Improvements for the Planning Process in the Scrum Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research aims to enhance sprint planning by integrating BeCoMe method in order to solve conflicts of opinions among the development team regarding right task selection for development for a sprint. BeCoMe method helps with this decision making by implementing a mathematical method where the experts can express their opinions by using real numbers, fuzzy numbers, or by using Likert linguistic terms. This study also includes a comparison between BeCoMe , WSJF, and CATWOE. A case study is presented with clear presentation of the results.

I would like to propose some minor modifications:

1.    Line 69, better to specify the references instead of “(see list of references)”.

2.     At the end of the Introduction, the research structure can be added to add a brief description of each chapter.

3.     Line 231, “The Do Async article (2022) points” better to change it to this study or article points…

4.     Lines 344, 376, and 584 better to add the links as references. Also, the link in 376 is unreachable.

5.    The case study in section 3.7, it would be beneficial if BeCoMe calculations were presented in detail as an example.

6.     The references section: links 2, and 28 are unreachable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

On behalf of the authors of our article, We would like to sincerely thank you for your work in reviewing our manuscript. We deeply appreciate all your comments and feedback, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality of our article.

We have made every effort to address all your comments, as well as the feedback from the other reviewers. Additionally, we have implemented further changes to the article to enhance its clarity and overall quality. We hope that these revisions meet your expectations and satisfaction.

The main changes include the following:

• Added structure of the article to the introduction (lines 61–71, page 2).
• Revised introductory sections (1.1, 1.2, 1.2.2, 3.1, and 3.2.1), where we aimed to provide a more concise explanation of concepts drawn from the literature.
• A new Section 2 - Related Work, which highlights recent studies on the evolution of Scrum methodology and emphasizes innovations in planning processes. (line 209 -233, page 5)
• Detailed BeCoMe calculation added to the case study in Section 4.7.2. (lines 534 = fig 4 and 539–548, pages 15–16).

Once again, we would like to thank you for your invaluable input. Below, we have included detailed responses to your individual comments.

Comments 1: Line 69, better to specify the references instead of “(see list of references)”.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your comment. Therefore, we have replaced the text with a specific list of references: [1,2,3,4] (line 78, page 2).

Comments 2: At the end of the Introduction, the research structure can be added to add a brief description of each chapter.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your comment. Therefore, we have added a paragraph describing the structure of our paper (lines 61–71, page 2): This paper is organized into several sections. Section 1 introduces the study, providing an overview of the research context and examining relevant literature on the theoretical background. Section 2 reviews related work, highlighting recent studies on the evolution of Scrum methodology and emphasizing innovations in planning processes. Section 3 details the materials and methods, focusing on the theoretical foundations of the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and the BeCoMe method utilized in this research. Section 4 presents the results and demonstrates how the BeCoMe method was applied to improve the Scrum planning process through a case study. Section 5 discusses the implications of these findings, comparing the BeCoMe method with existing approaches and evaluating its impact on agile project management. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper, sum-marizing the study's contributions and suggesting avenues for future research.

 

Comments 3: Line 231, “The Do Async article (2022) points” better to change it to this study or article points…
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your comment. Therefore, we have removed "The Do Async article (2022) points" and revised the paragraph accordingly (line 197, page 4).

 

Comments 4: Lines 344, 376, and 584 better to add the links as references. Also, the link in 376 is unreachable.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your comment. Therefore, we reviewed and verified the (line 300, page 6) across all available web browsers. For the other links (lines 376 and 584), we removed them to avoid duplicating information in paper.

Comments 5: The case study in section 3.7, it would be beneficial if BeCoMe calculations were presented in detail as an example.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your comment. Therefore, we revised Figure 4 and added detailed steps and values for the BeCoMe calculation linked to Section 3.3 (lines 534 and 539–548, pages 15–16): Figure 4 shows step 1 of the BeCoMe calculation from Section 2.3 of this paper, where expert opinions were constructed using triangular fuzzy numbers. Next, the figure shows the values of step 3, i.e., the computation of the centroids of each expert opinion Gx. The intermediate results of step 2 of the BeCoMe calculation are α=6,6, β=12, γ=9,4. In step 5, the median is solved, between the calculations of this step are ρ = 6,5, σ = 11,5, ω = 8,5. In the last step (step 5) before calculating the maximum deviation, the results are π = 6,6, φ = 11,75, ξ = 8,95. Max. Error of estimate can be seen in Figure 4, where its value is 0.27. The result of BeCoMe and the value of the best compromise solution from the given triangular fuzzy numbers is 9,1. From this value, we can deduce that the best possible compromise is the value of 9 tasks for the next sprint.

