See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349590104

Lean Software Development (LSD) based on Lean principles(LPs) and (LSD)

practices (DevOps)

Preprint · February 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 256

1 author:

Llahm Omar Ben Dalla

Sebha University
95 PUBLICATIONS   102 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Lean Software Development Practices and Principles in Terms of View project

A Literature review (LR) on tourism demand tourism in terms of the relationship between marketing and tourists attractions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Llahm Omar Ben Dalla on 25 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

Lean Software Development (LSD) based on Lean principles(LPs)

and (LSD) practices (DevOps)

* Corresponding author: *Llahm Omar Faraj Ben Dalla

Sebha Technical University,
Department of Software Engineering, Faculty of Computer Science, Libya
Self-Lanser Group Research Center (SLGRC) Computer Department.
Tripoli/LIBYA‫‏‬.
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: +218945780716

Abstract
Lean Software Development (LSD) is one of the influential Agile Software Development
(ASD) methodologies. The main objective of LSD is to create customer value and swift
delivery within the budget. LSD can improve business domain by adopting lean principles
(LPs) according to the business requirements in different domains. This paper provides
observations on the evolution of lean software development. This study is significant in terms
of three important contributions: the first contribution is defined as LSD and LPs in terms of
strength and weaknesses. The second contribution studied the relationship between ASD and
LSD. Further, the study contributes the comprehensive understanding of LSD principles and
practices during the last decade (DevOps).

Keywords: Lean Software Development (LSD); Lean Principles (LPs); Lean Practices;
Software Development; Software Development Life Cycle (SWDLC).

1. INTRODUCTION
After the Second World War in the 1940s, Japanese industries began to introduce a new
approach to software development methodology called “Lean software development” method
(LSD) (DevOps). In the mid-1980s, the term "lean" was combined with the product
management process (PMP) and, after that, utilized in product development at MIT. Lean
Methodology (LM) life cycle can be found in the book entitled "The machine that changed
the world" (Womack et al., 1990). The primary goals of Lean are to reduce support terms,
increase customer value and time-to-market (Ebert et al., 2012). LSD is one of the agile
methodologies (AMs) and, thus, depends on a flexible method to distinguish the utilize of
LSD depending on the ventures and their quality while operating under an agile umbrella
(Janes, 2015). The success of LSD is to have support from the top management level. Since
we could not find an article on the evolution of lean principles and practices and their benefits
to lean product development (LPD) (DevOps). This paper will advance the knowledge in this
direction. All stakeholders will also know how to determine the venture life cycle (related to
sustainable development). The product should be built from high quality-component (HQC).

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 45

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

Lean Product Development Life-Cycle is summarized in figure 1-1 below. The remainder of
this paper is organized as follows. Section 1: Introduction, Section 2 presents the
comprehensive review of LSD in last decade. Section 3 and 4 presents the discussion and
limitations. Finally it concludes with future research direction (DevOps).

Figure 1-1. LSD product Life-Cycle, adapted from (Ebert et al. 2012).

The benefits of a structured method according to Pinel-Alloul et al., (2002), is to build

software with human effort, development hours and investment as compared to what CMMI
level 3 organizations would achieve.
1.1. Lean hierarchy
In the beginning, when companies first adopted lean manufacturing (Poppendieck, 2011),
they did so because it is an AMs (DevOps). Ever since, and depending on the business and
customer needs lean manufacturing has been introduced in new forms such as LSD, LI, lean
thinking, etc. As shown in Figure 1-2.

Figure 1-2. Lean tree utilized in the management approach at Toyota (Poppendieck’s, 2006).

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 46

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

1.1. Change tolerance

When an organization could continue improving despite high uncertainties and fluctuations in
the market, this property is referred to as „change tolerance‟ (related to adaptation) (Pinel-
Alloul et al., 2002). LSD incorporates the concept of dynamic stability with the ability to be
adaptive to change once many customer requirements change to continuously improve the
quality of internal processes.
LSD is the process of creating change-tolerant software with the help of individuals to reduce
development time, proper investment in tools and methodologies, and adapting to the new
time-to-market settings(DevOps). According to Pinel-Alloul et al., (2002), the main idea here
is that potential competitive advantage comes from being more flexible than other
competitors to gain access to the market in less time and with less efforts. However,
unexpected circumstances in the new markets cannot be easily foreseen by many companies,
leading to disturbances in the company plan. Fast maintenance duration can also be another
high-risk factor leading to failure of delivery.

1.2. Risk leadership

LSD provides on-time and within-budget delivery by implementing "risk entrepreneurship",

which is a component of risk leadership/management. In traditional software development,
the risk is resolved to avoid loss. In LSD, (Charrette, 2002), change is viewed as an
opportunity. Risk leadership involves risk management and entrepreneurship requires the
ability to detect opportunities derived by cost (Pinel-Alloul et al., 2002). According to
Poppendieck and Poppendieck (2003, 2012), managing risk management to get opportunities
from the risks, is called „risk entrepreneurship‟.

1.3. The success of LSD

For LSD to be achieved, there are 3 rules:
First, a wide adoption of agile methods will require a key offering at senior levels (related to
sponsorship); second, the key message that will offer to sell agile methods is the ability to get
an open door from quick moving under high risk (DevOps). Finally, the advocates of AMs
need to comprehend the risks involved in agile approaches and decide accordingly whether or
not LSD is applicable (Rodríguez et al., 2013); (Poppendieck and Poppendieck, 2003, 2012).

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 47

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

1.4.Lean principles (LPs)

LSD is focused on eliminating waste and create customer value (Lane, 2012). There are
seven principles in LSD (Mazzocato et al., 2012).
 LP1: Eliminate waste (DelliFraine, 2009).
 LP2: Amplify learning (related to training) (Attri, 2013; Rodríguez et al. 2012).
 LP3: Delay Commitment (Lane, 2012). Decide as late as possible derive the
stakeholder to have a good decision.
 LP4: Empower the team at any organization (related to sponsorship) (Lane, 2012).
 LP5: deliver fast (related to early and frequent Releases) (Chen, 2015).
 LP6: Build Integrity related to optimizing the whole (Lane, 2012).
 LP7: Optimize the whole (related to optimize the whole early which is leading to
deliver fast).
 The benefit of utilizing LPs
LPs provide effort and more efficiently to entire business processes and market successes
(Lane, 2012); (Poppendieck, (2011). Please see Table A-1. LM advantages and limitations as
frameworks.
 The disadvantage of utilizing LSD
According to (Lane, 2012); (Poppendieck and Poppendieck, (2003, 2007); (Secor et al.,
2014) there are several disadvantages of LSD which presented in Table A-2.

 LSD practices

Poppendieck and Poppendieck, (2003, 2007) and several authors have introduced lean
practices as tools please see Table A-3. Lean practices relevant to software development.

 Lean team members characteristics

Lean team members “work cell” (Larman and Vodde, 2009) have the ability to solve
problems and find optimal solutions. Internal and external expertise according to the contract
reviews are according to following figure 1.3.

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 48

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

Figure 1-3. Lean team member's characteristics.

Lean documentation
In LSD the team member tries to minimize all the documentation (related to lightweight
methodology and reduce waste) so during the venture life cycle to saving time and reducing
waste (Ebert et al., 2012). Excessive documentation does not add value but only consumes
resources and time (related to eliminating Waste) (Lane, 2012). Investigations of
documentation created amid ordinary programming advancement demonstrated that for a
normal 1,000-work point programming venture (around 125,000 lines of code) is as
following (Lane, 2012):
 Requirements Archives: average 300 pages.
 Plans: average 100 pages.
 Design Archives: average more than 1,500 pages.
 Utilizer manuals: average more than 600 pages.
 Test reports: average more than 5,000 pages.
Few of clients read 600-page manuals and AMs advocate lessening the above midpoints.

LSD process

 Start-up phase is the initial part of the venture, which leads to reduce risk and the
capability (Alloul et al., 2002).
 Steady-state phase iterative part in LSD to build a little process carried out by a
decision and iterative development.
 Transition and renewal phase is the last part of the venture life cycle (Ebert et al.,
2012).
 Self-learning, and self-adopting organizations can utilize LPs according to their
CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integrated (Poppendieck, 2011).

