In the previous two sections, the criteria for the analysis have been defined and applied to the paper- based and software-based task board.
The purpose of this section is to conclude this analysis by identifying in which situation a paper-based task board should be used and in which situation a software-based task board should be used. Table 4 provides a summary of the comparison (section 3.2) based on the criteria that were defined in section 3.1.
Criterion Paper-based Task boards Software-based Task boards
Accessibility
✔
✗
Flexibility✗
✔
Motivation✔
✗
Haptic Quality✔
✗
Integration✗
✔
Costs✔
✗
Availability✔
✗
Archiving✗
✔
Overhead✔
✗
Distance✗
✔
Communication✔
✗
Total 8 4Table 4: Evaluation comparison
If one compares the colors, the paper-based task board scores better than the software-based task board. Yet, the criteria weights are not equal; the outcome of each single criterion can influence or even make a decision for choosing one of the two task board types, as will be shown in the two following sections.
Paper-based task boards
3.3.1
Paper-based task boards have several advantages when it comes to accessibility, they can be very large, they are always present and they catch everyone’s attention as described in 3.2.1. Accessibility is very important and solely achieved by the paper-based variant. The purpose of a task board is to be a tool that helps the team members to do their work by visualizing the progress (Perry, 2008). It makes the progress accessible for everyone who is either in the team’s room or who visits the team’s room. Due to the reason that paper-based task boards are usually several meters wide and tall and that tasks have to be written by humans which tend to write larger letters than a computer, readability is much better than on a big screen.
Since a task board is an information radiator (Cockburn, p. 76, 2001) that shows the status of the team it is important that this status is tangible next to being accessible. Paper-based task boards are flexible, the team can choose different kinds of Post-It colors to indicate various types of tasks, be it a plain task, a bug, a planned task or something else. However, this is only a fragment of the flexibility criterion: although paper is flexible, it has certain boundaries, e.g. physical limitations: as stated in 3.2.2, a paper-based task board cannot be larger than the particular wall it is attached to. Next to physical limitations also functional limitations exist like not being able to attach a file (e.g. a spreadsheet) to a certain story onto the task board due to obvious reasons.
When it comes to motivating the team to do its work, a direct link to the accessibility criterion is found. Section 3.2.3 has shown that a task board must be always present in order to support the team members to learn from their mistakes. As a paper-based task board is attached to a wall or is pinned on a bulletin board, it is always available within the team’s room. Therefore, it attracts the attention of the team – when a team member goes to the task board to move a task, he or she gets immediate feedback from his or her team members as they see the action.
Working with a paper-based task board provides the user with haptic feedback, which encourages and supports him or her in doing the work. Section 3.2.4 has proven that working with a paper-based task board is a more joyful process. Literature (Amabile & Kramer, p. 76-84, 2011) has shown that small pieces of work can create a feeling of success; mapped to the task board space this means that if a team member moves a task from one column to another, he or she feels being successful. This feeling of success is yet again linked to the previous mentioned accessibility criterion as this achievement feeling can be increased by feedback from other team members, which are only able to do so if they are notified about the change. Once again a paper-based task board supports such a notification since each team member has to go to the board to change something.
In terms of integration, paper-based task boards can’t hold a candle to its software-based pendant, as shown in section 3.2.5. The reason for this is evident since a paper-based task board has no connection to software as long as the coexistence scenario described in section 5.1.5 is not given.
Cost-wise, a paper-based task board cannot be beaten by any kind of software. To start with a paper- based task board, only a few sheets, some glue and Post-Its are necessary - see section 3.2.6. Even if the software has no license fees at all, a dedicated server is necessary that comes with some changes to the IT landscape. Costs are thus always lower if a paper-based task board is used.
Next to being cheap, a paper-based task board has also a high availability as paper has no downtime in contrast to IT systems (3.2.7). A paper-based task board is always available; the only thing that can happen to a paper-based task board (and what really happened once during field research) is that it can fall down due to dissolving glue. However, as such an event becomes immediately visible, the team members themselves can fix it in no time.
A criterion that has been found when consulting external experts was the need for archiving sprint data, e.g. the possibility to check back on previous sprints to track a certain item. Paper-based task boards do not offer any kind of archiving (3.2.8), although pictures of the task board can be taken. Yet, taking pictures is merely a workaround, as the information is static and not interactive as the picture is just a snapshot of the status quo.
A recent survey (Azizyan, Magarian, & Kajko-Mattson, 2011) has shown that companies indicate that ease-of-use is the most important aspect of a Scrum tool. The overhead criterion grasps this aspect and the amount of training that is needed. The paper-based task board is very easy to use and it can be explained to people who are unfamiliar with it within a few minutes as described in section 3.2.9. In fact, the team members only have to do two things: write new tasks and update the status of the current ones, there are no prerequisites that have to be fulfilled before being able to do so.
The biggest issue with paper-based task boards is that they are only suitable for teams that are located at one site. If a team is distributed and geographically dispersed, it becomes much more difficult to work with a paper-based task board. In fact, to do so one has to make sure that at each location copies of the same task board are available. Yet, there is still no real time synchronization between the task boards, which can lead to confusion within the team regarding who is currently working on which task (see section 3.2.10). Different scenarios exist (see sections 5.1.2 & 5.1.5) which try to enable the usage of paper-based task boards at multiple locations, but they are merely workarounds.
In terms of communication (3.2.11), paper-based task boards encourage the team to communicate with each other. In fact, a paper-based task literally forces the team to communicate, as the task board acts as a central meeting point. With the accessibility and availability criterion in mind, the paper-based task board shows it strength: it is always present and since it has only one single interface, it enables discussions and communication.