a tool supporting root cause analysis for synchronous
TRANSCRIPT
Article III
A tool supporting root cause analysis for synchronous retro-spectives in distributed software teams
Timo O.A. Lehtinen, Risto Virtanen, Juha O. Viljanen, Mika V. Mäntylä and Casper Lassenius
Journal of Information and Software Technology, Volume 56, Issue 4, April 2014, Pages 408–437.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. Reprinted with permission.
III
A tool supporting root cause analysis for synchronous retrospectivesin distributed software teams
Timo O.A. Lehtinen ⇑, Risto Virtanen, Juha O. Viljanen, Mika V. Mäntylä, Casper LasseniusDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Aalto University School of Science, P.O. Box 19210, FI-00076 Aalto, Finland
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 7 June 2013Received in revised form 8 January 2014Accepted 9 January 2014Available online 17 January 2014
Keywords:ARCA-toolRoot cause analysisDistributed retrospectiveGlobal software engineering
a b s t r a c t
Context: Root cause analysis (RCA) is a useful practice for software project retrospectives, and is typicallycarried out in synchronous collocated face-to-face meetings. Conducting RCA with distributed teams ischallenging, as face-to-face meetings are infeasible. Lack of adequate real-time tool support exacerbatesthis problem. Furthermore, there are no empirical studies on using RCA in synchronous retrospectives ofgeographically distributed teams.Objective: This paper presents a real-time cloud-based software tool (ARCA-tool) we developed to sup-port RCA in distributed teams and its initial empirical evaluation. The feasibility of using RCA with dis-tributed teams is also evaluated.Method: We compared our tool with 35 existing RCA software tools. We conducted field studies of fourdistributed agile software teams at two international software product companies. The teams conductedRCA collaboratively in synchronous retrospective meetings by using the tool we developed. We collectedthe data using observations, interviews and questionnaires.Results: Comparison revealed that none of the existing 35 tools matched all the features of our ARCA-tool.The team members found ARCA-tool to be an essential part of their distributed retrospectives. They con-sidered the software as efficient and very easy to learn and use. Additionally, the team members per-ceived RCA to be a vital part of the retrospectives. In contrast to the prior retrospective practices ofthe teams, the introduced RCA method was evaluated as efficient and easy to use.Conclusion: RCA is a useful practice in synchronous distributed retrospectives. However, it requires soft-ware tool support for enabling real-time view and co-creation of a cause-effect diagram. ARCA-tool sup-ports synchronous RCA, and includes support for logging problems and causes, problem prioritization,cause-effect diagramming, and logging of process improvement proposals. It enables conducting RCAin distributed retrospectives.
� 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Retrospectives, also known as post-mortems, are activitieswhere the team members share experiences about problems andtheir causes [1], analyzing a recently ended project and/or itera-tion. Root cause analysis (RCA) is a structured investigation of aproblem to detect which underlying causes need to be solved [2],and a useful practice for retrospectives [3–5]. Retrospectives aretypically conducted in face-to-face meetings, in which the teammembers first identify problems that occurred. Subsequently, theyconduct lightweight RCA by collaboratively creating a cause-effectdiagram visualizing the causes of problems [5].
Global software engineering, employing geographically distrib-uted teams, has become a standard way of operating in today’sbusiness [6]. This way of working creates new challenges relatedto geographical, temporal, cultural and organizational distance[7]. The use of distributed teams also creates a major challengefor conducting team retrospectives [8]. In previous work, we devel-oped a lightweight focus group based RCAmethod, ARCA, and eval-uated it in four industrial field studies using collocated teams [9].Even though the method was well liked, the companies pointedout the need to conduct RCA with their distributed teams. Litera-ture on distributed retrospectives identifies a similar need and dis-cusses the use of a combination of email, spreadsheets and anonline audio bridge to help facilitate the retrospectives [8]. How-ever, relying on such tools in focus group based synchronous RCAis not feasible, as organizing and interpreting a high number ofcauses using emails and spreadsheets would be highly difficult. In-stead, cause-effect diagrams [9] supporting real-time online envi-ronment should be used in distributed retrospectives.
0950-5849/$ - see front matter � 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.01.004
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 407752781.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.O.A. Lehtinen), risto.virtanen@
aalto.fi (R. Virtanen), [email protected] (J.O. Viljanen), [email protected](M.V. Mäntylä), [email protected] (C. Lassenius).
Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Information and Software Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / infsof
There are many proprietary software tools for RCA.1 However,we have not succeeded in finding a web-based tool that fulfills theneeds of conducting lightweight RCA in synchronous distributedsoftware project retrospectives. First, the tool should make it possi-ble for RCA participants to co-create a cause-effect diagram [5,9],which stays in-sync between the sites. Second, the tool should allowthe development of process improvement ideas for the causes andmaintain links between the improvement ideas and the detectedcauses [10–14]. Third, the tool should make it possible to vote onthe most severe causes and best improvement ideas [9]. Fourth,the tool should also make it possible to capture and refine the find-ings of several retrospectives, in order to support organizationallearning and knowledge management [3]. To the authors’ bestknowledge2 the most frequently lacking feature of current softwaretools for RCA is the syncing mechanisms needed for simultaneousco-creation of cause-effect diagrams, see Table 1. There are toolsfor simultaneous graph drawing, e.g., Google Docs drawings [15],but these tools lack features to support RCA, e.g. automatically cap-turing and refining the findings of retrospectives.
Furthermore, to our knowledge, there are no empirical studieson the feasibility of using RCA in synchronous distributed retro-spectives. While there is ample evidence for the benefits of RCAto detect the causes of problems and make improvements in vari-ous contexts [9–13,16–21], the existing studies have been con-ducted in a face-to-face context. Thus, in order to contribute tothe existing studies, we developed an online tool for supportingsynchronous RCA in distributed software project retrospectivescalled ARCA-tool.3 It provides features for distributed RCA, ideadevelopment, and capturing the lessons learned in manyretrospectives.
The goals of this paper are to present ARCA-tool including its tech-nology and main features, and to provide an empirical evaluation ofthe tool and synchronous RCA in the context of industrial softwaredevelopment with agile teams. In order to evaluate the usefulnessof RCA and ARCA-tool, we used interviews, questionnaires, andobservations in the retrospectives of geographically distributedindustrial software teams, that followed the Scrum methodology[22]. Our research questions were:
RQ1: Is ARCA-tool perceived as useful in the distributed retrospec-tives of agile software teams?RQ2: Is ARCA-tool perceived as easy to use in the distributed retro-spectives of agile software teams?RQ3: Is RCA perceived as a good approach to use in the distributedretrospectives of agile software teams?
While the first two questions are related directly to ARCA-tool,we evaluate the RCA method, since the evaluators might have dif-ficulty separating the effect of the tool and the context in which itwas applied, i.e. the synchronous retrospective method used andthe company context. Naturally, ARCA-tool can be used withoutthe retrospective with the RCA method and vice versa.
The rest of the paper is structured in the following way. Section2 covers the related work and identifies a gap in research, which isthen filled by introducing ARCA-tool in Section 3. Section 4 ex-plains the field study method used to evaluate the tool in realindustrial contexts and the results of this evaluation are given inSection 5. Finally, Section 6 contains the discussion and Section 7provides conclusions and directions for further work.
2. Related work
In this section, we introduce the concept of software project ret-rospectives and present problems related to conducting RCA withdistributed software teams. We also compare RCA software toolsthat we have found.
2.1. Software project retrospectives
The key for effective problem prevention is controlling thecauses of problems [23]. It is claimed that problems cannot besolved without solving their causes [9]. Retrospectives are onemeans to help identify and prevent the reoccurrence of problemsthat have occurred in prior projects [8,24–26].
In retrospectives, the team members share their experiencesabout problems and their causes [4,5,24]. Retrospectives enablelearning at the individual, team, and organizational level. At theindividual level, learning is based on shared experiences [27]. Thus,at the team level, learning is related to the shared experiencesamong the team members [27]. Furthermore, learning at the orga-nizational level requires knowledge management, i.e. the sharedexperiences are captured and refined, and thereafter distributedto the teams [3]. Therefore, the output of retrospectives must becaptured and refined.
A software project retrospective can be viewed as a step-by-step process [5,28]. In the first step, problems related to the pastproject, iteration, or milestone are identified. Thereafter, the partic-ipants collaboratively identify the causes of the problems by usingRCA. In RCA, the causes of problems are identified by constantlyasking ‘‘why’’ for every cause [9]. The causes are visualized byusing a cause-effect diagram, e.g., a fishbone diagram [5,14,19],or a directed graph [5,9]. The diagram represents the cause-and-ef-fect relationships between the causes of problems. It aims to assistthe participants to detect underlying causes for the problems. Afterthe cause-effect diagram is finalized, the participants detect theroot causes, defined as the underlying and controllable causes ofthe problem [9]. Process improvement ideas are then developedfor the selected root causes.
While the traditional use of retrospectives has been fraughtwithproblems [25], modern agile development processes, such as Scrum[22], have made the practice common in modern organizations. Assuch, Scrum or other agile development processes do not requirethe use of RCA as part of their retrospectives – however RCA canwell be used in Scrum retrospectives as a practice that helps addboth structure and provides additional value to the teams.
2.2. Root cause analysis and distributed retrospectives
The issue of distributed team members has been considered asthe greatest challenge that organizations face while conductingretrospectives [8]. Retrospectives should be lightweight [28] butunder the influence of budget constraints and time pressure, theyare rarely conducted [25]. While the project members are geo-graphically dispersed, arranging face-to-face retrospectives re-quires too much effort. Conducting face-to-face retrospectives insuch settings is often cumbersome. Distributed retrospectives areintroduced as substitutes for face-to-face retrospectives [8]. Suchretrospectives are typically conducted with the aid of an audio orvideo bridge [8]. Logically, in distributed software projects, con-ducting distributed retrospectives require less effort than conduct-ing them face-to-face due to decreased traveling time.
Conducting RCA in distributed retrospectives is difficult as it re-quires tools that are not yet mature enough. It has been claimedthat a combination of emails, spreadsheets, and an audio bridgeare enough to support distributed retrospectives [8]. However, in
1 http://open-tube.com/10-best-software-tools-to-conduct-root-cause-analysis-and-solve-complex-problems/.
2 Investigation of proprietary RCA tools is difficult as freely available information ofthe tools is limited.
3 http://wirca.soberit.hut.fi/prod/?language=en.
T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437 409
software projects, conducting RCA with spreadsheets is difficult[9]. This is because of the high number of detected causes[9,11–13]. For example, in our previous work, four software prod-uct companies conducted two hour RCA workshops (similar to ret-rospectives) each and 80–135 causes of software project problemswere found in each workshop [9]. The causes were spread over var-ious process areas [29] and had complex cause-and-effect relation-ships to one another.
Several tools for distributed software development exist[30–32]. The tool types that are the most similar to ARCA-toolare collaborative modeling tools [30] that allow collaborative anddistributed software modeling. However, the main goal of thosetools is software design modeling, while our tool is focused onRCA cause-effect diagrammodeling. Additionally, knowledge man-agement tools [30,31] include knowledge sharing features, whichARCA-tool also provides. Furthermore, our tool reduces – but doesnot replace – the need for the use of other communication tools,e.g., a chat, as the cause-effect diagram is constantly updated toall participants, which helps group awareness. Our tool also hassimilarity with virtual whiteboards, such as Google Docs drawings[15], but our tool has more specific features for cause-effect dia-gramming and the development of process improvement ideas.Additionally, none of the virtual whiteboards offers support for cap-
turing and refining the shared experiences from the retrospectivesof many teams. Based on the literature it seems that it would bepossible to combine the existing collaborative tools for performingthe same tasks as with our ARCA-tool. However, this would requireswitching between tools and require cumbersome copy-pasting(from the original cause-effect diagrams to some separate list ofprocess improvement targets and ideas) between different tools.
2.3. Comparison of root cause analysis software tools
Software tools that support RCA in synchronous distributed ret-rospectives are rare. We searched RCA software tools from Google,Sourceforge, Google Scholar, and Scopus. We found a total of 35tools and compared their features with ARCA-tool (see Section 3).
We searched for existing root cause analysis software in Googleusing two search strings:<‘‘root cause analysis software’’> and<‘‘root cause analysis software’’ free>. The first search string re-sulted in 404,000 estimated hits. Thus, it appears the topic is ofhigh interest. For both search strings, we included all softwaretools that we found from search result pages until there was asearch result page which did not extend the found tools any further(10 hits + adds of the search result page). The number of search re-sult pages was eight for the first and two for the second search
Table 1Comparison of RCA software (for more details see Appendix A).
Software Technical featuresa RCA featuresa Costs
Client: browser/native
Real-timecollaboration
Cause-effectdiagram
Ideadevelopment
Voting Knowledgemanagement
ARCA-tool Browser Yes Graph Yes Yes Yes Free(MIT)
Google Docs drawings Browser Yes Graph Yes – – Free touse
TapRooT Enterprice ed. Both (Yes) Tree Yes – Yes FeeREASON Both – – Yes – Yes FeeXFRACAS Browser (Yes) – Yes – Yes FeeRCAT Software ? ? Tree ? ? Yes ?PathMaker Native Yes Tree Yes – Yes FeeCause link Native – Tree Yes – Yes FeeSolve ? ? Tree ? ? ? ?SIM� Native (Yes) Tree Yes ? Yes FeePROACT Native Yes Tree Yes ? Yes FeeCatalyst Native – – – – – Free
(GPL)Blackbox Native ? Tree (Yes) ? Yes FeeInvestigator 3 Native ? Tree Yes ? Yes FeeTrack Native – – – – Yes FeeCorrective Action Browser Yes – Yes – Yes FeeRealityCharting Both Yes Tree Yes Yes Yes FeeABS Cons. Root Cause Map ? Yes ? Yes ? Yes FeeRCA Software 5.1 Native – Tree – – – FeeThinkReliability Excel
TemplateNative – Tree Yes – – Free
Enablon IMS ? ? Tree Yes ? Yes FeeSmartdraw Native – Tree – – – FeeSet-Based Thinking Native – Graph Yes ? Yes FeePHRED (Browser) (Yes) Tree Yes ? Yes FeeBowTieXP Native – Tree (–) ? Yes FeeFMEA Software Native (–) Tree Yes – Yes FeeSystems2win Native – Graph – – – FeeiReliability Browser – Tree Yes – (–) FeeFMECA Software Native – Tree (–) (–) (Yes) FeeRapid Problem Isolation Native – Tree – – (Yes) FeeLassale [33] Native – Tree – – (–) ?CA Spectrum ? ? ? ? ? ? FeeRootCause ? – (–) Yes ? (Yes) FeeSpeechminer ? ? ? ? ? ? FeeRoot Cause Analyst (Native) ? (Tree) ? ? (–) FeeRCA GUI [35] Native – Tree Yes – Yes ?
a This feature is not available in the software tool, Yes = this feature is available in the software tool, (–) = it is likely that this feature is not available in the software tool, butwe were not able to verify that, (Yes) = it is likely that this feature is available in the software tool, but we were not able to verify that, ? = we were not able to find anyevidence on the occurrence of this feature, Fee = the software is subject to a fee, free (license) = the software is free, free to use = using the software is free.