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 49

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: In section 2 relevant background

research is described, while section 3 provides an evolution of LSD. Section 4 describes
evolution scenario of lean software development. Section 5 illustares discussion along
with required tables. Section 6 is about study limitations and finally it concludes with
summary and future research directions.

2. Literature review

Lean Software development is an emerging paradigm in software development. Also its

significance is growing among practitioners and researchers due to the popularity of Agile
Methods and DevOPs in software development. Therefore its evolution trend is an interesting
area. To observe Lean Software Development evolution most of the major digital libraries for
instance, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE, etc. are explored to find articles related to LSD
during last one and half decade in which it has been evolved. Here main objective is to focus
on LSD evolution, its analysis, pattern to assist future researchers and software professionals.
This work is organized in form of tables to provide summary on different attributes at a
glance. There are very few related studies for instance Kupiainen et al., (2015) studied
application of metrics in Agile and Lean Software Development in industrial studies. This
research could not find such study and therefore it motivates authors to investigate further in
this area. To the best of our knowledge this is first such study in area of LSD. Here main
objective is to study on LSD evolution (DevOps), its analysis, advantages and limitations,
Lean practices, project types etc., scenario to assist future researchers and software
professionals. Also we have noted important gist of different crucial papers in this area. As
Agile Methods and its associated methodologies like LSD and DevOps will play a major role
in coming future thus this study advances body of knowledge in this direction. This study
focuses on observations regarding the evolution of LSD and lean core principles, practices
within the last twelve years (till 2019). The first contribution is defined as LSD and LPs and
when these can be influential along with limitations of LSD as reviewed by some well-known
authors in this field. The second contribution studies the relationship between ASD and LSD
and also the main variances between LSD and ASD and how to be combined to any work
together as lean thinking. LSD principles have been put into utilizing, as identified by
Poppendieck and Poppendieck (2003, 2007). In 2003, Poppendieck and Poppendieck
introduced seven principles to help software development communities (Janes, 2015).

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 50

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

According to Rodríguez et al. (2012) transformation in LSD is comparison to the approach

designed by Ericsson, called “lean Amplifier”. He had introduced 12 lean core principles to
be applied in the evaluation. Lean appears in general manufacturing, from software
development to production practice (Poppendieck and Poppendieck, 2003, 2007). In 2016,
some large organizations started to utilize the KLSS model to improve product quality and
increase efficiency to meet customer needs (Arun Kumar and Dillibabu, 2016). Saboo et al.
(2014) also noticed that some of the manufacturing companies and organizations in India
approved actually utilizing LSD.

3. The Evolution of LSD

3.1. LM as frameworks advantages and disadvantages
This section presents the LM as described in Table A-1 which illustrates Lean according to
each author and which kind of frameworks have been mentioned by the author and which
LPs the author described along with the advantages of utilizing such kind of LM, also
disadvantages are presented in this section.

3.2. LSD practices

This section is regarding the Lean practices relevant to software development and LSD
practices in published papers (conferences, journals) during 2006-2017. The Lean practices in
Table A-2 are according to each author.

3.3. LSD practices and venture domains

This section detailed LM and the Lean practices relevant to software development and LSD
practices in published papers (conferences, journals) during 2006-2017. Table A-3 describes
Lean practices according to each author, and when can be utilized according to the evidence
of each author in any venture domain or business area.

3.4. LSD practices and SWDLC

This section describes Lean practices relevant to software development and LSD practices in
published papers during the last decade and where these can be applied during SDLC. These
practices are illustrated in Table A-4 according to applications in diverse SDLC, each author,
and when can be applied according to the evidence of each author in SDLC phases.

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 51

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

4. Evolution scenario of lean software development

LSD came into existence for the first time in October 1992 in a conference organized in
Stuttgart Germany by ESPRIT initiative of the European Union. The origin was from the
book “The Machine That Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production” authored by
James Womack, Daniel Jones, and Daniel Roos illustrated the approach in management at
Toyota. Later on Robert “Bob” Pinel-Alloul et al. (2002) in his work categorized better ways
of exploring and managing risk in software ventures, LSD was also defined. The idea to
apply it in software development was later developed after it was observed to be effective in
manufacturing and industrial engineering. Initially in 1995, Womack and Jones had defined
five key pillars of lean thinking i.e. value, value stream, flow, pull and perfection (attained by
elimination of waste). The next decade observed the term associated more with the
manufacturing industry rather than software development; this later changed in the 21st
century when Poppendieck and Poppendieck revamped the idea. The five pillars were
reviewed to be seven principles of LSD and twenty-two (22) Tools. The seven principles are
eliminating waste, build quality in, create knowledge, defer commitment, deliver fast, respect
people, and optimize the whole. The evolution of LSD can be observed in reviewing the
papers of last decade from the electronic databases. It present the main points in this study
and is significant for many organizations who have an interest in reaping the best benefits of
application of LSD in their business. For instance, the phases of the lean method; when it can
be utilized; where and which principles to apply are well defined in this research.

According to ArunKumar and Dillibabu (2016), the kind of LM described in LSD was KLSS
model this was through the LSS Kano model. This model is aimed at developing and
enhancing software quality without increased costs, effort and time. The KLSS model
identifies the exact requirements that the customer requires in the software and the utility of
the software so as to ensure they are strictly addressed. The model is also utilized to
categorize the requirements to identify the nature of the defect, eliminate the requirements of
no value processes and to ensure that the main functionality is implemented so that the
expectations of the customers are met. ArunKumar and Dillibabu (2016) indicate that the
model is tested and has implemented in a leading IT company. When the model is applied,
the advantage is that the results are greater improved software in terms of quality, effort, and
costs The KLSS operations have the disadvantage of weak operations; additionally, most
companies utilize KLSS in their ventures.

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 52

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

Jadhav et al. (2014) noted that any organization‟s survival depends upon its competitive edge;
the top management is highly tasked to identify, recognize and implement the lean practices
such as Kanban, quality circle, and just-in-time purchasing. There are eight lean practice
bundles that have been acknowledged. The model identified is the Interpretive Structural
Modeling (ISM) frameworks. The advantages are that it allows the management and leaders
reduce the costs. The flow diagram for the ISM model is in figure 4-1 below.

Figure 1-4. Flow diagram for preparing ISM model Attri et al. (2013).

ISM is an interactive learning process that ensures human beings are assisted to understand
better, what they believe and recognize undoubtedly, what they know (Attri et al., 2013). The
characteristics of the ISM process are that the methodology is interpretive as the judgment
group makes the decisions on whether and how the diverse elements are connected. The
model is also structural based on mutual relationship.
It also helps impose direction and order where there are complex relationships in the elements
of the system. The model is principally developed as a group learning process; however,
individuals can also apply it. It has six steps i.e. Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM);
Step 2: Reachability Matrix; Step 3: Level partitions; Step 4: Conical matrix; Step 5:
Digraph; and Step 6: ISM Model (Attri et al., 2013). Mazzocato et al. (2012) identify the
need to apply lean thinking in the health sector; however, this is restricted by the limited
knowledge on the success and interventions needed to succeed. The study reviews the
Swedish pediatric accident and emergency department to able to understand the lean process.
The optimal solution identified is the redevelopment of lean LPs that are in line with each
section. In adapting LPs, there is a possibility of developing knowledge in the organization.
The success of any method in an organization brings certainty in the requirements and a
better way is known to adopt the system. The only disadvantage is that implementing the
IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 53
 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

process can be compared to journeying a mysterious route (Mazzocato et al.,2012). The

advantage of the model is the increased product quality and the increase of the level of
customer satisfaction and timely delivery and work within the budget Figure 1-4.

Rodríguez et al. (2014) identified a combined methodology of lean and agile processes; it
utilized five core principles of lean thinking and lean principles. The current global trends are
distinguished by a dynamic and competitive environment for organizations; this means that
they must always keep vigil to ensure a competitive advantage. Software developers need to
ensure they deliver in shorter lead times, lower budgets, and better quality so as to attract
more clients. Agile and Lean models emerged to address these concerns. According to
Nurdiani et al. (2016), ASD is group SWDMs, such as XP, Crystal, and the Scrum that focus
on developing working software products in small iterations, being adaptive towards changes
in requirements and enhancing collaboration with clients (Mishra et al., 2017).

