Factors Affecting Success of Team Members in Indonesia

Scrum Implementation

Apriliana Fajri Wibowo

and Yova Ruldeviyani

Faculty of Computer Science, University of Indonesia, Salemba, Jakarta, Indonesia

Keywords: Scrum, Teamwork Quality, Team Member’s Success, Structural Equation Modelling (SEM).

Abstract: The Indonesian government continues to encourage the community to build start-up. Various training and

assistance programs are published to educate the community of the software development concept. One of

the most popular concepts in Indonesia is the Scrum methodology. This methodology can rapidly generate a

product and easily adjust to the market needs. However, Scrum, as a method that implements the Agile

concept, has a high failure degree. Agile implementation failure is caused by human unreadiness; therefore,

studies have generated factors affecting the success of Agile implementation team members. However, factors

affecting the success of Scrum team members remain unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to discover

factors affecting the success of Scrum team members in Indonesia. The Structured Equation Model (SEM)

was utilized to discover the correlation between teamwork quality and Scrum team success. The SEM method

was selected based on its ability to reveal the significance between supporting variables. Analysis results show

that factors significantly affecting Scrum team member success were Balance of Member Contribution, Effort,

and Cohesion. The analysis test results show that endogenous latent variables between TWQ and the success

of Scrum team members had a sufficient value equal to an R-squared value of 0.732 or 73.2%.

1 INTRODUCTION

The Indonesian government encourages startups to

develop each year. Based on the Technology Creative

Industrial Community data, the number of developing

startups in Indonesia reached 992 in 2018 (Kominfo,

2019b). This number will continue to increase along

with various startup incubation programs launched by

various ministries, e.g., Kominfo (Kominfo, 2019a),

Kemenparekraf (Kemenparekraf, 2021), Ristekbrin

(Ristekbrin, 2021), and other ministries and

institutions. These development programs involve

experienced academics and practitioners to teach

startup development methods. One development

method using the agile concept is the Scrums method

(DailySocial, 2015). This method is perceived to meet

startup product development needs in Indonesia

(DailySocial, 2015).

Rapid delivery characteristic in agile puts this

method be globally popularized (Mersino, 2018). It is

supported by dynamic and rapidly changing

technological advances. Feedback comes faster to

software developers depending on small-scale

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3758-763X

product delivery and rapid delivery time (Project

Management Institute, 2018). It is an appeal for

developers to implement agility.

Regardless of improvement in agile method

utilization, its implementation often experiences

failure. Based on the Version One survey in 2018, the

primary reasons for agile approach failure are 1) lack

of knowledge on the agile method by 41%, 2) lack of

training program to implement agility by 35%, and 3)

lack of management and leader support by 42%

(VersionOne, 2018). These three problems

demonstrate human resource unreadiness to

implement the agile concept. Nevertheless, in the

agile manifesto, a team as the human component is a

crucial element constituting the agile principle (Beck

et al., 2001; Project Management Institute, 2018).

One of the agile manifesto principles shows that

the best design, architecture, and requirements are

achieved by the team capable of managing themself

(Project Management Institute, 2018). A self-

managed team is defined as the best method to

implement project management, where they work

without commands from external parties

Wibowo, A. and Ruldeviyani, Y.

Factors Affecting Success of Team Members in Indonesia Scrum Implementation.

DOI: 10.5220/0010751900003113

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Emerging Issues in Technology, Engineering and Science (ICE-TES 2021), pages 279-285

ISBN: 978-989-758-601-9

279

(ScrumGuide.org, 2015). The team is required to self-

accommodate software development requirements

(Schwaber & Sutherland, 2017). Based on this

explanation, it can be concluded that agility

implementation depends on each team member’s

success to build a product on each iteration. Success

here is defined as the success in learning novel things

and implement them in practice, ultimately giving

pleasure to the product (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001).

Several precedent studies demonstrated the

importance of teamwork quality on the success of a

traditional software development project (Hoegl &

Gemuenden, 2001; Li et al., 2010; Ryan & O’Connor,

2009). Then, in 2016, Lindsjorn conducted a study

regarding the effect of teamwork quality on

development using the agile concept (Lindsjørn et al.,

2016). However, studies concerning agility specific

to particular methods, e.g., Scrums, are unavailable.

