0
\documentclass[journal]{IEEEtran}

\usepackage{algorithmic}
\usepackage{blindtext}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}

\usepackage{multicol}
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{array}
usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage[latin9]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage[final]{graphicx}
\usepackage{natbib}
\setlength{\bibsep}{0.0pt}
\usepackage{geometry}
\geometry{verbose,margin=3cm}
\usepackage{caption}% <-- added
\captionsetup[table]{skip = 3pt}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage[para]{threeparttable}
\usepackage{array,booktabs,longtable,tabularx}
\newcolumntype{L}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}X}% <-- added
\usepackage{ltablex}% <-- added
\usepackage{siunitx}% <-- added
\usepackage{caption}% <-- added
\setlength{\LTcapwidth}{7in}
\usepackage[flushleft]{threeparttablex}
\usepackage{tikz}
\usepackage{adjustbox}      
\usepackage{filecontents}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{supertabular}
\usepackage{amsmath,mathtools,etoolbox}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{tabularx,colortbl}
\usepackage{adjustbox}\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{makecell}
\usepackage{stackengine}
\usepackage[table]{xcolor}
\usepackage{rotating}
\flushbottom


\begin{center}
    \small
    \setlength\tabcolsep{5pt}
\hyphenation{op-tical net-works semi-conduc-tor}


\begin{document}
\title{Monitoring and Controlling Software Project Scope using AgileEVM}
\begin{IEEEkeywords}
IEEE, IEEEtran, journal, \LaTeX, paper, template.
\end{IEEEkeywords}
\section{Introduction}
\IEEEPARstart{O}{}ne of the most popular method for controlling and monitoring the progress of a project is Earned value Management (EVM) [1] [2]. EVM is a tool widely used in construction projects in order to evaluate project cost and schedule. However, it is infrequently used in software projects [3]. Earned Value Management gauges the performance of a project against initial plan, where budget and schedule information is provided upfront. It facilitates the project manager to take corrective actions by pinpointing the deviations in time and cost. The Project Management Institute (PMI) states that EVM is one of the most effective tool to monitor the progress of Information Technology (IT) projects. Using triple constrains, we can show the progress of IT projects more proficiently.

The triple constrains consists of cost, time and scope and can be used to show that how a project achieves its goals. For the success of any project it is crucial to balance these constraints [4]. However, for the success of software projects, scope is considered the most important constraint. The main reason for the failure of thousands of projects in the literature is the scope of the project [5] [6]. Though scope has been used to gauge the success criteria of a project, however, in literature, the scope of the software project has been ignored while determining the progress of the projects. 

Several barriers have been highlighted in the literature which prevent project managers to properly manage and define project scope. For instance, some of the barriers are unsatisfactory effort from stakeholders, inadequate and poor scope, nonstop flow of requirements [6] , project scope not managed well, variation in requirements, inappropriate assumptions, system complexity not understood fully, unsuitable calculations and, uncertain goals and project vision [7] etc. These aforementioned problems causes the projects to over schedule and over budgeted [8], scope creep [9], de- scoping [10], over scoping [11], requirement volatility [8], wastage of effort [12], possible risks [13], bad quality software and eventually causes the failure of projects [6]. The main reason for the failure of many projects is the uncontrolled and unmanaged project scope [14]. 

Several tools and techniques are used to gauge the performance of software projects such as Function point (FP), Work-Breakdown Structure (WBS), Expert judgement, Feature Transition Charts (FTC), Story mapping, and Performance analysis and Control Scope Change System. The limitation of these methods is that they only consider the complete definition of project scope for project measurement.
\subsubsection{ Inclusion or Exclusion Criteria}
The identified factors were first collected in a spread sheet and afterwards these factors aggregated into a single unique effect to make an integrated list. After finding effects of scope changes, effects were grouped under a single unique effect i.e. f1, f2, f3 etc. Effects such as failure of software, shortage of labor, shifting of resources, and availability of resources, physical damage of hardware and supplier issues were taken under a single unique effect named change project resources. The procedure was repeated until distinctive effects were attained. A list of about 62 unique effect with their description that had an impact on project planning can be seen in table 5.