LSD is a set of tools and principles resulting from Lean manufacturing that focuses on
removing waste, delaying the decisions, enhancing the quality of the product at the earliest
time. Nurdiani et al. (2016) state that “the growth of interest in Agile and LSD is reflected by
a large number of research papers published between 2001 and 2010”. The study in 2011 by
Hanssen is on the applicability of the Agile practices in Global software development. The
steps in a tertiary study are illustrated in Table 4-2 below.
The number of studies in Systematic Literature Review (SLR) has continued to rise since
2008 reaching a record high in 2014 and later plummeting in 2015. The studies with
Literature Review (LR) have mainly been featured in 2014, while those in Systematic
Mapping (SM) are seen in 2010 with an increase in 2013. The advantages of utilizing the
combination of Agile and LM is that there is improved productivity, it will enable learning; it
ensures the product is of quality, has a better walkthrough and it enhances the software
development process. The disadvantage is that the state cannot be generalized (external
validity) due to the limitations in research. Jonsson et al. (2013) propose a framework that is
structured according to the authors and they are for utilizing on lean principles.

Jonsson et al. (2012) reviewed the management principles in Toyota to build software; he
identified eight major seminal sources for LSD. The software industry is a vibrant business
that must always look for new ways to develop competitive products; this is because new
paradigms succeed each other fast. The changing patterns in lean management have been
IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 54
 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

rigorous over decades, for instance, sometimes it is dominated by object-oriented

programming then it is overtaken by 4G languages. Additionally, in terms of methodology
there sequential “waterfall‟ methods then they are replaced by iterative methods such as
spiral and unified process). The AMs is the current hot topic and no one knows what will be
the next. The need to eliminate the crisis in the software industry and put in the past the
reputation of bad quality and costly delays in ventures there was the need for a new
evolution. To attain this success there have been many initiatives such as the Capability
Maturity Model that was created to assist organizations to have the ability to deliver quality
software efficiently.

The evolution in the LSD was by the need to scale up production from small craftsmanship;
this however needed more disciplined. The plan-driven methods have dominated large-scale
production of software for a long time. Researchers from Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) of the phenomenon that Toyota had much more efficient production and
with high quality than other American companies brought forth the Lean production
philosophy. The major challenge to apply this philosophy was that software had unique
features as opposed to physical products; they include intangible design, a complex logic,
high design costs and low production cost. Jonsson et al. (2012) identified a number of
seminal sources for lean and the basic concepts. Middleton and Joyce (2012) discussed the
roots of lean models and dates it back to 1950s; this is based on the variance in the Japanese
and Western cultures of management. Jonsson et al. (2012) in his study identified 140 hits
when looking for a database; of these 30 peers reviewed journals and magazines were left.
The 30 primary papers were then checked on the references they had and hence several
seminal sources were identified. They were divided into those that referred to lean production
in general and those that were specific on LSD.

Books by Womack‟s were found to be most influential on lean software movement; on the
other handbooks by Womack and Liker refer to Japanese sources. Poppendiecks books were
the most cited in terms of LSD. Andersson‟s books were the most cited in terms of Kanban
venture management method and the agile method Scrum. Middleton and Sutton had fewer
citations but had more scientific evidence and more concrete guidance on the application of
lean concepts in software industry. Coplein and Bjornvig also provided solid guidance to
software though the focus was on lean architecture (Jonsson et al., 2012). The 1998 Morgan‟s
thesis found to be the oldest reference seminal paper and the primary paper by Ayayoma was
IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 55
 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

identified and showed that LPs in software has older roots from the Japanese industry
(Jonsson et al., 2012). This is precisely illustrated in table 4-1 and table 4-2 below.

Table 4-1. Seminal sources for Lean Jonsson et al. (2013).

Table 4-2. The primary papers with empirical evidence Jonsson et al. (2013).

In terms of basic lean concepts, Liker (2004) identifies 14 principles that are most utilized in
management; they are Jonsson et al. (2012). Firstly, is basing the decisions by management
on a philosophy that is long-term, even when the short-term financial goals seem attractive.
Creation of a continuous process flow that identifies the problems. Utilizing of “pull” systems
to evade overproduction Workload leveling out (heijunka) (Work like the tortoise, not the
hare.) Put up a culture to discontinue to fixing problems, to one that gets quality right.
Standardized responsibilities and processes are the groundwork for incessant development
and empowerment of employees. Utilize visual control to ensure that there are no hidden
problems. Utilize only dependable, systematically tested technology that provides people and
processes. Develop leaders who are aware of their duties, make sure they implement the
philosophy and spread it to others. Develop amazing players who tag along with the
company‟s philosophy. Respect for systems that are extensive to associates and suppliers.
Personally observe things to comprehensively understand the state of affairs (genchi
genbutsu). Make resolutions gradually by consensus, comprehensively considering all

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 56

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

alternatives; put into practice decisions swiftly (nemawashi). Become a company that learns
through persistent reflection (hansei) and incessant enhancement (kaizen).

Womark and Jones (2015) provide five important concepts; Value, Value Stream, Flow, Pull
and Perfection. The concepts can be identified as a summary of lean thinking. Indeed,
Womack‟s definitions are more concise and technical i.e. these are process oriented, but
likers are the same principles with more details focusing on the human side. In the line of
LSD, Poppendiecks‟ principles as given earlier are in line with the principles given by Liker
though they are not concretely articulated. The principles remain the same, only that Liker
emphasizes the importance of standards of working methods while Poppendieck‟s focuses
more on self-determination. The major issue with Poppendieck‟s principle is that there is no
description of how the work should be documented and when the issues should be discussed.

Andersson defines Kanban software principles as Jonsson et al. (2012)

 Visualize the workflow (L7)
 Limit work in progress (L3, L4, P5)
 Manage flow (L2, L4)
 Make process policies explicit (L6)
 Increase collaboratively (by utilizing models and the scientific method) (L14, P7).
Anderson‟s principles are more practical oriented and more focused on issues of venture
management compared to Poppendieck‟s. Comparing Liker‟s principles to Anderson‟s is that
Andersson does not emphasize on decisions that are long-term; additionally, he does not
point out that the decision should be taken slowly by consent. Andersson has gone a step
ahead in establishing the Lean Software and System Consortium
(www.leansystemsociety.org) that is charged with the promotion of lean in many areas
including software. The preliminary principles that guide the consortium include Jonsson et
al. (2012)
Follow at thinking and blueprint Approach Systems. Sprouting results can be informed by
reviewing the framework of a framework that is multifaceted and adaptive, respect people.
 Apply methods that are scientific (to drive improvements).
 Promote Leadership.
 Enhance Visibility (into work, workflow, and system operation).
 Decrease Flow Time.

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 57

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

 Trim down on waste so as to enhance efficiency.

Chen (2015) advocates for the continuous delivery optimal solution. Continuous delivery is a
software engineering principle where groups keep producing valuable software in short
cycles and make certain that there will be a reliable release of software at any time. The six
steps of continuous delivery is shown in the figure 4-4 below.

Figure 4-4. A sample of a continuous delivery (Chen, 2015).

The benefits of continuous delivery include an accelerated time to market; improved

customer satisfaction; improved quality; reliable releases; enhanced productivity and
efficiency; and developing the right product.

5. Discussions
Over the span of the latest decade, there have been various changes in LSD; the lean practices
continue evolving to suit new trends and most of all to keep companies competitive. Object-
oriented programming was replaced by 4G languages; in terms of methodology, the
sequential “waterfall methods were replaced via iterative methods such as spiral and unified
process. Currently, the agile methods are more practiced waiting for the next generation of
invention (Rodríguez et al. 2014; Norrmalm, 2011; Mishra and Mishra, 2011; Mishra et al.,
2012). In the course of the last twelve years, there have been various lean practices published
in papers (In conferences and journals) i.e. see Table A-4. “Lean practices relevant to
software development”. These include continuous improvement; this has been discussed by
authors such as ArunKumar and Dillibabu (2016); Jadhav et al. (2014); Rodríguez et al.
(2014) and Jonsson et al. (2013). ArunKumar and Dillibabu (2016) also reviewed the Kano
analysis lean practice that focuses on the requirements of the customers. There is also the lean
practice that makes all items transparent; i.e. ensuring the venture is highly visible, and
visualizing all the elements needed in the work as presented in Table A-4. ArunKumar and
Dillibabu (2016) discussed this practice. The lean practice of measuring and managing is also

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 58

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

reviewed; this includes the employ queuing theory and exact items measurements. Authors
such as ArunKumar and Dillibabu (2016) and Mazzocato et al. (2012) reviewed this aspect
Table A-3; Table A-1.

