This is the study overview page. Here you will find which goal and requisite contributions were reported by this study. If you are an author of this study, you can log in using your author username and password for this study and add or edit goal/requisite contributions.
Method fragments in this study
Here is a list of method fragment related to this study. Click on one to see its goal and requisite contributions as reported by this study.
|Major Goal||Minor Goal||Contribution Value||Situation|
|Improved Effectiveness (performance)||Within-budget project completion||+||MoSCoW helps projects to stay within their budget, since W req.s (those which are nice to have) will be identified at the beginning of work, will then be implemented if there were enough budget, otherwise dropped|
|Improved Effectiveness (performance)||Controlled risks per iteration||+||Time-boxed development helps to manage risks per iteration|
|Improved Effectiveness (performance)||Manage business value delivery||+||The use of MoSCow forces customers to specify the requirements that are necessary for them, or those that are just nice to have|
(S - Satisfied, PS - Partially Satisfied, U - Undefined, D - Denied, PD - Partly Denied)
|Major Requisite||Minor Requisite||Requisite Satisfaction Value||Situation|
- Study Type:
- Empirical Study
- Study Format:
- Interviewing Survey
- Ash; S. (2010) Compare DSDM and XP. accessed via: http://c2.com/cgi-in/wiki?CompareDsdmAndXp; in 2010
- Title of Paper:
- Conference Name: