Do scaling agile frameworks address global software development risks? An empirical study

Beecham, Sarah; Clear, Tony; Lal, Ramesh; Noll, John

doi:10.1016/j.jss.2020.110823

Cited by 37 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also have three new risks in the Execution quadrant, namely Ineffective collaboration, Ineffective coordination and Lack of trust. [31] In summary, the overall degree of commonality of the other frameworks with the Wallace and Keil framework [11] was sufficient to favor this more established framework for our comparison augmented with new GSD specific risks from Verner et al [13].…”

Section: Software Project Riskmentioning

confidence: 86%

Do Scaling Agile Frameworks Address Global Software Development Risks? An Empirical Study

Beecham¹,

Clear²,

Lal³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Driven by the need to coordinate activities of multiple agile development teams cooperating to produce a large software product, software-intensive organizations are turning to scaling agile software development frameworks. Despite the growing adoption of various scaling agile frameworks, there is little empirical evidence of how effective their practices are in mitigating risk, especially in global software development (GSD), where project failure is a known problem.In this study, we develop a GSD Risk Catalog of 63 risks to assess the degree to which two scaling agile frameworks-Disciplined Agile Delivery (DAD) and the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe)-address software project risks in GSD. We examined data from two longitudinal case studies implementing each framework to identify the extent to which the framework practices address GSD risks.Scaling agile frameworks appear to help companies eliminate or mitigate many traditional risks in GSD, especially relating to users and customers. However, several important risks were not eliminated or mitigated. These persistent risks in the main belonged to the Environment quadrant highlighting the inherent risk in developing software across geographic boundaries. Perhaps these frameworks (and arguably any framework), would have difficulty alleviating, issues that appear to be outside the immediate control of the organization.

show abstract

Section: Software Project Riskmentioning

confidence: 86%

Do Scaling Agile Frameworks Address Global Software Development Risks? An Empirical Study

Beecham¹,

Clear²,

Lal³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The LeSS framework inherits the same characteristics as basic Scrum and advocates that each team should be small (e.g., between three and nine members). It also advocates that teams should be self-organized and multidisciplinary [47]. This is evident in CS2 in which small teams are used (e.g., ideally between 4 and 5 employees) and in which multidisciplinary profiles in the area of software engineering, web design, and home automation are integrated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adoption of Large-Scale Scrum Practices through the Use of Management 3.0

Almeida

Espinheira

2022

Informatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software engineering companies have progressively incorporated agile project management methodologies. Initially, this migration occurred mostly in the context of startups, but in recent years it has also sparked interest from other companies with larger and more geographically dispersed teams. One of the frameworks used for large-scale agile implementation is the LeSS framework. This study seeks to explore how Management 3.0 principles can be applied in the context of the ten practices proposed in the LeSS framework. To this end, a qualitative research methodology based on four case studies is used to identify and explore the role of Management 3.0 in software management and development processes that adopt this agile paradigm. The findings show that the principles of Management 3.0 are relevant to the implementation of the LeSS framework practices, especially in fostering team values and personal values; however, distinct principles between the two paradigms are also identified, namely the greater rigidity of processes advocated in the LeSS framework and a greater focus on process automation.

show abstract

“…Despite the fact that the agile approach suggests light and lean methods, it is inevitable that large projects and organizations will need to deal with high complexity [26]. Moreover, even the most qualified team needs to know which direction to create value for the customer in a scaled structure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study, we conducted an in-depth investigation to determine how to implement agile scaling practices in GSD projects. We followed [4], [7], [17], [19], [26], which showed SAFe as being the main framework used by GSD teams. Through this study, we highlighted that many SAFe practices are strongly related to agile principles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(1) Evidence gathered during this study indicates that there is a need for a more in-depth investigation into the implementation of agile scaling practices in GSD projects [8], [22], [24], [25]. (2) We found scientific and technical studies showing SAFe to be the main framework used by GSD teams [4], [7], [16], [17], [19], [26]. This paper aims at the appraisal of the consistency of the theory on the agile practices adopted in GSD (hereafter, referred to as "agile global software development -AGSD") and SAFe practices through an empirical study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Toward Unveiling How SAFe Framework Supports Agile in Global Software Development

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current research has shown that global software development (GSD) organizations rely on agile methods to guarantee better communication, coordination, and improved productivity. Moreover, as organizations continue to grow, they are facing large-scale global project challenges and complexity, leading to an urge to scale agile practices for better coordination. However, it has been surprising to find that approaches in the literature on scaling agile for large and global projects remain unclear. In addition, to identify and highlight which agile scales practices reported in studies on Agile GSD (AGSD) are related to SAFe practices, we conducted a systematic literature review. In addition, we mapped AGSD practices to the SAFe 5.0 framework to provide bases for those starting on such a journey. In our study, we found 24 articles related to the scaling of agile practices in a global environment, and 44 scaling agile practices that embrace 95 SAFe 5.0 components, including "agile coaching," "agile architecture," and "system demo". This study provides an in-depth scientific investigation on how SAFe can be associated with global teams applying GSD. The results and findings will benefit researchers and practitioners in conducting further research and provide more dedicated solutions for challenges to scaling agile in the context of GSD.

show abstract

Do scaling agile frameworks address global software development risks? An empirical study

Cited by 37 publications

References 33 publications

Do Scaling Agile Frameworks Address Global Software Development Risks? An Empirical Study

Do Scaling Agile Frameworks Address Global Software Development Risks? An Empirical Study

Adoption of Large-Scale Scrum Practices through the Use of Management 3.0

Toward Unveiling How SAFe Framework Supports Agile in Global Software Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About