The Plane-do-check-act (PCDA) cycle is also reviewed by Jadhav et al. (2014) and Jakobsen
and Poppendieck, (2011). Other lean practices include Poka-yoke: defect detection and
prevention; Quality function deployment Table A-5; Reduce slack; Root cause analysis;
Batch control processing; Avoid too much local optimization; Defer decision making;
Developing appropriate incentives/rewards; Hide individual performance; and Kaikaku:
radical improvement within a limited time as supported by Pernstål et al. (2013).

Mazzocato et al. (2012) also discuss the Cumulative flow diagram (CFD) that addresses
bottlenecks. Jakobsen and Poppendieck, (2011) review the Jidoka: intelligent automation
while Jonsson et al. (2013) discussed the Heijunka: eliminate Muda. Laanti, (2016) discusses
the two-level planning lean practice. Laanti, (2016) discusses VSM; Rodríguez et al. (2014);
Jonsson et al. (2013); Chen, (2015) see figure 4.2; and Nord and Ozkaya (2012) discusses
work in progress lean practices (Norrmalm, 2011). Jadhav et al. (2014) review the JIT Lean
processes. The need for lean practices as demonstrated by the researchers is paramount;
software developers must ensure they implement the most appropriate method that makes
their products and services competitive. Undeniably, the evolution of LSD has been majorly
focused on making the process effective, efficient and less costly (Norrmalm, 2011).

In evidence, change has been the only constant aspect advocated for in the lean development
process; the change is from a vaguer process of production of a lean objective and customer-
focused model. As Ebert et al. (2012) in Table A-3 and Figure 4.2.states that the process is a
paradigm shift of product development with a close focus on customer satisfaction,
optimizing value, eliminate waste, continuous improvements and empowering people as also
shown in figure 1-5 and figure 1-3. Authors continue to base their arguments on the initial
model but try to modify it to suit the diverse sectors of the economy. Indeed, over the decade,
it has seen more and more application of the concept by authors each based on the diverse
principle or concept that shape their view and function. Kumar and Dillibabu, (2016) put
forward the Kano LSS (KLSS) model. The model identifies the specific requirements from
the customer‟s view and helps on categorizing the requirements based of the defect‟s nature,
the non-value requirement evaluation, and the need to implement the functionality to meet the
IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 59
 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

customers‟ expectations. The model combines the LSS principles with the Kano model to
give the optimal solutions. Jadhav et al. (2014) recommend the interpretive structural
modeling (ISM) Figure 1-4, the authors see it as an update to the JIT version and share a
similar approach in a change of the organization. The model focuses on value addition and
eliminating waste; this is in a bid to keep the organization competitive than others. The
researchers noted that the implementation of the lean strategies must be done accordingly
otherwise they will lead to failure; this is because the competition in the market demands
very cost-efficient products and qualitative on-time delivery of products at the right place.

The lean practice bundles utilized by the authors include Waste elimination practice, volume
flexibility practice, delivery reliability practice, low cost practice, health and safety practice,
human resource management practice, conformance quality practice and creativity and
innovation practice (Table A-3)in Lean principles and practices relevant to ventures domain.
In the study of the lean development process over the decade, one aspect certainly stands out;
this is the need to address current changes while still utilizing the best and most efficient
process in delivering quality to customers. The aspect is still common to the need at the
inception of the Toyota production system (TPS). Chen (2015), Rodríguez et al. (2014) and
Nord and Ozkaya (2012) discussed that utilizing LPs can Increase productivity in Table A-3.,
customer value, product quality, while Jonsson et al. (2013) discussed that LPs helps
practitioners and researchers on how to apply lean thinking, detect the variance amongst AMs
and LM.

To discuss LSD concepts there will be a need to define the meaning and context of the
applications so that the process is well understood. The aim is to define the software
development process and its attributes and more importantly defining the evolution the sector
has undergone over the last decade. In understanding, the relationships between lean that
provide the framework for principles such as agile and the methodologies applied such as
Kanban and scrum then the study will provide adequate knowledge of the evolution process.

6. Limitations

 Time limits: this research present LSD throughout LM based on evolution in lean
software development during last decade.

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 60

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

 The objective limits: this research study identifies venture domains where LPs and
lean practices can be utilized and how these principles can improve and enhance
SWDLC, along with the impact of lean practices and stakeholders as cross-functional
team members who derived from SWDLC by utilizing LSD to improve software
development process phases.
 This paper directly addresses LPs as they are mostly followed by many organizations
and industries of any size (small, medium, large) all over the world. On the other
hand, LSD as a methodology which can empower the organizations by applying LPs
and practices as supported by (Pernstål et al., 2013).
 For the purpose here in, literature on LPs has been collected from diverse sources
dating back a decade, and studied as to how LPs can be beneficial to enterprises.
There is no empirical data (questionnaire, surveys etc.) in this research despite the
fact that the author believes that there needs to be such data in order to further
strengthen the results.

7. Conclusions and Future Research

This study aimed to introduce LSD, as an optimal solution to emphasize software
development process, also the study has defined Lean from the past to the recent and the
evolution during the life cycle of this methodology. The main idea of this study is to outline
challenges between Lean practices and LPs. Also to introduce many kinds of Lean
methodology throughout utilizing this methodology in many diverse phases in diverse
ventures. Further, this study is significant in three important contributions in business are, the
first contribution is defined as LSD and LPs and when these can be influential along with
limitations of LSD as reviewed by some well-known authors in this field.

The second contribution studies the relationship between ASD and LSD and also the main
variances between LSD and ASD and how to be combined to any work together as lean
thinking. The benefit of utilizing both in the same (organization, company, etc.) and also how
LSD and ASD can improve software development process. The study contributes the whole
understanding of all the changes of LSD principles and practices throughout the LSD journey
during the last twelve years (till 2019). This paper provides theoretical evidences on the topic
of the study by observing all the collected papers in the context of LSD and ASD. This
argument defines LSD as a methodology, which can be helpful in the business domains.

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 61

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

Software development principles and practices can improve organizations, companies‟

business area, and qualification scales. This study aims for future study which will move
towards in-depth of LSD in a wide area of practicing LPs or practices, moreover, a
comparative study of real companies that have been already successful by utilizing one of
LSD (lean thinking, lean practices, lean principles…etc.) is kept into the next future study.

