Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Procedia CIRP 52 (2016) 68 – 73
Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable & Virtual Production
Towards agile engineering of mechatronic systems in machinery and plant construction Thorsten P. Kleina*, Gunther Reinharta a
Fraunhofer Institute for Machine Tools and Forming Technology (IWU), Project Group Resource-efficient Mechatronic Processing Machines, Beim Glaspalast 5, 86153 Augsburg, Germany, www.iwu.fraunhofer.de/rmv * Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 821 56883 88; fax: +49 821 56883 50. E-mail address:
[email protected]
Abstract Agile procedures (e.g. Scrum) are commonly used in rapidly changing environments of software engineering. Experts appreciate improvements in interdisciplinary collaboration, lead times and development costs by applying agile techniques as artifacts, meetings, roles and visualisation methods. Up to now, the use of agile procedures is still limited to IT-projects, due to a lack of profound knowledge in transferring agile techniques into interdisciplinary projects. This contribution presents the research work on Agile Engineering, a counterpart of Lean Product Development, by the systematic integration of agile techniques into the development process of mechatronic production systems. Thereto, an introduction and state of the art is given concerning the industry sector of machinery and plant construction as well as agile methodologies. The main focus of the paper is represented by the classification and comparison of Agile Engineering as well as the main features of integrating agile techniques into the mechatronic engineering process. According to the advanced research insights of the last years, Agile Engineering is a new enabler of success for establishing an agile production, providing promising approaches for coping with change and uncertainty efficiently. © Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This ©2016 2016The The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable & Virtual Production Conference. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable & Virtual Production Conference 2016 Keywords: Agility; Mechatronics; Engineering Process; Lean Product Development; Scrum
1. Introduction 1.1. Interdisciplinary engineering in machinery and plant construction The machinery and plant construction is one of the most innovative, populous and top-selling sectors in Germany, leading the export trade of valuable equipment and machinery all around the world [1]. Especially specialized systems are profoundly custom-tailored, combining mechanical, electrical and software components [2]. In context of mechatronic systems, the importance of information technology rises progressively in matters of operation scope, innovation and value creation [3]. While customer integration and reaction times are low concerning consumer goods (e.g. configure-toordered smartphones), mechatronic production systems are mostly engineered-to-order in lot size one, deeply respecting customer needs [4]. As requirements have to be specified in a close collaboration, the development process can be characterized by a product and process co-progression [2].
To initiate an efficient development process, engineers have to cope with preliminary requirements from the beginning [5], as planning information merely substantiates during the progress [6]. As expenditures for necessary rework increase exponentially, the engineering phase is primarily in count of the pegged costs [7]. Hence, the interdisciplinary interaction of engineers is crucial for the success of a project, in which collaboration in teams, the conditions and requirements of the ordered product as well as the process and structural organization play significant roles. 1.2. Challenges and factors of success for an efficient product development Coming from the challenges in mechatronic engineering, the increasing interdisciplinary collaboration, the rising complexity of requirements as well as shorten product life cycles mainly determines the efficiency of a product development process [9]. Thus, the specific factors of success in machinery and plant construction cover [3,10–13]:
2212-8271 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Changeable, Agile, Reconfigurable & Virtual Production Conference 2016 doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.07.077
69
Thorsten P. Klein and Gunther Reinhart / Procedia CIRP 52 (2016) 68 – 73
48
36
42
47
36
37
QualityGate-Model
3- LevelModel
V-Model-XT
Scrum
Kanban
Extreme Programming
Agile
39
VDI 2422
100
43
VDI 2221
Conventional n = 47
VDI 2206
professionalising the settlement and taxonomy of projects, definition of flexible, adaptive and improved processes, continuous integration of sub-products, cross-functional, interdisciplinary, self-organised and accountable teams as well as x communication and involvement of stakeholders
%
Response
x x x x
60 40 20
To cope with these factors, key activities should mainly engage the improvement of methodical competences as well as the acceptance of new approaches [9]. This paper presents the results of the research work on the so-called Agile Engineering in machinery and plant construction, transferring agile procedures (e.g. Scrum) of software engineering into machinery and plant construction. Thereto, the state of the art is pointed out and the comprehension of Agile Engineering is discussed. As a practical aspect, the integration of agile techniques into engineering processes is outlined, before the paper closes with a summary and outlook of future activities. 2. State of the Art 2.1. Current situation in machinery and plant construction Investigating the experience of applied procedures, [14] addressed the producing industry through a survey on mechatronic engineering in machinery and plant construction in 2014. From 158 online and written returns, 95 data records (symbol n) could be evaluated completely. Several theses could be stated concerning interdisciplinary collaboration, being summarized as impact results (see Table 1). According to the survey results, less than 15 % of the engineering departments are structured in project teams. However, more than 79 % of all companies operate at global spread development sides. Thereby, change requests and coordination efforts are high or rather high in more than 70 % and 79 % of all cases. Likewise, more than 83 % and 86 % of all respondents concluded that the engineering depth is high or rather high in mechanical and software engineering, compared to 67 % in electrical engineering. Asking for the application and knowledge on procedures within this disciplines in producing companies (see Fig. 1), the questionnaire distinguished between both conventional approaches (e.g. VDI 2221) of mechanical engineering as well as agile procedures (e.g. Scrum) of software engineering, which arose from the Agile Manifesto 2001, cp. [15, 16]. Thereby, the interviewed persons should specify, whether a procedure is adapted to the conditions, is applied unmodified or is rather unknown within the nearby environment. Table 1. Results on conditions according to [14] Thesis
Response
n
Engineering departments are structured in project teams.
< 15 %
92
Engineering sites at more than one location.
> 79 %
91
Change requests are high or rather high.
> 70 %
92
Coordination efforts are high or rather high.
> 92 %
93
Mechanical engineering depth is high or rather high.
> 83 %
92
Software engineering depth is high or rather high.
> 86 %
86
Electrical engineering depth is high or rather high.
> 67 %
89
0
Adapted
Unmodified
Unknown
Fig. 1. Results on application and knowledge of procedures according to [14]
In regard of the participant’s background, only the half is dealing with procedures themselves, particularly within the development department. Thereby, the VDI 2206 and 2221 as well as the Quality-Gate-Model belong to the most popular and unmodified conventional procedures. On the side of the agile procedures, only Scrum captures a comparable leading role, whereas Kanban and Extreme Programming are rather unknown. However, projects using agile procedures focus on IT according to [20]. Hence, this survey stated that engineering processes in machinery and plant construction are still construed to construction design, keeping to mainstream and established conventional approaches. 2.2. Agile Procedures In 2001, software pioneers joined to declare “better ways of developing software” within the Agile Manifesto [15]. These experts came to four values of prioritisation (e.g. “individuals and interactions over processes and tools”) as well as twelve principles of agility (e.g. “our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through early and continuous delivery of valuable software”), which play the most important role in efficient software development [15]. The implementation of these theoretical values and principles is realised by the application of agile procedures. In comparison to conventional procedures, which often focus on stage-gated phases and strict requirement specification [5], agile procedures expose the mind-set of agility, embracing change and uncertainty throughout the whole process [18]. Thereto, requirements are specified, features are realised and evaluated incrementally within an iterative period of time [19-21]. Until today, various agile procedures have been developed [19]. Among them, Scrum belongs to the widely used and most successful procedures, being applied in projects in and beside software development all-around [17, 22]. Thus, this paper concentrates on Scrum’s agile techniques. Particularly worth mentionable is the contrast, that Scrum defines no software-specific activities [19]. Instead, it follows the principles of Lean Management of Toyota Production System, which are common to engineering and manufacturing projects [19]. Coming from a novel interpretation, Scrum can be regarded as an elemental proceeding, being implemented by operative working steps within design states, aligned to common project milestones, cp. [8] (see Fig. 2).
70
Thorsten P. Klein and Gunther Reinhart / Procedia CIRP 52 (2016) 68 – 73
Operative Working Steps
Milestones, Project
Criterion Overproducing Waiting
Meetings (8) Artifacts (12)
Visualisation (2) Roles (6)
Conveyance
Micro-logic
Macro-logic
Elemental Proceeding
Design States I. II.
Plann
Do D
Act
Check C
Table 2. Wastage in manufacturing and product development [5, 33, 34]
III.
IV.
