International Journal of


EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
line decor

 Volume 7, Issue 6 (June 2020), Pages: 97-102


 Original Research Paper

 Title: Evaluating the planning process in agile development methods: A systematic literature review

 Author(s): Khalid Khan 1, *, Ibrahim Hassan 1, Usman Waheed 2, Ayub Latif 1, Fadzil Hassan 3


 1PAF Karachi Institute of Economics and Technology, Karachi, Pakistan
 2Usman Institute of Technology, Karachi, Pakistan
 3Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar, Malaysia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile:

 Digital Object Identifier:


Agile development methods have been catering to the need for faster delivery of the ever-demanding domain of software engineering. These methods are able to deliver value to users and businesses via a fast, reliable, and repeatable process. Planning requirements and processes take the driving seat in a dynamic environment because the value proposition rapidly changes. This paper exhibits a systematic literature review of planning processes implemented by various agile methods in order to find the best suited agile method in terms of robust planning. It was found that Scrum is the best suited agile method for planning processes. 

 © 2020 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (

 Keywords: Agile, Planning, XP, Scrum, Crystal

 Article History: Received 16 July 2019, Received in revised form 15 March 2020, Accepted 17 March 2020


No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


 Khan K, Hassan I, and Waheed U et al. (2020). Evaluating the planning process in agile development methods: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 7(6): 97-102

 Permanent Link to this page


 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 


 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4


 References (22) 

  1. Abrahamsson P, Warsta J, Siponen MT, and Ronkainen J (2003). New directions on agile methods: A comparative analysis. In the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, IEEE, Portland, USA: 244-254.   [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmad G, Soomro TR, and Brohi MN (2014). Agile methodologies: Comparative study and future direction. European Academic Research, 1(11): 3826-3841.   [Google Scholar]
  3. Anwer F, Aftab S, Shah SM, and Waheed U (2017). Comparative analysis of two popular agile process models: Extreme programming and scrum. International Journal of Computer Science and Telecommunications, 8(2): 1-7.   [Google Scholar]
  4. Braun V and Clarke V (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77-101.   [Google Scholar]
  5. Febbraro N and Rajlich V (2007). The role of incremental change in agile software processes. In the Agile 2007, IEEE, Washington, USA: 92-103.   [Google Scholar]
  6. Fernandes JM and Almeida M (2010). Classification and comparison of agile methods. In the 7th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology, IEEE, Porto, Portugal: 391-396.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Highsmith JA and Highsmith J (2002). Agile software development ecosystems. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Kampker A, Meckelnborg A, Burggräf P, and Netz T (2013). Factory planning scrum: Integrative factory planning with agile project management. In the International Conference on Competitive Manufacturing, Stellenbosch, South Africa.   [Google Scholar]
  9. Kanwal F, Bashir K, and Ali AH (2014). Documentation practices for offshore agile software development. Life Science Journal, 10(11): 70-73.   [Google Scholar]
  10. Kitchenham B, Brereton OP, Budgen D, Turner M, Bailey J, and Linkman S (2009). Systematic literature reviews in software engineering: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 51(1): 7-15.   [Google Scholar]
  11. Kniberg H (2015). Scrum and XP from the trenches. 2nd Edition, Lulu Press, Morrisville, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  12. Matharu GS, Mishra A, Singh H, and Upadhyay P (2015). Empirical study of agile software development methodologies: A comparative analysis. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 40(1): 1-6.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Mendes TS, Farias MA, Mendonça M, Soares HF, Kalinowski M, and Spínola RO (2016). Impacts of agile requirements documentation debt on software projects: A retrospective study. In the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Pisa, Italy: 1290-1295.   [Google Scholar]
  14. Merzouk S, Elhadi S, Ennaji H, Marzak A, and Sael N (2017). A Comparative study of agile methods: Towards a new model-based method. International Journal of Web Applications, 9(4): 121-128.   [Google Scholar]
  15. Minarik M (2004). Analysis of the change management process in agile software development. Diploma Thesis, Masaryk University, Brno, Czechia.   [Google Scholar]
  16. Myklebust T, Stålhane T, Hanssen GK, Wien T, and Haugset B (2014). Scrum, documentation and the IEC 61508-3: 2010 software standard. In the International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, PSAM, Hawaii.   [Google Scholar]
  17. Shelly (2015). Comparative analysis of different agile methodologies. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology Research, 3(1): 199-203.   [Google Scholar]
  18. Stettina CJ and Heijstek W (2011). Necessary and neglected? An empirical study of internal documentation in agile software development teams. In the 29th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication, Association for Computing Machinery, Pisa, Italy: 159-166.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Stettina CJ and Kroon E (2013). Is there an agile handover? An empirical study of documentation and project handover practices across agile software teams. In the International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE) and IEEE International Technology Management Conference, IEEE, The Hague, Netherlands: 1-12.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Traa J (2006). RUP vs. MSF: A comparative study. Available online at:
  21. Waddell D and Sohal AS (1998). Resistance: A constructive tool for change management. Management Decision, 36: 543-548.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Wagenaar G, Overbeek S, Lucassen G, Brinkkemper S, and Schneider K (2018). Working software over comprehensive documentation–Rationales of agile teams for artefacts usage. Journal of Software Engineering Research and Development, 6: 7.   [Google Scholar]