Developer experience · Systematic literature review and synthesized framework.

DevOps critical success factors — A systematic literature review

” Information and Software Technology · 2023

Nasreen Azad, Sami Hyrynsalmi

Summary

The review identifies 10 main CSF categories and proposes a synthesized model of their relationships.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Use the CSF categories as a platform-engineering product/adoption checklist; map roadmap and enablement metrics to organizational, process, and technical success factors.

Reported result

What the study found

The review identifies 10 main CSF categories and proposes a synthesized model of their relationships.

Research question

What the authors investigated

Which critical success factors for DevOps projects are reported in prior research, and how can they be synthesized?

Design

Systematic literature review and synthesized framework.

Sample and setting

38 primary studies; nearly 100 factors, categorized into 10 main CSFs.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

The fetched abstract does not state limitations beyond the review’s 38-study evidence base.

Research sources

Synthesis based on the fetched authoritative landing page/abstract; founder-use statements are explicitly marked as practical implications derived from the reported findings. Firecrawl research job 01a14366-d263-71d0-bc44-b95482987b7b returned this citation and metadata.

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.

Read the paper