410 T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437
string. With this limitation, our search resulted in 24 unique toolsfor RCA. We applied this limitation in order to complete our searchwithin reasonable time.
Searching for the tools from Google also revealed two additionalwebsites that summarize software tools for RCA.4 We also includedthese tools in the evaluation. The websites revealed 17 different soft-ware tools for RCA. However, 8 tools were already found in Google.Thus, we were left with 33 unique tools for RCA.
We also searched the sourceforge.com database with searchstring ‘‘root cause analysis’’ and found one open source alternativethat claimed to support root cause analysis (DecisionTreeExpert).Unfortunately, there was no guidance on how to use the tool andwe were unable to see how the tool could be used for RCA, and thusexcluded it from the comparison.
Furthermore, we searched academic works from Google Scholarand Scopus with the search string ‘‘root cause analysis software’’.Google Scholar resulted in 58 articles and Scopus resulted in 37articles. For each article, we read its heading, abstract, key words,and skimmed the content of paper. If the article indicated that atool for RCA is introduced, we selected the article for further eval-uation. Six articles were selected from Google Scholar and threearticles were selected from Scopus. The selected articles werethereafter read. One article from Google Scholar [33] and two arti-cles from Scopus [34,35] introduced a software tool for RCA. Two ofthese articles introduced a tool that we had already found (Lassaleand REASON) from non-academic databases. Finally, we decided tomake a comparison to Google Docs drawings, an online collabora-tive graph drawing tool. Thus, we had 35 existing software toolsthat we compared with ARCA-tool.
We made our comparison based on the material freely availableto us. The sources of information included demonstration videos,free trial versions, marketing material and other available docu-mentation as the majority of the tools were proprietary.
The features that we compared cover seven aspects importantfor conducting synchronous distributed software project retro-spectives. We introduce these aspects below and present analyticalarguments for them based on our experience in conducting indus-trial RCA sessions [9] and prior literature on software project retro-spectives [4,5], and organizational learning systems [36]. Thecomparison is summarized in Table 1 while further details of thecomparison are in Appendix A.
First, we argue that web browser based software outperformsnative client software in the ease of adoption. The software teamsrarely have time to conduct retrospectives [25] and therefore theease of adoption is an important aspect. Native client software re-quires installation whereas web browser based software can beimmediately used. Furthermore, people can use web browserbased software with computers having a different operating sys-tem and hardware including tablets and smart phones. This isthe case unless the web browser based software requires pluginsthat only work on certain systems, e.g., the flash plugin. Web brow-ser based software can also be used from home computers thatmight not have the native client software pre-installed or mightlack the required licenses. Thus, web browser based clients makeorganizing retrospectives more lightweight and hassle free. Fourof the existing tools are used with a web browser, see Table 1.
Second, in order to conduct distributed synchronous retrospec-tives similarly to collocated retrospectives [4,5] the RCA softwaretool needs to support real-time collaboration among all partici-pants. This means that the RCA software outcome stays in sync be-tween the different sites. Additionally, all teammembers should beable to contribute to the analysis as it takes place. Therefore, all cli-
ents need to have synchronous editing access to the analysis re-sults. We see that push–pull technology is needed to implementsuch requirements as it removes the need for clients to constantlyreload their view. Only six of the existing tools fully support real-time collaboration.
Third, co-creation of a cause-effect diagram is at the core of RCAin retrospectives, as introduced in [4,5,9]. Using the cause-effectdiagram helps the teammembers to understand and explain a com-plex problem in terms of its causes, sub-causes, and causal relation-ships. The majority of the RCA software tools enable creating thecause-effect diagram. Considering the structure of the cause-effectdiagram, only three of the existing tools support drawing a graph,while the majority of the tools support tree based cause-effect dia-grams. A graph structure has been claimed as more efficient forsoftware project retrospectives than the tree structure [5].
Fourth, RCA aims to develop process improvement ideas for thecauses of problems [9]. Thus, the RCA software tool should make itpossible to develop and link improvement ideas to the identifiedcauses of problems. Such features are supported by the majorityof the tools.
Fifth, it is important that the team members can vote on themost severe causes and best improvement ideas [9]. This is impor-tant if a high number of causes and improvement ideas are de-tected [9]. The team members can focus on the causes perceivedas the most severe. Similarly, they can decide collaboratively whichimprovement ideas should be implemented. Voting is supportedonly in one of the existing tools.
Sixth, the RCA software tool should support knowledgemanage-ment, which is about creating ‘‘learning organization’’ [4]. Dingsøyrpresents that retrospectives are ‘‘a method for leveraging knowl-edge from the individual level to the organizational level’’ [4]. Leeet al. [36] present that organizational learning system should in-clude ‘‘global knowledge base’’ that combines ‘‘cognitive maps’’(cause-effect diagrams of experiences) created by individuals. Thus,the software tool should include the knowledge base which enablescombining the lessons learned frommany retrospectives and teamsover the years. The majority of the tools support knowledge man-agement and allow accessing past RCA session results.
Seventh, we analyzed the costs of existing tools. One of the toolsis under an open source license, two are otherwise free to use,whereas the majority of the tools are subject to a fee.
To summarize, in contrast to the existing RCA software tools,only ARCA-tool covers all of the seven aspects discussed above.However, our analysis was limited as described at the beginningof this section and the evaluation of many tools was challengingdue to proprietary licenses and limited access to many commercialtools. Thus, it is possible that software tools with similar featuresas ARCA-tool exist. In any case, the results of our field study canbe used as evidence for the usefulness of any tool that implementsthese features. Furthermore, the comparison of these 35 prior RCAsoftware tools is the largest according to our knowledge.
3. ARCA-tool
This section provides an overview of ARCA-tool. We will discusshow the tool supports distributed retrospectives and the features itincludes.
3.1. Overview of ARCA-tool
ARCA-tool is designed to be used when conducting RCA in ret-rospectives. The tool is open-source (MIT license) and was devel-oped in two subsequent projects on the Aalto Universitysoftware capstone project course5 by 15 software engineering
4 http://open-tube.com/10-best-software-tools-to-conduct-root-cause-analysis-and-solve-complex-problems http://www.rootcauselive.com/library/Software.htm. 5 https://noppa.aalto.fi/noppa/kurssi/t-76.4115/etusivu.
T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437 411
students. During the projects, the primary author of this paper actedas the customer and provided the tool requirements. ARCA-tool sup-ports the identification of problems and their causes by providingfeatures particularly suitable for the creation of cause-effect dia-grams in software project retrospectives. Among many useful fea-tures, the team members can develop process improvement ideasembedded in the detected causes and problems. The tool supportsconducting distributed retrospectives, and makes it possible to cap-ture and summarize the findings of a set of retrospectives.
ARCA-tool uses a client–server architecture with push-and-pulltechnology, i.e., the server and clients transmit and receive mes-sages from one another. The core of the tool is a cloud server.The cloud server ensures that all clients (web browsers) are up-to-date in real-time. This is important during distributed retro-spectives as the contribution of team members is immediately vis-ible to the other team members.
3.2. Key features of ARCA-tool
In ARCA-tool, a retrospective facilitator creates a retrospectiveand shares it with the team members. The team members can jointhe retrospective from their own computers through a TCP net-work connection. Thus, the retrospectives do not need to be con-ducted face-to-face. Additionally, ARCA-tool allows the teammembers to contribute to the retrospective ‘‘before’’ and ‘‘after’’the retrospective meeting. This is occasionally important as findinga common time is especially difficult in geographically dispersedprojects [8]. However, such approach does not make it possibleto ask clarifications about the detected problems from other teammembers. Then one can only see what the others have found.Respectively, the team members cannot contribute to the findingswhich are not yet detected. On the other hand, the team memberscan provide input for others or try to contribute to their findings.
The team members start the retrospective by listing problemsthat occurred during the unit of analysis, which typically is aniteration [5]. Thereafter, they select problems (which can be donethrough voting that is supported by the tool or by managerialdecision, see ‘‘Points’’ in Fig. 1), which are analyzed by usingRCA [5]. In order to support RCA, a cause-effect diagram is pro-vided. ARCA-tool uses a directed graph structure to model thecause-and-effect relationships (Fig. 1). Such a structure, a cause-effect diagram, has been found to be suitable for software projectretrospectives [5,9]. The team members can enter the problems,the causes of problems and related cause-and-effect relationshipsto the cause-effect diagram. The tool protects the anonymity ofteam members.
After the causes are entered, the team members can developprocess improvement ideas related to the causes. In ARCA-tool,the team members develop their process improvement ideasfor each cause separately. This increases the accuracy of the pro-cess improvement ideas as now they are cause specific correc-tive actions. Additionally, the ideas are visually embedded inthe causes. ARCA-tool colors the causes that have correctives ac-tions with a yellow color (see the cause ‘‘Lack of commitment’’in Fig. 1). Embedding is important as it keeps the cause-effectdiagram clean and simple. Naturally, for the evaluation of theprocess improvement ideas, the tool offers a separate view forbrowsing all or selected improvement suggestions as one list(see Fig. 2).
All key features of ARCA-tool are embedded in a radial menu(see Fig. 1). The radial menu is activated when a team memberselects a cause. Simultaneously, all causes that are directly con-nected with the cause are emphasized (see the edges connectedwith the cause ‘‘Project members do not meet enough’’ in Fig. 1).The key features are, starting from the one o’clock position, andproceeding in counterclockwise order.
� Thumb up = Vote for this cause.� Pencil = Edit this cause.� Trashcan = Delete this cause.� Light bulb = Create process improvement idea.� Arrow left = Link this cause to another existing cause.� + sign = Create a cause that is linked to this cause.� Ticket = Classify this cause.
3.3. Additional features of ARCA-tool
Voting is occasionally used in retrospectives to focus the atten-tion of the team members to specific problems or causes. Voting isalso used to indicate process improvement ideas the team mem-bers value the most [9]. In ARCA-tool, the teammembers can ‘‘like’’or ‘‘dislike’’ the causes and process improvement ideas (see the‘‘Points’’ and the thumbnail icon in the radial menu in Fig. 1).The amount of likes and dislikes is limited to ±1 for the teammem-bers while being unlimited for the retrospective facilitator. Thisway the causes and developed process improvement ideas can bevoted on by the team members and emphasized by the facilitator.
Classification of the causes of problems has been used to im-prove learning and to draw conclusions from detailed and high-vol-ume observations made during RCA, e.g. [10,12,13]. In ARCA-tool,the classification can be done during or after the causes are enteredin the cause-effect diagram. The tool provides two dimensions forclassifying the causes. The pre-existing classification dimensionsare the process areas and types of causes [29]. The process areas ex-press in which parts of the software process the causes occur,whereas the types of causes explain what the causes are. InARCA-tool, the team members can develop a retrospective specificclassification or utilize the classifications used in their prior retro-spectives. The tool also provides statistics about the classificationsmade during the retrospectives. For example, the team memberscan view the distributions of the detected causes (see Fig. 3). Theycan also view the distributions of liked causes, and causes that in-clude process improvement ideas. The teammembers can also viewthe cause-and-effect relationships between the process areas.
In order to support organizational learning, ARCA-tool providesfeatures for monitoring the output of retrospectives, i.e., the causesand process improvement ideas. The tool enables the analysis of anindividual retrospective as well as the combination of many retro-spectives. This can be highly useful while capturing and refining thelessons learned from many retrospectives. The team members canview the output of all retrospectives they have participated in.The status of the detected causes (detected, elimination, won’t fix,fixed) and developed process improvement ideas (idea, will beimple-mented, implemented, rejected) can also be managed. Additionally,the tool provides information about the classified causes. For exam-ple, senior managers would like to know what process areas aremost often related to the problems analyzed in the retrospectives,see Fig. 3. They would also like to know what types of causes areusual in those process areas. In ARCA-tool, the cause-and-effectrelationships between the classifications can be automatically visu-alized for the selected retrospectives. Additionally, the tool pro-vides detailed statistics about the distributions of cause types inprocess areas. Furthermore, the teammembers can download a filewhich includes the detected causes and process improvement ideasfrom the monitored retrospectives. Thus, the team members canuse ARCA-tool to analyze the detailed issues processed in the priorretrospectives and communicate the lessons learned to others.
4. Field study methodology
For the empirical evaluation of ARCA-tool, we used a field studymethod [37] that allowed us to study the adoption and use of thetool in a real industrial setting. We observed and video recorded
412 T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437
four retrospectives conducted by four teams in two companies.After the retrospectives, all participants completed a question-naire, and selected case participants were interviewed. Thus, wepresent a rich data set from four industrial software teams, butin contrast to a controlled experiment, we cannot present mean-ingful statistical comparisons, due to the low number of subjectsand the lack of a control group providing an independent baselinefor which we could compare our measures. This section presentsthe research method and context in more detail. The case compa-nies are introduced in Section 4.1 and the retrospective methodincluding the usage of ARCA-tool in Section 4.2. The data collectionand analysis methods are shown in Sections 4.3 and 4.4.
4.1. Case companies
The empirical part of this study was conducted in two softwareproduct companies, as summarized in Table 2. The rationale forthe selection of these two case sites was that together they formedan interesting research setting allowing us to evaluate an industri-ally relevant retrospective method and software tool in collocatedand distributed retrospectives. The similarities between the casesmade them more comparable whereas the dissimilarities allowed
us to evaluate the retrospective method and software tool in differ-ent case domains.