Comments 6: The references section: links 2, and 28 are unreachable.
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your comment. Therefore, we corrected the link for reference 2. For reference 34 (formerly 28), we removed the link, as it was mistakenly included and irrelevant.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research presented in this paper advances a mathematical method (BeComeMe) as an alternative to the subjective intuition involved in SCRUM sprint planning. The purpose is to reduce errors that are likely to appear in greater number when subjective intuition is engaged.

The soft research methodology used for this study involves a systems thinking approach. This is based on models of real-life situations. Depending on the quality of the model, solutions for real life situations have been proven to be effective.

The proposed BeComeMe solution was tested through a case study which, in accordance with the authors, demonstrated visible improvements to the overall SCRUM method. 

In conclusion, the proposed method moves the problems caused by subjective intuition to defining a quality model of a complex real life situation.

The abstract summarizes well the goals, the research methodology, and the results of the proposed research.

The authors rightly recognize the role of the proposed solution in complementing existing methods engaged in the SCRUM sprint planning process.

The authors explain that they offer a mathematically grounded solution to improve on the pitfalls of subjective intuition. It is necessary to explain how this statement holds true when the used SSM (Soft Systems Methodology) might also be, at least to some degree, prone to similar types of problems.

There is some confusion about the role of the introduction section. The paper expands way too much on explaining known SCRUM and SSM methods like in a textbook. It is expected that such information is referred to through appropriate citations and the introduction should focus on explaining the study’s contributions to existing knowledge.

The textbook approach used in explaining SCRUM and SSM, remains the same when explaining the BeComeMe method. Where the methods is explained, it is not clear if the method is created by the authors or where the known aspects described end and the paper’s contribution starts. In the Results section, the author’s contribution becomes clearer.

The data provided by the case study seems reliable and would be important to make sure that it can be made available for verification if needed.

Overall, the paper is well written, but for a journal paper more streamlining of the explanations is needed and a better synthesis of the work done is necessary.

The authors strive to eliminate emotional intelligence from the work process. However, recent research demonstrates that rational thinking and emotional intelligence in combination work best.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

On behalf of the authors of our article, I would like to sincerely thank you for your work in reviewing our manuscript. We deeply appreciate all your comments and feedback, which have significantly contributed to improving the quality of our article.

We have made every effort to address all your comments, as well as the feedback from the other reviewers. Additionally, we have implemented further changes to the article to enhance its clarity and overall quality. We hope that these revisions meet your expectations and satisfaction.

The main changes include the following:

• Added structure of the article to the introduction (lines 61–71, page 2).
• Revised introductory sections (1.1, 1.2, 1.2.2, 3.1, and 3.2.1), where we aimed to provide a more concise explanation of concepts drawn from the literature.
• A new Section 2 - Related Work, which highlights recent studies on the evolution of Scrum methodology and emphasizes innovations in planning processes. (line 209 -233, page 5)
• Detailed BeCoMe calculation added to the case study in Section 4.7.2. (lines 534 = fig 4 and 539–548, pages 15–16).

Once again, we would like to thank you for your invaluable input. Below, we have included detailed responses to your individual comments.

---

Comments 1: The authors explain that they offer a mathematically grounded solution to improve on the pitfalls of subjective intuition. It is necessary to explain how this statement holds true when the used SSM (Soft Systems Methodology) might also be, at least to some degree, prone to similar types of problems.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added a new paragraph to the conclusion (lines 674–682, pages 18–19): Furthermore, real-world systems are often influenced by numerous ambiguous and unpredictable factors, complicating planning, forecasting, and decision-making. Deci-sion-making processes in such contexts depend heavily on the expertise and perspectives of team members, with the composition and expertise level of the team playing a crucial role in the quality of outcomes. Where necessary, additional specialists can be involved to provide subject-matter expertise, ensuring well-informed and effective solutions. By in-corporating structured methods like BeCoMe, organizations can navigate these com-plexities with greater precision and confidence, enhancing the overall effectiveness of agile project management [32].

---

Comments 2: There is some confusion about the role of the introduction section. The paper expands way too much on explaining known SCRUM and SSM methods like in a textbook. It is expected that such information is referred to through appropriate citations and the introduction should focus on explaining the study’s contributions to existing knowledge.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your comment. Therefore, we have revised sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.2.2, 3.1, and 3.2.1, and added a new Section 2 - Related Work (line 209 -233, page 5), which highlights recent studies on the evolution of Scrum methodology and emphasizes innovations in planning processes.

---

Comments 3: The textbook approach used in explaining SCRUM and SSM, remains the same when explaining the BeComeMe method. Where the methods is explained, it is not clear if the method is created by the authors or where the known aspects described end and the paper’s contribution starts. In the Results section, the author’s contribution becomes clearer.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. Two co-authors of this paper are the creators (authors) of the BeCoMe method. The method and its detailed calculation are an important part of this paper. In Section 4.7.2 (case study 2), we have added a detailed BeCoMe calculation that directly references the step-by-step description provided in Section 3.3.

---

Comments 4: Overall, the paper is well written, but for a journal paper more streamlining of the explanations is needed and a better synthesis of the work done is necessary.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your comment. Therefore, we have added the structure of the paper to the introduction (lines 61–71, page 2). We revised the introductory sections (1.1, 1.2, 1.2.2, 3.1, and 3.2.1) to provide a more concise explanation of concepts drawn from the literature. We added a new Section 2 - Related Work, which highlights recent studies on the evolution of Scrum methodology and emphasizes innovations in planning processes (lines 209–233, page 5). Additionally, we included a detailed BeCoMe calculation in the case study in Section 4.7.2 (lines 534 and 539–548, pages 15–16), referencing the calculation steps outlined in Section 3.3. We have added a new paragraph to the conclusion (lines 674–682, pages 18–19). We have added additional literary sources to the publication (ref: 20,21,22,23,24,25).

---

Comments 5: The authors strive to eliminate emotional intelligence from the work process. However, recent research demonstrates that rational thinking and emotional intelligence in combination work best.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. For instance, in Section 5 (lines 604–606), we emphasized that our proposed solution is not always mandatory and may only be used in selected conflict situations. This is why we wrote: Moreover, this step is not mandatory, and not all sprints in the project need to be planned this way. This step can be utilized in rare situations where the entire team cannot unanimously agree on the assignment for the next sprint.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 1. The author should show sufficient literature review and discussion to illustrate the development and application trends of agile management methods.  In particular, the software development process and management based on the SCRUM methodology, regarding the pros and cons of its specific application fields in various types of agile management should be mentioned, this is exactly the main purpose that drive the author to do some practical improvement. Therefore, the research background shuold be further discussed and reference literature should be improved, so that the reader acknowledge the necessity of the research in the article .

 

 

2. In section3, Agile methodology itself is know to researchers , there is no need to rephrase the basic principles and methodology as textbook does. It is better to offer only brief SCRUM introduction that is relevant to the research  is just fine or the reference literature listed is enough. Samely, in section 4, soft systems methodology is elaborated too much, for this is not author's method , there is no need to rephrase too much. 

 

3. In section 5, the author states to eliminate the risk involved in the planning and selection process. Conceptual model for definition is given.  However, some important information is missing.  for example, how CATWOE is measured in quantity way？ how the detailed procedured is carried out？Is this applicable to all application or just for specific environment. The reader does not find detail case study in this section, so how the result of Quality of execution, such as "Very good" is  obtained in Table I.  Beling lack of case study, the research result may not support the conclusion strongly. I suggest the author provide detail case study to demonstrate the method.

 

 

 

4. In section 6,  The author cites a reference illustrating the results of the methodology in a case study. What the reader does not understand is, what is the purpose of this part of the quotation? Because case study in the reference is not a case study in the author's paper.

Author Response

First, let us thank you very much for your valuable review comments. We greatly appreciate every comment to improve our research article.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research primarily uses a soft systems technique to define and address the issue since its outcomes are seen favorably by society in this particular situation. The BeCoMe technique, which would minimize risk in the planning and assignment process for individual sprints in the SCRUM method, is the key enhancement that is suggested.

-The review background is weak;

-the quality of the figures is too weak

-the novelties are unclear

-the presentation needs to be revised;

-add some more diagrams to have a general overview

-what is SCRUM?

