Survey and Analysis of Scaling Agile Practices for an Agile IT Organization

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Survey and Analysis of Scaling Agile Practices for an Agile IT Organization"

Clifton Henry
6 years ago
Views:

Survey and Analysis of Scaling Agile Practices for an Agile IT Organization Binnur Karabacak, Bachelor Thesis Final Presentation, 31.07.

1 Survey and Analysis of Scaling Agile Practices for an Agile IT Organization Binnur Karabacak, Bachelor Thesis Final Presentation, , Munich Chair of Software Engineering for Business Information Systems (sebis) Faculty of Informatics Technische Universität München wwwmatthes.in.tum.de

2 Agenda Introduction Motivation Research questions Research approach Large scale agile Related work Comparison table Scaled agile framework vs. Large scale scrum Limitation and outlook Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 2

3 Agenda Introduction Motivation Research questions Research approach Large scale agile Related work Comparison table Scaled agile framework vs. Large scale scrum Limitation and outlook Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 3

4 Motivation Compared to traditional software, organizations have to deliver software much faster and better tolerate changing requirements agile software development as an alternative to traditional methods 94% are practicing agile software development 98% realized success from agile projects Benefits of agile software development: ability to manage changing priorities better project visibility improved team productivity Organizations face their next challenge in scaling agile practices across the IT organization Several scaling agile practices emerged to meet this challenge Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 4 Source: based on VersionOne 2017

5 Agenda Introduction Motivation Research questions Research approach Large scale agile Related work Comparison table Scaled agile framework vs. Large scale scrum Limitation and outlook Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 5

6 Overview of relevant research questions Research question 1 (RQ1): Which scaling agile practices exist? Research question 2 (RQ2): How can scaling agile practices be compared? Research question 3 (RQ3): What are the commonalities and differences between the Scaled Agile Framework and Large Scale Scrum? Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 19

7 Agenda Introduction Motivation Research questions Research approach Large scale agile Related work Comparison table Scaled agile framework vs. Large scale scrum Limitation and outlook Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 7

8 Research Approach 2. TOPIC CONZEPTUALIZATION Concept map with relevant search terms Agile Organization 3. LITERATURE SEARCH List of relevant sources RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 Agile Software Engineering Scaled Agile Framework Scaled Agile 1. SCOPE OF RESEARCH Research questions on scaling agile practices Agile Framework Scaled Agile Organization 4. LITERATURE ANALYSIS Analysis of comparisons of scaling agile practices 5. RESEARCH OUTCOME Differences and commonalities of SAFe and LeSS Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation Source: based on Brocke 2009 sebis 8

9 Agenda Introduction Motivation Research questions Research approach Large scale agile Related work Comparison table Scaled agile framework vs. Large scale scrum Limitation and outlook Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 9

10 Related Work Alqudah et al. (2106): Comparison of scaling agile practices SAFe, LeSS, DA 2.0, RAGE, Nexus, and Spotify were considered to be scaling agile methods at large organizations roles and practices of each is described practices are compared based on some criteria results are summarized, and the advantages of each practice are shown Uludağ et al. (2017): Roles of architects in scaling agile practices Identified 20 scaling agile practices and described the three most popular scaling agile practices, namely the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe), Large Scale Scrum (LeSS), and Disciplined Agile 2.0 (DA 2.0) the roles of enterprise, software, solution, business, information, and integration architects, as identified in six different scaling agile practices, are characterized Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 10

11 Agenda Introduction Motivation Research questions Research approach Large scale agile Related work Comparison table Scaled agile framework vs. Large scale scrum Limitation and outlook Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 11