The retrospectives of both cases followed a similar retrospec-tive method and each retrospective was computer facilitated byARCA-tool. The cases were also similar considering the numberof retrospective participants, and effort used in the retrospectives.The roles of the case participants were also somewhat similar.Additionally, both cases were conducted in distributed agile soft-ware development organizations. Two important differences be-tween the cases were present. First, in Case 1, the usedretrospective method was their current method. Instead, the ret-rospective method was new in Case 2. Similarly, in Case 1,ARCA-tool was used in retrospectives previously. Instead, in Case2, it was introduced the first time. Second, the participants of Case1 were experienced with collocated retrospectives, which theyused in this study, too. Instead, the case participants in Case 2were experienced with distributed retrospectives and they fol-lowed that approach, respectively. Therefore, we characterizethe retrospectives of Case 1 as collocated whereas the retrospec-tive of Case 2 was distributed. The cases were also different con-sidering the company size and specific target problems analyzedin the retrospectives.
Fig. 1. Screen view of ARCA-tool.
Fig. 2. Monitoring view of ARCA-tool showing the causes of Fig. 1 and their improvement ideas.
T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437 413
4.1.1. Case 1Case 1 was conducted in a large-sized international software
product company with over 800 employees. The products arehighly complex software systems integrated into customized hard-ware provided by the company partners and to third party soft-ware modules. There are around 30 employees working for thecore product of the company. The rest of the employees work inlocalization, integration, customer services and sales. Our studycontext, the software development organization of the core prod-uct is divided into two development teams, which are geographi-cally distributed over several European countries.
The organization follows agile software development practices,based on the Scrum methodology [22]. The development work isdivided into sprints each lasting two weeks. In order to facilitate
continuous improvement, the Scrum teams conduct 60 min face-to-face retrospectives regularly. These are conducted at the sametime as the sprint demonstration and the planning of the upcomingsprint. The teams have found using RCA and ARCA-tool in the ret-rospectives to be useful. The retrospectives are conducted with thefollowing procedure. The team members start by listing positiveand negative experiences with ARCA-tool. Then they conductRCA for some of the voted negative experiences. During RCA, theteam members first list underlying causes to ARCA-tool. Then theydiscuss the findings and try to detect deeper level causes. Correc-tive actions are developed either during or after the retrospectivesfor the selected root causes. The problem of the current practicehas been the fact that the teammembers have been forced to travelto the same physical location regularly, a challenge for many team
Fig. 3. Pie chart view of ARCA-tool presenting the distributions of classified causes shown in Fig. 1.
Table 2Summary of the company cases.
Case 1 Case 2
Case company Software company with >800 employees Software company with >100 employeesSW development
organizationAgile with >30 employees Agile with >70 employees
Case participants Product owners, scrum masters, architects, and developers.N = 3 + 5 + 3 = 11
Scrum master, architects and developers. N = 5
Evaluation perspective Evaluation of the current method and tool Evaluation of a new method and toolRetrospective(s) 3 � Collocated 1 � DistributedDistribution All persons in a meeting room in Finland 1 person in Romania + 2 in the office in Finland + 2 at
homeEffort used 1 h meeting + 3 � 1 h retrospective (3 teams) 1 h meeting + 1 h retrospective (1 team)Target problem(s) Expectations of product owners do not meet the output of scrum teams (1) Lack of pair programming
(2) Lack of merging the code(3) Lack of collaboration
Causes found (23) + (20) + (39) = 82 (20 + 24 + 15) = 59
414 T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437
members. In order to reduce the need for travelling, distributedretrospectives have been considered as a substitute.
We conducted our field study in the context of three teams, twodistributed development teams, and one product owner team. Inboth development teams, members include approximately fivesoftware developers (software developers and architects) and onescrum master (team leader). The work of the teams is overseenby several product owners (business and product managers). Theproduct owner team had three members, all product owners, rep-resenting the needs of customers in different countries. Each prod-uct owner is responsible for steering the customer needs to bothdevelopment teams. The knowledge sharing between the develop-ment teams and product owners occurs mainly in the sprint plan-ning sessions. It is assumed that all needed information about thecustomer needs is communicated during the sessions. However,the developers can ask for the product owners to give clarificationsto the customer needs during the sprints.
We were invited to observe the retrospectives of these threeteams. The goal of the retrospectives was to analyze why theexpectations of the product owners did not meet the output ofthe development work. The goal was defined by two softwaredevelopment managers before the retrospectives (see Section 4.2).
4.1.2. Case 2Case 2 was conducted in a medium-sized international software
product company with over 100 employees. The company productsare large and complex software systems released four times a year.The software development organization includes approximately 70people. The development work is divided into seven teams, eachincluding about ten people. The team members are geographicallydistributed over several countries in Europa and Asia.
Like Case 1, the organization follows agile software developmentpractices, based upon the Scrum methodology [22] and the teamsconduct 60 min distributed retrospectives regularly. Unlike Case1, the duration of sprints varies between two and four weeks. Addi-tionally, the retrospectives are conducted in a distributed fashionusing an online audio and video bridge. In the retrospectives, prob-lems that have occurred are discussed, and process improvementideas are developed. The teams do not use RCA in their retrospec-tives. Instead, the team members discuss positive and negativeexperiences and try to figure out how to make improvements intheir development work activities. The retrospectives are occasion-ally summarized to the company’s intranet pages. The problems ofthe current practice include informal discussions resulting in unfo-cused discussions and dominating teammembers who have spokenover the others. Thus, the team members have considered alterna-tive practices, which may be more feasible for their needs.
Our field study was conducted in a context of one distributedsoftware team including the development roles of scrum master,software developers, and architects. We observed a distributed ret-rospective meeting, where the team members used ARCA-tool andthe retrospectivemethodwhichwe introduced to them. Three prob-lems were analyzed in the retrospective. The problems were identi-fied in a separate meeting, which was conducted by the teammembers before the retrospective (see Section 4.2). The first prob-lem was lack of pair programming, which the team membersthought was not used enough. The second problem was mergingthe code between different work branches. The merge status wasunclear, additionally;mergingwas not done often enough. The thirdproblemwas lack of collaborationwith other teams in the company.
4.2. Retrospective method used in the cases
Each of the retrospectives across both cases was initiated by aseparate meeting, where a high-level target problem for each retro-spective was defined. The separate meeting lasted approximately
1 h. The meeting was conducted by the company representativeswho wanted to give a specific goal for the retrospective. In Case 1,the representatives included a product owner and scrum master.In Case 2, the representatives included the scrum master and fewsoftware developers of the team. In the meeting, the representa-tives discussed about problems that had occurred in thedevelopment work. Based on the discussion, the representativesconcluded the goal of the retrospective, i.e., to explain one (Case1) or several (Case 2) high-level problems (see Table 2). Thereafter,the retrospective was arranged. The retrospective lasted approxi-mately 1 h, and it was facilitated by a company representative. Atthe beginning of each retrospective, the facilitator briefly intro-duced the specific goal of the retrospective for the participants. InCase 2, the facilitator also shortly introduced the retrospectivemethod and ARCA-tool. The used retrospective method is summa-rized in Fig. 4. ARCA-tool was used by all participants in every stepof the retrospective. Each retrospective resulted in a cause-effectdiagram emphasizing the most important root causes.
In Case 1, three retrospectives were conducted for a single prob-lem. The first two retrospectives were conducted with each devel-opment team having participants from all different roles of thedevelopment team including the scrum master, developers, andarchitects. The third one was conducted with the product owners.The facilitator in Case 1 was the scrum master of one developmentteam. The facilitator steered the retrospectives and led the imple-mentation. The retrospectives were conducted face-to-face at thesame physical location. Each retrospective was conducted by usingthe following procedure. First, the participants were given 5 min toenter problems related to the target problem in ARCA-tool. At thisstage, all participants used their own computers. During the next15 min, each participant explained the problems entered to thetool. The other participants simultaneously commented and dis-cussed the findings. Thereafter, the participants were given 5 minto enter underlying causes that explained the detected problems.This was also done simultaneously in ARCA-tool by all participants,working on their own computers. Then, during the next 15 min,each participant explained the underlying causes entered to thetool. The other participants commented on and discussed the find-ings. They also entered additional causes discovered during thediscussion. Furthermore, they used the tool to note if some causeexplained other causes. At the end of the retrospective, the partic-ipants held a summarizing discussion about the problems andcauses entered to the tool. They also voted on the most controllablecauses by using the liking feature of the tool.
In Case 2, one retrospective was conducted and it was facilitatedby the scrummaster of the teamwho steered the retrospective andled the implementation. The retrospective was conducted as dis-tributed with geographically dispersed participants. The partici-pants included all roles of the development team (a scrum master,
Fig. 4. The retrospective method used in the study.
T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437 415
software developers and architects) and they used ARCA-tool todocument and share their findings about problems and relatedcauses, working on their own computers in their own locations intwo European countries. Google+ was used as an audio and videobridge. Thus, the participants were able to discuss and see eachother. The retrospective followed the same outline as the one inCase 1, see Fig. 4.
4.3. Data collection
The feedback was collected from the case participants usinginterviews and questionnaires, see Appendix B and C. Additionally,we used observations combined with video recording. The inter-views were executed by the 2nd (Case 1) and 3rd (Case 2) author.The primary author observed the interviews.Hewrote notes and en-sured that the questionnaires were filled in by the case participants.Additionally, the retrospectiveswere video recorded. Thus, wewereable to check if something was missing during the data analysis.
A total of 16 case participants filled in the questionnaires. In addi-tion, we interviewed eight participants. Our aimwas to collect feed-back about the introduced retrospectivemethod and usefulness andease of use of ARCA-tool. In Case 1, one participant from each retro-spectivewas interviewed. InCase2,we interviewedall retrospectiveparticipants. Interviews at Case 1 were conducted face-to-face,whereas the interviews at Case 2 were conducted as distributed byusing online chat for three participants and face-to-face for two par-ticipants. The chat was used in interviews, because it was easier forthe interviewees being geographically dispersed. Furthermore, inthe questionnaires, the participants of Case 1 evaluatedmostly theircurrent retrospectivemethod as the introduced retrospectivemeth-od was very similar with it. In contrast, in Case 2, the participantscompared the introduced retrospective method with their currentmethods being different than the introduced one. The scale in thequestionnaires was a symmetric 5-point Likert scale.
4.4. Data analysis
Both cases were analyzed separately as the questions asked inthe questionnaires and interviews varied slightly between thecases. This was due to differences in the company context. Case 1had used RCA and ARCA-tool previously while Case 2 had not. Wetranscribed and coded the interviews accordingly. We calculatedthe means, standard deviations, and medians of the questionnaires.Finally, we summarized the interviews and questionnaires in orderto conclude whether the findings were similar between the cases.
We are aware of the controversy of presenting means from aLikert scale. If the interval between the Likert scale items cannotbe presumed equal, calculating means with standard deviationsis ‘‘inappropriate’’, as stated by Jamieson [38]. In our study, theinterval between the Likert scale items can be presumed equal asthe scale was symmetric and only the extreme values had a textualrepresentation. In Case 1, the scale was: 1 = very minor, 2, 3, 4,5 = very major, and in Case 2, the scale was: 1 = very low, 2, 3, 4,5 = very high. Furthermore, mean contains more information insmall samples, such as ours, than median, e.g., three responseswith values 5, 5, and 1 give the median of 5 but mean of 3.67.The latter is closer to the ‘‘truth’’ because the opinions were highlypolarized and the median would only represent the opinion of themiddle respondent.
5. Results
In this section, we present the field study results. Feedback fromARCA-tool (see Section 3) is presented in Section 5.1 and the feed-back from the retrospective method including the RCAmethod (see
Section 4.2) is summarized in Section 5.2. Furthermore, Table 3summarizes the feedback from the questionnaires, and Tables 4and 5 summarize the results from the interviews. The tables sepa-rate the results regarding the research questions. While RQ1 andRQ2 aim to evaluate ARCA- tool, RQ3 evaluates the retrospectivemethod.
5.1. ARCA-tool
To summarize, our results indicate that ARCA-tool increases thecost-efficiency of retrospectives and it is perceived as essential indistributed retrospectives. Additionally, the tool is perceived easyto use and learn. Therefore, we believe that the tool supports theprocess of the retrospective method (see Section 4.2) and helpsthe participants to conduct the tasks of retrospectives.
Regarding usefulness, the participants from both cases evalu-ated in questionnaires (see Table 3) that the tool helped to detectthe causes of problems. The participants in Case 1 also evaluatedthat the retrospective would be less efficient and more difficultwithout the tool. Respectively, in Case 2, the participants evaluatedthat the cost efficiency of the retrospective increased with ARCA-tool. Furthermore, the interview results from both cases (see Ta-bles 4 and 5) indicate that the tool is essential in distributed retro-spectives. Our results from Case 1 also indicate that when theretrospective is conducted face-to-face, the tool can be substitutedwith a whiteboard and postIT notes, but in that case the analysis isnot as efficient as it is with the tool. According to the interviews atCase 2, ARCA-tool should also be improved. It was said that the toolneeds slight improvements while the detected causes are orga-nized. Some participants perceived that currently the tool doesnot support the visualization of cause groups enough. Perhaps itwould be useful to organize similar causes into the same set ofcauses to be visually represented well on the cause-effect diagram.
Regarding ease of use, the participants fromboth cases evaluatedin questionnaires (see Table 3) that the tool is easy to use and learn.This indicates that ARCA-tool supports the process of retrospectiveas it helps the participants to conduct the tasks of retrospectiveseasier, i.e., to detect and analyze the causes of target problems(see Table 2). In Case 1, the ease of use and learning the tool wereboth evaluated with a very high value. In Case 2, the values werealso high, but less than in Case 1. We assume that this was becausethe tool was new to the participants of Case 2. Furthermore, also theinterviews indicate that the tool is easy to use (see Tables 4 and 5).The interviews at Case 1 indicate that the tool makes it easier tovisualize the detected causes. Respectively, the participants in Case2 claimed that the user experience is ‘‘intuitive’’ and the tool is ‘‘rel-atively easy to use’’. Furthermore, regarding the results from Case 2,there is no feature overload, but all essential features are included inthe tool. It was also noted that the difficulty of analysis correlateswith the number of causes of problems. The number of detectedcauses in the retrospectives was around 20–59 (see Table 2).
5.2. The retrospective method
Considering the results from the interviews, using RCA in retro-spectives was perceived as useful in both cases. This was due to thestructured approach that the retrospective method followed andthe in-depth analysis which improved collaboration.
In Case 1, the participants said that the structured approach ofthe RCA method helped to detect the causes of problems. In Case 2,the participants said that the structured approach of the RCAmeth-od resulted in deeper understanding about the causes of problemswhich makes improvement to their current practices. Consideringthe questionnaires, the participants from both cases evaluated theeasiness to collect causes and detect root causes as high (see Table
416 T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437
3). Furthermore, they evaluated that the correctness and impact ofthe detected causes was high.