\subsubsection{ Factors Identification}
In order to find out occurrence of effect in research article. Effects are searched in each research article and then shown in a tables 5.

\begin{center}
    \small
    \setlength\tabcolsep{5pt}
    \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{2.2}
    \begin{longtable}{|p{.7cm}|p{8.3cm}|p{4cm}|}
        \caption{Factors Description
        } \label{Factors} \\


        \hline
        \multirow{1}{1cm}{\textbf{\rotatebox[origin=c]{45}{Var}}}  &\multirow{1}{1cm}{\textbf{Factors}}  &\multirow{1}{1cm}{\textbf{References}}  

        \\ \hline

        \endfirsthead
        \multicolumn{3}{c}%
        {{\bfseries \tablename\ \thetable{} -- continued from previous page}} \\
        \hline 
        \multirow{1}{1cm}{\textbf{\rotatebox[origin=c]{45}{Var}}}  &\multirow{1}{1cm}{\textbf{Factors}}  &\multirow{1}{1cm}{\textbf{References}}  

        \\ \hline
        % \textbf{Inactive Modes} & \textbf{Description}\\


        %\hhline{~--}

        \endhead

        \multicolumn{3}{|r|}{{Continued on next page}} \\ \hline
        \endfoot

        \hline 
        \endlastfoot
        $f_{1}$& Priority Features & \cite{paetsch2003requirements}\cite{najafi2008two}

        \\ \hline
        $f_{2}$& Developers and customer’s discussion  & \cite{paetsch2003requirements}\cite{geras2004prototype}


        \\ \hline
        $f_{3}$&Poor delivery Strategy   & \cite{sutherland2001inventing}\cite{milanov2012analysis}

        \\ \hline
        $f_{4}$& Failing to fulfil competing Priorities & \cite{sutherland2001inventing}
        \\ \hline
        $f_{5}$& Effect of constant Revision  & \cite{sutherland2001inventing}
        \\ \hline
        $f_{6}$& Productionized for customers & \cite{abrahamsson2017agile}


        \\ \hline
        $f_{7}$& User Reviews  & \cite{abrahamsson2017agile}

        \\ \hline
        $f_{8}$&Short Progress Meeting  & \cite{abrahamsson2017agile}

        \\ \hline
        $f_{9}$& Short release  & \cite{abrahamsson2017agile}

        \\ \hline
        $f_{10}$& Effort estimation & \cite{khatri2014best}


        \\ \hline
        $f_{11}$& Project Nature  &\cite{paetsch2003requirements}


        \\ \hline
        $f_{12}$& Project Schedule & \cite{paetsch2003requirements}



        \\ \hline
        $f_{13}$&less developer skill sets &\cite{soundararajan2009soft}

        \\ \hline
        $f_{14}$& Extremely Complex Techniques and Tools   & \cite{babar2010managing}


        \\ \hline

        $f_{15}$&project plan document & \cite{sliger2006project}

        \\ \hline
        $f_{16}$& Strict security policies & \cite{pavlovski2008non}

        \\ \hline
        $f_{17}$& Strict organizational policiesl & \cite{pavlovski2008non}


        \\ \hline
        $f_{18}$& Minimum regulatory constraints & \cite{pavlovski2008non}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{19}$& Poor operational performance characteristics & \cite{pavlovski2008non}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{20}$& Completion time & \cite{pavlovski2008non}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{21}$& Unavailability of a business process & \cite{pavlovski2008non}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{22}$& Neglecting non-functional requirements & \cite{inayat2015systematic}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{23}$& Unclear objectives of project & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{24}$& Requirement unclear to the team & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{25}$& Requirement conflicts among multiple product owners & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{26}$& In-adequate communication about end-user requirements & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{27}$& In-adequate prioritization of requirements & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{28}$&Frequent architectural changes & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{29}$&Minimum client participation and collaboration in the process  & \cite{racheva2010we}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{30}$& developer participation & \cite{racheva2010we}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{31}$& Important decisions not aligned & \cite{moe2012challenges}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{32}$& Missing a clear prioritization & \cite{moe2012challenges}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{33}$& Missing a definition of done & \cite{moe2012challenges}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{34}$& Conflicting priorities within the company & \cite{moe2012challenges}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{35}$& Low committing to the plan & \cite{moe2012challenges}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{36}$& Distributed agile software development & \cite{kontio2004managing}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{37}$& Improper organization of daily work and meetings & \cite{kontio2004managing}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{38}$& Rare customer involvement&\cite{inayat2015systematic}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{39}$& Customer satisfaction & \cite{inayat2015systematic}\cite{misra2009identifying}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{40}$&Customer collaboration & \cite{misra2009identifying}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{41}$& Customer commitment & \cite{misra2009identifying}\cite{inayat2015systematic}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{42}$& Allow Teams to self-organize &\cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{43}$& Lack of training & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{44}$& Too high workload & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{45}$& Global distribution challenges & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{46}$& Achieving technical consistency & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{47}$& Lack of necessary skill set & \cite{stankovic2013survey}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{48}$& Lack of project management competence & \cite{stankovic2013survey}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{49}$& Lack of team work & \cite{stankovic2013survey}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{50}$& Resistance from groups and individuals & \cite{stankovic2013survey}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{51}$& Recognition the importance of product owner role & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{52}$& Management in waterfall mode & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\ \hline