REFERENCES

Aitken, A. (2014). Dual Application Model for Agile Software Engineering. 2014 47th
Hawaii International Conference on System Science. 4789 - 4798
Andersson, D.J. (2010). Kanban, Chicago: Blue Hole Press.
Antinyan, V. et al. (2014). Identifying Risky Areas of Software Code in Agile/Lean Software
Development: An Industrial Experience Report. Software Maintenance, Reengineering and
Reverse Engineering (CSMR-WCRE), 2014 Software Evolution Week - IEEE Conference.
Aoyama, M. (1996). Beyond software factories: concurrent-development process and an
evolution of software process technology in Japan. Information and Software Technology,
38(3): 133–143
ArunKumar, G. & Dillibabu, R. (2016). Design and Application of New Quality
Improvement Model: Kano Lean Six Sigma for Software Maintenance Project. Arab J Sci
Eng. 41:997–1014
Attri, R., Grover, S., Dev, N., & Kumar, D. (2013). An ISM approach for modelling the
enablers in the implementation of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM). International Journal
of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 4(4), 313-326.‫‏‬
Breit, M., Vogel, M., Häubi, F., Märki, F., & Raps, M. (2008).4D Design and Simulation
Technologies and Process Design Patterns to Support Lean Construction Methods. Tsinghua
Science And Technology. 13(S1): 179-184
Bamana, F., Lehoux, N., & Cloutier, C. (2019). Simulation of a Construction Project:
Assessing Impact of Just-in-Time and Lean Principles. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 145(5), 05019005.
Cawley, O., Richardson, I., Wang, X., Kuhrmann, M., (2015). A Conceptual Framework for
Lean Regulated Software Development. ACM. 978-1-4503-3346-7/15/08
Chen, L. (2015) "Continuous Delivery: Huge Benefits, but Challenges Too," IEEE Software,
32: 23 – 45

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 62

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

Chen, L., & Power, P. (2015). Continuous Delivery Huge Benefits, but Challenges Too. The
IEEE Computer Society. 50 – 54
Correia, D., Silva, F. J. G., Gouveia, R. M., Pereira, T., & Ferreira, L. P. (2018). Improving
manual assembly lines devoted to complex electronic devices by applying Lean tools.
Procedia Manufacturing, 17, 663-671.
Chong, J. Y., & Perumal, P. A. (2019, July). Conceptual Framework for Lean Manufacturing
Implementation in SMEs with PDCA Approach. In Symposium on Intelligent Manufacturing
and Mechatronics (pp. 410-418). Springer, Singapore.
Colazo, J. (2016). Team Network Evolution while Undergoing a Lean Transformation: A
Missing Success Indicator? 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Chaple, A. P., Narkhede, B. E., Akarte, M. M., & Raut, R. (2018). Interpretive framework for
analyzing lean implementation using ISM and IRP modeling. Benchmarking: An
International Journal, 25(9), 3406-3442.
Dalla, L. O. F. B., & Ahmad, T. M. A. (2020). The Sustainable Efficiency of Modeling a
Correspondence Undergraduate Transaction Framework by using Generic Modeling
Environment (GME).‫‏‬
Shlibak, A. A. A., & Dalla, L. O. F. B. (2020). The Sustainable Research Long While
Between Bee Pollen and Honey Bee Diversity in Libya: Literature Review.‫‏‬
Dalla, L. O. F. B., Ahmed, S. S., & Dalla, A. B. (2020). The Hierarchy of agile methods in
business domain CHAPTER ONE.‫‏‬
Dalla, L. O. F. B. (2020). The Influence of hospital management framework by the usage of
Electronic healthcare record to avoid risk management (Department of Communicable
Diseases at Misurata Teaching Hospital: Case study).‫‏‬
Dalla, L. O. F. B., Ahmed, S. S., & Dalla, A. B. (2020). Agile software development (ASD)
methods based on (ASD) family tree and adaptation in business framework domain
CHAPTER ONE.‫‏‬
Dalla, L. O. F. B., & El-sseid, M. A. M. (2021). The political state of Libya based on Pre and
post-Muammar Al Gaddafi era and new historicism Literature review (LR).‫‏‬
Dalla, L. O. F. B., & El-sseid, M. A. M. (2021). A Pre and post-Muammar Al Gaddafi era
and new historicism Literature review (LR).‫‏‬
Dalla, L. O. F. B. (2020). IT security Cloud Computing..‫‏‬.‫‏‏‬
Dalla, L. O. F. B. (2020). E-mail: mohmdaesed@ gmail. com E-mail: selflanser@ gmail. com
Phone:+ 218945780716..‫‏‏‬

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 63

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

Dalla, L. O. F. B. (2020). Lean Software Development Practices and Principles in Terms of

Observations and Evolution Methods to increase work environment productivity.‫‏‬
Dalla, L. O. F. B. (2020). Systematic Mapping on a metaphorical issue of Technical Debt
framework..‫‏‏‬
Dalla, L. O. F. B., El-sseid, A. M. A., Alarbi, T. M., & Ahmad, M. A. M. E. S. (2020). A
Domain Specific Modeling Language Framework (DSL) for Representative Medical
Prescription by using Generic Modeling Environment (GME)..‫‏‬
Ebert, C., Abrahamsson, P. & Oza, N. (2012). Lean Software Development. IEEE computer
society. 22 – 25
Edgeman, R. (2019). Complex Management Systems and the Shingo Model: Foundations of
Operational Excellence and Supporting Tools. Productivity Press.
Edison, H. Wang, X., & Abrahamsson, P. (2015).Lean Startup: Why Large Software
Companies Should Care. Workshops May 25 - 29, 2015, Helsinki, Finland. ACM. ISBN 978-
1-4503-3409-9/15/05
Fagerholm, F., Ikonen, M., Kettunen, P., Münch, J., Roto, V. & Abrahamsson, P. (2015).
Performance Alignment Work: How software developers experience the continuous
adaptation of team performance in Lean and Agile environments. Information and Software
Technology. 64: 132 – 147
Gutbrod, M., & Münch, J. (2018). Teaching Lean Startup principles: An empirical study on
assumption prioritization. In SiBW (pp. 245-253).
Hayata, T., Han, J., & Beheshti, M. (2012). Facilitating Agile Software Development with
Lean Architecture in the DCI Paradigm. 2012 Ninth International Conference on Information
Technology- New Generations. 343 – 348
Hanssen, G. K., Šmite, D., & Moe, N. B. (2011). Signs of agile trends in global software
engineering research: A tertiary study. In Global Software Engineering Workshop
(ICGSEW), 2011 Sixth IEEE International Conference on (pp. 17-23). IEEE.‫‏‬
Hui, A. (2013). Lean Change: Enabling Agile Transformation through Lean Startup, Kanban,
and Kotter: An Experience Report. Agile Conference (AGILE), 2013, IEEE, pp.169-174
Huan, Q., & ZhanWen, N. (2018). Knowledge management in consultancy involved LPS
implementation projects via social media. Electronic Commerce Research, 18(1), 89-107.
Jadhav, J. R., Mantha, S. S. & Rane, S. B. (2014). Development of framework for sustainable
Lean implementation: an ISM approach. J Ind Eng Int. 10:72
Jakobsen, C. R. (2011). Lean as a Scrum Troubleshooter. 2011 Agile Conference: IEEE

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 64

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

Jakobsen, C. R., & Poppendieck, T. (2011). Lean as a scrum troubleshooter. In Agile

Conference (AGILE), 2011 (pp. 168-174). IEEE.‫‏‬
Janes, A. (2015). A Guide to Lean Software Development in Action. IEEE Eighth
International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation Workshops
(ICSTW). IEEE, 13th utilizer Symposium on Software Quality, Test and Innovation (ASQT
2015)
Jonsson, H. Larsson, S. & Punnekkat, S. (2013). Synthesizing a Comprehensive Framework
for Lean Software Development. 2013 39th Euromicro Conference Series on Software
Engineering and Advanced Applications
Jun-yi, S., & Xue-gang, S. (2010). Notice of Retraction Study of integration innovation of
modern industrial engineering technologies based on lean thinking. In Advanced
Management Science (ICAMS), 2010 IEEE International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 276-
281). IEEE.‫‏‬
Karvonen, T., Rodríguez, P., Kuvaja, P., Mikkonen, K. & Oivo, M. (2012). Adapting the
Lean Enterprise Self-Assessment Tool for the Software Development Domain. IEEE, 2012
38th Euro micro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications
Kupiainen, E., Mäntylä, M. V. & Itkonen, J. (2015). Using metrics in Agile and Lean
Software Development – A systematic literature review of industrial studies. Information and
Software Technology. 62: 143–163
Laanti, M. (2016). Piloting Lean-Agile Hardware Development. XP '16 Workshops. May 24-
24, 2016, Edinburgh, Scotland UK. ACM. 978-1-4503-4134-9/16/05
Langabeer, J. R. & DelliFraine, J. L., Heineke, J. & Abbass, I. (2009). Implementation of
Lean and Six Sigma quality initiatives in hospitals: A goal theoretic perspective. Oper Manag
Res. 2:13–27
Langabeer, J. R., DelliFraine, J. L., Heineke, J., & Abbass, I. (2009). Implementation of Lean
and Six Sigma quality initiatives in hospitals: A goal theoretic perspective. Operations
Management Research, 2(1-4), 13-27.‫‏‬
Liker, J.K. (2004). The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World‟s Greatest
Manufacturer. London: McGraw-Hill
Mazzocato, P., Holden, R.J., Brommels, M., Aronsson, H., Bäckman, U., Elg, M. & Thor, J.
(2012). How does lean work in emergency care? A case study of a lean-inspired intervention
at the Astrid Lindgren Children‟s hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. BMC Health Services
Research. 12:28