The participants of Case 2 perceived that the RCA method im-proved collaboration. Additionally, they said that the RCA methodis easy to use and learn. They explained that the method is basedon ‘‘an intuitive and simple idea’’. The results from questionnairesare in line with these results. The openness in communication wasevaluated with high values in both cases (see Table 3). Additionally,the participants evaluated their personal contribution with highvalues.
6. Discussion
In this section, we answer the research questions and discussour findings and possible threats to the validity of this study.
6.1. Answering the research questions
RQ1: Is ARCA-tool perceived as useful in the distributed retrospec-tives of agile software teams? In Case 1, ARCA-tool had already been
found to be useful in collocated retrospectives. The tool was new tothe participants of Case 2, but they were experienced in conductingdistributed retrospectives. In order to answer this research ques-tion, we use the results from Case 2 and compare them to Case1. Regarding ARCA-tool we claim the following:
� The tool enables the team members to contribute to the retro-spective simultaneously. This improves the communication asthe team members can write simultaneously while speakingsimultaneously is not possible. This also reduces the risk thatthe participants forget some important comments if they arenot written down.
� The cause-effect diagram structure provided by ARCA-toolimproves the way the findings are visualized. This encouragesthe team members to consider the findings in-depth, as pro-posed in Case 2 (see Table 5).
Our results support these claims. In both cases, the tool wasevaluated as efficient (see Table 3), but in the distributed retro-spective of Case 2 (see Table 5), the tool was characterized as
Table 3Summary of questionnaires.
Case 1 Case 2 All teamsa
(Collocated) (Distributed)
ScrumT1 (N = 3) ScrumT2 (N = 5) Product Owners (N = 3) ScrumT3 (N = 5)
�x r ~x �x r ~x �x r ~x �x r ~x N �x r ~x
RQ1 Usefulness of ARCA-toolRetrospective efficiency without the tool 1.3 0.6 1 2.2 0.8 2 1.3 0.6 1 – – – 11 1.7 0.8 2Tool’s cost efficiency compared with previous practices – – – – – – – – – 4.0 1.0 4 5 4.0 1.0 4Assistance of the tool for cause detection 4.3 0.6 4 4.2 0.8 4 4.7 0.6 5 4.0 0.7 4 16 4.3 0.7 4Ability to detect the causes without the tool 3.3 0.6 3 3.2 0.4 3 3.0 1.0 3 3.2 0.4 3 16 3.2 0.5 3Retrospective ease of use without the tool 1.7 0.6 2 1.8 0.4 2 1.0 0 1 – – – 11 1.5 0.5 2
RQ2 Ease-of-use of ARCA-toolEasiness to collect causes 3.7 0.6 4 4.2 0.4 4 4.7 0.6 5 4.0 0.7 4 16 4.1 0.6 4Easiness to detect root causes 4.0 1.0 4 3.8 0.4 4 4.3 0.6 4 3.0 0.7 3 16 3.7 0.8 4Ease of use of the tool 5.0 0 5 4.6 0.5 5 5.0 0 5 4.0 0.7 4 16 4.6 0.6 5Learnability of the tool 4.7 0.6 5 4.6 0.5 5 5.0 0 5 4.0 1.0 4 16 4.5 0.7 5
RQ3 Retrospective methodPersonal contribution 4.0 0 4 3.8 1.1 4 3.3 0.6 3 3.2 0.4 3 16 3.6 0.7 4RCA cost efficiency compared with prior practices – – – – – – – – – 4.2 0.4 4 5 4.2 0.4 4RCA ease of use compared with prior practices – – – – – – – – – 4.4 0.5 4 5 4.4 0.5 4Correctness of detected causes 4.0 0 4 4.2 0.4 4 4.0 1.0 4 3.8 0.4 4 16 4.0 0.5 4Impact of the detected causes 3.7 0.6 4 3.6 1.1 4 4.7 0.6 4 3.8 0.8 4 16 3.9 0.9 4Openness in communication 3.0 1.0 3 4.4 0.5 4 5.0 0 5 4.8 0.4 5 16 4.4 0.9 5
a N = the number of respondents, �x = mean, r = standard deviation, ~x = median, Scale: 1 = very minor/low; 2, 3, 4, 5 = very major/high.
Table 4Summary of interviews in Case 1.
Question Summary Quotes from the interviews
Would we have found the sameproblems and causeswithout the tool? (RQ1–2)
Similar causes could have been detected also by using awhiteboard, as an example. However, ARCA-tool improves theefficiency of the analysis. In geographically distributed teams,ARCA-tool is essential
‘‘We could have detected the same causes by using a whiteboard,however, ARCA-tool made the analysis easier.’’ (person 1)‘‘The required effort by using the whiteboard would be higher’’(person 1)‘‘ARCA-tool improves the visualization of the detected causes.’’(person 2)‘‘ARCA-tool spares time when documenting the results.’’ (person 2)‘‘ARCA-tool is essential when some participants are geographicallydispersed.’’ (person 1)
Did this retrospective methodhelp us to find the causes ofthe problems? (RQ2–3)
The key to finding the causes was the RCA method. ARCA-toolhelped to visualize the causes of the problem. However, the toolitself was not perceived as the key to success
‘‘The RCA method helped to found these causes. ARCA-tool itself isnot the key to success, but the structured approach of the RCAmethod is.’’ (person 1)‘‘The tool made it easy to see the big picture related to the problemcauses. Each team member was additionally able to see what theother participants have detected.’’ (person 2)
Do you think that we found themost critical problems?(RQ3)
The most critical causes of the target problem were found ‘‘We did find the most important root causes’’ (person 1)‘‘We did find the most critical problems’’ (person 2)‘‘I think that we found most of the causes.’’ (person 3)
T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437 417
essential. Similar comments about distributed retrospectives werealso given in the interviews with the participants of Case 1. In Case1, ARCA-tool was used previously and the participants perceivedthat they would like to use the tool in their upcoming retrospec-tives too. Obviously, the tool was found to be useful in face-to-faceretrospectives. A comparison of the results from Case 2 to Case 1indicates that ARCA-tool is also useful in distributed retrospectives.In the distributed retrospective of Case 2, the tool was perceived asuseful when it was compared with the current practices (see Table3). Thus, regarding Case 2, ARCA-tool improves distributed retro-spectives where only audio and video bridges are used (see Section4.1.2).
Furthermore, in collocated retrospectives of Case 1, the partici-pants proposed that the tool made it possible to note what theother participants have found (see Table 4). It was also perceivedthat the visualization of the causes helped to outline the detectedcauses. In the distributed retrospective of Case 2, the participantsperceived that the visualization of the detected causes is importantand the tool helped to organize them (see Table 5). It was alsoclaimed that the tool improved the analysis of the causes of prob-lems and their relationships (see Table 5), probably one of the mainadvantages of RCA.
To summarize, it seems that ARCA-tool is perceived useful insynchronous distributed retrospectives of small agile softwareteams. Probably we still need to continue its development by mak-ing slight improvements to it (see Section 5.1). However, the toolimproves the contribution of participants and challenges them toconsider the findings in-depth.
RQ2: Is ARCA-tool perceived as easy to use in the distributed retro-spectives of agile software teams? Considering the ease of use, ARCA-
tool was designed to be used in distributed retrospectives [8].Additionally, we required that it enables conducting RCA [9]. Ouraim was not to develop software supporting all kinds of differentmodeling needs, e.g., making complex software models [30]. In-stead, we wanted to make a lightweight tool which is simple andeasy to use in a small group of individuals, i.e., less than ten partic-ipants use the tool in a synchronous retrospective collaboratively,as introduced in [9].
ARCA-tool was perceived as easy to use in both cases. The num-ber of participants was between three and five. In the collocatedretrospectives of Case 1, the participants perceived that the toolmade the analysis easier (see Table 4). In the distributed retrospec-tive of Case 2, the participants perceived that the tool is learnableand intuitive (see Table 5). They also appreciated that only the nec-essary features are included in the tool. Additionally, it was notedin Case 2 that the way the tool automates the cause-and-effectstructure improves its usability. Additionally, in the question-naires, the participants from both cases evaluated the ease of useand learnability of the tool as high (see Table 3). It seems thatthe participants of Case 1 evaluated the ease of use and learnabilitywith higher values than in Case 2. It is possible that this was due tothe fact that the tool was new to the participants of Case 2,whereas the participants of Case 1 were already familiar with it.It is also possible that in distributed retrospectives, the perceivedease of use decreases. The participants are geographically dis-persed, and therefore, asking assistance from others becomes moredifficult. However, we did not observe such problems in the dis-tributed retrospective of Case 2.
To summarize, it seems that using ARCA-tool in distributed ret-rospectives does not make a major difference to its ease-of-use in
Table 5Summary of interviews in Case 2.
Question Summary Quotes from the interviews
In contrast to the company practices used to detectthe causes of problems, do you consider ARCA-tool as useful? (RQ1)
ARCA-tool improves the company practices. The toolimproves the analysis of the causes of problems and theirrelationships. Additionally, the tool is perceived as enjoyable
‘‘It works!’’ (person 4)‘‘The tool improves understanding about the causalrelationships between the problems, which Iconsider as useful.’’ (person 5)‘‘I found it very useful �and� fun to do. It certainly isa better practice than having an online videomeeting like we had in the past.’’ (person 6)‘‘The tool challenges the participants to consider thecauses of problems deeper.’’ (person 7)
Do you consider ARCA-tool as cost efficient whencompared with RCA which is conducted by usingpostIT notes or Google Docs drawings? (RQ1)
ARCA-tool works well with distributed teams. This isbecause of the online automation and features supportingorganizing the causes easily. In contrast to Google Docsdrawings, the tool should support the grouping of causes
‘‘In our case, the postIT notes do not work at all.This is because of the distributed team members.’’(person 4)‘‘In Google Docs drawings, a lot of time is spent toorganize the causes and their relationships’’(person 7)‘‘Grouping the detected causes with ARCA-tool iscurrently difficult.’’ (person 8)
Do you consider ARCA-tool as easy to use whencompared with RCA which is conducted by usingpostIT notes or Google Docs drawings? (RQ2)
ARCA-tool is learnable and intuitive. There is no featureoverload either. The layout automation improves usability.On the other hand, when the number of causes increases, thedifficulty of the analysis increases
‘‘The tool is relatively easy to use and much moreflexible than RCA which is conducted by using thepostIT notes.’’ (person 4)‘‘The user experience was intuitive.’’ (person 5)‘‘Layout automation is good.’’ (person 7)‘‘Outlining a high number of causes is somewhatdifficult.’’ (person 8)
In contrast to our process improvement practices,do you consider the RCA method as easy to use?(RQ3)
The RCA method fits the retrospectives well. It is learnable,simple, intuitive, and formal
‘‘After little practice it definitely helps us to improvethe efficiency of the work.’’ (person 4)‘‘The RCA method is not difficult to use.’’ (person 7)‘‘It is based on intuitive and simple idea’’ (person 5)‘‘Yes, because the RCA method is structural andstraight forward’’ (person 8)
In contrast to our process improvement practices,do you consider the RCA method as costefficient? (RQ3)
The RCA method improves current practices by providingdeeper analysis with its structural approach. It also improvesthe collaboration and conceptualization related to the causesof problems
‘‘The RCA method works.’’ (person 4)‘‘I think that the visualization of the causes isimportant.’’ (person 4)‘‘The method improved the discussions and helpedto consider the problem more deeply.’’ (person 5)
418 T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437
collocated retrospectives. The participants learn using the toolwith a short introduction, and during the distributed retrospectivethey perceive that it is easy to use.
RQ3: Is RCA perceived as a good approach to use in the distributedretrospectives of agile software teams? Both cases resulted in a sim-ilar finding. RCA was perceived as a good approach for retrospec-tives. This conclusion is well in line with prior studies. Problemprevention requires controlling the causes that create the problem.RCA makes it possible to detect the causes of the problem system-atically and in-depth. In retrospectives [5,28], also with distributedsettings, RCA helps the team members to consider the causes oftheir problems. This is important in order to make improvementsin the team.
Case 1 has used RCA previously, which indicates that the caseorganization have already found such an approach as useful in col-located retrospectives. Instead, the RCA approach was new to theparticipants of Case 2, but they were experienced with distributedretrospectives. In order to answer this research question, we usethe results from Case 2 and compare them with Case 1.
Regarding the interviews at Case 1, the key for finding thecauses was the RCA method (see Table 4). The participants of Case1 also perceived that the most critical causes of the target problemwere found. Thus, the outcome of RCA was perceived accurate anduseful in the collocated retrospectives of Case 1. Similarly, it wasproposed in Case 2 that the structural approach of RCA improvestheir current practices by providing in-depth analysis. It was alsonoted that the RCA method improves the collaboration and con-ceptualization of the causes of problems. The participants of Case2 also evaluated in the questionnaires that the detected causeswere correct and their impact was ‘‘high’’ (see Table 3). Addition-ally, the participants of Case 2 evaluated that in contrast to theircurrent practices the RCA approach is cost-efficient and easy touse (see Table 3).
The core of RCA is the cause-effect diagram. Retrospectivesusing discussions only are concerned with the problem of it beingdifficult to remember all relevant findings and outline the findingsas a whole. Level of detail and the coverage of the discussions aredependent on human memory. Retrospectives using RCA do notsuffer the memory problem as the cause-effect diagram keepsthe attention on relevant causes, but simultaneously helps theteam members to remember the findings as they are registeredto the diagram. In synchronous distributed retrospectives, thismeans that the cause-effect diagram has to be simultaneouslyreachable by all distributed team members. Otherwise conductingcollaborative RCA would likely be difficult. In the distributed retro-spective of Case 2, the RCA method was characterized as learnable,simple, intuitive, and straightforward (see Table 5). The resultsfrom the questionnaires are in line with the results from the inter-views. The participants evaluated that the retrospective methodhelped to detect the causes of the target problems (see Table 3).
The retrospectives of Case 1 were collocated and the retrospec-tive of Case 2 was distributed. In both cases, ARCA-tool made thecause-effect diagram reachable for all participants. RCA workedwell in the collocated retrospective of Case 1 and in the distributedretrospective of Case 2. There were no major differences in theevaluations of the case participants between the cases either. Theempirical results from Case 2 are very similar with the results fromCase 1. Thus, to summarize, we conclude that the RCA worked wellin the synchronous distributed retrospective of Case 2. However, itrequired the tool for collaborative cause-effect diagramming.