Time
Tactical Planning Review and Strategical Planning Operation Improvement
Fig. 2. Scrum from different views of logic [8, 23, 28, 29]
The micro-logical core of Scrum is a troubleshooting process, transferring the first draft to the final product within iterating phases of planning, doing, checking and acting [19, 20], comparable to PDCA-Cycle of [23]. The practical implementation is realised by operative working steps, which can be differentiated according to the nomenclature of [24]. These agile techniques include the domains of twelve artifacts (e.g. Product Backlog) [25], eight meetings (e.g. Daily Meeting) [26], six roles (e.g. Product Owner) and two visualisation methods (e.g. Task Board) [27] according to acknowledged specifications, cp. [28, 29]. From a process viewpoint, Scrum can be subdivided into a repeating sequence of four design states, including the phases of Strategical (e.g. estimation of customer needs) and Tactical Planning (e.g. requirement specification), Operation (e.g. draft, design and realisation) as well as Review and Improvement (e.g. application). Last but not least, Scrum refers to the management triangle from a project’s point of view, cp. [10]. 3. Agile Engineering 3.1. Classification As stated in empirical studies on applying agile procedures in software engineering, advantages in reduced efforts, increased flexibility and customer satisfaction as well as reductions of delivery times, reworks and costs are mentioned [30-32]. In order to constitute the research insights of a novel counterpart beside Lean Product Development, Agile Engineering should be contemplated in context of established approaches in manufacturing and development. Coming from agility in product development, Agile Engineering can be located in correlation and influence to Lean Manufacturing [33], Lean Development [34, 35] as well as Agile Manufacturing [36]. Lean Manufacturing of Toyota Production System [33] relies on the conviction of increasing value creation through the elimination of wastage [10, 37]. This can be reached by a systematic wastage-focused analysis and process mapping in direct as well as indirect business areas [38]. Transferring this idea into the early phase of the development process, being known as Lean Development, several differences may be distinguished concerning the occurrence of wastage (see Table 2).
Processing Inventory Motion Correction
Manufacturing Excessive items Interruptions, poor material flow Unnecessary movement of goods Non-assigned work Work in process Unsuitable handling Detecting and fixing defects, scrap
Development Non-required functionality Missing information and decisions Exchange of unessential information Undesignated activities Outstanding requirements Acquisition of information Proprietary tests and reviews
While wastage in manufacturing occurs mainly through the treatment of goods, wastage in development processes arises from the handling of information, cp. [5]. Thereto, so-called Lean Enablers as Poka-Yoke, a mechanism for mistakeproofing in manufacturing by anticipating potential errors of humans, are specific for development use-cases [13]. For instance, Lean Software Development is a method, defining seven principles (e.g. “decide as late as possible”) of eliminating wastage in software engineering, cp. [35]. Agility is an attribute of manufacturing, describing the ability of diversification and interaction of a producing company, while the product portfolio is addressed on network level [10]. In this context, [39] suggest the approaches network pooling, allying and slack for a sophisticated share of unused production capacity between network stakeholders. According to [40], both Japan’s manufacturing industry as well as Lean Development is closely interconnected. Consequently, the so far largely omitted Agile Engineering should be investigated as a promising approach beside conventional procedures. 3.2. Comparison Towards generic comparisons, both agile and conventional procedures may support the way of success in a hardware project according to several surveys, cp. [17, 22]. The benefits of agile aspects in manufacturing projects depend on the different home-ground areas, in which rather agile or conventional procedure take place best [19, 41]. To clarify this context, the significance of an agile process can be opposed to sequential, iterative and incremental procedures, using the classification of [42] (see Fig. 3). Plan-driven Sequential
Result-oriented Iterative
Incremental
Agile
Experience Vision
Estimation
Requirements
Requirements
Requirements
Requirements
Draft
Draft
Design
Design
Design
Design
Realisation
Realisation
Realisation
Realisation
Application
Application
Application
Application
Fig. 3: Differentiation of procedures according to [43]
71
Thorsten P. Klein and Gunther Reinhart / Procedia CIRP 52 (2016) 68 – 73
