Table 1 Summary of the longitudinal ADR... | Emerald Publishing

Table 1

Summary of the longitudinal ADR process highlights at the focal firm's business process rationalization

Timeline	ADR process highlights	Extended explanation
August 2014–March 2015	Problem formulation	University researchers identified discrepancies between the ideal sample release plan and the actual software development process at SOFPRO's GEOMAP software. Focus groups with engineers and the general manager examined 35 prior cycles. Simulations of 10,000 periods, using past activity durations and wage costs, revealed that KPIs of core business process values were double those of the ideal plan. Academics conducted a technology review to systematically evaluate the existing PRINCE2 software development methodology applied. Additionally, a workshop defined crucial project goals for business process rationalization
April 2015	Building the tool	Expert academics determined the suitability of the Scrum methodology for replacing PRINCE2, showing improvements in project time and cost. The newly designed tool combined Scrum methodology with Google Docs, reducing activities, project time, and costs. This novel process technology reduced the number of activities and improved coordination through online document editing. ANOVA comparison showed the new tool had lower costs and lead times. Academics, with support from key stakeholders, conducted risk analysis through interviews and workshops
May 2015–June 2016	Intervention	The ADR team implemented the designed tool at SOFPRO and validated it with 17 development cycles. Before the guided implementation, internal stakeholders (development and test engineers, managers) obtained training on Scrum and Google Docs altogether with a study material. Researchers conducted a cost‒benefit analysis of the entire deployment project, demonstrating that the software company could obtain a relatively fast payback time for the investment in the new tool
December 2017–January 2020	Post hoc analysis	Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis to provide additional evidence of the tool's practical durability using 38 development cycles, which confirmed earlier performance results and validated the tool’s utility for SOFPRO

Timeline	ADR process highlights	Extended explanation
August 2014–March 2015	Problem formulation	University researchers identified discrepancies between the ideal sample release plan and the actual software development process at SOFPRO's GEOMAP software. Focus groups with engineers and the general manager examined 35 prior cycles. Simulations of 10,000 periods, using past activity durations and wage costs, revealed that KPIs of core business process values were double those of the ideal plan. Academics conducted a technology review to systematically evaluate the existing PRINCE2 software development methodology applied. Additionally, a workshop defined crucial project goals for business process rationalization
April 2015	Building the tool	Expert academics determined the suitability of the Scrum methodology for replacing PRINCE2, showing improvements in project time and cost. The newly designed tool combined Scrum methodology with Google Docs, reducing activities, project time, and costs. This novel process technology reduced the number of activities and improved coordination through online document editing. ANOVA comparison showed the new tool had lower costs and lead times. Academics, with support from key stakeholders, conducted risk analysis through interviews and workshops
May 2015–June 2016	Intervention	The ADR team implemented the designed tool at SOFPRO and validated it with 17 development cycles. Before the guided implementation, internal stakeholders (development and test engineers, managers) obtained training on Scrum and Google Docs altogether with a study material. Researchers conducted a cost‒benefit analysis of the entire deployment project, demonstrating that the software company could obtain a relatively fast payback time for the investment in the new tool
December 2017–January 2020	Post hoc analysis	Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis to provide additional evidence of the tool's practical durability using 38 development cycles, which confirmed earlier performance results and validated the tool’s utility for SOFPRO

Source(s): By authors