        $f_{53}$& Keeping the old bureaucracy & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{54}$& Customer inability and agreement & \cite{inayat2015systematic}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{55}$& Contractual limitations & \cite{inayat2015systematic}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{56}$&Lack of complete set of correct agile practices  & \cite{chow2008survey}
        \\ \hline

        $f_{57}$& Inappropriateness of technology and tools & \cite{chow2008survey}
        \\ \hline

            $f_{58}$& General resistance to change & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\ \hline

            $f_{59}$& Skepticism towards the new way of working & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\ \hline

            $f_{60}$&Challenges in rearranging physical spaces & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\ \hline

            $f_{61}$& Developer Fear of Skill-Deficiency Exposure & \cite{conboy2011people}
        \\ \hline

            $f_{62}$& Efficiency in finding potential risk &\cite{khatri2014best}
        \\ \hline





    \end{longtable}
\end{center}
2
  • welcome to tex.se! please fits make that your document example will work without your table. do you really need all those packages listed in document preamble? at least first remove all multi times loaded package, make sure that you will not have options clashes between packages etc. longtable doesn't work in two column document. however for same suggestion how to manage your table firs please clean-up your document preamble.
    – Zarko
    Apr 2, 2019 at 11:33
  • 12cm+ will not fit into \twocolumn, so your need to switch to \onecolumn for longtable,. This is usually done using \afterpage and possibly \if@firstcolumn. There are even tricks to switch to multicols from \twocolumn (see tex.stackexchange.com/questions/477188/…) BTW, you really need to clean up your preamble, and do not touch \columnsep in a publication. Apr 2, 2019 at 14:44

1 Answer 1

6
  • longtable doesn't work in two column document.
  • change document to one column and after table back to two column will introduce empty spaces, since those commands starts new page
  • use afterpage package in such cases doesn't help as one can expect

since background of your document is not known, i wonder, do you really need this table? can it be replaced with some list which gives, for example:

enter image description here

off-topic:

preamble in document example has may flaws (spurious code, clashes between packages). do you really need all these packages?

since so far you not response to comments, for above image with the list made from your table, i construct own minimal working example, which has in preamble only package which is needed for its works:

\documentclass[journal]{IEEEtran}

\usepackage{enumitem}

\usepackage{lipsum} % for dummy text, not needed in real document

\begin{document}
    \lipsum[1]
    \begin{enumerate}[label*=f\textsubscript{\arabic*},
                      leftmargin=1.75em,
                      align=right, parsep=1pt, itemsep=1pt]
\item   Priority Features   \hfill\cite{paetsch2003requirements,najafi2008two}
\item   Developers and customer’s discussion   \hfill\cite{paetsch2003requirements,geras2004prototype}
\item   Poor delivery Strategy  \hfill\cite{sutherland2001inventing,milanov2012analysis}

\item   Failing to fulfil competing Priorities  \hfill\cite{sutherland2001inventing}