Comparing the procedures, the manufacturing process is classified in sectors of Vision (e.g. machine sketch), Estimation (e.g. combination and prioritization of customer needs), Requirement (e.g. requirement specification), Draft (e.g. functional specification), Design (e.g. layout, CAD/ CAE), Realization (e.g. fabrication of parts and integration of modules) and Application (e.g. delivery to the customer), exchanging experience (e.g. findings and knowledge). The procedures are either rather plan-driven with focus on the process or result-oriented, aligning towards the product. A sequential process is common to most conventional procedures (e.g. Waterfall-Model [44]), in which only nearby sectors exchange experience. As transitions between the sectors take place consecutively, returns from the last to the first sectors are not provided. As repetitions are rare, the sectors are compared to phases in order to emphasis chronological progression. While in a sequential process the product is delivered late, an iterative process (e.g. SpiralModel [45]) addresses exposing requirements, delivering first prototypes. It is a strictly top-down repetition of the same sectors, whereat experience is passed down to the next sector and finally reused for requirement specification of the next iteration. An incremental process contains aspects of both sequential and iterative procedures with a unique specification of requirements. It is often ascribed in context of software engineering (e.g. Extreme Programming [46]), being used when requirements may be specified definitely as well as in case of continuous integration and delivery. Once, the functions are specified in the sector of draft, features are implemented and delivered gradually, reporting experience and customer feedback to the sector of Design. An agile process combines both iterative and incremental aspects, being used mainly in projects with unclear requirements and high customer involvements. Starting with a one-time vision of the product, customer needs are gathered, structured and prioritized in estimation meetings. Starting over with the requirement specification, a period of drafting, designing and realizing sub-products follows up. Meanwhile, insights or new customer needs may be provided for a recapitulation of estimations. Whenever a potentially shippable sub-product is realized completely, it is reviewed by the customer before the sector of requirements starts over again. 3.3. Conclusion Concluding the classification and comparison presented above, the term of Agile Engineering implies a strategy of Lean Product Development by the systematic use of agile techniques within the development process of mechatronic systems in machinery and plant construction, cp. [47, 48]. The core characteristics can be described as a flexible, human- and product-centered development process, involving stakeholders (e.g. customers) frequently, by the incremental delivery of potentially shippable sub-products in iterative development flows, while reacting (pro-) actively on change. An agile development can be located in-between the modularization of a functional structured system, realizing single increments in iterative sequences, fusing the drafting,
designing, realizing and testing, up to the implementation of the modules is realized completely. For modularization purposes, interdependencies of parts can be identified using existing approaches, cp. [49]. In order to establish an agile development between modularization and implementation, usual planning steps within a mechatronic engineering process have to be considered as well as agile techniques (see Fig 4). 4. Integration of agile techniques into the mechatronic engineering processes In order to apply Agile Engineering in machinery and plant construction, a specification of planning steps is necessary, as Scrum includes no software-specific activities itself [19]. Thereto, the Mechatronic Reference Model (MRM) of [47] can be used for an enclosed description of an universal development process, consisting of a broad set of engineering tasks. These tasks h analyzed, systematized and validated in several workshops by a consortium of interdisciplinary experts in machinery and plant construction. As a hierarchy, process areas, activity groups and planning steps were differentiated. In total, the consortium identified over 350 unique planning steps (e.g. specifying requirements with the customer), being assigned to specific activity groups (e.g. requirements specification), combining closely connected steps. Each of over 50 activity groups have been distinguished, belonging to one of nine global process areas (e.g. requirements engineering), that cover the main fields of mechatronic development processes [47]. As an agile procedure demands the engineering team to choose priorities and realize the engineering tasks, a sequence of planning steps is not appropriate in contrast to concepts of modelling techniques of product development processes [50]. Thereto, the planning steps can be educed out of the MRM without considering interconnected dependencies (“X”). Consequently, the domains of agile techniques can be opposed to the domain of planning steps, analysing potential logical combinations. Considering the amount of 28 agile techniques of Scrum as well as the over 350 planning steps of the MRM, almost 10.000 combinations have to be investigated. Methodical, this combination can be conducted by a Domain Mapping Matrix (DMM), cp. [27] (see Fig. 5). As a result of establishing the DMM, over 800 combinations could be worked out by the authors all in all. This ratio might be construed as marginal, but shows a sophisticated and potential interaction of agile techniques and planning steps in mechatronic engineering processes. Modularisation
Development
Function 1 System
Implementation
Module 1 Draft
Desgin
Test
Realisation
Function 2
Module 2
Function n
Planning Steps
Module n
Agile Techniques
Fig. 4: Agile Engineering of a modular system
Machine
Thorsten P. Klein and Gunther Reinhart / Procedia CIRP 52 (2016) 68 – 73
Development Process
72
Planning Step 1
Artifacts
Meetings
X
X
Planning Step 2 Planning Step n
X
Roles
Visualisation
X
X
X
X
Fig. 5: Schematic DMM, linking agile techniques with engineering activities