12 Comparison criteria of different sources Dolman et al. (2014) compares SoS, LeSS, SAFe, DAD, Spotify, DSDM, RAGE, Nexus and Scrum at Scale based on: Description Web Link Popularity/Adoption Portfolio Program structure Inter-team coordination Team level Tech practices Completeness of coverage Availability of Details & Support What Team level frameworks are supported Emphasizes more Central control or distributed, Scale / Target size, Used typically by what Organization Types Focal point Software centric how often used outside of SW or IT Big Positives / Key Differentiatiators Key Risks / Concerns Training Kapadia (2014) compares SAFe, LeSS and DAD based on: Style Building block Distinctive events Books Websites Distinctive roles Certifications Foundation Alqudah (2016) compares SAFe, LeSS,DAD, Spotify, Nexus and RAGE based on: Team size Trainings and certificates Technical Practices required Roles Organization type Methods and practices adopted Pant (2016) compares SAFe, LeSS and DAD based on: Description Portfolio Program structure Inter-team coordination Team level Tech practices West (2016) compares AgilePath, Continuous Agile, DSDM, SAFe, LeSS,DAD, Spotify, Nexus, Fast Agile, ScALeD, Scrum at Scale, XSCALE and RAGE based on: Enterprise-Targeted Web-Scale-Targeted Source of Practices Published Case Studies Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 12

13 Comparison Template Descriptive Information Adoption Characteristic Scaled Agile Framework Large Scale Scrum Abbreviation Short description Methodologist Organization Publication date Category Website Number of academic contribution Number of stated cases Documentation Availability of training courses and certifications Scope Availability of a community/blog/ forum Scope level Foundational practices and methods Approach for Software Development Iteration time period Team size Roles Events Artifacts Concepts Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 13

14 Agenda Introduction Motivation Research questions Research approach Large scale agile Related work Comparison table Scaled agile framework vs. Large scale scrum Limitation and outlook Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 14

15 Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 15 Source: based on SAFe 2016

16 Large Scale Scrum (LeSS) Source: based on LeSS Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 16

Comparison of SAFe and LeSS Characteristic Scaled Agile Framework Large Scale Scrum Abbreviation SAFe LeSS Descriptive Information Short description Methodologist SAFe is a knowledge base of proven

17 Comparison of SAFe and LeSS Characteristic Scaled Agile Framework Large Scale Scrum Abbreviation SAFe LeSS Descriptive Information Short description Methodologist SAFe is a knowledge base of proven patterns for implementing lean and agile software development and system development at enterprise scale Dean Leffingwell LeSS is one-team Scrum applied to many teams who are working together on one product Craig Larman, Bass Vodde Organization Scaled Agile Inc. LeSS Company B.V. Publication date Category Framework Framework Adoption Scope Website Source: based on SAFe 2016, LeSS Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 17

18 Descriptive Information Adoption Scope Characteristic Scaled Agile Framework Large Scale Scrum Abbreviation Short description Creator Organization Publication date Category Category Website Presence in academic contributions Number of academic contribution Presence in stated cases Number of stated cases Documentation Training courses and Certifications Community/Blog/ Forum Scope level Foundational practices and methods Roles Events Team size Approach for Software Development Iteration time period Artifacts Concepts Comparison of SAFe and LeSS Characteristic Scaled Agile Framework Large Scale Scrum Descriptive Information Number of academic contribution Number of stated cases Documentation Homepage, Books, Whitepaper Homepage, Books Adoption Availability of training courses and yes certifications yes Availability of a community/blog/ forum yes yes Scope Source: based on Uludağ, SAFe 2016, LeSS Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 18

19 Descriptive Information Adoption Scope Characteristic Scaled Agile Framework Large Scale Scrum Abbreviation Short description Creator Organization Publication date Category Category Website Presence in academic contributions Number of academic contribution Presence in stated cases Number of stated cases Documentation Training courses and Certifications Community/Blog/ Forum Scope level Foundational practices and methods Roles Events Team size Approach for Software Development Iteration time period Artifacts Concepts Comparison of SAFe and LeSS Descriptive Information Characteristic Scaled Agile Framework Large Scale Scrum Adoption Scope level All levels All levels Foundational practices and methods practices: lean product development and flow, system thinking, agile development methods: Scrum, XP, Kanban practices: lean thinking, system thinking, agile development methods: Scrum Scope Approach for Software Development iterative iterative Iteration time period recommended as 2 weeks, but can last from one to four weeks 2-4 weeks team size Release Train: 5-12 agile teams Agile Team: 5-9 agile team members Small LeSS: 2-8 team, with up to 8 team members LeSS Huge: more than 8 teams with up to a few thousand people Source: based on SAFe 2016, LeSS Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 19

20 Descriptive Information Adoption Scope Characteristic Scaled Agile Framework Large Scale Scrum Abbreviation Short description Creator Organization Publication date Category Category Website Presence in academic contributions Number of academic contribution Presence in stated cases Number of stated cases Documentation Training courses and Certifications Community/Blog/ Forum Scope level Foundational practices and methods Roles Events Team size Approach for Software Development Iteration time period Artifacts Concepts Comparison of SAFe and LeSS Roles Team level: Product Owner, Scrum Master, Agile Team members Program level: Product Manager, Release Train Engineer, System architect, Business Owner, Stakeholder Value Stream level: Value Stream Engineer, Solution manager, Solution architect Portfolio level: Epic Owner, Enterprise Architect Small LeSS: Product Owner, Scrum Master, Development team LeSS Huge: Product Owner, Scrum Master, Development team, Area Product Owner Scope Events Iteration Planning, Program Increment (PI) Planning, daily Stand-Up, Iteration Retrospective, System Demo, Inspect and Adapt, Iteration Review, Pre- and Post-PI Planning, Solution Demo Sprint, Sprint Planning (One and Two), Daily Scrum, Sprint Review, Sprint Retrospective, overall retrospective meeting Artifacts Team Backlog, Portfolio Backlog, Program and Value Stream Backlog Small LeSS: product increment, Product Backlog, Sprint Backlog, LeSS Huge: Area Product Backlog Concepts Program Increment, Agile Release Train, Value Streams, Architecture Runway, Spanning Palette Requirement Area Source: based on SAFe 2016, LeSS Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 20

21 Main findings Both frameworks try to address practices beyond the team level SAFe offers a more governance oriented and prescriptive framework with clear roles and responsibilities than LeSS Small LeSS and the 3-level-view of SAFe are both designed for small agile teams, whereas LeSS Huge and the 4-level-view in SAFe support building large solutions that typically require hundreds or more people to build and maintain SAFe assumes an intentional and emergent architecture and covers the roles of architects; LeSS assumes an emergent architecture, but does not cover the roles of architects Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 21

22 Main findings SAFe and LeSS have partially the same artifacts, events, and roles, but may have different names SAFe working software increment LeSS product increment artifacts team backlog program backlog value stream backlog portfolio backlog product backlog events iteration iteration planning team demo sprint sprint planning sprint review roles agile team member agile team feature team scrum team Source: based on Kaczmarek 2016 Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 22

23 Limitations and Outlook Only two scaling agile practices were compared Comparison of other scaling agile practices in future Recently, SAFe 4.5 was released, but SAFe 4.0 is described and compared with LeSS Interviews with organizations about how they use scaling agile practices Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 23

24 Discussion Thank you for your attention! Do you have any questions? Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 24

25 Sources [1] VersionOne Inc. (2017). the 11 th annual State of Agile Report. accessed: [2] J. Vom Brocke, A. Simons, B. Niehaves, K. Riemer, R. Plattfaut, and A. Cleven. (2009), Reconstructing the giant: On the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process, in ECIS, vol. 9, pp [3] Alqudah, M.; Razali, R. (2016). A Review of Scaling Agile Methods in Large Software Development. International Journal on Advanced Science Engineering Information Technology, 6 (6), [4] Dolman, R.; Spearman, S. (2014). Links. Retrieved from Agile Scaling: accessed: [5] A. Pant, Agile methodology: Implementing the best scaled agile framework for faster and better business results, Tavant Technologies, Tech. Rep., [6] S. V. D. Z. Mike West, Nathan Wilson, Market guide for enterprise agile frameworks, Gartner, Tech. Rep., [7] Kapadia, M.: Introduction to Enterprise Agile Frameworks, Salt Lake City, Utah [8] Uludağ, Ö.; Kleehaus, M.; Xu, X.; Matthes, F.: Investigating the Role of Architects in Scaled Agile Frameworks, 21th Conference on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing (EDOC), Québec City, Canada [9] Safe 4.0 for lean software and systems engineering, accessed: [10] LeSS Framework, accessed: [11] Kaczmarek, C. (2016). Organisation in einer Digitalen Zeit: Ein Buch für die Gestaltung von reaktionsfähigen und schlanken Organisationen mit Hilfe von skalierten Agile & Lean Mustern. Darmstadt: Wibas GmbH Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 25

26 Backup: The evolution of scaled agile frameworks Framework Type Publication year Crystal Family Set of methods 1992 Dynamic Systems Development Method Agile Project Framework for Scrum Framework 1994 Scrum-of-Scrums Mechanism 2001 Enterprise Scrum Framework 2002 Agile Software Solution Framework Framework 2007 Large Scale Scrum Framework 2008 Scaled Agile Framework Framework 2011 Disciplined Agile 2.0 Framework 2012 Spotify Model Model 2012 Mega Framework Framework 2012 Enterprise Agile Delivery and Agile Governance Practice Set of practices 2012 Recipes for Agile Governance in the Enterprise Framework 2013 Continuous Agile Framework Framework 2014 Scrum at Scale Framework 2014 Enterprise Transition Framework Framework 2014 ScALeD Agile Lean Development Set of principles 2014 exponential Simple Continuous Autonomous Learning Ecosystem Set of principles 2014 Lean Enterprise Agile Framework Framework 2015 Nexus Framework 2015 FAST Agile Set of methods 2015 Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 26

27 Backup: Creation of the comparison table Literature Research Comparison Template Gathering of existing comparison criteria Elimination of duplicates and subjective crtieria Categorization of the final criteria Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 27

28 Backup: Definition of artifacts, events and roles of LeSS Artifact Product Increment Product Backlog Sprint Backlog Sprint Sprint Planning one Sprint Planning two output of every sprint defines all of the work to be done on the product work that the team will need to do for completing the selected Product Backlog Items in each sprint, a potentially shippable product increment results; duration: 2-4 weeks all of the teams come together and decide which team will work on which items separate meeting per team where each team creates the plan for getting the items to done during the Sprint Event Daily Scrum Sprint Review Sprint Retrospective daily meeting per team, during which each team member tells, what he did yesterday, what he will work on today, and possible impediments inspect-adapt point at the end of the Sprint; customers and stakeholders examine what the teams built during the Sprint and discuss changes and new ideas at the end of the sprint; each team has ist own retrospective; create a plan for improvements to be enacted during the next Sprint Overall retrospective Scrum master discussion of cross-team, organizational, and systemic problems within the organization responsible for one up to three teams Roles product owner development team one product owner for all teams; responsible for maximizing the value of the product and the work of the Development Team; at scale the focus is rather on keeping an overview and ensuring the maximum return on investment (ROI) in the product Source: based on LeSS Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 28

29 Backup: Definition of artifacts, events and roles of SAFe Role Team Level Program level Scrum Master Product Owner Agile Team member Release Train Engineer System architect/engineer Product Management Business Owner servant leaders and coaches for an Agile team; help educate the team in Scrum, extreme Programming, Kanban and SAFe, ensuring that the agreed Agile process is being followed content authority for the team level; responsible for the team backlog, prioritizing and accepting stories, and representing the customer to the Agile team coach for the ART; facilitate the major events and processes, and assist the teams in delivering value represents an individual or small team that defines a common technical and architectural vision for the Solution under development authority for the Program Backlog; responsible for identifying customer needs, prioritizing features and developing the program Vision and Roadmap small group of stakeholders who have the primary business and technical responsibility for governance, compliance, and Return on Investment for a Solution developed by an Agile Release Train Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 29 Source: based on SAFe 2016