\item   Effect of constant Revision  \hfill\cite{sutherland2001inventing}

\item   Productionized for customers  \hfill\cite{abrahamsson2017agile}

\item   User Reviews  \hfill\cite{abrahamsson2017agile}

\item   Short Progress Meeting  \hfill\cite{abrahamsson2017agile}

\item   Short release  \hfill\cite{abrahamsson2017agile}

\item   Effort estimation  \hfill\cite{khatri2014best}

\item   Project Nature  \hfill\cite{paetsch2003requirements}

\item   Project Schedule  \hfill\cite{paetsch2003requirements}

\item   less developer skill sets  \hfill\cite{soundararajan2009soft}

\item   Extremely Complex Techniques and Tools  \hfill\cite{babar2010managing}

\item   project plan document  \hfill\cite{sliger2006project}

\item   Strict security policies  \hfill\cite{pavlovski2008non}

\item   Strict organizational policies  \hfill\cite{pavlovski2008non}

\item   Minimum regulatory constraints  \hfill\cite{pavlovski2008non}

\item   Poor operational performance characteristics   \hfill\cite{pavlovski2008non}

\item   Completion time  \hfill\cite{pavlovski2008non}

\item   Unavailability of a business process  \hfill\cite{pavlovski2008non}

\item   Neglecting non-functional requirements  \hfill\cite{inayat2015systematic}

\item   Unclear objectives of project  \hfill\cite{shrivastava2015categorization}

\item   Requirement unclear to the team  \hfill\cite{shrivastava2015categorization}

\item   Requirement conflicts among multiple product owners  \hfill\cite{shrivastava2015categorization}

\item   In-adequate communication about end-user requirements  \hfill\cite{shrivastava2015categorization}

\item   In-adequate prioritization of requirements  \hfill\cite{shrivastava2015categorization}

\item   Frequent architectural changes  \hfill\cite{shrivastava2015categorization}

\item   Minimum client participation and collaboration in the process   \hfill\cite{racheva2010we}

\item   developer participation  \hfill\cite{racheva2010we}

\item   Important decisions not aligned  \hfill\cite{moe2012challenges}

\item   Missing a clear prioritization  \hfill\cite{moe2012challenges}

\item   Missing a definition of done  \hfill\cite{moe2012challenges}

\item   Conflicting priorities within the company  \hfill\cite{moe2012challenges}

\item   Low committing to the plan  \hfill\cite{moe2012challenges}

\item   Distributed agile software development  \hfill\cite{kontio2004managing}

\item   Improper organization of daily work and meetings  \hfill\cite{kontio2004managing}

\item   Rare customer involvement  \hfill\cite{inayat2015systematic}

\item   Customer satisfaction  \hfill\cite{inayat2015systematic,misra2009identifying}

\item   Customer collaboration  \hfill\cite{misra2009identifying}

\item   Customer commitment  \hfill\cite{misra2009identifying,inayat2015systematic}

\item   Allow Teams to self-organize  \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}

\item   Lack of training  \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}

\item   Too high workload  \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}

\item   Global distribution challenges  \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}

\item   Achieving technical consistency  \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}

\item   Lack of necessary skill set  \hfill\cite{stankovic2013survey}

\item   Lack of project management competence  \hfill\cite{stankovic2013survey}

\item   Lack of team work  \hfill\cite{stankovic2013survey}

\item   Resistance from groups and individuals  \hfill\cite{stankovic2013survey}

\item   Recognition the importance of product owner role  \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}

\item   Management in waterfall mode  \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}

\item   Keeping the old bureaucracy  \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}

\item   Customer inability and agreement  \hfill\cite{inayat2015systematic}

\item   Contractual limitations  \hfill\cite{inayat2015systematic}

\item   Lack of complete set of correct agile practices   \hfill\cite{chow2008survey}

\item   Inappropriateness of technology and tools  \hfill\cite{chow2008survey}

\item   General resistance to change  \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}

\item   Skepticism towards the new way of working  \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}

\item   Challenges in rearranging physical spaces  \hfill\cite{dikert2016challenges}

\item   Developer Fear of Skill-Deficiency Exposure  \hfill\cite{conboy2011people}

\item   Efficiency in finding potential risk  \hfill\cite{khatri2014best}
    \end{enumerate}
\end{document}

addendum:

in case that you still persist to have your (long)table, you can do the following:

