survey and analysis of scaled agile frameworks for an agile … · ... product owner, scrum master,...
TRANSCRIPT
Chair of Software Engineering for Business Information Systems (sebis)
Faculty of Informatics
Technische Universität München
wwwmatthes.in.tum.de
Survey and Analysis of Scaling Agile Practices
for an Agile IT Organization Binnur Karabacak, Bachelor Thesis Final Presentation, 31.07.2017, Munich
Introduction
Motivation
Research questions
Research approach
Large scale agile
Related work
Comparison table
Scaled agile framework vs. Large scale scrum
Limitation and outlook
Agenda
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 2
Introduction
Motivation
Research questions
Research approach
Large scale agile
Related work
Comparison table
Scaled agile framework vs. Large scale scrum
Limitation and outlook
Agenda
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 3
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
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 4
Several scaling agile practices emerged to meet this challenge
Source: based on VersionOne 2017
Introduction
Motivation
Research questions
Research approach
Large scale agile
Related work
Comparison table
Scaled agile framework vs. Large scale scrum
Limitation and outlook
Agenda
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 5
Overview of relevant research questions
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 19
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?
Introduction
Motivation
Research questions
Research approach
Large scale agile
Related work
Comparison table
Scaled agile framework vs. Large scale scrum
Limitation and outlook
Agenda
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 7
Research Approach
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 8
RQ1
RQ2
RQ3
Scaled Agile
Frame-work
Agile Organi-zation
Scaled Agile
Scaled Agile
Organi-zation
Agile Frame-
work
Agile Software Enginee-
ring
1. SCOPE OF RESEARCH
Research questions on scaling agile practices
2. TOPIC CONZEPTUALIZATION
Concept map with relevant search terms
3. LITERATURE SEARCH
List of relevant sources
4. LITERATURE ANALYSIS
Analysis of comparisons of scaling agile practices
Source: based on Brocke 2009
5. RESEARCH OUTCOME
Differences and commonalities of SAFe and LeSS
Introduction
Motivation
Research questions
Research approach
Large scale agile
Related work
Comparison table
Scaled agile framework vs. Large scale scrum
Limitation and outlook
Agenda
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 9
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
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 10
Introduction
Motivation
Research questions
Research approach
Large scale agile
Related work
Comparison table
Scaled agile framework vs. Large scale scrum
Limitation and outlook
Agenda
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 11
Comparison criteria of different sources
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 12
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
Pant (2016) compares SAFe, LeSS and DAD based on:
• Description
• Portfolio
• Program structure
• Inter-team coordination
• Team level
• Tech practices
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
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
Comparison Template
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 13
Characteristic Scaled Agile Framework Large Scale Scrum
Descriptive Information
Abbreviation
Short description
Methodologist
Organization
Publication date
Category
Website
Adoption
Number of
academic
contribution
Number of stated
cases
Documentation
Availability of
training courses and
certifications
Availability of a
community/blog/
forum
Scope
Scope level
Foundational
practices
and methods
Approach for
Software
Development
Iteration time period
Team size
Roles
Events
Artifacts
Concepts
Introduction
Motivation
Research questions
Research approach
Large scale agile
Related work
Comparison table
Scaled agile framework vs. Large scale scrum
Limitation and outlook
Agenda
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 14
Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe)
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 15 Source: based on SAFe 2016
Large Scale Scrum (LeSS)
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 16
Source: based on LeSS
Comparison of SAFe and LeSS
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 17
Characteristic Scaled Agile Framework Large Scale Scrum
Descriptive
Information
Abbreviation SAFe LeSS
Short description
SAFe is a knowledge base of
proven patterns for implementing
lean and agile software
development and system
development at enterprise scale
LeSS is one-team Scrum applied
to many teams who are working
together on one product
Methodologist Dean Leffingwell Craig Larman,
Bass Vodde
Organization Scaled Agile Inc. LeSS Company B.V.
Publication date 2011 2008
Category Framework Framework
Website www.scaledagileframework.com www.less.works
Adoption
Scope
Source: based on SAFe 2016, LeSS
Comparison of SAFe and LeSS
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 18
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
Descriptive Information
Adoption
Scope
Characteristic Scaled Agile Framework Large Scale Scrum
Descriptive Information
Adoption
Number of
academic
contribution
35 29
Number of stated
cases 38 23
Documentation Homepage, Books, Whitepaper Homepage, Books
Availability of
training courses and
certifications
yes yes
Availability of a
community/blog/
forum
yes yes
Scope
Source: based on Uludağ, SAFe 2016, LeSS
Comparison of SAFe and LeSS
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 19
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
Descriptive Information
Adoption
Scope
Characteristic Scaled Agile Framework Large Scale Scrum
Descriptive
Information
Adoption
Scope
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
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
Comparison of SAFe and LeSS
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 20
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
Descriptive Information
Adoption
Scope
Scope
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
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
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
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 21
Main findings
SAFe and LeSS have partially the same artifacts, events, and roles, but may
have different names
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 22
Source: based on Kaczmarek 2016
SAFe LeSS
artifacts
working software increment product increment
team backlog program backlog value stream backlog portfolio backlog
product backlog
events
iteration sprint
iteration planning sprint planning
team demo sprint review
roles agile team member feature team
agile team scrum team
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
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 23
Discussion
24
Thank you for your attention!
Do you have any questions?
Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation © sebis
Sources
[1] VersionOne Inc. (2017). the 11th annual State of Agile Report. accessed: 2017-07-27.
[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.
2206–2217.
[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), 828-837.
[4] Dolman, R.; Spearman, S. (2014). Links. Retrieved from Agile Scaling: http://www.agilescaling.org/links.html. accessed: 2017-07-27.
[5] A. Pant, “Agile methodology: Implementing the best scaled agile framework for faster and better business results,” Tavant Technologies, Tech. Rep., 2016.
[6] S. V. D. Z. Mike West, Nathan Wilson, “Market guide for enterprise agile frameworks,” Gartner, Tech. Rep., 06 2016.
[7] Kapadia, M.: Introduction to Enterprise Agile Frameworks, Salt Lake City, Utah 2014.
[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 2017.
[9] “Safe® 4.0 for lean software and systems engineering”, http://scaledagileframework.com/, accessed: 2017-07-27.
[10] LeSS Framework, https://less.works/ , accessed: 2017-07-27.
[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
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 25
Backup: The evolution of scaled agile frameworks
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 26
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
Comparison
Template
Backup: Creation of the comparison table
Gathering of existing
comparison criteria
Elimination of duplicates and
subjective crtieria
Categorization of the final
criteria
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 27
Literature
Research
Backup: Definition of artifacts, events and roles of LeSS
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 28
Artifact
Product Increment output of every sprint
Product Backlog defines all of the work to be done on the product
Sprint Backlog work that the team will need to do for completing the selected Product Backlog Items
Event
Sprint in each sprint, a potentially shippable product increment results; duration: 2-4 weeks
Sprint Planning one all of the teams come together and decide which team will work on which items
Sprint Planning two separate meeting per team where each team creates the plan for getting the items to ‘done’ during the Sprint
Daily Scrum
daily meeting per team, during which each team member tells, what he did yesterday, what he will work on today, and possible impediments
Sprint Review
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
Sprint Retrospective
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 discussion of cross-team, organizational, and systemic problems within the organization
Roles
Scrum master responsible for one up to three teams
product owner
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
development team Source: based on LeSS
Backup: Definition of artifacts, events and roles of SAFe
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 29
Role
Team Level
Scrum Master
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
Product Owner
content authority for the team level; responsible for the team backlog, prioritizing and accepting stories, and representing the customer to the Agile team
Agile Team member
Program level
Release Train Engineer
coach for the ART; facilitate the major events and processes, and assist the teams in delivering value
System architect/engineer
represents an individual or small team that defines a common technical and architectural vision for the Solution under development
Product Management
authority for the Program Backlog; responsible for identifying customer needs, prioritizing features and developing the program Vision and Roadmap
Business Owner
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
Source: based on SAFe 2016
Backup: Definition of artifacts, events and roles of SAFe
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 30 Source: based on SAFe 2016
Role
Value stream level
Value stream engineer similar role as RTE; facilitatin and guiding the work of all ARTs and suppliers
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
Solution architect/engineer help align the Solution Train and the Agile Release Train to a common technological and architectural vision
Portfolio level
Program Portfolio Management highest decision making responsibility;
Enterprise architect fosters adaptive design and engineering practices, and drives strategic architectural initiatives for a SAFe Portfolio
Epic owner responsible for coordinating portfolio epics through the Portfolio Kanban system
Backup: Definition of artifacts, events and roles of SAFe
Event
Team level
Iteration
Iteration Planning
all team members determine how much of the team backlog they can commit to delivering during an upcoming iteration
Iteration execution
Team demo team reviews the increment that results from the iteration
Iteration retrospective team member discuss their practices and identify ways to improve
Program level
Innovation and planning iteration
estimating buffer for meeting PI objectives, as well as providing dedicated time for innovation, continuing education, and PI planning and Inspect and Adapt (I&A) events
System Demo
demonstration of the subject system being built by the ART; test and evaluate the full system that the Agile Release Train is working on and to get feedback from the primary stakeholders
Inspect and adapt
held at the end of each Program Increment (PI), where the current state of the Solution is demonstrated and evaluated
Program Increment Planning
a routine, face-to-face event with a standardized agenda that includes presentation of business context and Vision, followed by team planning breakouts wherein the teams create the plans for the upcoming Program Increment
Value stream level
Solution demo
results of development efforts from the Solution Train are made visible to customers and other stakeholders
Pre- and post- PI Planning
for multiple ART; supports and coordinates the ARTs involved in the value stream; build a plan for the next PI
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 31 Source: based on SAFe 2016
Backup: Definition of artifacts, events and roles of SAFe
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 32
Artifact
Team level Team 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
Program level & Value Stream level
Program Backlog and Value stream backlog
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
Portfolio level Portfolio backlog
highest-level backlog in SAFe; provides a holding mechanism for the upcoming Business and Enabler Epics intended to create a comprehensive portfolio solution set
Architectural runway
consists of the existing code, components and technical infrastructure necessary to support implementation of prioritized, near-term features, without excessive redesign and delay
Solution Context
identifies critical aspects of the operational environment of a solution; essential understanding of requirements
Solution intent
critical knowledge; basic understanding of the current and evolving requirements
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
© sebis Binnur Karabacak - BT Final Presentation 33