6.2. Comparison to prior studies
Regarding the scrummethodology [22], retrospectives are valu-able and they should be conducted at the end of iterations. Our re-
sults are in line with this claim as both of our cases have usedretrospectives accordingly and found them useful. Furthermore,the prior studies [5,28] introduce RCA as a part of retrospectives.Our results consolidate the prior studies by indicating that RCA isan important part of the retrospectives of small agile teams. Theretrospective method used in this study is similar to the priormethod called ‘‘postmortem review’’ [4] that also includes the stepof RCA. Such method has been introduced as lightweight and use-ful for small software teams [5]. Respectively, Case 1 has used themethod previously and found it useful. Furthermore, consideringCase 2, their prior practices did not include RCA. They discussedpositive and negative experiences and they tried to figure outhow to make improvements in their development work activities,as recommended in the scrum methodology [22]. However, theydid not create cause-effect diagrams or otherwise registered thecausal structures of problems. The problems of the prior practicesincluded informal discussions resulting in unfocused discussionsand dominating team members who spoke over the others. WhenRCA was used in their distributed retrospective (see Section 4.2),the participants perceived that the method was better than theircurrent practices.
Prior work has also been conducted in the area of Group Sup-port System (GSS). GSSs are systems whose main aim is to helpindividuals to arrive at correct decision in meetings effectively.GSS systems, such as one presented in [39], include features fromthree dimensions: (1) ‘‘communication support,’’ (2) ‘‘processstructuring’’ and (3) ‘‘information processing’’ [40]. The featuresof communication support help in the information exchange be-tween the participants [40]. The features of process structuringkeep the meeting progressing according to the agenda [40]. Fur-thermore, the features of information processing provide accessto important information, and enable sharing, aggregating, struc-turing, and evaluating the information [40].
The retrospective method together with ARCA-tool fulfills thethree dimensions of GSS. Regarding the usefulness and ease-of-use of ARCA-tool, we hypothesize that the tool provides ‘‘commu-nication support’’ [40], especially in distributed retrospectives. Thetool improves the information exchange around the problems andtheir causes. Additionally, the tool includes the features of the par-allel communication, the anonymity of participants, and ‘‘groupmemory’’ [41]. Although our tool does not provide access to inter-nal or external databases, the tool does makes it possible to modelthe important knowledge of participants through cause-effect dia-grams, voting, cause classifications, and corrective actions. There-fore, we see that the tool also provides features for ‘‘informationprocessing’’ [40]. Finally, we hypothesize that the retrospectivemethod provides ‘‘process structure’’ [41] as it includes the rulesfor communication and process steps that are steered by a facilita-tor. ARCA-tool also records a cause-effect diagram that is a partialrecord of the meeting interaction and part of process support.
The prior approach for distributed retrospectives [8], using acombination of emails, spreadsheets, and an audio bridge, doesnot provide anonymity or parallel information exchange. Sendingemails between the participants is not an anonymous approachto exchange information. Furthermore, using spreadsheets doesnot provide parallel contribution to the outcome of retrospective.All individual spreadsheets need to be combined together. Addi-tionally, describing and analyzing cause-effect relationships withspreadsheets is difficult [9]. Therefore, the distributed retrospec-tives also require collaborative cause-effect diagrams. Thus, weconclude that the retrospective method combined with ARCA-toolmakes an improvement to the approach introduced in the priorwork [8]. RCA is an important part of retrospectives and ARCA-toolimproves them by providing communication support and informa-tion processing.
T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437 419
6.3. Evaluation of the research
This section discusses the validity of our empirical results usinga validation scheme presented by [42]. Furthermore, as our resultsare based on the social construction of case companies, we will alsouse the evaluation principles of Interpretive Field Studies [43] inthe validation scheme.
6.3.1. Construct validityConstruct validity reflects the extent to which the studied oper-
ational measures represent what is investigated according to theresearch questions [42]. The participants represented expertswhile considering the current practices used in the retrospectivesof their teams. Thus, we believe that they were able to comparethe introduced retrospective method with their current practices.Additionally, the participants covered most of the organizationmembers, i.e., the organization members of Case 1 and the teammembers of Case 2. Therefore, we believe that the research datawas not biased by a homogenous group of individuals. Instead, var-ious interpretations about the RCA approach and ARCA-tool werecaptured. This enabled us to draw out multiple interpretationsabout the study results, an important aspect for validity introducedin [43]. Using interviews and questionnaires were therefore rea-sonable data collection methods, which increases the constructvalidity [42]. However, our results are not based on the comparisonof the outputs between the previous and the introduced retrospec-tive method, as such information was not available for our pur-poses. Thus, even though the feedback from all case participantswas highly positive, it should be noted that these evaluations arebased on perceptions.
Separating the effect of RCA from the use of ARCA-tool was alsodifficult. In the interviews with both cases and in the questionnaireof Case 2, we asked the participants to evaluate the tool and RCAapproach separately. Instead, the questionnaire used in Case 1asked the participants to evaluate ARCA-tool and the output ofRCA thoroughly, but there were no questions about the RCA ap-proach itself. Thus, in Case 1, separating the evaluations of the toolfrom the evaluations of the RCA approach was difficult. It wasbased on the interviews only. Therefore, regarding the RCA ap-proach, we were not able to compare the questionnaire results be-tween the cases.
6.3.2. External validityExternal validity is concerned with whether it is possible to
generalize the findings of the study and to what extent they canbe generalized [42]. ‘‘Contextualization’’ has been presented asan important principle for generalizing the study results [43]. Bothcases varied and thus they evaluated RCA and ARCA-tool fromslightly different perspectives. This increases the external validity[42]. The participants of Case 1 were experienced with the usedretrospective method and ARCA-tool, but inexperienced on usingit in a geographically distributed setting. Instead, the participantsof Case 2 were experienced on conducting retrospectives in a geo-graphically distributed setting, but inexperienced in using the ret-rospective method and ARCA-tool. The feedback from both cases,however, was very similar. Naturally, the evaluations of the caseparticipants reflected the advances of the introduced retrospectivemethod in comparison with the current practices. If the companieswould have previously used the existing RCA software tools, per-haps, the feedback of ARCA-tool would have been different.
Furthermore, we had only two cases in which one fully investi-gated the intended research questions. All of the retrospectiveswere conducted at the team level and the number of case partici-pants in each retrospective was between three and five. Four teamswere studied. DeSanctis and Gallupe [44] present in the study ofgroup decision support systems that the ‘‘nature of technological
support’’ is dependent on three important aspects: ‘‘group size,’’‘‘membership proximity,’’ and ‘‘the task confronting the group’’.Our case contexts included only small groups, but the memberproximity covered both extremes ‘‘face-to-face’’ and ‘‘dispersed’’settings [44]. Furthermore, the tasks the groups confronted in-cluded analyses of problems faced at the agile software develop-ment organizations and teams. Thus, we cannot generalize ourfindings to organization wide distributed heavy-weight retrospec-tives using different RCA methods [9] and a higher number of par-ticipants. We can only conclude that our results are likely valid insimilar case contexts to ours, i.e., geographically dispersed smallagile software teams using retrospectives regularly in order to cre-ate continuous learning and improvements (see Section 4.1).
We cannot conclude that the distributed retrospectives canfully substitute the face-to-face retrospectives either. Buildingtrust in global software teams is crucial for success, which requiresfrequent communication, face-to-face meetings, and socialization[45]. The tool support for distributed retrospectives likely enablesconducting retrospectives more frequently, which we assumewould improve the communication. However, if the team mem-bers communicate on distributed settings only, then the risk fordecreased information exchange and feedback increases [45].
Finally, considering the uniqueness of ARCA-tool, the evaluationof the prior RCA tools in Section 2.3 was not complete due to anexcessive number of hits to our search strings in Google. However,we used five additional data sources. We studied all the tools listedin the two websites of ‘‘useful RCA tools’’. Additionally, wesearched for RCA tools in Sourceforge.com, but did not find anytools suitable for doing RCA. Finally, we searched for RCA tools inGoogle Scholar and Scopus. The data from these six sources re-sulted in 35 RCA tools that we compared with our ARCA-tool. Incontrast to ARCA-tool, none of the other tools matched all the se-ven aspects used in our comparison. However, it is still possiblethat a similar tool to our ARCA-tool exists. Nevertheless, accordingto the authors’ best knowledge our comparison of 35 RCA softwaretools is the largest one existing.
6.3.3. ReliabilityReliability is concerned with the extent to which data and anal-
ysis are dependent on a specific researcher [42]. Klein and Myers[43] state that the social tie between the researchers and partici-pants should be critically reflected in order to evaluate the validityof results. The retrospectives were conducted by the employees ofthe companies. Thus, it is possible that the case participants over-stated the goodness of the retrospective method in the question-naires and interviews as they conducted the method bythemselves. It is also possible that the social tie between theresearchers and participants biased the results. We controlled thisrisk by using triangulation in data collection [46] through observa-tions, video recording, questionnaires, and interviews which in-creases the reliability of our results. In the observations, we didnot note any practical issues during the retrospectives. Addition-ally, our observations indicate that the case participants truly likedthe used retrospective method.
Furthermore, considering the data analysis, there is a slight riskfor researcher bias which is a common problem in qualitative dataanalysis. While the number of interviews increases, summarizingthe results becomes challenging as people answer the same ques-tions differently. We controlled this risk by using questionnaires.Similar responses from the questionnaire forms make it unlikelythat researcher bias would have had large effect on the qualitativeresults. Additionally, our conclusions were based on both (1) theanalysis of individual parts of research data and (2) the analysisof all research data combined together, the key principle in Inter-pretive Field Research, called ‘‘Hermeneutic Circle’’ [43]. Our con-clusions are also in line with prior literature (see Section 2.1).
420 T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437
The approach of RCA has already been introduced as valuable forretrospectives [5,28]. The prior literature did not ‘‘tell the story be-hind our results’’, a threat to validity introduced in [43], but consol-idate our findings. Our conclusions are explicitly derived from theresults (see Section 5), as can be seen in Section 6.1.
7. Conclusions and future work
This paper proposed a real-time cloud-based tool for solving theproblem of being infeasible to conduct collocated retrospectives ingeographically distributed software teams [8]. ARCA-tool enablesconducting collocated and distributed retrospectives with RCA.The most important feature of the tool is the up-to-date real-timeview of the retrospective outcome. Additionally, the tool providesfeatures for the co-creation of cause-effect diagrams, the develop-ment of improvement ideas, the voting of the causes and improve-ment ideas, and support for organizational learning by allowingthe data exploration of past retrospectives. Finally, our analysisof 35 prior RCA tools showed that none of the prior tools had allthe main features of our ARCA-tool (see Section 2.3).
We evaluated the tool and RCA approach in industrial fieldstudies with four different teams in two different software compa-nies. Although our field study context differed (See Section 4.1), theresults are remarkably similar in both contexts. The results indi-cate that using ARCA-tool in the synchronous collocated and dis-tributed retrospectives of small agile software teams is usefuland easy. The tool was perceived as useful and highly easy to useand learn. It was claimed that the tool increases the efficiency ofretrospectives and helps to visualize the causes of problems. Addi-tionally, the field study evaluated the use of RCA in synchronousdistributed retrospectives. RCA was perceived as highly useful be-cause of its structural approach, which improves collaboration andprovides deeper analysis challenging the team members to con-sider the problems in-depth.
After this case study was conducted, both case organizationshave continued using the RCA approach with ARCA-tool in theirretrospectives. In addition, Case 1 substituted all of their collocatedretrospectives with distributed retrospectives. In the future, we areplanning to continue the development and evaluation of ARCA-tooland RCA as other companies have also expressed interest in them.During the first year after the release, ARCA-tool website6 has hadover 63,000 page views with 1357 unique visitors (63.5% are return-ing visitors) with an average visiting time of slightly less than 8 min.Our motivation for the development of ARCA-tool was academic, i.e.,to develop and evaluate an open source solution, which is freelyavailable for anyone who needs it. Obviously, ARCA-tool also hasbusiness potential through SAAS business models. However, repli-cating studies are needed. The tool and the RCA method should beevaluated with different case contexts including larger group sizesand various target problems. Prior literature on group decision sup-port systems [40,41,44] could help to evaluate the tool from variousimportant aspects. ARCA-tool was published under MIT license in or-der to enable replication studies and future business applications ofthe tool in a range of settings.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the companies participating inthe field studies and software engineering students implementingARCA-tool, in alphabetical order: Helin Anssi Matti, Hovi Roope,Jaanto Jari, Kekäle Mika, Kere Markus, Koistinen Joona, LaukkanenEero, Patana Jussi, Rihtniemi Pekka, Saarinen Jerome, SeveniusToni, Valjus Mikko, and Viitanen Jonne.
Appen
dix
A.R
awdataofRCAtoolco
mparison
Software
Clie
nt:
native/brow
ser
Rea
l-time
collab
oration
Cau
se-effect
diag
ram
Idea
deve
lopm
ent
Voting
Know
ledg
eman
agem
ent
Cos
tsFrom
ARCAtool
Browser
Yes
Yes,g
raph
Yes
Yes
Yes
Free
(MIT)
-wirca.sob
erit.hut.fi
Goo
gleDoc
sDrawing
Browser
Yes
Yes,g
raph
Yes
Yes
No
Free
touse
Author
drive.go
ogle.com
Various
draw
ing
capa
bilities
are
prov
ided
,e.g.,
shap
eswith
text
and
arrows.
These
canbe
usedto
crea
teaCED
grap
h.
Byusingdifferen
tsh
apes
forcauses
andidea
s.
Byusing
shap
eswith
numbe
rs.
TapR
ooTEn
terprice
ed.
Both
(Yes)
Yes,tree
Yes
No
Yes
Fee
Goo
gle�,
Ope
n-
tube
&Roo
tCau
seLive
(con
tinu
edon
next
page)
6 http://wirca.soberit.hut.fi/.
T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437 421
Appe
ndix
A.(continue
d)
Software
Clien
t:native/brow
ser
Rea
l-time
collab
oration
Cau
se-effect
diag
ram
Idea
deve
lopm
ent
Voting
Know
ledg
eman
agem
ent
Cos
tsFrom
www.tap
root.com
Nativeso
ftware+IE7
supp
ort(ifactive
Xco
mpo
nen
ts)
Like
lynot
real-tim
e,bu
taccessible
and
editab
le.
‘‘rep
ortincide
nts,
analyz
eroot
causes,
deve
lop
corrective
action
s,write
andap
prov
erepo
rts,
trackfixe
s,va
lida
tethe
effectiven
essof
the
fixe
s,an
dtren
dpe
rforman
ce’’
‘‘collabo
ration
ofmultiple
inve
stigators
atsepa
rate
location
sov
erthenet’’AND
‘‘theuserhas
access
toed
itor
view
allAudit/
Inve
stigationda
taas
wellas
theab
ilityto
statusCorrective
Actions.