  • manually split table into two parts (where each part is smaller than page)
  • each part enclose in table* environment
  • in the second part use \ContinuedFloat after `\begin{table*}
  • redefine fraction of floats on page
  • use the stfloats package for positioning of the first part on the same page where is inserted and that \dblfloatpagefraction will works

    \documentclass[journal]{IEEEtran}
    
    \usepackage{makecell, longtable}
    \renewcommand\theadfont{\bfseries\small}
    \renewcommand\theadgape{}
    \usepackage{stfloats}
        \renewcommand{\dblfloatpagefraction}{.9}
    
    \usepackage{amsmath}
    \usepackage[skip=1ex]{caption}
    
    \usepackage{lipsum}
    
    \begin{document}
    \lipsum[66]
    
        \begin{table*}[hb]
    \caption{Table caption}
    \label{tab=long table}
        \setlength\tabcolsep{3pt}
        \setcellgapes{3pt}
        \makegapedcells
    \begin{tabular}{|
            >{$}p{\dimexpr0.10\linewidth-2\tabcolsep-1.33\arrayrulewidth}<{$}|
                p{\dimexpr0.76\linewidth-2\tabcolsep-1.33\arrayrulewidth}|
                p{\dimexpr0.14\linewidth-2\tabcolsep-1.33\arrayrulewidth}|}
        \hline
    \thead{\text{Var}}  &\thead{Factors}  &\thead{Ref.}
        \\  \hline
    %%%% table body
    f_{1}   & Priority Features  & \cite{paetsch2003requirements,najafi2008two}
        \\  \hline
    f_{2}   & Developers and customer’s discussion & \cite{paetsch2003requirements}\cite{geras2004prototype}
        \\  \hline
    f_{3}   & Poor delivery Strategy & \cite{sutherland2001inventing}\cite{milanov2012analysis}
        \\  \hline
    f_{4}   & Failing to fulfil competing Priorities & \cite{sutherland2001inventing}
        \\  \hline
    f_{5}   & Effect of constant Revision & \cite{sutherland2001inventing}
        \\  \hline
    f_{6}   & Productionized for customers & \cite{abrahamsson2017agile}
        \\  \hline
    f_{7}   & User Reviews & \cite{abrahamsson2017agile}
        \\  \hline
    f_{8}   & Short Progress Meeting & \cite{abrahamsson2017agile}
        \\  \hline
    f_{9}   & Short release & \cite{abrahamsson2017agile}
        \\  \hline
    f_{10}  & Effort estimation & \cite{khatri2014best}
        \\  \hline
    f_{11}  & Project Nature & \cite{paetsch2003requirements}
        \\  \hline
    f_{12}  & Project Schedule & \cite{paetsch2003requirements}
        \\  \hline
    f_{13}  & less developer skill sets & \cite{soundararajan2009soft}
        \\  \hline
    f_{14}  & Extremely Complex Techniques and Tools & \cite{babar2010managing}
        \\  \hline
    f_{15}  & project plan document & \cite{sliger2006project}
        \\  \hline
    f_{16}  & Strict security policies & \cite{pavlovski2008non}
        \\  \hline
    f_{17}  & Strict organizational policies & \cite{pavlovski2008non}
        \\  \hline
    f_{18}  & Minimum regulatory constraints & \cite{pavlovski2008non}
        \\  \hline
    f_{19}  & Poor operational performance characteristics  & \cite{pavlovski2008non}
        \\  \hline
    f_{20}  & Completion time & \cite{pavlovski2008non}
        \\  \hline
    f_{21}  & Unavailability of a business process & \cite{pavlovski2008non}
        \\  \hline
    f_{22}  & Neglecting non-functional requirements & \cite{inayat2015systematic}
        \\  \hline
    f_{23}  & Unclear objectives of project & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
        \\  \hline
    f_{24}  & Requirement unclear to the team & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
        \\  \hline
    f_{25}  & Requirement conflicts among multiple product owners & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
        \\  \hline
    f_{26}  & In-adequate communication about end-user requirements & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
        \\  \hline
    f_{27}  & In-adequate prioritization of requirements & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
        \\  \hline
    f_{28}  & Frequent architectural changes & \cite{shrivastava2015categorization}
        \\  \hline
    f_{29}  & Minimum client participation and collaboration in the process  & \cite{racheva2010we}
        \\  \hline
    f_{30}  & developer participation & \cite{racheva2010we}