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 65

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

Middleton, P. & Joyce, D. (2012). Lean Software Management: BBC Worldwide Case Study.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 59(1): 20 – 32
Mishra, D., & Mishra, A. (2011). Complex software project development: agile methods
adoption. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, 23(8), 549-
564.
Mishra, D., Mishra, A., & Ostrovska, S. (2012). Impact of physical ambiance on
communication, collaboration and coordination in agile software development: An empirical
evaluation. Information and software Technology, 54(10), 1067-1078.
Mishra, A., Garbajosa, J., Wang, X., Bosch, J., & Abrahamsson, P. (2017). Future directions
in Agile research: Alignment and divergence between research and practice. Journal of
Software: Evolution and Process, 29(6), e1884.
Nord, R. L. & Ozkaya, I. (2012). Making Architecture Visible to Improve Flow Management
in Lean Software Development. IEEE computer society. 33 – 38
Norrmalm, T. (2011). Achieving Lean Software Development Implementation of Agile and
Lean Practices in a Manufacturing-Oriented Organization. https://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:400627/FULLTEXT01.pdf
Nurdiani, I., Börstler, J., & Fricker, S.A. (2016). The impacts of agile and lean practices on
project constraints: A tertiary study. The Journal of Systems and Software. 119: 162 – 183
Omar, Faraj LLahm, Mishra, A., Yazici, A. (2017). Observations on Evolution of Lean
Software Development Thesis, Atilim University
Pernstål, J., Feldt, R., & Gorschek, T. (2013). The lean gap: A review of lean approaches to
large-scale software systems development. The Journal of Systems and Software. 86: 2797 –
2821
Poppendieck, M. & Poppendieck, T. (2007). Implementing Lean Software Development:
From Concept to Cash. Addison-Wesley
Poppendieck, M. & Poppendieck, T. (2010). Leading Lean Software Development. London:
Addison-Wesley
Poppendieck, M. (2007). Lean Software Development. 29th International Conference on
Software Engineering (ICSE'07 Companion). IEEE
Poppendieck, M. (2011). Principles of lean thinking. IT Management Select, 18, 1-7.‫‏‬
Poppendieck, M., & Poppendieck, T. (2007). Implementing lean software development: From
concept to cash. Pearson Education.‫‏‬
Poppendieck, M., & Cusumano, M. A. (2012). Lean software development: A tutorial. IEEE
software, 29(5), 26-32.‫‏‬
IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 66
 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

Poppendieck, M., & Poppendieck, T. (2003). Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit:
An Agile Toolkit. Addison-Wesley.‫‏‬
Poppendieck, M. & Poppendieck, T. (2003). Lean software development: an agile toolkit.‫‏‬
Poppendieck, M. & Poppendieck, T. (2006). Implementing Lean Software Development:
From Concept to Cash.‫‏‬
Patri, R., & Suresh, M. (2018). Factors influencing lean implementation in healthcare
organizations: an ISM approach. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 11(1), 25-
37.
Pinel-Alloul, B., Prepas, E., Planas, D., Steedman, R., & Charette, T. (2002). Watershed
impacts of logging and wildfire: case studies in Canada. Lake and Reservoir Management,
18(4), 307-318.‫‏‬
Psomas, E., Antony, J., & Bouranta, N. (2018). Assessing lean adoption in food SMEs:
evidence from Greece. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 35(1), 64-
81.
Ramdass, K. (2015). Integrating 5S Principles with Process Improvement: A Case Study.
2015 Proceedings of PICMET '15: Management of the Technology Age. 1908 – 1917
Rauch, E., Dallasega, P. & Matt, D.T. (2016). The way from Lean Product Development
(LPD) to Smart Product Development (SPD): 26th CIRP Design Conference. Procedia CIRP.
50: 26 – 31
Razzak,M. A. (2016). An Empirical Study on Lean and Agile Methods in Global Software
Development. 2016 IEEE, 11th International Conference on Global Software Engineering
Workshops
Rodríguez, P., Markkula, J., Oivo, M., Turula, K., (2012). Survey on Agile and Lean Usage
in Finnish Software Industry. Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE international symposium on
Empirical software engineering and measurement. pp, 139-148
Rodríguez, P., Mikkonen, K., Kuvaja, P., Oivo, M. & Garbajosa, J. (2013). Building Lean
Thinking in a Telecom Software Development Organization: Strengths and Challenges. ACM
978-1-4503-2062-7/13/05
Rodríguez, P., Partanen, J., Kuvaja, P., & Oivo, M. (2014). Combining Lean Thinking and
Agile Methods for Software Development: A Case Study of a Finnish Provider of Wireless
Embedded Systems. IEEE, 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Science.
Saboo, A., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Er, A. and Kumar, V. (2014) „A VSM improvement-based
approach for lean operations in an Indian manufacturing SME‟, Int. J. Lean Enterprise
Research. 1(1):41–58
IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 67
 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

Sagnak, M., & Kazancoglu, Y. (). Integration of green lean approach with six sigma: an
application for flue gas emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production. xxx: 1 – 7
Secor, D., Lucae, S. & Rebentisch, E. (2014). Planning for Resilient Lean Programs.
Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER 2014). Procedia Computer Science. 28
(2014 ) 138 – 145
Salleh, N. M., & Nohuddin, P. N. (2019). Optimization of software requirement process: An
integrated conceptual model of lean six sigma and requirement planning. International
Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering, 10(2), 125-133.
Schonberger, R. J. (2019). The disintegration of lean manufacturing and lean management.
Business Horizons, 62(3), 359-371.
Silva, F. S. et al. (2015). Using CMMI together with agile software development: A
systematic review. Information and Software Technology. 58: 20 – 43
Singh, A. K., & Sushil. (2013). Modeling enablers of TQM to improve airline performance.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(3), 250-275.‫‏‬
Staatsa, B. R., Brunner, D. J. & Uptonc, D. M. (2011). Lean principles, learning, and
knowledge work: Evidence from a software services provider. Journal of Operations
Management. 29 376–390
Swaminathan, B. & Jain, K. (2012). Implementing the Lean concepts of Continuous
Improvement and Flow on an Agile Software Development Project - An Industrial Case
Study. AGILE India: IEEE
Tenera, A., & Pinto, L. C. (2014). A Lean Six Sigma (LSS) project management
improvement model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119, 912-920.‫‏‬
Tonge, R., Shaw, J., Middleton, B., Rowlinson, R., Rayner, S., Young, J., & Davison, M.
(2001). Validation and development of fluorescence two‐dimensional differential gel
electrophoresis proteomics technology. Proteomics, 1(3), 377-396.‫‏‬
Wang, X. (2011). The Combination of Agile and Lean in Software Development: An
Experience Report Analysis. 2011 Agile Conference
Wang, X., Conboy, K., & Cawley, O., (2012). “Leagile” software development: An
experience report analysis of the application of lean approaches in agile software
development. The Journal of Systems and Software. 85 1287–1299
Wang, T. K., Yang, T., Yang, C. Y., & Chan, F. T. (2015). Lean principles and simulation
optimization for emergency department layout design. Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 115(4), 678-699.‫‏‬