30 Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 30 Source: based on SAFe 2016 Backup: Definition of artifacts, events and roles of SAFe Value stream engineer similar role as RTE; facilitatin and guiding the work of all ARTs and suppliers Value stream level Solution management content authority for the Solution Backlog; work with Customers to understand their needs, create the Solution vision and Roadmap, define requirements, and guide work through the Solution Kanban Role Solution architect/engineer Program Portfolio Management help align the Solution Train and the Agile Release Train to a common technological and architectural vision highest decision making responsibility; Portfolio level Enterprise architect Epic owner fosters adaptive design and engineering practices, and drives strategic architectural initiatives for a SAFe Portfolio responsible for coordinating portfolio epics through the Portfolio Kanban system

31 Backup: Definition of artifacts, events and roles of SAFe Event Team level Program level Value stream level Iteration all team members determine how much of the team backlog they Iteration Planning can commit to delivering during an upcoming iteration Iteration execution team reviews the increment that Team demo results from the iteration team member discuss their Iteration retrospective practices and identify ways to improve estimating buffer for meeting PI objectives, as well as providing dedicated time for innovation, Innovation and planning iteration continuing education, and PI planning and Inspect and Adapt (I&A) events demonstration of the subject system being built by the ART; test and evaluate the full system System Demo that the Agile Release Train is working on and to get feedback from the primary stakeholders held at the end of each Program Increment (PI), where the current Inspect and adapt state of the Solution is demonstrated and evaluated a routine, face-to-face event with a standardized agenda that includes presentation of business Program Increment Planning context and Vision, followed by team planning breakouts wherein the teams create the plans for the upcoming Program Increment results of development efforts from the Solution Train are made Solution demo visible to customers and other stakeholders for multiple ART; supports and coordinates the ARTs involved in Pre- and post- PI Planning the value stream; build a plan for the next PI sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 31 Source: based on SAFe 2016

32 Backup: Definition of artifacts, events and roles of SAFe Artifact Architectural runway Solution Context Solution intent Team level Program level & Value Stream level Portfolio level consists of the existing code, components and technical infrastructure necessary to support implementation of prioritized, near-term features, without excessive redesign and delay identifies critical aspects of the operational environment of a solution; essential understanding of requirements critical knowledge; basic understanding of the current and evolving requirements Team Backlog Program Backlog and Value stream backlog Portfolio backlog contains user and enabler stories that originate from the program backlog, as well as stories that arise locally from the team s specific context prioritized list of Features that have been analyzed and are intended to address user needs and deliver business benefits for a single Agile Release Train highest-level backlog in SAFe; provides a holding mechanism for the upcoming Business and Enabler Epics intended to create a comprehensive portfolio solution set Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 32

33 Backup: further related work Turetken (2016): Development of a maturity model lack of a well-structured gradual approach for establishing SAFe before and during SAFe adoption, organizations can benefit from a uniform model for assessing the current progress and create a roadmap for the initiative To address this need, a maturity model that provides guidance for software development organizations in defining a roadmap for adopting SAFe is developed Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation sebis 33

SAFe 4.0 Glossary. Scaled Agile Framework Terms and Definitions. English. VERSION 4.0.

SAFe 4.0 Glossary. Scaled Agile Framework Terms and Definitions. English. VERSION 4.0. SAFe 4.0 Glossary Scaled Agile Framework Terms and Definitions English TEAM PROGRAM VALUE STREAM PORTFOLIO PROVIDED BY www.scaledagileframework.com www.scaledagile.com VERSION 4.0.2 2017 Scaled Agile,