Therefore, this study aimed to discover factors

influencing team members’ success on the Scrums

development project in Indonesia.

The teamwork quality (TWQ) concept is applied

to measure team member collaboration in achieving

success (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). The employed

analysis method was the Structural Equation Model

(SEM) technique. This method can show the

significance level between variables and explain

whether a variable is accepted or rejected (Haryono,

2014). Factor analysis results can be used as

recommendations for Scrums users and the

government to provide startup incubation training to

achieve product development success. This study’s

urgency is to provide knowledge regarding team

success factors on Scrums software development to

reduce the existing failure risk.

2 LITERATURE STUDY

2.1 Scrums Team

The Scrums team consists of the product owner,

development team, and scrum master

(ScrumGuide.org, 2015). The Scrums team is 1) self-

managed, where the team manages themself without

external party involvement, and 2) cross-function,

where the team has all expertise required to finish

their jobs (Scrumguide.org, 2015). Based on Scrum

Guide, this composition can maximize team

creativity, flexibility, and productivity.

2.2 Team Member’s Success

Team members have declared success when they can

improve member motivation in working with team

member combinations to achieve sustainable project

success (Lindsjørn et al., 2016). There are two

dimensions used to measure team success, i.e., work

satisfaction and learning (Batista et al., 2020; Hoegl

& Gemuenden, 2001; Lindsjørn et al., 2016). Work

satisfaction is the feeling of channeling happiness

during teamwork (Lindsjørn et al., 2016). Meanwhile,

learning is the opportunity to achieve social,

technical, and managerial knowledge during team

interaction.

2.3 Teamwork Quality (TWQ)

Teamwork quality (TWQ) is the quality assessment

that observes the relationship among team members

(Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). TWQ is developed by

Hoegl and Gemunden. This concept is primarily

employed in the academic aspect (Batista et al.,

2020). TWQ has six dimensions, i.e., communication,

coordination, the balance of member contribution,

mutual support, effort, and cohesion. The following

is the explanation of these six dimensions.

Communication: relates to formalization, intensity,

and openness in information exchange (Lindsjørn et

al., 2016). In the agile concept, communication is

semi-formal, spontaneous, unscheduled, and takes

form in direct conversation (Lindsjørn et al., 2016).

Coordination: relates to the shared understanding

regarding each member’s interrelated contribution

(Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). Agreement on work

structure, schedule, budget, work results, and general

understanding when working on structural tasks are

shared understanding (Lindsjørn et al., 2016). On the

agile concept, coordination is conducted quickly and

supported by the board of tasks.

Balance of Member Contribution: is concerned

with contributions that reflect the experience and

special knowledge of team members. The ability to

apply the skills of all team members to the fullest

(Lindsjørn et al., 2016). On the agile concept, each

member constitutes a cross-function team, where

each member should contribute.

Mutual Support: relates to each member’s

willingness and ability to support and help to work on

tasks (Lindsjørn et al., 2016). On the agile concept,

the existence of collective code ownership, daily

ICE-TES 2021 - International Conference on Emerging Issues in Technology, Engineering, and Science

280

meetings, and retrospective meetings sparked a desire

for mutual support and collaboration (Lindsjørn et al.,

2016).

Effort: relates to team members’ willingness and

ability to prioritize team tasks over personal tasks and

share the workload (Lindsjørn et al., 2016). On the

agile concept, the team focus is mainly on the tasks

that must be completed each day to achieve the sprint

goals.

Cohesion: relates to the encouragement of team

members to accept team goals as more important than

individual goals and the drive to maintain the team’s

integrity (Lindsjørn et al., 2016). On the agile

concept, focus on interactions among team members,

who most often interact physically are placed in the

same place (Lindsjørn et al., 2016).

2.4 Structural Equation Model (SEM)

Structural Equation Model (SEM) is a structural

analysis to confirm parameters or variables

(Lindsjørn et al., 2016). SEM application is used to

analyze the relationship between the TWQ

components that affect team members’ success.

Moreover, SEM is selected because this technique

further develops regression analysis and path analysis

(Haryono, 2014).

There are 2 main stages in SEM measurement:

1. Outer Model measurement to test the validity and

reliability of the construct. This is to ensure that

the construct is well defined. This can be seen

from 1) the value of all loading factors > 0.7 and

AVE (Average Variance Extract) > 0.5 for the

validity test, and 2) the value of composite

reliability and Cronbach's alpha > 0.70 for the

reliability test (Hair et al., 2011).

2. Inner Model measurement to test the acceptance

or rejection of the hypothesis. There are two

criteria that need to be considered 1) the t-

statistics (t) and p-values (p) test to assess the

significance and acceptance of the hypothesis

shows in the

Table 1, and 2) the R Square test to

assess the quality of the research model (Hair et

al., 2011).

Table 1: Hypothesis Acceptance Parameters.

t-statistics p-value Significance Level

> 1.65 < 0.01 10%

> 1.96 < 0.05 5%

> 2.58 < 0.01 1%

3 HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT

The previous explanation shows that the Teamwork

Quality (TWQ) concept, theoretical review regarding

Scrums team, and team member success were fit to be

applied in this study. Thus, the thought framework

replicates Hoegl’s (2001). Table 2 shows the

hypothesis obtained from this concept.

Table 2: Research Hypothesis.

Code Hypothesis Reference

H1 Balance of Member Contribution

is positively correlated with Team

Member's Success.

(Hoegl &

Gemuend

en, 2001;

Lindsjørn

et al.,

2016;

Mither et

al., 1996;

Satria et

al., 2018)

H2 Cohesion is positively correlated

with Team Member's Success.

H3 Communication is positively

correlated with Team Member's

Success.

H4 Coordination is positively

correlated with Team Member's

Success.

H5 Effort has a positive correlation

with Team Member's Success.

H6 Mutual Support is positively

correlated with Team Member's

Success.

4 METHODOLOGY

The classification in this study referred to the case

study research strategy. The case study method is a

method that involves researching a phenomenon

(case) within a certain time (Saunders, M. Lewis, P.

and Thornhill, 2016). Meanwhile, the study approach

applied the quantitative approach with the Structural

Equation Model - Partial Least Squares (SEM-PLS)

method. This approach applies experiments with

surveys or questionnaires using positivism statements

(based on data) to test a theory (Creswell, 2013).

Respondents were obtained using the purposive

sampling technique (Etikan, 2017; Valerio et al.,

2016). This technique is used based on the

consideration that the respondent can answer the

research statement and fulfill the expected objectives

(Saunders, M. Lewis, P. and Thornhill, 2016).

Purposive sampling is often used in small samples,

e.g., case studies that tend to have specific

respondents (Neuman, 2011). The minimum

respondent number of applying Smart-PLS is 30

people (Zuhdi et al., 2016).

Factors Affecting Success of Team Members in Indonesia Scrum Implementation

281

5 RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The collected data consists of 75 respondents.

Respondents were people applying the Scrums

Development Project. Respondents could act as the

product owner, Scrum master, and developer. The

following is respondent demography.

Table 3: Respondent Demographics.

Criteria Information Percentage

Gender Female 38.7

Male 61.3%

Age 20

–

25 Years 77.3%

–

32 Years 33.7 %

Education Diploma 1.3%

Bachelo

86.7%

Maste

12%

Experience with

Scrum

< 1 Yea

66.7%

1- 5 Years 33.3%

Position Product Owne

21.3%

Scrum Maste

10.7%

Develope

68%

5.1 Result

The results of data collection are then processed

automatically with Smart-PLS tools. The first stage is

Outer Model Measurement. The

Table 4 shows that

the constructs have well-defined (based on the value

of the loading factors, composite reliability, and

Cronbach's alpha > 0.70).

Table 4: The Result of Outer Model Measurement.

Variable and

Indicators

Facto

AVE Result

1. Balance of Member Contribution

Balance of team members'

contributions.

0.891 0.774 Valid

The character of team members related

to weaknesses and strengths.

0.868 Valid

lpha Cronbach=0.708 & Composite Reliability=0.872 Reliable

2. Cohesion

The importance of teamwork. 0.838 0.648 Valid

The importance of being part of a

team.

0.797 Valid

Team excellence. 0.728 Valid

Bond between team members. 0.776

Integration between team members. 0.837 Valid

The level of conflict that occurs in the

team.

0.848 Valid

Alpha Cronbach=0.891 & Composite Reliability=0.917 Reliable

3. Communication

Openness of information flow. 0.916 0.808 Valid

Accuracy in receiving information. 0.898 Valid

Timeliness in receiving information. 0.882 Valid

Alpha Cronbach=0.884 & Composite Reliability=0.926 Reliable

4. Coordination

Variable and

Indicators

Facto

AVE Result

Sub-task objectives are accepted by

all team members.

0.845 0.681 Valid

The goals are clearly understood by

each member.

0.863 Valid

The level of conflict regarding the

tasks received by the team is

minimum.

0.764 Valid

Alpha Cronbach=0.765 & Composite Reliability=0.864 Reliable

5. Effort

The team tries hard in teamwork. 0.884 0.789 Valid

Every team member encourages full

teamwork.

0.901 Valid

Every team member makes teamwork

their highest priority.

0.880 Valid

Alpha Cronbach=0.867 & Composite Reliability=0.918 Reliable

6. Mutual Suppor

Team members help and support each

other.

0.762 0.668 Valid

If conflicts arise, they easily and

quickly resolve problems.

0.800 Valid

Team members' suggestions and

contributions are respected.

0.885 Valid

Alpha Cronbach=0.750 & Composite Reliability=0.857 Reliable

7. Team Member’s Success

Comfortable with their jobs. 0.832 0.704 Valid

Happy with their work. 0.852 Valid

Get the benefits of working

collaboratively.

0.839 Valid

Support a collaborative way of

working.

0.834 Valid

Happy with the composition of the

team.

0.919 Valid

Acquire important knowledge. 0.842 Valid

Teamwork promotes a person

personally.

0.851 Valid

Teamwork shows the professional

level of the team.

0.732 Valid

Alpha Cronbach=0.939 & Composite Reliability=0.950 Reliable

The second stage is the Inner Model Measurement

with the following results.

Significantly Affecting Variables. The results of

data processing with Smart-PLS show that three

hypotheses are accepted (based on the criteria in the

sub-chapter 2.4). These variables are balance of

member contribution (H1, t= 2.836, p < 0.01 the

significant level is 1%), cohesion (H2, t=2.078, p <

0.05 the significant level is 5%), and effort (H5, 5% -

> t=2.130, p < 0.05 the significant level is 5%).

Non-affecting Variables. The following hypothesis

is rejected because it does not meet the hypothesis

acceptance rules discussed in the sub-chapter 2.4.

These variables are communication (H3, t=0.245, p >

0.1), coordination (H4, t=0.604, p > 0.1), and mutual

support (H6, t=1.090, p > 0.1). The three hypotheses

show that the number of t (t-statistic) is less than 1.65

and the p (p-value) is more than 0.1. The PLS-SEM

ICE-TES 2021 - International Conference on Emerging Issues in Technology, Engineering, and Science

282

test results in this study are summarized in Table 5.

The red color indicates that the hypothesis is rejected.

R-squared Value Results of the Structural Model.

The Smart-PLS test results show that the relationship

between endogenous latent variables of TWQ and the

success of the Scrums team members was sufficient

or moderate (Hair et al., 2011). It was based on the R-

Square ranged between 0.50-0.75, i.e., 0.732 or

73.2%. These results indicate an influential

relationship.

Table 5: Hypothesis Test Results.

Hypothesis

Code

Original

Sam

T-Statistic

(

)

P-Value

(p)

H1 0.241 2.836 0.005

H2 0.353 2.078 0.038

H3 0.026 0.245 0.807

H4 0.069 0.604 0.546

H5 0.183 2.130 0.034

H6 0.150 1.090 0.276

5.2 Research Discussion

Several factors were influencing the success of

Scrums team members in Indonesia. These factors are

(1) balance of contribution, (2) cohesion, and effort.

The factor with the greatest influence was cohesion

among other factors.

The cohesion factor had a significant effect on the

success of team members in Scrums. It follows the

previous study (Lindsjørn et al., 2016). It can be

triggered by the nature of Scrums which always

emphasizes achieving goals in each iteration.