Therefore, on closer examination, fundamental and specific pattern can by identified relating to the domains of agile techniques: x activities, e.g. daily meetings, should be applied for quality engineering, x artifacts, e.g. a product backlog for specification issues, are mainly represented within requirements engineering, x roles, e.g. a product owner, can account for responsibility in project monitoring, x visualisation methods, e.g. task board for surveying work in progress, should be established in project planning and updated regularly in project monitoring. Altogether, especially the process areas of requirements engineering, project monitoring and quality engineering are covered by agile techniques, whereat the roles capture the leading position in comparison with the other domains. As the DMM resembles a class of universal development processes, an instantiation is necessary for custom-designed purposes, which cannot be presented in general. This application is in duty of the management of a producing company, being responsible for process and structural organisation. 5. Application For applying the DMM, the domains of the planning steps as well as the domain of agile techniques should be investigated. As one major aspect of the DMM, the customdesigned instantiation of profitable agile techniques can be determined by matching the planning steps with the present process. This allows the management to consider, which currently exercised engineering activities can profit by the application of agile techniques. Since the instantiation depends on the specific conditions, management requirements are multifaceted. Hence, potentially upcoming decisions may be outlined generally, by means of an example. Instantiating the DMM to the custom-designed process, the management has to decide about implementing new artifacts, meetings, roles and visualisation methods. Likewise, the management can estimate, which other planning steps could be realised by a selected agile technique, in order to review the existing product development process. As an example of investigating the DMM, the common working step of “specifying requirements with the customer” can be regarded. Usually, a requirement list is used for documentation of requirements, being represented by the agile artifact product backlog. This product backlog is updated within the estimation meeting by the role of the product owner. Assuming the management works on implementing an estimation meeting for reworking the specification sheet at times, other planning steps could be realised within the activity group of “requirement specification”, for instance the
“definition of target costing”. Altogether, the methodical combination of planning steps and agile techniques within the DMM institutes a large set of starting-points in improving process and structural organisation of a producing company. As expert experience is necessary for the proper use and realisation of decisions, this process should be supported by a professional Certified Scrum Master (CSM). Likewise, the CSM may use his experience for adapting the agile techniques according to specific requirements of the company. To draw a conclusion of Agile Engineering, the benefits may be assumed by accounting agile software development. Following recognized surveys on agile procedures in software engineering, a reduction of lead times and development costs as well as an enhancement of productivity could be achievable up to a double-digit percentage quotation [51–54]. These benefits are expected to be potentially realized in machinery and plant construction as well, once the improvement of methodical competences as well as the acceptance of new approaches will be eventually engaged in producing industry. 6. Summary and outlook Germany’s machinery and plant construction belongs to the most important industry sectors all around the world. In order to develop valuable goods, engineers of mechanics, electronics and informatics have to cooperate. Considering the prevailing situation of interdisciplinary engineering, merely few companies can realise a close interaction efficiently. Coming from software engineering, agile procedures have been established since the declaration of Agile Manifesto in 2001. However, the trend of flexible processes and (pro-) active reaction on change was not extended to machinery and plant construction yet. This paper concludes the main results of the research activities during the last years, introducing Agile Engineering as a novel counterpart of Lean Product Development, eliminating wastage through the close interaction of stakeholders and the delivery of potentially shippable sub-products in iterative development flows. This can be realised by the systematic integration of agile techniques into the mechatronic engineering process by combining planning steps which describe engineering activities. Thereto, the research work presented in this paper provides a DMM, methodically combining agile techniques with mechatronic planning steps. Depending on the customdesigned process, companies may identify the specific and profitable artifacts, meetings, roles and visualisation methods through instantiating the DMM. Beyond, new planning steps can be investigated by reviewing the process additionally. As the main result of an implementation of Agile Engineering, being accompanied by a professional CSM, benefits concerning the management triangle of costs, quality and time can be realized, strengthening Germany’s economic situation in a long term. Hence, future research activities should mainly focus on the product, dealing with the modularisation of a production system in order to implement stand-alone modules in an agile development flow, as well as the systematic migration of agile techniques into machinery and plant construction, cp. [55].