-there are many other abbreviations with no illustration

-add a remark about the possible improvement by fuzzy logic such as

A deep learned type-2 fuzzy neural network: Singular value decomposition approach

-the equations have not been numbered

 

 

 

Author Response

First, let us thank you very much for your valuable review comments. We greatly appreciate every comment to improve our research article.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

- The idea is good: to use an objective method to prioritize decisions during sprints of SCRUM method

- Nevetheless the study lacks two fundamental things:

1- Literature Review that explains similar methods that were applied to deal with the literature gap. For example, papers where the BeCoMe method or other methods were applied.

2- A case study describing the application of the method either on a real or a virtual scenario.

- There is an overuse of bullet points instead of normal text.

- Lack of references in most of the text.

1.       Introduction

- Introduction explains well the concepts and problem, but not a single reference to ground what is written in the introduction

- Some Problems with grammar and phrase construction: Ex:

“The agile methodology has one big advantage because the development of modern software solutions is nowadays full of changes” – What is the big advantage?

“The agile methods can help consider these changes during developing the software product and that`s one of the reasons why are the agile methods, such as SCRUM Development Process methodology, Lean Development, Extreme programming etc., so popular

- No clear problem and gap definition

- Solution proposed should be described in summary at this stage

2.       Agile Methodology

- Using a lot of bullet points is not a good strategy for a paper of this kind. I would advise the authors to compile this section in a table with the agile methodologies and their description. This table should appear in the Introduction section or in a Literature Review section, in line with the rest of the text.

3. SCRUM Methodology

- Also should be a subsection on Introduction or LR.

- In the subsection “SCRUM specific terms”, you should at least have one or two lines of explanatory text before the bullet points.

4. Materials and Methods

- It is not well justified the usage of soft systems against hard systems.

- Why using acronym for soft systems but not for hard systems?

- When describing the Method BeCoMe, I felt like I was reading a flyer selling the method/software instead of a scientific description

5. Results

- Results present problem statement but this should appear on introduction

- Author should not be mentioned in first person in the article: “I would like to eliminate this problem in planning SCRUM sprints as much as possible in 295 this research”

- “Rich pitcture” is used as the title of Figure 1. What does this mean? Should be “Example of rich picture method”. Anyway, I don’t see the illustration in figure 1 as appropriate for a scientific paper

- I do not see a clear justification of why the BeCoMe method is the best approach for the problem and not other MCDM

- Results section does not actually present any results

- The authors should show a case study implementing the method proposed

6. Discussion

-

7. Conclusions

-

References

-        Most references are really old, there is new work that should be cited to prove the innovation in this paper

 

Author Response

First, let us thank you very much for your valuable review comments. We greatly appreciate every comment to improve our research article.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

I'm disappointed that the same issues exsit in the revised paper.

1. Although more literatures are listed,  they are not cited and discussed in the paper (only 18 literatures are cited in the paper), besides, most literatures are outdated, the author should review up-to-date literatures and have the latest research in hand.   

At the end of section I， the author should brief the intention of each section. 

2.  Again, In section 2,  the methodology is over-repeated, a brief but clear description of the methodology is needed.

3. In section 3, a case-study is added, but it is still not clear how the proposed  methodology(namely, BeCoMe) can overcome the disadvantage of scrub plan process.  It is hardly draw any conclusions.

 

4. what is the point in section 4? In line 526, "It can be concluded that ... ..." 。The author should discuss their case studies, rather than drawing conclusions from citing other cases.  

 

5. The quality of most pictures resolution are very poor.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The goal of this research is to improve the planning phase of the Scrum methodology in a real-world way. The research primarily applies a soft systems methodology to both explain and address the issue. The BeCoMe method's adoption, which would lower risk in the planning and assignment phase for individual sprints in the Scrum methodology, is the key enhancement. The general idea is good, but needs some revisions:

-there are many writing errors that need to be checked

-the quality of the figures is not acceptable

-the memberships in fig 5 are wrong; note that for a specific input the summation of memberships can not be more than one!

-the novelties of the paper are unclear; highlight what is new

-add a direction for readers, "the suggested approach can be improved using new type-3 fuzzy logics systems such as:

Optimal deep learning control for modernized microgrids;

-there is no comparison with other methods