Evaluating the efficiency of processes in IT teams applying agile management methodologies (Agile) is a relevant research problem associated with the need to reduce change delivery lead time while simultaneously ensuring delivery stability (quality) and the economic feasibility of software development. Traditional outcome-based indicators focused on deadlines and the volume of completed work prove to be insufficiently informative in iterative and incremental development contexts, as they fail to reflect flow variability, process losses, and the consequences of quality degradation. This paper proposes a process-oriented model for evaluating IT team efficiency, based on aggregating flow metrics, delivery stability metrics, and economic loss indicators into an integral process efficiency index. The model relies on digital trace data generated throughout the IT product life cycle in issue tracking systems, version control systems, CI/CD pipelines, and monitoring tools. Within the framework of the study, the use of a multiplicative aggregation approach is substantiated, which makes it possible to account for the impact of limiting factors in the development process. The approbation of the model using data from product teams applying Agile approaches confirms that the integral assessment enables early detection of process degradation and the localization of problem areas related to flow management, delivery stability, and the accumulation of technical debt. The results obtained demonstrate the feasibility of using the proposed model as a tool for managerial decision support and continuous monitoring of IT team process efficiency.
1. Dybå T., Dingsøyr T. Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology. 2008;50(9–10):833–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006
2. Cornide-Reyes H., Madrigal G., Muñoz G., et al. Analysis of the use of software process improvement models in agile development. Ingeniare. Revista chilena de ingeniería. 2024;32. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-33052024000100213
3. Menezes R., Marinho M., Sampaio S. Metrics for Large-Scale Agile Development: A Survey of the Brazilian Software Industry. In: Proceedings of the XXIII Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality (SBQS 2024), 05–08 November 2024, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. New York: ACM; 2024. P. 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1145/3701625.3701660
4. Dos Santos P.S.M., Beltrão A.C., de Souza P.D., Travassos G.H. On the benefits and challenges of using kanban in software engineering: A structured synthesis study. Journal of Software Engineering Research and Development. 2018;6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40411-018-0057-1
5. Petersen K., Wohlin C. Measuring the flow in Lean software development. Software: Practice and Experience. 2011;41(9):975–996. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.975
6. Petersen K. An empirical study of lead-times in incremental and agile software development. In: New Modeling Concepts for Today's Software Processes: International Conference on Software Process (ICSP 2010), 08–09 July 2010, Paderborn, Germany. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2010. P. 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14347-2_30
7. Sallin M., Kropp M., Anslow C., Quilty J.W., Meier A. Measuring software delivery performance using the four key metrics of DevOps. In: Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming: 22nd International Conference on Agile Software Development (XP 2021), 14–18 June 2021, Virtual Event. Cham: Springer; 2021. P. 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78098-2_7
8. Rüegger J., Kropp M., Graf S., Anslow C. Fully Automated DORA Metrics Measurement for Continuous Improvement. In: Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Software and Systems Processes (ICSSP 2024), 04–06 September 2024, Munich, Germany. New York: ACM; 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3666015.3666020
9. Lim E., Taksande N., Seaman C. A balancing act: what software practitioners have to say about technical debt. IEEE Software. 2012;29(6):22–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2012.130
10. Holvitie J., Licorish Sh.A., Spínola R.O., et al. Technical debt and agile software development practices and processes: An industry practitioner survey. Information and Software Technology. 2018;96:141–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017.11.015
11. Ezell B., Lynch Ch.J., Hester P.T. Methods for weighting decisions to assist modelers and decision analysts: A review of ratio assignment and approximate techniques. Applied Sciences. 2021;11(21). https://doi.org/10.3390/app112110397
12. Gompf K., Traverso M., Hetterich J. Using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to introduce weights to social life cycle assessment of mobility services. Sustainability. 2021;13(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031258
13. Lucz G., Forstner B. Optimizing service level agreement tier selection in online services through legacy lifecycle profile and support analysis: A quantitative approach. Mathematics. 2025;13(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/math13111743
14. Forsgren N., Storey M.-A.D., Maddila Ch.Sh., et al. The SPACE of developer productivity: There's more to it than you think. ACM Queue. 2021;19(1):20–48.
15. Ali N.B., Petersen K., Schneider K. FLOW-assisted value stream mapping in the early phases of large-scale software development. Journal of Systems and Software. 2016;111:213–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.10.013