Thorsten P. Klein and Gunther Reinhart / Procedia CIRP 52 (2016) 68 – 73
7. Acknowledgement We extend our sincere thanks to the Federal Ministry of Education and Research for the funding of our research. The results presented in this paper have been achieved within the scope of the research project MEPROMA (FKZ: 02PJ1051) in cooperation with the project executing organisation PTKA in Karlsruhe. The authors appreciated the support of all colleagues and students for establishing the survey on mechatronic engineering in machinery and plant construction as well as the statistical analysis of the returned data records. 8. References [1] VDMA, “Maschinenbau in Zahl und Bild” (2015), , 21.12.2015. [2] J. Schröder, “Benchmark von Entwicklungsbereichen im Maschinenbau”, Aachen 2003. [3] M. Eigner, F. Gerhardt, T. Gilz and F. Mogo Nem, “Informationstechnologie für Ingenieure”, Berlin 2012. [4] K. Alicke, “Planung und Betrieb von Logistiknetzwerken”, Berlin 2005. [5] C. Hammers, “Modell für die Identifikation kritischer Informationspfade in Entwicklungsprojekten zur projektindividuellen Umsetzung der Quality-Gate-Systematik”, Aachen 2012. [6] J. Aughenbaugh, “Agile Manufacturing in 2020 – Managing Complexity and Uncertainty in Product Realization”, in: NSF/ASME Design Essay Competition 2004. [7] K. Ehrlenspiel, “Integrierte Produktentwicklung”, München 2009. [8] U. Lindemann: “Methodische Entwicklung technischer Produkte”, Berlin 2009. [9] J. Gausemeier, R. Dumitrescu, D. Steffen, A. Czaja, O. Wiederkehr and C. Tschirner, “Systems Engineering in der industriellen Praxis”, Paderborn 2013. [10] H.-P. Wiendahl, J. Reichardt and P. Nyhuis, “Handbuch Fabrikplanung”, München 2009. [11] H. Grabowski and K. Geiger, “Neue Wege zur Produktentwicklung“, Stuttgart 1997. [12] T. Kligert, D. Becker, L. Paulukuhn, P. Weber and J. Schröder, “Forschung und Entwicklung managen”, KPMG (Ed.): Studie 2005. [13] K. Kirner, “Zusammenhang zwischen Leistung in der Produktentwicklung und Variantenmanagement”, München 2014. [14] B. Drescher, T. P. Klein and G. Reinhart: “Survey on mechatronic engineering in machinery and plant construction” (2014), , 02.06.2014. [15] K. Beck, M. Beedle, A. van Bennekum, A. Cockburn, W. Cunningham, M. Fowler, J. Grenning, J. Highsmith, A. Hunt, R. Jeffries, J. Kern, B. Marick, R. C. Martin, S. Mellor, K. Schwaber, J. Sutherland and D. Thomas: “Agile Manifesto” (2001), , 21.12.2015. [16] T. Dingsøyr, S. Nerur, V. Balijepally and N. B. Moe, “A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development”, in: The Journal of Systems and Software (2012) 85. [17] A. Komus, “Status quo agile”, Koblenz 2012. [18] K. Beck, “Embracing change with extreme programming”, in: IEEE Computer 32 (1999) 10. [19] P. Abrahamsson, “Agile software development methods”, Espoo 2002. [20] I. Sommerville, “Software engineering”, München 2012. [21] K. Schwaber, “Agiles Projekmanagement mit Scrum”, München 2007. [22] A. Komus, “Status Quo Agile 2014”, Koblenz 2014. [23] W. E. Deming, “Out of the crisis”, Cambridge 1986. [24] G. Kalus, “Projektspezifische Anpassung von Vorgehensmodellen”, München 2013. [25] M. Kuhrmann, D. M. Fernandez and M. Groeber “Towards Artifact Models as Process Interfaces in Distributed Software Projects”, in: International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE), Bari 26.-29.08.2013. [26] J. Schiller, “A Framework for Externalizing Information in Agile Meetings”, München 2010.