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 68

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

Wiklund, K., Eldh, S., Sundmark, D. & Lundqvist, K. (2013). Can We Do Useful Industrial
Software Engineering Research in the Shadow of Lean and Agile? Conducting Empirical
Studies in Industry (CESI), IEEE, 2013 1st International Workshop on Conducting Empirical
Studies in Industry (CESI). 00, no. , pp. 67-68
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. & Roos, D. (2007). The machine that changed the world. 2nd Ed.
New York: Simon & Schuster UK.
Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (2015). Lean solutions: how companies and customers can
create value and wealth together. Simon and Schuster.‫‏‬
Wu, Y., Sato, K., Jing, L., Wang, J., & Cheng, Z. (2015). The Lean Awareness in Software-
intensive Engineering: Experience from One Project. 2015 IEEE 7th International
Conference on Awareness Science and Technology (iCAST 2015)
Zhu, K. & Lv, J. (2014). Research on the Improvement Effect of Lean Thinking to
Construction Safety Management. Control and Decision Conference (2014 CCDC), The 26th
Chinese. IEEE. pp. 1428 – 1433
http://www.shmula.com/lean-for-software-interview-with-mary-poppendieck/340/

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 69

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 70

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

III. APPENDIX- A

Table A-1. LM advantages and limitations as frameworks

Authors name Which kind of LM the author Optimal solutions The advantages Disadvantages
describes in SD
(Kumar and Dillibabu, 2016) Propose a model called (KLSS (KLSS) to determine and prioritize Increase the product quality within less cost, EW, 1.LSS operations rather weak
(Edgeman, 2019) model) by combining LSS with the PREQ from the customer domain. 2.The company most already
(Salleh and Nohuddin, 2019) Kano model which will help SD to remove EW 3.Utilize LSS in their projects.
and implement the main functions
(Jadhav, 2014) Identify ISM model which contain (ISM) FW Help leaders and managers and practitioners to 1.Non-expertise LEAM
(Patri and Suresh, 2018) 4 group of lean practices reduce cost 2.Misunderstanding by the stakeholder
(Chaple et al., 2018) 3.the relationships between lean practices
(Mazzocato, 2012) Apply lean thinking and try to Redevelopment LPs according to the By adapt LPs is possible that the development of Trying to cut down the mysterious
(Huan and ZhanWen, 2018) adopt LPs requirements of each section knowledge in organizations and the work of other processes
(Psomas et al., 2018) sites and become the method of work that
organization in accordance with the requirements
and reach for success certainly. solve Lean
problems
(M and T Poppendieck, 2007) Utilize Poppendieck‟s LPs Utilize Poppendieck‟s 7 LPs Increase product quality and customer satisfaction
(Huan and ZhanWen, 2018) EW, BQ, CKG deliver in time within budget

,DC,DF,OTW,RESP

(Rodríguez, 2014) Combine LM and AM Utilize the combination LM and AM IMPRP ,Learning ,Ensure the product quality and This state cannot be generalized (external
(Correia et al., 2018) , Utilize five core LPs of lean better understand of walkthrough, Enhance SD validity) due to the research limitation
thinking ,LPs process

(Jonsson, 2013) propose a FW structured according Utilize LPs according to each author Helps practitioners and researchers on how to apply
(Correia et al., 2018) to the authors and their focusing on lean thinking, detect the difference between AM
LPs and LM
(Chen, 2015) Utilize CDY CDY Increase productivity, customer satisfactions, sudden change in the organizational
product quality, structure
(Laanti, 2016) Utilize lean thinking and agile FW can be utilized in phase-gate Reusability (the proposed FW can be utilized in Peer feedback, people demand, hand off
(Correia et al., 2018) model and two-level planning and another projects), reduce iteration errors by code or design,
multiple solution and DC and self- monitoring errors in each iteration so this errors can
management be inputs in next iteration, increase time to market,
reach a good CMMI level
(Wang, 2015) Lean thinking and regulated SD Lean 7 LPs introduce lean thinking in everyday life
FW requirements, and the formation of independent

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 71

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

developments teams, organize SWDPS and secure

it
(Abrahamsson, 2015) Lean startup Lean startup 5 LPs as an analytical doorway to tangible and immaterial assets, increase 1.too much Cost,
FW time to market, improve innovativeness 2.brand and reputation can be destroyed,
3.Culture change, managers cannot run it
because it is new
(Secor, 2014) LEAP method, workshop Increase customer satisfaction, reduce Help to include the key program to help
(Gutbrod and Münch, 2018) risk (waste) stakeholders in up-front planning, increase team
performance, reduce cost, increase ORGs income,
improve leadership skills, increase team
satisfaction
(Pernstal, 2013) Platform of adapt LPs 13 LPs Utilize LPs to achieve LPD and enterprise level
(Poppendieck and Jakobsen, A3 problem solving during PDCA EW,DF,OTW, RESP Long fix-times ,which will not paid by the many feedbacks can find optimal solution,
2011) lifecycle. customer the organization can implement CMMI
(Gutbrod and Münch, 2018) disciplines within lean culture.

(Nord, 2012) LSD flow management FW, EW,DC,DF,RP 1.impove flow by managing overproduction waste If the developers could not determine the
architecture-related with lean with over architect Turing, eliminate rework cost, size increment of an architecture for each
thinking acceptance test units can quid the project(work), iteration they will not manage the
scheduling in Kanban can JIT delivery by development flow.
emphasizing pulling. , Monitoring is a helpful way to detect
by make compatibility between LPs and lean errors and increase productivity, better
awareness 4 principles. lean awareness 4 LPs are results by keeping away from conditions
(EW=Cost effectiveness, AL =Accumulative effort
that wasted time and exertion and cost,
avoid rework cost and delay cost.

(Wang, 2015) Lean awareness (FW) Decide as late as possible=Accumulative effort, New developers join the team when needs
DF=Accumulative effort come. crowded data,

ETT= Feasibility, BQ=

Manageability, OTW =Accumulative effort

improve the manageability, cost effectiveness and

Accumulative effort with the work cells, empower
the innovation by improving the manageability

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 72

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

Table A-2. Lean practices relevant to SD AND LSD practices.

Lean practices Authors, years
• Continuous improvement • (Kumar and Dillibabu, 2016)
• (Jadhav, 2014)
• (Rodríguez, 2014)
• (Jonsson, 2013)
• (Chaple et al., 2018)
• Kano analysis focuses in the customer requirements • (Kumar and Dillibabu, 2016)
• (Edgeman, 2019)
• (Salleh and Nohuddin, 2019)
• Make all items transparent • (Kumar and Dillibabu, 2016)
• (Patri and Suresh, 2018)
• Make project status highly visible
• (Chaple et al., 2018)
• Visualize all work elements
Measure and manage • (Mazzocato, 2012)
• (Kumar and Dillibabu, 2016)
• Employ queuing theory
• (Chaple et al., 2018)
• Measure the exact things
• Plane-do-check-act(PDCA) cycle • (Jadhav and Rane, 2014)
• (Poppendieck and Jakobsen, 2011)
• (Chong and Perumal, 2019)
• Poka-yoke: defect detection and prevention • (Robinson, 2012)
• (Robinson, 1997)
• Move variability downstream • (Deif, 2012)
• (Benson and Kulkarni, 2011)
• (Houang and Shi, 2004)
• (Su and Li, 2007)
• Pull • (Rodríguez, 2014)
• (Jonsson, 2013)
• (Pernstal, 2013)
• (Patri and Suresh, 2018)
• Quality function deployment • (Summers, 2011)
• (Akao and Yoji, 1994)
• (Schutta and J, 2005)
• (Psomas et al., 2018)
• Reduce slack • (Johnson, 2004)
• (Askin and Standridge, 1993)
• (Patri and Suresh, 2018)
• Root cause analysis • (Kumar and Dillibabu, 2016)
• (Mazzocato, 2012)
• (Jadhav and Mantha, 2014)

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 73

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

• Batch control processing • (Cooney, 2001)

• (Rodríguez, 2014)
• (Kumar and Dillibabu, 2016)
• Address bottlenecks • (Mazzocato, 2012)
• Cumulative flow diagram(CFD)
• Avoid too much local optimization • (Jonsson, 2013)
• (Chen, 2015)
• (Psomas et al., 2018)
• Defer decision making • (Rane, 2014)
• (Psomas et al., 2018)
• Develop appropriate incentives/rewards • (Poppendieck and Jakobsen, 2011)
• (Gutbrod and Münch, 2018)
• Hansei: self-reflection, add commit to making improvement, • (Mazzocato, 2012)
• (Chen, 2015)
relentless, acknowledge one‟s, own mistakes
• (Psomas et al., 2018)
• Hide individual performance • (pernstal, 2013)
• (Chen, 2015)
• Kaikaku: radical improvement within a limited time • (Jadhav, 2014)
• (Rodríguez, 2014)
• Jidoka: intelligent automation • (Poppendieck and Jakobsen, 2011)
• Heijunka: eliminate Muda • (Jonsson, 2013)
• (Chen, 2015)
• Kanban • (Rodríguez, 2014)
• (Chen, 2015)
• (Nord, 2012)
• WIP • (Rodríguez, 2014)
• (Jonsson, 2013)
• (Chen, 2015)
• (Nord, 2012)
• Two-level planning • (Laanti, 2016)
• (Gutbrod and Münch, 2018)
• Continuous innovation • (Abrahamsson, 2015)
• (Gutbrod and Münch, 2018)
• VSM • (Secor, 2014)
• (Pernstal, 2013)
• Continuous integration • (Poppendieck and Jakobsen, 2011)
• (Gutbrod and Münch, 2018)
• JIT • (Jadhav, 2014)
• (Bamana et al., 2019)
• (Schonberger, 2019)

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 74

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

Table A-3.Lean practices relevant to SD and projects types.

