technology, Poland) University, USA) Bogdan Wiszniewski (Gdańsk University Leszek A. Maciaszek (Wrocław University of Technology, Poland) of Economics, Poland Dietmar Winkler (Technische Universität Wien, and Macquarie University Sydney, Australia) Austria) Jan Magott (Wrocław University of Science and Marco Zanoni (University of Milano-Bicocca, Technology, Poland) Italy) Zygmunt Mazur (Wrocław University of Science Jaroslav Zendulka (Brno University and Technology, Poland) of Technology, The Czech Republic) Bertrand Meyer (ETH Zurich, Switzerland) Krzysztof Zieliński (AGH University of Science Matthias Müller (IDOS Software AG, Germany) and Technology Kraków, Poland) Jürgen Münch (University of Helsinki, Finland) Contents Usage, Retention and Abandonment of Agile Practices: A Survey and Interviews Results Indira Nurdiani, Jürgen Börstler, Samuel Fricker, Kai Petersen ............7 Do Software Firms Collaborate or Compete? A Model of Coopetition in Community-initiated OSS Projects Anh Nguyen-Duc, Daniela S. Cruzes, Snarby Terje, Pekka Abrahamsson ....... 37 Representation of UML Class Diagrams in OWL 2 on the Background of Domain Ontologies Małgorzata Sadowska, Zbigniew Huzar .......................... 63 A Three Dimensional Empirical Study of Logging Questions from Six Popular Q&A Websites Harshit Gujral, Abhinav Sharma, Sangeeta Lal, Lov Kumar .............. 105 Empirical Studies on Software Product Maintainability Prediction: A Systematic Mapping and Review Sara Elmidaoui, Laila Cheikhi, Ali Idri, Alain Abran .................. 141 Measuring Goal-Oriented Requirements Language Actor Stability Jameleddine Hassine, Mohammad Alshayeb ....................... 203 Software Change Prediction: A Systematic Review and Future Guidelines Ruchika Malhotra, Megha Khanna ............................ 227 e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal, Volume 13, Issue 1, 2019, pages: 7–35, DOI 10.5277/e-Inf190101 Usage, Retention, and Abandonment of Agile Practices: A Survey and Interviews Results Indira Nurdiani∗, Jürgen Börstler∗∗, Samuel Fricker∗∗∗, Kai Petersen∗∗∗∗ ∗Department of Software Engineering/DTU Compute – Software and Process Engineering Section, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden/Technical University of Denmark, Denmark ∗∗Department of Software Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden ∗∗∗Institute for Interactive Technologies, Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz, Switzerland ∗∗∗∗Chair for Software Engineering, University of Applied Sciences Flensburg, Germany [email protected]/[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Background: A number of Agile maturity models (AMMs) have been proposed to guide software organizations in their adoption of Agile practices. Typically the AMMs suggest that higher maturity levels are reached by gradually adding more practices. However, recent research indicates that certain Agile practices, like test-driven development and continuous integration, are being abandoned. Little is known on the rationales for abandoning Agile practices. Aim: We aim to identify which Agile practices are abandoned in industry, as well as the reasons for abandoning them. Method: We conducted a web survey with 51 respondents and interviews with 11 industry practitioners with experience in Agile adoption to investigate why Agile practices are abandoned. Results: Of the 17 Agile practices that were included in the survey, all have been abandoned at some point. Nevertheless, respondents who retained all practices as well as those who abandoned one or more practices, perceived their overall adoption of Agile practices as successful. Conclusion: Going against the suggestions of the AMMs, i.e. abandoning Agile one or more practices, could still lead to successful outcomes. This finding indicates that introducing Agile practices gradually in a certain order, as the AMMs suggest, may not always be suitable in different contexts. Keywords: Agile practices, Agile maturity models, survey 1. Introduction being abandoned [3]. Abandoning Agile practices seems contradictory to common guidelines such The software industry is highly competitive. Ag- as Agile maturity models (AMMs) [4–6] that ile methods, like Scrum and eXtreme Program- prescribe which practices should be implemented ming (XP), help to tackle the challenges of rapid and when according to certain maturity levels. changes in the environment of software organi- According to the AMMs, the more mature an or- zations and help to reduce time to market, min- ganization becomes, the more Agile practices are imize development costs, and improve software adopted. However, the indication of abandonment quality [1]. Agile practices are the enactment of of practices could also be due to lack of guidance. Agile principles [2]. Perhaps such practices were not introduced at A recent survey indicates that some prac- the right time, given the maturity of the software tices like test-driven development (TDD), pair development teams or organization, because Agile programming, and continuous integration are practices dependencies are not well known. Submitted: 6 February 2018; Revised: 17 July 2018; Accepted: 17 July 2018; Available online: 30 September 2018 8 Indira Nurdiani et al. Table 1. Allocation of Agile practices to maturity levels in three AMMs Sidky et al. [6] Patel & Ramachandran [5] Nawrocki et al. [4] Context Agile practice adoption based Agile practice adoption based Adoption of XP based on on a measurement index on CMM(I) other maturity models Level 1 On-site customer, collabora- –– tive planning, coding standard Level 2 Tracking progress, continuous Tracking progress, on-site cus- Planning game, collaborating delivery tomer, planning game, TDD customer (on-site customer), user stories, metaphors Level 3 F2F meeting, continuous inte- Refactoring, pair program- Pair programming, coding gration, self-organizing team ming, continuous integration, standard, collective ownership, TDD, coding standard, collec-