        \\  \hline
    f_{31}  & Important decisions not aligned & \cite{moe2012challenges}
        \\  \hline
    f_{32}  & Missing a clear prioritization & \cite{moe2012challenges}
        \\  \hline
    \multicolumn{3}{r}{\footnotesize\textit{continued on the next page}}
    \end{tabular}
        \end{table*}
        \begin{table*}[ht]
    \ContinuedFloat
    \caption{Table caption -- continued from previous page}
    \label{tab=supertabular}
        \small
        \setlength\tabcolsep{3pt}
        \setcellgapes{3pt}
        \makegapedcells
    \begin{tabular}{|
            >{$}p{\dimexpr0.10\linewidth-2\tabcolsep-1.33\arrayrulewidth}<{$}|
                p{\dimexpr0.76\linewidth-2\tabcolsep-1.33\arrayrulewidth}|
                p{\dimexpr0.14\linewidth-2\tabcolsep-1.33\arrayrulewidth}|}
        \hline
    \thead{\text{Var}}  &\thead{Factors}  &\thead{Ref.}
        \\  \hline
    %%%% table body
    f_{33}  & Missing a definition of done & \cite{moe2012challenges}
        \\  \hline
    f_{34}  & Conflicting priorities within the company & \cite{moe2012challenges}
        \\  \hline
    f_{35}  & Low committing to the plan & \cite{moe2012challenges}
        \\  \hline
    f_{36}  & Distributed agile software development & \cite{kontio2004managing}
        \\  \hline
    f_{37}  & Improper organization of daily work and meetings & \cite{kontio2004managing}
        \\  \hline
    f_{38}  & Rare customer involvement & \cite{inayat2015systematic}
        \\  \hline
    f_{39}  & Customer satisfaction & \cite{inayat2015systematic}\cite{misra2009identifying}
        \\  \hline
    f_{40}  & Customer collaboration & \cite{misra2009identifying}
        \\  \hline
    f_{41}  & Customer commitment & \cite{misra2009identifying}\cite{inayat2015systematic}
        \\  \hline
    f_{42}  & Allow Teams to self-organize & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\  \hline
    f_{43}  & Lack of training & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\  \hline
    f_{44}  & Too high workload & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\  \hline
    f_{45}  & Global distribution challenges & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\  \hline
    f_{46}  & Achieving technical consistency & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\  \hline
    f_{47}  & Lack of necessary skill set & \cite{stankovic2013survey}
        \\  \hline
    f_{48}  & Lack of project management competence & \cite{stankovic2013survey}
        \\  \hline
    f_{49}  & Lack of team work & \cite{stankovic2013survey}
        \\  \hline
    f_{50}  & Resistance from groups and individuals & \cite{stankovic2013survey}
        \\  \hline
    f_{51}  & Recognition the importance of product owner role & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\  \hline
    f_{52}  & Management in waterfall mode & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\  \hline
    f_{53}  & Keeping the old bureaucracy & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\  \hline
    f_{54}  & Customer inability and agreement & \cite{inayat2015systematic}
        \\  \hline
    f_{55}  & Contractual limitations & \cite{inayat2015systematic}
        \\  \hline
    f_{56}  & Lack of complete set of correct agile practices  & \cite{chow2008survey}
        \\  \hline
    f_{57}  & Inappropriateness of technology and tools & \cite{chow2008survey}
        \\  \hline
    f_{58}  & General resistance to change & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\  \hline
    f_{59}  & Skepticism towards the new way of working & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\  \hline
    f_{60}  & Challenges in rearranging physical spaces & \cite{dikert2016challenges}
        \\  \hline
    f_{61}  & Developer Fear of Skill-Deficiency Exposure & \cite{conboy2011people}
        \\  \hline
    f_{62}  & Efficiency in finding potential risk & \cite{khatri2014best}
    \\  \hline
    \end{tabular}
        \end{table*}
    \lipsum\lipsum
    \end{document}
    

first part of table:

enter image description here

second part of table:

enter image description here

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .