Sources: the pool, its flow and its quality

The pool of this first pass, read on 2026-11-02: 33 formal works and 5 grey sources. On 2026-11-03 two formal works were added by forward citation, so the pool is 35 formal and 5 grey. Searches are in protocol; terms in frame.

Shape: sources

A source marked located was found and its record checked, but its text was not opened. A claim that rests on it is marked as such. Below 10 of 20, a grey source is an example of practice only.

Flow

Stage Count
Formal strings run 14 (S1 to S7, S11 to S14 and the variants S2b, S3b, S3c); S14 screened, nothing included
Grey strings run 4 web strings and 4 direct visits
Titles screened up to 10 per string; the exact number was not logged
Forward citations, 2026-11-03 3 works screened: 378 titles and 6 abstracts; 2 added (protocol, section 11)
Reached through a string or a direct visit 30 of the 38; several also named by the brief
Reached only from the brief's leads or the reviewer's recall, then checked against a bibliographic record 8 of the 38 (Simon 1969, Webster 2002, Garousi 2019, Kitchenham 2009, Polya 1945, Kellogg 1988, Flyvbjerg 2006, Booth 2016)
Read in the text or the sections cited 5 formal, 4 grey
Read at abstract level 13 formal: 11 from the first pass, and Hohn 2002 and Mettler 2014
Read only through secondary summaries 1 formal (Hembree 1992)
Located, text not opened 16 formal, 1 grey
Grey scored 4 by the first reviewer; after the second rating and the rereads, two at 10 or more and two below

Formal sources

Quality is the evidence grade, with what the grade rests on. A number from an abstract or a summary is marked (secondary).

Key Kind Found via Read Grade Used in
Simon 1969 formal lead (brief) located convention, book not opened frame
Hevner 2004 formal lead (brief); S1 located; seen through Peffers 2006 convention, guidelines not opened frame, review
Peffers 2006 formal lead (brief); S1; S2 full text convention: a synthesis of seven process models, demonstrated on two cases frame, review, position, baseline
Peffers 2007 formal lead (brief); S2 located; journal version of Peffers 2006 convention, as Peffers 2006 frame, state of the art
Gregor 2013 formal lead (brief); S1 located convention, not opened frame
Wieringa 2014 formal lead (brief); S1 located convention, book not opened frame
Webster 2002 formal lead (brief) located convention, not opened frame, position
Garousi 2019 formal lead (brief) method, as the family cites it convention: guidelines protocol
Kitchenham 2009 formal lead (brief) located; not opened review of reviews, not graded further review strand 0
Lund 2016 formal S3; S3c first line of the abstract convention: an argument; its call is that no new study begins without a systematic review review Q1, position
Chalmers 2009 formal S3 located; abstract not retrieved review of evidence, not opened review Q1
Macleod 2014 formal S3 located; abstract not retrieved review of evidence, not opened review Q1
Glasziou 2014 formal S3 abstract measured, descriptive: reports of studies (secondary) review Q1
Boehm 2001 formal S2b full text (three pages) expert report, not a measurement; cites studies review Q1, against
Menzies 2017 formal S12 abstract page measured: 171 projects (secondary) against
Fairley 2005 formal S3b abstract expert report review Q1
Hofmann 2001 formal S11 abstract expert report; the 75 percent is Jones's, quoted (secondary) review Q1
Eveleens 2010 formal S11 abstract measured: 5,457 forecasts of 1,211 projects (secondary) against
Nawaz 2022 formal S3b abstract review of 23 studies, global software development only (secondary) review strand 0, Q1
Dybå 2008 formal S11 located; abstract not retrieved review of evidence, not opened review strand 0, Q1
Serrador 2015 formal S11 summaries of the abstract measured, correlational: 1,002 projects (secondary) review Q1
Polya 1945 formal lead (brief) located convention, book not opened frame, review Q1
Schoenfeld 1985 formal lead (brief); S4 located measured, by case study; book not opened review Q1
Hembree 1992 formal S4 located; findings from two secondary summaries measured: meta-analysis of 487 reports (secondary) review Q1, against
Kellogg 1988 formal lead (brief) summaries of the abstract measured: experiments, judged quality (secondary) review Q2
Noble 2009 formal S5 text, through a summary convention: a practice guide review Q3, baseline
Sandve 2013 formal S5 rule titles convention: a practice guide review Q3
Wilson 2017 formal S5 sections 3a, 4a and 5f, and the overview, in the text convention: a practice guide; over 11,000 people since 2010, in the text review Q3, baseline
Parnin 2010 formal S13 located; abstract not retrieved measured, by study of programmers; not opened review Q3
Altmann 2002 formal S13 abstract measured by simulation against latency and error data review Q3
Prechelt 2001b formal S6 abstract measured: a controlled experiment (secondary) review Q1, against
Hayes 1997 formal S6 located; not opened measured, descriptive; report not opened review Q1
Flyvbjerg 2006 formal lead (brief) located; not opened convention, not opened position
Hohn 2002 formal forward from Hembree 1992 abstract measured: two controlled experiments, 223 elementary students (secondary) review strand C
Mettler 2014 formal forward from Peffers 2006 abstract convention: a review of experiments in design science and a proposed evaluation framework, not tested (secondary) review strands 0 and A, position

Grey sources

Scores follow Garousi 2019, Table 7: authority A (of 4), methodology M (6), objectivity O (4), date D (1), position P (1), novelty N (2), impact I (1), outlet tier T (1). The first reviewer scored all four. A second rater then scored them blind, and each disagreement of more than 3 points was resolved by rereading the whole text; see protocol, section 12.

Key Kind Found via Read Score of 20 Used in
Schwaber 2020 grey tier 2 direct the whole guide, read on 2026-11-03 (first pass: through a summary) final 10.0; first reviewer 12; second rater 8: A 2.5, M 2, O 1.5, D 1, P 0, N 1.5, I 1, T 0.5. At the threshold review Q1, state of the art
Singer 2019 grey tier 1 direct the web edition's contents page, read on 2026-11-03 (first pass: chapter list and definitions) final 9; first reviewer 12.5; second rater 0: A 2, M 4, O 0, D 0, P 0, N 2, I 0, T 1. Below the threshold: an example of practice only review Q1 (example)
Chapman 2000 grey tier 1 S8 the first 25,000 characters, the introduction and the contents, read on 2026-11-03 (first pass: sections 1.1 and 1.4, the contents) final 14.5; first reviewer 15.5; second rater 11.5: A 3, M 5, O 1.5, D 1, P 0, N 2, I 1, T 1 review Q1, baseline
Ubl 2020 grey tier 3 direct the whole post, read on 2026-11-03 (first pass: first section) final 9.5; first reviewer 9; second rater 3: A 1, M 4, O 1, D 1, P 0, N 1.5, I 1, T 0. Below the threshold: an example of practice only review Q1 (example)
Booth 2016 grey tier 1 lead (brief) located; not opened, not scored not scored: a practitioner book frame

Keys

Garousi 2019, Polya 1945 and Ubl 2020 are keys the family already holds, with the same work. Prechelt 2001b is a different work from the family's other Prechelt entry of 2001, so it takes a letter.