It's not just a biased study, it's an article about a study of which the data is not published, so it's impossible to tell if there's any merit to it.
The excerpts of the study published in the article do not inspire confidence either:
1. Agile ("Agile Requirements Engineering") is defined as: Development starts before clear requirements, no complete specification, significant changes late in development.
I think even those who are opposed to Agile would agree that's a severely lacking if not completely incorrect characterisation of Agile development practices. It sounds more like a list of things that would cause an Agile project to fail.
2. Impact Engineering is defined as: Use of all engineering practices studied which increase success rates.
Why doesn't the author dare to give any properties of Impact Engineering up front? This sounds like he's just baiting for people to buy the book so they could learn what magical engineering practices are studied therein. It smells scammy.
The excerpts of the study published in the article do not inspire confidence either:
1. Agile ("Agile Requirements Engineering") is defined as: Development starts before clear requirements, no complete specification, significant changes late in development.
I think even those who are opposed to Agile would agree that's a severely lacking if not completely incorrect characterisation of Agile development practices. It sounds more like a list of things that would cause an Agile project to fail.
2. Impact Engineering is defined as: Use of all engineering practices studied which increase success rates.
Why doesn't the author dare to give any properties of Impact Engineering up front? This sounds like he's just baiting for people to buy the book so they could learn what magical engineering practices are studied therein. It smells scammy.