Authors and year Lean principles Lean practices Projects domain
(Laanti, 2016) DC,ETT,OTW Two-level planning pilot Electrical engineering, hardware development, SWDPS
(Gutbrod and Münch, 2018) Self-management ,software in intensive healthcare

(Wang, 2015) 7 LPs Rapid prototyping, object oriented and component Automotive SW, Robotics, medical Devices, financial
(Patri and Suresh, 2018) based development, quality function deployment, Management systems
(Psomas et al., 2018) continuous integration
(Abrahamsson, 2015) LPs 5 startup Continuous innovation Large software companies, internal projects
(Gutbrod and Münch, 2018)
(Secor, 2014) increase customer satisfaction VSM large international company head quartered in the US.
(Patri and Suresh, 2018) Reduce waste and risk government programs. Utilized in (Rock Well Collins).

(Pernstal, 2013) Lean 13 LPs to improve LPD and TPDS VSM large-scale development projects automotive industry.
(Huan and ZhanWen, 2018) and PD enterprise level pull Volvo corporation (VCC)Volvo truck corporation (VTC)
flow
(Poppendieck and Jakobsen, 2011) A3 problem solving during PDCA PDCA,Continuous integration independent software and systems company (IT)
lifecycle.
(Nord, 2012) LSD flow management FW, architecture- WIP,kanban building internal functions.a heating and ventilation.air
(Gutbrod and Münch, 2018) related with lean thinking conditioning access and safety hardware functions for high level
of severity.
(Wang, 2015) Manageability Lean awareness successfully developing a ESR monitoring system
(Correia et al., 2018) Cost effectiveness developing a novel mobile cloud system for earth surface
Feasibility radiation (ESR) monitoring
Accumulative effort

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 75

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

(Kumar and Dillibabu, 2016) integrate LPs with LSS to make alogical Continuous improvement, Kano analysis focuses producing high-quality software in the software industry
approach to do continuous improvement in the customer requirements software industry for process improvement.
for embedded software and application projects in software
development.
(Jadhav, 2014) After combining LPs with lean Lean, JIT practices Help leaders and managers and practitioners to reduce cost
(Bamana et al., 2019) practices as building project management
(Schonberger, 2019) ICT project management
Roadmap for sustainable lean implementation.
(Mazzocato, 2012) Redevelopment LPs according to the Root cause analysis Healthcare, emergency care
(Gutbrod and Münch, 2018) requirements of each section
(Mary and Tom Poppendieck, 2007) Utilize 7 LPs JIT,flow, Stop-the Line quality, continuous Many project sizes
(Correia et al., 2018) integration
(Bamana et al., 2019)
(Schonberger, 2019)
(Rodríguez, 2014) 5 LPs of LT,LPs Continuous improvement, large projects, wireless embedded system
(Correia et al., 2018) Pull
(Chen, 2015) Utilize CDY eliminate Muda, Hide individual performance, Large applications, monolithic applications
(Gutbrod and Münch, 2018) making improvement, Avoid too much local
optimization, WIP
(Jonsson, 2013) Utilize LPs Comparing Value, Value stream, Flow, Pull and as framework to guide researchers and practitioners,
(Correia et al., 2018) Perfection. in many project sizes

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 76

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

Table A-4 . Lean practices and when can be used during SWDLC .
Lean practices Requirem Analysis design Implementation Testing Authors and year
ents
Continuous improvement • (Jadhav, 2014)
• (Kumar and Dillibabu, 2016)
• (Rodríguez, 2014)
• (Jonsson, 2013)
Kano analysis focuses in the customer requirements • (Kumar and Dillibabu, 2016)
• (Edgeman, 2019)
• (Salleh and Nohuddin, 2019)
Make all items transparent • (Kumar and Dillibabu, 2016)
• (Gutbrod and Münch, 2018)
Make project status highly visible
Visualize all work elements
Measure and manage • (Mazzocato, 2012)
• (Kumar and Dillibabu, 2016)
Employ queuing theory
• (Psomas et al., 2018)
Measure the exact things
Plane-do-check-act(PDCA) cycle • (Jadhav and Rane, 2014)
• (Poppendieck and Jakobsen, 2011)
• (Chong and Perumal, 2019)
Poka-yoke: defect detection and prevention • (Robinson, 2012)
• (Robinson, 1997)
Move variability downstream • (Deif, 2012)
• (Benson and Kulkarni, 2011)
• (Houang and Shi, 2004)
• (Su and Li, 2007)
Pull • (Rodríguez, 2014)
• (Jonsson, 2013)
• (Pernstal, 2013)
• (Correia et al., 2018)

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 77

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

Quality function deployment • (Summers, 2011)

• (Akao and Yoji, 1994)
• (Schutta and J, 2005)

Reduce slack • (Johnson, 2004)

• (Askin and Standridge, 1993)
• (Correia et al., 2018)

Root cause analysis • (Kumar and Dillibabu, 2016)

• (Mazzocato, 2012)
• (Jadhav and Mantha, 2014)

Batch control processing • (Cooney, 2001)

• (Rodríguez, 2014)
• (Kumar and Dillibabu, 2016)
Address bottlenecks • (Mazzocato, 2012)
Cumulative flow diagram(CFD)
Avoid too much local optimization • (Jonsson, 2013)
• (Chen, 2015)
• (Correia et al., 2018)
Defer decision making • (Rane, 2014)
• (Chong and Perumal, 2019)

Develop appropriate incentives/rewards • (Poppendieck and Jakobsen, 2011)

• (Correia et al., 2018)

Hansei: self-reflection, add commit to making • (Mazzocato, 2012)

• (Chen, 2015)
improvement, relentless, acknowledge one‟s, own
mistakes
Hide individual performance • (pernstal, 2013)
• (Chen, 2015)
• (Correia et al., 2018)

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 78

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

Kaikaku: radical improvement within a limited time • (Jadhav, 2014)

• (Rodríguez, 2014)

Jidoka: intelligent automation • (Poppendieck and Jakobsen, 2011)

Heijunka: eliminate Muda • (Jonsson, 2013)

• (Chen, 2015)

Kanban • (Rodríguez, 2014)

• (Chen, 2015)
• (Nord, 2012)

WIP • (Rodríguez, 2014)

• (Jonsson, 2013)
• (Chen, 2015)
• (Nord, 2012)
Two-level planning • (Laanti, 2016)
• (Correia et al., 2018)

Continuous innovation • (Abrahamsson, 2015)

• (Correia et al., 2018)

VSM • (Secor, 2014)

• (Pernstal, 2013)

Continuous integration • (Poppendieck and Jakobsen, 2011)

• (Correia et al., 2018)

JIT • (Jadhav, 2014)

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 79

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

• (Bamana et al., 2019)

• (Schonberger, 2019)

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 80

 International Journal of Engineering and Modern Technology E-ISSN 2504-8848 P-ISSN 2695-2149
Vol. 6 No. 3 2020 www.iiardpub.org

IIARD – International Institute of Academic Research and Development Page 81

View publication stats