When
anAudit/Inve
stigationis
crea
tedor
edited
the
useris
prov
ided
the7-
Step
Proc
essFlow
wheretheprog
ress
oftheau
dit/inve
stigation
canbe
tracke
dan
dea
chtech
niquecanbe
view
edan
ded
ited
’’
REA
SON
Browser
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Fee
Goo
gle�#,
Ope
n-
tube
&Roo
tCau
seLive
,Scop
us
www.roo
tcau
se.com
‘‘rea
son9is
anon
line
basedso
ftware’’A
ND
Individu
alinve
stigator.T
imelineis
usedinstea
d.Th
ewhole
proc
ess
resu
ltingto
the
issu
eis
mod
eled
.Man
ytimelines
can
becrea
ted.
The
‘‘preservean
dco
mmunicatethe
know
ledg
elearned
’’
422 T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437
timelines
resu
ltto
acausal
mod
elwhichis
atree
ofcauses
automatically
crea
ted.
http://ad
sabs
.harva
rd.edu
/full/
2002
ESASP
.486
.369
V‘‘theso
ftwareru
nsin
aweb
brow
ser’’
‘‘enab
lesyo
uto
man
agean
dtrack
yourco
rrective
action
plan
san
dco
mmunicates
the
lesson
slearned
from
yourprob
lem
solvingactivities’’
XFR
ACAS
Browser
(Yes)
No
Yes
NO
Yes
Fee
Ope
n-
tube
&Roo
tCau
seLive
www.reliaso
ft.com
/xfracas/
‘‘Thesystem
’sW
eb-
baseduserinterface
allowsforea
syaccess,
collab
orationan
dde
ploy
men
tthrough
out
multiple
sites,su
ppliers
andde
alers.’’
Supp
ortforreal-tim
esystem
isnot
explicitly
indicated,
how
ever,
peop
lecanaccess
tothean
alysis
from
variou
sco
mpu
ters.
Tree
sor
grap
hs
arenot
prov
ided
.‘‘X
FRACAS
allowsyo
uto
‘‘categ
orizethe
incide
ntwith
theFu
nction>
Failure
>Effect
>Cau
sethat
will‘‘m
ap’’the
even
tto
anew
orex
isting
FMEA
’’
‘‘analysis
and
corrective
action
software’’A
ND
‘‘builda
‘‘know
ledg
eba
se’’
oflesson
slearned
that
willbe
instru
men
talto
future
trou
bleshoo
ting
andde
velopm
ent
efforts’’
‘‘con
figu
reXFR
ACASto
supp
ortan
yprob
lem
reso
lution
method
olog
y,from
4to
8step
s,su
chas
thefourstep
DCOV
proc
ess,
thefive
step
SixSigm
aDMAIC
proc
essor
theeigh
tstep
8D.’’
RCATSo
ftware
??
Yes,tree
??
Yes
?Ope
n-
tube
(con
tinu
edon
next
page)
T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437 423
App
endix
A.(continue
d)
Software
Clie
nt:
native/brow
ser
Rea
l-time
collab
oration
Cau
se-effect
diag
ram
Idea
deve
lopm
ent
Voting
Know
ledg
eman
agem
ent
Cos
tsFrom
nsc.nasa.go
v/RCAT/
‘‘Createan
ded
itafaulttree
,Createan
ded
itan
even
tan
dcausalfactor
tree
’’
‘‘perform
and
docu
men
troot
cause
analysis,
iden
tify
corrective
action
s,pe
rform
tren
ding,
and
generateda
tausablein
precursor
analysis
and
prob
abilisticrisk
assessmen
t’’
‘‘ava
ilab
lefree
togo
vern
men
tAge
ncies
and
contractors’’
PathMak
erNative
YES
Yes,tree
‘‘PathMak
er’s
cause
and
effect
diag
ram,
orIshikaw
adiag
ram
tool
helps
users
discov
erthe
root
causesof
prob
lems.’’
Yes
No
Yes
Fee
Ope
n-
tube
&Roo
tCau
seLive
www.pathmak
er.com
/pathmak
er/
pathhom
e.asp
Thetool
isnative
software,whichrequ
ires
installation
forea
chPC
.
‘‘use
theop
enfloo
rop
tion
toallow
anyo
ne
usingthesame
PathMak
erprojectas
youto
entertheiridea
swithyo
urs
inreal
time’’A
ND‘‘Th
istool’s
design
,based
onthe
classicbrainstorming
method
..,allowsthe
team
reco
rder
toke
eppa
cewithgrou
pthinking.
‘‘
Idea
scanbe
enteredto
thetool.
‘‘Weuse
PathMak
erforou
rProc
ess
Improv
emen
tProg
ram
andhav
eim
plem
entedan
SPCprog
ram
whichhas
redu
ced
ourproc
esscy
cle
times
by25
-50%
.Alsouse
forou
rorga
nizational
StrategicPlan
ning
proc
ess.’’-John
Heinrich
Rea
lityCharting(Cau
selink)
Native
No
Yes,tree
Yes
‘‘ide
ntify
effectiveso
lution
s’’No
Yes
Fee
Goo
gle�#
&Ope
n-
tube
www.solog
ic.com
/rca-produ
cts-
services/charting-so
ftware
Web
-browserba
sed
applicationon
lyfor
repo
rts.
Nativeso
ftware
foran
alysis.
You
nee
dto
shareyo
ur
analysis
byex
portinga
file.M
anual
upd
ating
isrequ
ired
.Users
nee
dto
clickabu
tton
torefreshtheco
ntent.
Attheclient
software,
atree
diag
ram
canbe
crea
ted.
Solution
scanbe
enteredto
thetree
diag
ram
which
embe
dstheidea
sin
thecauses.
‘‘Store
RCAsan
dda
ta.M
aintain
causal
relation
ships.
Know
ledg
eman
agem
ent’’
424 T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437
CED
canbe
crea
ted
only
attheclient
software.
Solve
??
Yes,tree
??
??
Ope
n-
tube
&Roo
tCau
seLive
Gpw
Com
puterCon
sulting,
Inc.
www.gpw
compu
tercon
sulting.co
m/
solveroo
tcau
sean
alysis.htm
Thefoundlinkto
thepa
gedo
esnot
work.
Add
itionally,thetool
cannot
befoundfrom
Goo
gle.
SIM
�so
ftware(tripo
dbe
ta)
Native
(Yes)
Yes,tree
Yes
?Yes
Fee
Ope
n-
tube
&Roo
tCau
seLive
www.adv
isafe.co
m/softw
are/
incide
nt-man
agem
ent/simr-
simple-incide
nt-an
alysis-
method
‘‘incide
ntan
alysis
repo
rtis
automatically
generated
bytheSIM
�
software,
whichcanbe
further
edited
inMS-
Word’’
Supp
ortforreal-tim
esystem
isnot
explicitly
indicated.
‘‘the
incide
ntwillbe
analysed
bythepe
ople
within
thede
partmen
tin
whichtheincide
nt
took
place’’
‘‘Theprog
ram
willaskyo
uto
indicate
why
theev
entco
uld
take
place.
After
that,the
samequ
estion
willbe
repe
ated
4moretimes,s
othat
the
analysis
tree
canindicate
5laye
rsof
causation
.’’
‘‘Theco
rrective
action
sarea
uniquepa
rtof
the
SIM
�an
alysis.’’
Prov
ides
arepo
rtwhichcanbe
further
edited
inMS-W
ord.
PROACT
Native
(Yes)
Yes,tree
(Yes)
?Yes
Fee
Goo
gle�#,
Ope
n-
tube
&Roo
tCau
seLive
www.reliability.com
/indu
stry/
proa
ct_tem
plates.htm
lNativeclientinstallation
isrequ
ired
.Rea
l-timecapa
bilities
arenot
explicitly
stated
.How
ever,it
seem
sthat
thetool
prov
ides
someteam
workfeaturesthrough
sharingan
dpe
rmission
s.
‘‘PROACT�
RCA
prov
ides
thetools
fortheRCAan
alyst
toea
sily
docu
men
t,va
lida
te,rep
ortan
dtrackfind
ings
and
reco
mmen
dation
s.’’
‘‘PROACT
automatically
builds
your
know
ledg
eman
agem
ent
databa
seof
completed
analyses
crea
ting
(con
tinu
edon
next
page)
T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437 425
App
endix
A.(continue
d)
Software
Clien
t:native/brow
ser
Rea
l-time
collab
oration
Cau
se-effect
diag
ram
Idea
deve
lopm
ent
Voting
Know
ledg
eman
agem
ent
Cos
tsFrom
yourow
ncu
stom
ized
and
interchan
geab
letemplates
for
future
incide
nt
inve
stigations.’’
‘‘Rob
ust
Roo
tCau
seAnalysis
Proc
essfor
Collabo
ration
,Tren
ding,
Stream
lining
&Stan
dardizationof
Analyses’’AND
‘‘Tea
mPe
rmission
s-Access,
Rea
d-Only,D
elete’’
Inve
stigationCatalyst
Native
No
No
(No)
No
No
Free
(GPL
)Ope
n-
tube
&Roo
tCau
seLive
code
.goo
gle.co
m/p/m
eslib/
source/ch
ecko
ut
NativeclientInstallation
isrequ
ired
.Theso
ftware
works
only
onmac.
How
ever,d
ataen
tries
canbe
mad
ewithweb
-brow
sers.T
his
requ
ires
usingthirdpa
rty
services.T
heen
tries
nee
dto
beim
ported
tothesystem
.
‘‘Touse
compu
ters
for
remoteda
taen
trywith
Web
Browsers
onco
mpu
ters
with
Windo
ws,
Linuxor
Mac
operating
system
s,co
ntact
Starlineto
setupa
privateserver
URLfor
yourpa
ssword-
protectedprojectfiles
andde
sign
atean
e-mailacco
untto
which
data
enteredremotely
willbe
forw
arde
dfor
impo
rtinginto
Mac
projectworkfiles.’’
MES
workshee
tmatrixe
sare
usedinstea
d.
Thesystem
isintrod
ucedas
aso
lution
for
analyz
ing
prob
lems.
This
inturn
helps
tomak
eim
prov
emen
ts.
How
ever,m
aking
theim
prov
emen
tsis
not
introd
ucedas
apa
rtof
the
system
.
Singlecase
repo
rts
areprov
ided
,how
ever,y
oucannot
combine
man
yrepo
rts
toge
ther.
‘‘Amajor
differen
cebe
twee
nthe
MES
inve
stigation
system
and
curren
t
426 T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437
inve
stigation
paradigm
sis
that
MES
usesa
‘‘process’’
mod
elof
phen
omen
a,instea
dof
a‘‘cau
sation
’’mod
el.’’
Black
box(tripo
dbe
ta)
Native
?Yes,tree
(Yes)
?Yes
Fee
Goo
gle#
&Ope
n-
tube
�www.adv
isafe.co
m/softw
are/
incide
nt-man
agem
ent/
blackb
ox
Nativeclientinstallation
isrequ
ired
.Not
explicitly
stated
.Prov
ides
arepo
rtincluding
reco
mmen
dation
san
dcauses
detected
.‘‘B
lack
box
automatically
crea
tesaclea
ran
dstan
dardized
repo
rt,includingan
incide
ntrepo
rt,a
cause
tree
and
reco
mmen
dation
s’’
Inve
stigator
3(tripo
dbe
ta)
Native
?Yes,tree
Yes
?Yes
Fee
Goo
gle#
&Ope
n-
tube
http://www.adv
isafe.co
m/
software/incide
nt-
man
agem
ent/inve
stigator-3
Nativeclientinstallation
isrequ
ired
.‘‘Inve
stigator
3su
pports
allthe
stag
esof
the
incide
nt
inve
stigation
proc
ess,from
initiallyiden
tifying
what
hap
pened
,through
the
analysis
proc
ess
andto
writingthe
reco
mmen
dation
s.’’
‘‘Inve
stigator
3su
pports
ape
rfectlyed
itab
lenativeW
ord
expo
rtto
mak
eyo
urrepo
rtmee
tyo
urorga
nizations
stan
dards.’’
Track(tripo
dbe
ta)
Native
No
No
No
No
Yes
Fee
Ope
n-
tube
(con
tinu
edon
next
page)
T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437 427
App
endix
A.(continue
d)
Software
Clien
t:native/brow
ser
Rea
l-time
collab
oration
Cau
se-effect
diag
ram
Idea
deve
lopm
ent
Voting
Know
ledg
eman
agem
ent
Cos
tsFrom
www.adv
isafe.co
m/softw
are/
incide
nt-man
agem
ent/track
Nativeclientinstallation
isrequ
ired
.Th
etool
isba
sedon
question
naires
abou
tincide
nts.
Question
naires
arefollow
edwith‘‘it
follow
s’’
question
s.
Theso
ftware
outputs
atrack
incide
ntrepo
rtwhichinclude
sthe
distribu
tion
sof
cause
type
san
dactual
causes
orga
nized
asa
stru
cturallist.
Web
-based
QualityMan
agem
ent
Tool
Browser(w
orks
only
inIE
6or
higher)
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Fee
Goo
gle�#
www.qitco
nsu
lting.co
m/
CorrectiveA
ction.htm
‘‘Aweb
-based
quality
system
for
Man
ufacturing,
Automotive,
OEM
/ODM,
Food
andDru
g,an
dSe
rviceindu
stries’’
‘‘Collabo
rating
supp
liers,
depa
rtmen
ts,a
nd
division
sin
glob
alscale’’A
ND
Form
sto
condu
ctRCA
areprov
ided
.Th
ecausesare
not
orga
nizer
asCED
.
‘‘Sharingan
dmon
itoring
improv
emen
tactivities’’
‘‘Man
agingALL
type
sof
corrective
/prev
entive
action
san
dmon
itor
action
prog
ress
online’’
‘‘Rea
l-timeco
rrective
/prev
entive
tracking
andrepo
rting’’
Rea
lityCharting�
Software
Both
Yes
Tree
Yes
Yes
Yes
Fee
Goo
gle�#,
Ope
n-
tube
&Roo
tCau
seLive
www.rea
litych
arting.co
m/
software
(Intern
etEx
plorer
7+stan
daloneclientfor
mac
andW
indo
ws)
‘‘TheTrackChan
ges
tool
allowsgrou
psof
peop
leto
work
toge
ther
andsh
are
constru
ctiveinpu
twiththevisible
notification
ofan
yad
dition
,deletion,
repo
sition
,ortext
chan
geof
acause.’’