Achieving goals will provide satisfaction and learning

for the team to apply to the next sprint.

The effort factor was the second-leading factor

influencing the success of Scrums team members. It is

supported by the precedent studies (Lindsjørn et al.,

2016; Satria et al., 2018). The effort also emphasizes

completing tasks based on priorities in the product

backlog (Lindsjørn et al., 2016). Indeed, effort

absence will result in not being serious in completing

tasks based on the top priority of the sprint.

The last factor influencing the success of Scrums

team members is the balance of member contribution.

It is in line with the previous study (Lindsjørn et al.,

2016). There are differences in priority levels in the

balance of contribution when observing Satria’s

(2018) results, where this factor was in the fourth

priority. It happened since Satria’s study used priority

techniques with AHP without relating it to the

variables of team members’ success. Domination of

one team member can cause the contribution of ideas

and input to be lost and impact the team’s performance

to solve problems (Seers, 1989).

Coordination, communication, and mutual support

factors did not affect team members’ success. It

contrasts other studies (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001;

Lindsjørn et al., 2016; Satria et al., 2018). In the

research conducted by Satria (2018), it was the highest

priority on mutual support, where this factor

emphasizes mutually helping activities between team

members in completing tasks. When it is related to job

satisfaction and learning, which are components of

team members’ success, a qualitative analysis is

needed to dig deeper in this regard.

5.3 Recommendation

The results of the factor analysis can be used as

recommendations for Scrums users and the

government to put forward the cohesion factor, effort,

and balance of contribution. Recommendations for

achieving success for Scrum team members include:

Balance of Contribution: improving team members’

contribution ability requires technical roles and

personal attitude competencies to support software

development success (Asproni, 2004). Personal

attitude competence here is the ability to work with a

team (Asproni, 2004).

Cohesion: provides solidarity between teams to

encourage continued loyalty to achieve sprint goals.

It can be formed by aligning organizational goals and

increasing its adaptability (Ramesh et al., 2012).

Effort: an activity provider or scrum master can help

protect team members from off-team assignments

(Lindsjørn et al., 2016). The importance of

prioritizing every activity from product planning,

development, testing, and delivery is each team

member’s effort (Lindstrom & Jeffries, 2004).

6 CONCLUSION

This study aimed to discover factors affecting team

member success on the Scrums development project

in Indonesia. The analysis results by SEM show that

Scrums team members’ success is affected by

cohesion, effort, and balance of contribution.

Furthermore, some factors do not affect team success,

i.e., communication, coordination, and mutual

support. The value of this research model is 73.2%

or 0.732 (had a sufficient value), based on R-squared

value which is between 0.5 - 0.75.

Factors Affecting Success of Team Members in Indonesia Scrum Implementation

283

Recommendations for Scrums application are 1)

improving team members’ contribution, not only their

technical roles but also personal attitude

competencies of the members, 2) building team

cohesiveness and cultivate a view of the vision and

mission to achieve organizational goals, and 3)

putting forward the notion that product planning,

developing, testing and delivering activities are

efforts of each member.

REFERENCES

Asproni, G. (2004). Motivation , Teamwork , and Agile

Development. Agile Times.

Batista, A. C. D., de Souza, R. M. C. R., da Silva, F. Q. B.,

de Almeida Melo, L., & Marsicano, G. (2020).

Teamwork Quality and Team Success in Software

Development. doi: i10.1145/3382494.3410632

Beck, K., Grenning, J., Martin, R., Beedle, M., Highsmith,

J., & Mellor, S. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software

Development. The Agile Alliance.

http://agilemanifesto.org/

Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches. In Research design.

DailySocial. (2015). Suitable Startup Product Development

Using Agile and SCRUM Methodologies. 1–17.

https://dailysocial.id/post/rekayasa-perangkat-lunak-

agile-scrum

Etikan, I. (2017). Sampling and Sampling Methods.

Biometrics & Biostatistics International Journal.

doi:10.15406/bbij.2017.05.00149

Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM:

Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and

Practice, 19(2), 145. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-

6679190202

Haryono, S. (2014). Get to know the Structural Equation

Modeling (Sem) method for management research

using AMOS. Journal of Economics and Business STIE

YPN Vol. VII No. 1 October 2014.

Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork Quality

and the Success of Innovative Projects: A Theoretical

Concept and Empirical Evidence. Organization Science.

doi:10.1287/orsc.12.4.435.10635

Kemenparekraf. (2021). Baparekraf for Pre Startup.

https://bekup.kemenparekraf.go.id/

Kominfo. (2019a). National Movement of 1,000 Digital

Startups Reopened. https://kominfo.go.id/content/

detail/20564/gerakan-nasional-1000-startup-digital-

kembali-dibuka/0/sorotan_media

Kominfo. (2019b). Number of Startups in Indonesia

Hundreds or Thousands? MIKTI keeps track of our

startup's detailed data. https://kominfo.go.id/content/

detail/17233/jumlah-startup-di-indonesia-ratusan-atau-

ribuan/0/sorotan_media

Li, Y., Chang, K. C., Chen, H. G., & Jiang, J. J. (2010).

Software development team flexibility antecedents.

Journal of Systems and Software, 83(10).

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2010.04.077

Lindsjørn, Y., Sjøberg, D. I. K., Dingsøyr, T., Bergersen,

G. R., & Dybå, T. (2016). Teamwork quality and

project success in software development: A survey of

agile development teams. Journal of Systems and

Software. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2016.09.028

Lindstrom, L., & Jeffries, R. (2004). Extreme programming

and agile software development methodologies.

Information Systems Management. doi:10.1201/1078/

44432.21.3.20040601/82476.7

Mersino, A. (2018). Agile Project Success Rates vs.

Waterfall Projects. Vitality Chicago.

Mither, R., Houston, J., & Mclinter, S. (1996). Organization

Development Strategies for Changing Environment. In

Harper and Collins. Harper and Collins.

doi:10.5120/16454-6199

Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social Research Methods:

Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. In Pearson

Education.

Project Management Institute, I. (2018). Agile Practice

Guide. In Agile Practice Guide.

Ramesh, B., Mohan, K., & Cao, L. (2012). Ambidexterity

in agile distributed development: An empirical

investigation. Information Systems Research.

doi:10.1287/isre.1110.0351

Ristekbrin. (2021). Guidelines for the 2020 Indonesian

Startup Innovation Program. 2020–2022. https://

www.ristekbrin.go.id/panduan-program-startup-

inovasi-indonesia-tahun-2020/

Ryan, S., & O’Connor, R. V. (2009). Development of a

team measure for tacit knowledge in software

development teams. Journal of Systems and Software,

82(2). doi:10.1016/j.jss.2008.05.037

Satria, G., Pratami, D., & Puspita, I. A. (2018). Improving

teamwork quality to succeed software development

project using AHP (case study). Proceedings of the

International Conference on Industrial Engineering and

Operations Management.

Saunders, M. Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2016). Research

Methods for Business Students Seventh edition. In

Pearson.

Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2017). The Scrum Guide:

The Definitive The Rules of the Game. Scrum.Org and

ScrumInc.

ScrumGuide.org. (2015). The Scrum Guide. Software in 30

Days. doi:10.1002/9781119203278.app2

Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new

construct for role-making research. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

doi:10.1016/0749-5978(89)90060-5

Valerio, M. A., Rodriguez, N., Winkler, P., Lopez, J.,

Dennison, M., Liang, Y., & Turner, B. J. (2016).

Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-

reach communities in research priority setting. BMC

Medical Research Methodology. doi:10.1186/s12874-

016-0242-z

VersionOne. (2018). 12th Annual of Agile Report. In

Annual State of Agile Report. https://

ICE-TES 2021 - International Conference on Emerging Issues in Technology, Engineering, and Science

284

www.versionone.com/about/press-releases/12th-

annual-state-of-agile-survey-open/

Zuhdi, Z., Suharjo, B., & Sumarno, H. (2016). Comparison

of Estimated Model Structural Coefficient Parameters

by SEM and PLS-SEM. Journal of Mathematics and Its

Applications. doi:10.29244/jmap.15.2.11-22

Factors Affecting Success of Team Members in Indonesia Scrum Implementation

285