[27] U. Lindemann, M. Maurer and T. Braun, “Structural Complexity Management”, Berlin 2009. [28] B. Gloger, “Scrum checklist” (2013), , 14.02.2015. [29] B. Gloger, “Scrum”, München 2013. [30] K. S. Rubin, “Essential Scrum”, Heidelberg 2014. [31] M. M. Müller and F. Padberg, “Extreme programming from an engineering economics viewpoint” (2002), , 21.12.2015. [32] I. K. Sjøberg, A. Johnsen and J. Solberg, “Quantifying the effect of using kanban versus scrum”, IEEE Software 29 (2012) 5. [33] J. P. Womack, D. T. Jones, D. Roos, “The Machine That Changed the World – The Story of Lean Production”, New York 1991. [34] J. M. Morgan and J. K. Liker, “The Toyota Product Development System – Integrating people, process, and technology”, New York 2006. [35] M. Poppendieck, “Principles of Lean Thinking” (2002), , 21.12.2015. [36] M. Poppendieck and T. Poppendieck, “Lean Software Development – An Agile Toolkit for Software Development Managers”, Boston 2003. [37] Y. Y. Yusuf, M. Sarhadi and A. Gunasekaran, “Agile manufacturing – The drivers, concepts and attributes”, in: International Journal of Production Economics 62 (1999). [38] K. Magenheimer, G. Reinhart and C. S. L. Schutte, “Lean management in indirect business areas – modeling, analysis, and evaluation of waste”, in: WGP Production Engineering 8 (2014) 1-2. [39] M. Monauni and S. Foschiani: “Agility Enablers in Manufacturing Systems – Contributions of the Production Network Perspective”, in: Zaeh, M. F. (Ed.), “Enabling Manufacturing Competitiveness and Economic Sustainability”, Cham 2013. [40] J. Hurdato and A. Vilenna, “Agile and Lean Influences” (2015), , 21.12.2015. [41] T. Chow and D-B. Cao, “A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects”, in: The Journal of Systems and Software 81 (2007). [42] B. Jenny, “Projektmanagement”, Zürich 2009. [43] M. Gnatz, “Vom Vorgehensmodell zum Projektplan”, München 2005. [44] W. W. Royce, “Manageing the development of large software systems”, in: “Managing the Development of Large Software Systems”, 1970. [45] B. Boehm, “A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement”, in: Computer 21 (1988) 5. [46] K. Beck, “Extreme programming eXplained – Embrace change”, Reading 1999. [47] B. Drescher*, T. P. Klein*, B. Spiegelberger, R. Stetter and G. Reinhart, “Synthesis of a mechatronic reference model for engineering processes of production systems“, in: International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, Besançon 8.-11.07.2014, *Joint first authors: Both authors contributed equally to this work. [48] T. P. Klein and G. Reinhart, “Approaches for integration of agile procedures into mechatronic engineering of manufacturing systems“, in: Zaeh, M. F. (Ed.): “Enabling Manufacturing Competitiveness and Economic Sustainability”, Cham 2013. [49] F. Karl and G. Reinhart, “Reconfigurations on manufacturing resources. Identification of needs and planning”, in: WGP Production Engineering 9 (2015) 3. [50] T. R. Browning, B. Fricke and H. Negele, “Key concepts in modeling product development processes”, in: Systems Engineering 9 (2006) 2. [51] M. Cohn, “Succeeding with Agile: Software Development Using Scrum”, Boston 2010. [52] P. Middleton and D. Joyce, “Lean software management“, in: Institute IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 59 (2012) 1. [53] G. M. Kapitsaki and M. Christou: “Where Is Scrum in the Current Agile World?”, In: International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (2014), Lisbon 28.-30.04.2014. [54] E. Cardozo, J. Neto, A. Barza, A. Franca and F. da Silva, “Scrum and productivity in software projects”, , 21.12.2015. [55] S. Nerur, R. Mahapatra and G. Mangalaraj, “Challenges of Migrating to Agile Methodologies”, , 21.12.2015.
73