‘‘Theso
lution
generationproc
ess
system
atically
mov
esfrom
cause
tocause
allowing
youto
prop
ose
solution
suntile
ach
cause
has
been
review
ed.’’
‘‘The
assessmen
tev
aluates
each
solution
against
the5
default
criteria.T
och
ange
ade
fault
criteria
setting,
select
therelated
fieldan
dtype
inyo
urow
ncriteria
entry.’’
‘‘TheActionItem
Rep
ortstores
automatically
generated
action
item
sfrom
eviden
cefields
and
cause
path
endings.’’
ABSCon
sultingRoo
tCau
seMap
™?
Yes
?Yes
?Yes
Fee
Goo
gle�#
&Roo
tCau
seLive
428 T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437
www.abs
consu
lting.co
m/roo
t-cause-analysis/roo
t-cause-
analysis-softw
are.cfm
‘‘Theweb
-based
system
isde
sign
edto
capture,a
nalyz
ean
drepo
rtallad
verse
impa
ctsto
your
orga
nization.’’
AND
‘‘Corrective
Actions/Prev
entive
Actions(CAPA
)Man
agem
ent’’
‘‘Cen
tralized
system
(multiple
langu
age
supp
ort)—One
location
forall
incide
nts,e
vents,
inve
stigations,
reco
mmen
dation
s,root
causesan
daction
item
s’’A
ND
‘‘Rea
l-timerepo
rting
andman
agem
ent
dash
boards
’’
‘‘Flexible
classification
system
—OSH
A,E
U,
ABSCon
sultingor
anyother
stan
dards’’
ROOT-CAUSE
-ANALY
SIS-SO
FTW
ARE
5.1
Native
No
Tree
No
No
No
Fee
Goo
gle�#
www.sqa
ki.com
/17/ROOT-
CAUSE
-ANALY
SIS/
Nativeclientinstallation
isrequ
ired
.
ThinkR
eliability
ExcelTe
mplate
Native
No
Tree
Yes
No
No
Free
(MS
Excel)
Goo
gle�#
www.thinkreliability.com
/ex
cel-tools.aspx
MSEx
celis
requ
ired
inorde
rto
runthis
template.
This
isan
excelsh
eet
only.F
urthermore,
itdo
esnot
workin
Goo
gleDrive
andthus
real-tim
eco
llab
oration
isnot
anop
tion
.
Enab
lonIM
S?
?Tree
Yes
?Yes
Fee
Goo
gle�#
www.enab
lon.com
‘‘Creationof
corrective
and
prev
entive
action
plan
s’’
‘‘Enab
lonIM
Smee
tsallev
ent
(incide
nts,
accide
nts,e
tc.)
repo
rting,
man
agem
entan
dmon
itoringnee
ds,
both
forindividu
alsitesan
dtheGroup
asawhole.’’AND
‘‘Man
agem
ent&
mon
itoringof
corrective
&prev
entive
action
plan
s’’
(con
tinu
edon
next
page)
T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437 429
Appe
ndix
A.(continue
d)
Software
Clien
t:native/brow
ser
Rea
l-time
collab
oration
Cau
se-effect
diag
ram
Idea
deve
lopm
ent
Voting
Know
ledg
eman
agem
ent
Cos
tsFrom
Smartdraw
Native
No
Tree
No
No
No
Fee
Goo
gle#
http://www.smartdraw.com
/Req
uires
toinstall
clientso
ftware
This
softwareis
used
from
onePC
.Theuser
canex
port
afile,w
hich
canbe
open
edfrom
other
PC.
Only
‘‘cau
ses’’c
anbe
adde
dto
the
diag
ram.
‘‘Only
commen
tscanbe
adde
d’’
Theso
ftwareis
only
fordraw
ing,
not
foran
alysis
ofman
ydraw
ings.
Set-Based
Thinking
Native
No
Graph
Yes
?Yes
Fee
Goo
gle#
http://www.targe
tedc
onve
rgen
ce.
com/tcc-can
-help/
software-features/
Based
onthe
screen
shots,
thetool
requ
ires
toinstall
clientso
ftware
A3repo
rtsareusedto
‘‘collect
toge
ther
aset
ofvisu
almod
elswhich
concisely
tellthestory
oftheon
going
discussion.’’
‘‘packa
gesare
design
edto
chartthe
particular
relation
ship
they
are
analyz
ingjust
fine;
but
generally
we
nee
dto
pull
toge
ther
analyses
from
man
ydifferen
ttoolsof
man
ydifferen
trelation
sthat
must
allbe
conside
red
when
mak
inga
decision
’’
Theco
rrective
action
sarecalled
as‘‘d
ecisions’’.Th
efeature
list
ofthe
tool
states
that
‘‘ide
ntify
what
decision
smust
chan
geto
implem
entthos
eremed
ies[of
causes]’’
Thetool
isusedto
combine
know
ledg
efrom
variou
sso
urces
(e.g.individu
als).
This
include
sresu
ltsfrom
root
cause
analysis
and
decision
smad
e.
PHRED
(Browser)
(Yes)
(Yes)
Yes
?Yes
Fee
Goo
gle�
http://www.phreds
olution
s.co
m/custom
erfocu
s.htm
l‘‘P
HRED
isaweb
-based
prob
lem
solvingsystem
.It
mak
esit
easy
foryo
u,
yoursu
ppliersan
dco
ntractman
ufacturers
toen
ter,ed
itan
dman
ageprob
lems.’’
‘‘Problem
solvers,
expe
rtsan
dman
agers
shareaco
mmon
proc
essan
dinform
ation’’
Thecausesare
detected
byusingqu
estion
son
ly.Inthe
end,
software
prov
ides
arepo
rtwhichis
atree
based
diag
ram.
‘‘PHRED
take
syo
uthrough
outlininga
solution
and
presen
tingit
for
agreem
ent,sign
-off
and
implem
entation
.PH
RED
tracks
the
multiple
implem
entation
action
s.’’
Thetool
include
sa
databa
sewhichis
usedto
‘‘Share
Roo
tCau
seinform
ation
betw
eenpe
ople
andplan
ts.’’
AND
430 T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437
‘‘Standa
rdrepo
rts,
individu
ally
defined
userqu
ery
repo
rts,
man
agem
ent
summariesan
dch
arts.E
xportthe
inform
ationinto
Excelor
PDF.
Send
only
the
inform
ationyo
uwan
tto
sharewith
yourcu
stom
ers
andsu
ppliers.’’
Bow
TieX
PNative
No
Tree
(No)
?Yes
Fee
Goo
gle�
http://www.cge
risk.com
/so
ftware/incide
nt-an
alysis/
incide
ntxp/rca
Thescreen
shot
ofthe
tool
reve
alsthat
the
softwarerequ
ires
client
installation
Thereis
no
eviden
cethat
the
tool
isusedto
crea
teco
rrective
action
s.It
seem
sthat
thetool
isused
tode
tect
cause-
and-effectson
ly.
Theou
tputof
RCA
canbe
refined
and
stored
.
‘‘Ongo
ingeffort
shallbe
mad
eto
exam
ineway
sin
whichasimilar
improv
edlearning
from
incide
nts
can
berealized
byco
rrelatingRCA
withbo
wtie
analysis.O
neco
uld
thinkab
out
classification
ofev
ents,a
nd
perh
aps
correlationof
even
tsto
barriers
inthebo
wtie
diag
rams.’’
FMEA
Software
Native
(No)
Tree
Yes
No
Yes
Fee
Goo
gle�
http://www.fm
ea.co.uk/
APIS_
FMEA
_softw
are.htm
lReq
uires
client
installation
inorde
rto
beused.
Shares
theinform
ation
through
theweb
,but
thean
alysis
isco
ndu
cted
onasingle
PC.
Thetool
prov
ides
featuresfor
deve
lopingan
dregistering
corrective
action
s.
‘‘procedu
reof
focu
singon
what
cango
wrong,
what
possibly
could
cause
itan
d
(con
tinu
edon
next
page)
T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437 431
Appe
ndix
A.(continue
d)
Software
Clien
t:native/brow
ser
Rea
l-time
collab
oration
Cau
se-effect
diag
ram
Idea
deve
lopm
ent
Voting
Know
ledg
eman
agem
ent
Cos
tsFrom
what
arethe
potential
effects.
Quan
tification
oftherisk,tak
inginto
acco
untthe
curren
tco
ntrols,
then
indicates
area
sof
wea
kness.
Itis
widelyusedin
man
ufacturing
indu
stries
inva
riou
sph
ases
oftheprod
uct
life
cycle.
Failure
causesarean
yerrors
orde
fectsin
proc
ess,de
sign
,or
part,e
specially
ones
that
affect
the
custom
er.’’
System
s2win
Native
No
Graph
No
No
No
Fee
Goo
gle�#
http://www.systems2
win.com
/so
lution
s/brainstorming.htm
Isan
Exceltemplate.
Isan
Exceltemplate
whichis
usedto
subs
titute
whiteb
oards
in‘‘b
rainstorming
sessions’’
iReliability
Roo
tCau
seAnalysis
Browser
No
Tree
Yes
No
(No)
Fee
Goo
gle�
http://ireliability.com
/produ
ct/
root-cau
se-analysis/
Thean
alysis
isco
ndu
cted
onasingle
PC.
Trackan
dfacilitate
implem
entation
activities
Theex
istingRCAs
arestored
andthe
usercanview
and
refinethem
.How
ever,thereis
noev
iden
cethat
theusercansh
are
theinform
ation
withother
users
(e.g.o
rgan
ization’s
mem
bers)
FMEC
ASo
ftware
Native
No
Tree
(No)
(No)
(Yes)
Fee
Goo
gle�
http://www.item
soft.com
/fm
eca.htm
l?gc
lid=
Req
uireclient
installation
Thean
alysis
isco
ndu
cted
onasingle
The
screen
shots
Nothingindicates
that
corrective
This
feature
isnot
explicitly
stated
,
432 T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437
CNbp
rZTd
9bkC
FWd
7cAod
G2c
AjQ
PC.
indicate
that
thetool
supp
orts
tree
diag
rams.
Add
itionally,
‘‘anen
han
ced
hierarchytree
andtabu
lar
view
s’’A
ND
action
sare
registered
withthe
tool.
how
ever,itis
stated
that
‘‘build
andop
enmultiple
system
san
dprojectfiles’’A
ND
‘‘Pow
erful
repo
rtingan
dch
artingfacilities’’.
‘‘Graph
ically
constru
cted
system
hierarchy
diag
rams’’
Rap
idProb
lem
Isolation
Native
No
Tree
No
No
(Yes)
Fee
Goo
gle�
http://www.nee
bula.com
/it-incide
nt-man
agem
ent-
tool/roo
t-cause-analysis-
software/
‘‘dow
nload
andinstalla
small-footprintco
llector
that
communicates
secu
rely
withou
rclou
d-ba
sedap
plication.’’
This
softwareis
used
tolinktech
nical
solution
sto
the
businessap
plication,
automatically.
Theso
ftwareis
usedto
view
the
tech
nical
cause-
and-effect
linka
ges
only.
Thepe
rson
nel
get
inform
ationab
out
thetech
nical
solution
linka
geto
thebu
siness
solution
s.How
ever,itseem
sthat
this
inform
ationnee
dsto
besh
ared
man
ually.
Lassale
Native
No
Tree
No
No
(No)
?Goo
gle�,
Goo
gle
Scholar
http://www.ncb
i.nlm
.nih.
gov/pm
c/articles/
PMC41
9418
/#!p
o=75
.000
0
Screen
shotsindicate
that
aclientinstallation
isrequ
ired
.Add
itionally,
itis
stated
that
‘‘designed
forVisual
Basic’’
Theso
ftwareis
usedto
crea
tecause-and-effect
diag
ramson
ly.
Thean
alysis
isru
non
asinglePC
.How
ever,itis
stated
that
‘‘The
databa
seba
cken
dis
SQLSe
rver’’.
CASp
ectrum
??
??
??
Fee
Goo
gle�
http://www.ca.co
m/us/
root-cau
se-analysis.asp
x
Roo
tCau
se?
No
(No)
Yes
?(Yes)
Fee
Goo
gle�
http://www.rlsolution
s.co
m/
Roo
t_Cau
se_A
nalysis.asp
xIt
seem
sthat
the
analysis
isco
ndu
cted
onasinglePC
andthe
resu
ltscantherea
fter
beusedin
future
analyses.
Thetool
uses
question
san
swered
bytheuser.
Therea
fter,a
repo
rtis
mad
e.
‘‘Sen
daction
item
sto
multiple
recipien
tsan
dtracktheir
prog
ress’’
Not
explicitly
stated
.How
ever,
‘‘Impo
rtRL6
:Risk
data
into
yourroot
cause
analysis,to
redu
cereworkan
d
(con
tinu
edon
next
page)
T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437 433
App
endix
A.(continue
d)
Software
Clien
t:native/brow
ser
Rea
l-time
collab
oration
Cau
se-effect
diag
ram
Idea
deve
lopm
ent
Voting
Know
ledg
eman
agem
ent
Cos
tsFrom
Noindication
that
thereis
acause-and-
effect
diag
ram
available.
redu
cethech
ance
oferrors’’AND
‘‘Mon
itor
your
ongo
ing
improv
emen
tin
freq
uen
cyof
proc
essfailures
withtheRL6
Rep
ortCen
ter’’
Spee
chminer
??
??
??
Fee
Roo
tCau
seLive
http://www.utopy
.com
/sp
eech
miner/
Roo
tCau
seAnalyst
(Native)
?(Tree)
??
(No)
Fee
Roo
tCau
seLive
http://www.ccd
system
s.co
m/
Prod
ucts/
Roo
tCau
seAnalyst/
RCAProd
uctDescription
.aspx
‘‘Program
med
inVisual
Basic’’
Seem
sto
bea
tool
that
uses
question
swhichtheuser
answ
ers.
Therea
fter,the
usercanview
thecause-and-
effectsas
atree
.‘‘O
ne-bu
tton
generationof
flow
charts
&factor
tree
s’’
Thereis
no
eviden
cethat
the
tool
prov
ides
any
featuresfor
refiningan
dsh
aringprior
analyses
over
the
tool.H
owev
er,itis
stated
that
‘‘Impo
rt&
expo
rtan
alyses
andFa
ctor
Guides’’
AND
‘‘Allrepo
rts
generated
inMicroso
ftOffice
form
at’’.
RCAGUI
Native
No
Tree
Yes
No
Yes
?Scop
us
http://www.emeraldinsigh
t.co
m/
journ
als.htm
?articleid=
1907
212&
show
=abs
tract
Screen
shotsreve
althat
theso
ftwarerequ
ire
clientinstallation
Theap
plicationis
used
byauser,whousesthe
tool
byaskingex
perts
over
theroot
causes
detected
.‘‘Exp
erts
inthePC
Aman
ufacturing
indu
stry
were
question
edov
erthe
mos
tlike
lyroot
cause
oftheprob
lem
from
Theap
plication
crea
tesatree
diag
ram
based
onthe
inform
ation
gathered
automatically
from
atech
nical
system
.‘‘’’
‘‘theusercan..
..propo
seit
asa
design
chan
geto
elim
inatethe
man
ufacturing
defect
inve
stigated
.’’
Thetool
seem
sto
beintegrated
toa
know
ledg
eman
agem
ent
system
.Add
itionally,the
system
prov
ides
assistan
ceforthe
userba
sedon
prior
know
ledg
e,e.g.,
434 T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437
Appendix B. Questionnaire used in Case 1
1. What is your title?2. Select the roles that describe your responsibility best
a. Managerb. Product Ownerc. Developerd. Something else, what?
3. How long have you worked in this role(s)?4. How long have you worked at the company?5. Target Problem
Give a value (1 = very minor, 2, 3, 4, 5 = very major) thatcorresponds the question best
a. Effort the company has used to try to prevent thetarget problem earlier
b. The internal impact of the target problem for thecompany
c. The external impact of the target problem for thecompany
d. The impact of the target problem for team’scommunication
6. Target problem causesGive a value (1 = very minor, 2, 3, 4, 5 = very major) that
corresponds the question besta. The correctness of the detected causesb. The correctness of the detected root causesc. Impact of resolving the found causes of the problems
7. Retrospective methodGive a value (1 = very minor, 2, 3, 4, 5 = very major) that
corresponds the question besta. The easiness to collect the causesb. The easiness to detect the root causesc. The easiness to organize the causesd. The easiness to detect the root causes of the target
probleme. My own contribution in the retrospectivef. The openness of the communication in the
retrospectiveGive a value (1 = absolutely NO, 2, 3, 4, 5 = absolutely YES)
that corresponds the question bestg. Is the ARCA tool easy?h. Is the ARCA tool learnable?i. Did the ARCA tool help in finding problems and causes?j. Would you have found the same causes without the
tool?k. Would the retrospective have been easier without the
tool?l. Would the retrospective have been more effective
without the tool?
Appendix C. Questionnaire used in Case 2
1. What is your title2. Select the roles that describe your responsibility best3. Target Problem
Give a value that corresponds the question best [1 = very low,2, 3, 4, 5 = very high]
a. Effort the company has used to try to prevent thetarget problem (or similar ones) earlier
(continued on next page)
thos
eprov
ided
bythe
RCAmod
ule’’
‘‘theso
ftware
prov
ides
guidan
ceto
theus
eron
the
inve
stigationof
ade
fect
basedon
prev
ious
know
ledg
eform
alized
inthe
form
ofintegrated
mod
els.’’
No=this
feature
isnot
availablein
theso
ftwaretool,Y
es=this
feature
isav
ailablein
theso
ftwaretool,(No)
=itis
like
lythat
this
feature
isnot
availablein
theso
ftwaretool,b
utwewerenot
able
tove
rify
that,(Yes)=itis
like
lythat
thisfeature
isav
ailablein
theso
ftwaretool,b
utwewerenot
able
tove
rify
that,?
=wewerenot
able
tofindan
yev
iden
ceon
theoc
curren
ceof
thisfeature,Fee
=theso
ftwareissu
bjectto
ach
arge
,Free(licen
se)=theso
ftware
isfree
,Freeto
use
=usingtheso
ftwareis
free
.Goo
gle�
=Fo
undfrom
ourGoo
glesearch
‘‘roo
tcause
analysis
software’’.
Goo
gle#
=Fo
undfrom
ourGoo
glesearch
‘‘roo
tcause
analysis
software’’free.
Ope
n-tube
=Fo
undfrom
http://op
en-tube
.com
/10-be
st-softw
are-tools-to-con
duct-roo
t-cause-analysis-and-so
lve-co
mplex
-problem
s/.
Roo
tCau
seLive
=foundfrom
http://www.roo
tcau
selive
.com
/library/Softw
are.htm
.Scop
us=foundfrom
scop
us.co
m.
Goo
gleScholar
=foundfrom
Goo
gleScholar.
T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437 435
b. Internal impact of the target problem for the company4. Target problem causes
a. Correctness of the detected causesb. Impact of resolving the found causes of the problems
5. Retrospective methodGive a value that corresponds the question best [1 = very low,
2, 3, 4, 5 = very high]a. Easiness to collect the causesb. Easiness to detect the root causesc. My own contribution in the RCA session wasd. Openness of the communication in the RCA session
wase. Compared to our team’s current process improvement
practices, do you find using the RCA method cost efficient?f. Compared to our team’s current process improvement
practices, do you find using the RCA method easy?g. Compared to our team’s previous practices to find
causes behind problems or issues, do you find using the RCAmethod useful?
h. The easiness to detect the causes of the target problemwas.
i. To solve the target problem, was detecting causes forthe target problem useful?
j. In contrast to the company’s practices, was the methodused to detect target problem causes useful?
k. Was it easy to detect the target problem causes?6. The ARCA tool
Give a value that corresponds the question best [1 = very low,2, 3, 4, 5 = very high]
a. Compared to an RCA session done by using post-itnotes, do you find using the online ARCA-tool cost efficient?
b. Compared to an RCA session done by using post-itnotes, do you find the online ARCA-tool easy to use?
c. Compared to our team’s previous processimprovement practices, do you find the online ARCA-tooluseful?
d. Is the online ARCA tool easy to use?e. Is the online ARCA tool easy to learn?f. Did the online ARCA tool help to find problem causes?g. Would we have found the same problem causes
without the tool?h. Was it difficult to organize the problem causes with
the online ARCA tool?i. In contrast to our company practices, is the online
ARCA tool cost efficient to detect process improvementtargets?
References
[1] K.C. Desouza, T. Dingsøyr, Y. Awazu, Experiences with conducting projectpostmortems: reports versus stories, Softw. Process Improve. Pract. 10 (2005)203–215.
[2] R.J. Latino, K.C. Latino (Eds.), Root Cause Analysis: Improving Performance forBottom-Line Results, 6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300 Boca Raton,FL 33487-2742, CRC Press, 2006.
[3] T. Dingsøyr, N.B. Moe, Ø. Nytrø, Augmenting experience reports withlightweight postmortem reviews, in: PROFES’01 Proceedings of the ThirdInternational Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement,2001, pp. 167–181.
[4] T. Dingsøyr, Postmortem reviews: purpose and approaches in softwareengineering, Inf. Softw. Technol. 47 (2005) 293–303.
[5] F.O. Bjørnson, A.I. Wang, E. Arisholm, Improving the effectiveness of root causeanalysis in post mortem analysis: a controlled experiment, Inf. Softw. Technol.51 (1) (2009) 150–161.
[6] J.D. Herbsleb, D. Moitra, Global software development, IEEE Softw. 18 (2001)16–20.
[7] T. Jaanu, M. Paasivaara, C. Lassenius, Near-synchronity and distance: instantmessaging as a medium for global software engineering, in: 2012 IEEE SeventhInternational Conference on Global Software Engineering, 2012, pp. 149–153.
[8] J. Terzakis, Virtual retrospectives for geographically dispersed software teams,IEEE Softw. 28 (2011) 12–15.
[9] T.O.A. Lehtinen, M.V. Mäntylä, J. Vanhanen, Development and evaluation of alightweight root cause analysis method (ARCA method) – field studies at foursoftware companies, Inf. Softw. Technol. 53 (10) (2011) 1045–1061.
[10] D.N. Card, Learning from our mistakes with defect causal analysis, IEEE Softw.15 (1) (1998) 56–63.
[11] M. Leszak, D.E. Perry, D. Stoll, A case study in root cause defect analysis, in:Proceedings of the 2000 International Conference on Software Engineering,2000, pp. 428–437.
[12] R.B. Grady, Software failure analysis for high-return process improvementdecisions, Hewlett-Packard J. 47 (4) (1996) 15–25.
[13] P. Jalote, N. Agrawal, Using defect analysis feedback for improving quality andproductivity in iterative software development, in: Proceedings of theInformation Science and Communications Technology (ICICT 2005), 2005,pp. 701–714.
[14] B. Andersen, T. Fagerhaug (Eds.), Root Cause Analysis: Simplified Tools andTechniques, Tony A. William American Society for Quality, Quality Press,United States, Milwaukee 53203, 2006.
[15] News and notes from the Google Drive and Docs teams, ‘‘Introducing GoogleDocs drawings’’, Docs Blog, 13th April 2010.
[16] M. Kalinowski, G.H. Travassos, D.N. Card, Towards a defect prevention basedprocess improvement approach, in: Proceedings of the 34th EUROMICROConference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, Parma, Italy,2008, pp. 199–206.
[17] R.G. Mays, Applications of defect prevention in software development, IEEE J.Sel. Areas Commun. 8 (1990) 164–168.
[18] M. Siekkinen, G. Urvoy-Keller, E.W. Biersack, D. Collange, A root cause analysistoolkit for TCP, Comput. Netw. (2008) 1846–1858.
[19] T. Stålhane, Root Cause Analysis and Gap Analysis – A Tale of Two Methods,EuroSPI 2004, Trondheim, Norway, 2004, pp. 150–160.
[20] I. Bhandari, M. Halliday, E. Tarver, D. Brown, J. Chaar, R. Chillarege, A case studyof software process improvement during development, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng.19 (12) (1993) 1157–1170.
[21] Z.X. Jin, J. Hajdukiewicz, G. Ho, D. Chan, Y. Kow, Using root cause data analysisfor requirements and knowledge elicitation, in: International Conference onEngineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics (HCII 2007), Berlin,Germany, 2007, pp. 79–88.
[22] K. Schwaber, J. Sutherland, Scrum Guide, Scrum Alliance, 2011.[23] J.J. Rooney, L.N. Vanden Heuvel, Root cause analysis for beginners, Qual. Prog.
37 (7) (2004) 45–53.[24] F.T. Anbari, E.G. Carayannis, R.J. Voetsch, Post-project reviews as a key project
management competence, Technovation 28 (2008) 633–643.[25] R.L. Glass, Project retrospectives, and why they never happen, IEEE Softw. 19
(2002) 111–112.[26] L. Williams, What agile teams think of agile principles, Commun. ACM 55
(2012) 71–76.[27] W.F. Boh, S.A. Slaughter, A.J. Espinosa, Learning from experience in software
development: a multilevel analysis, Manage. Sci. 53 (2007) 1315–1331.[28] T. Stålhane, T. Dingsøyr, G. Hanssen, N. Moe, Post mortem – an assessment of
two approaches, Emp. Methods Stud. Softw. Eng. (2003) 129–141.[29] T.O.A. Lehtinen, M.V. Mäntylä, What are problem causes of software projects?
Data of root cause analysis at four software companies, in: ESEM’11 Proc. ofthe 2011 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering andMeasurement, 2011, pp. 388–391.
[30] F. Lanubile, C. Ebert, R. Prikladnicki, A. Vizcaíno, Collaboration tools for globalsoftware engineering, IEEE Softw. 27 (2010) 52–55.
[31] M. Jiménez, M. Piattini, A. Vizcaíno, Challenges and improvements indistributed software development: a systematic review, Adv. Softw. Eng.2009 (2009) 3.
[32] F.Q. da Silva, C. Costa, A.C.C. França, R. Prikladinicki, Challenges and solutionsin distributed software development project management: a systematicliterature review, in: 2010 5th IEEE International Conference on GlobalSoftware Engineering (ICGSE), 2010, pp. 87–96.
[33] L. Williams, D. Grayson, J. Gosbee, Patient safety—incorporating drawingsoftware into root cause analysis software, J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 9 (2002)S52–S53.
[34] W. Vantine, K. Benfield, D. Pritts, K. Ballard, Evaluating and incorporating newage software technology for identifying systemic root causes, in: Joint ESA-NASA Space-Flight Safety Conference, 2002, pp. 369.
[35] L. Huertas-Quintero, P. Conway, D. Segura-Velandia, A. West, Root causeanalysis support for quality improvement in electronics manufacturing,Assem. Autom. 31 (2011) 38–46.
[36] S. Lee, J.F. Courtney, R.M. O’Keefe, A system for organizational learning usingcognitive maps, Omega, Int. J. Manage. Sci. 20 (1992) 23–36.
[37] T.C. Lethbridge, S. Elliott Sim, J. Singer, Studying software engineers: datacollection techniques for software field studies, Emp. Softw. Eng. 10 (3) (2005)311–341.
[38] S. Jamieson, Likert scales: how to (ab) use them, Med. Educ. 38 (2004) 1217–1218.
[39] J.F. Nunamaker, A.R. Dennis, J.S. Valacich, D. Vogel, J.F. George, Electronicmeeting systems, Commun. ACM 34 (1991) 40–61.
[40] I. Zigurs, B.K. Buckland, A theory of task/technology fit and group supportsystems effectiveness, MIS Quarterly (1998) 313–334.
[41] A.R. Dennis, C.K. Tyran, D.R. Vogel, J.F. Nunamaker Jr., Group support systemsfor strategic planning, J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 14 (1997) 155–184.
436 T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437
[42] P. Runeson, M. Höst, Guidelines for conducting and reporting case studyresearch in software engineering, Emp. Softw. Eng. 14 (2008) 131–164.
[43] H.K. Klein, M.D. Myers, A set of principles for conducting and evaluatinginterpretive field studies in information systems, MIS Quarterly (1999) 67–93.
[44] G. DeSanctis, R.B. Gallupe, A foundation for the study of group decision supportsystems, Manage. Sci. 33 (1987) 5.
[45] N.B. Moe, D. Šmite, Understanding lacking trust in global software teams: amulti-case study, in: Product-Focused Software Process Improvement,Springer, 2007, pp. 20–34.
[46] T.D. Jick, Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: triangulation in action,Adm. Sci. Q. 24 (1979) 602–611.
T.O.A. Lehtinen et al. / Information and Software Technology 56 (2014) 408–437 437