Abstract
Quality Requirements (QRs) pose challenges in many agile large-scale distributed projects. Often, project organizations counter these challenges by borrowing some heavyweight practices, e.g. adding more documentation. At the same time, agile methodologists proposed a few scaled agile frameworks to specifically serve agile organizations working on large and distributed systems. Little is known about the extent to which these proposals address QRs and the specific ways in which this happens. Moreover, evidence regarding the practical implementation of these frameworks with respect to QRs is scarce. Our paper makes a step towards narrowing this gap of knowledge. Using an exploratory research process, we analyze one well-documented framework, namely the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe). We first analyzed the elements of SAFe as they were described in the methodological book of SAFe to identify the possible remedies to the QRs challenges reported in previous work. We then conducted a qualitative interview-based study to understand the practices that SAFe practitioners actually use to mitigate those QRs challenges. Our documentary analysis of SAFe resulted in identifying 25 SAFe elements that could (at least partially) mitigate one or more of the reported QRs challenges. Nine of those SAFe elements were reported in our interview-based study by SAFe practitioners as remedy for some of the reported QRs challenges. While practitioners attempted to use the recommended SAFe strategies for QRs, they often changed them in their own ways, or altogether resorted to heavyweight practices that the case study organizations knew from previously done non-SAFe projects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
References
Smart, J.: To transform to have agility, don’t do a capital A, capital T agile transformation. IEEE Softw. 35, 56–60 (2018)
Conboy, K., Carroll, N.: Implementing large-scale agile frameworks: challenges and recommendations. IEEE Softw. 36, 1–9 (2019)
Kalenda, M., et al.: Scaling agile in large organizations: practices, challenges, and success factors. J. Softw. Evol. Process 30, e1954 (2018)
Bick, S., et al.: Coordination challenges in large-scale software development: a case study of planning misalignment in hybrid settings. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 44, 932–950 (2018)
Richard, K., Leffingwell, D.: SAFe 5.0 Distilled Achieving Business Agility with the Scaled Agile Framework, 1st edn. Pearson Education, London (2020)
Larman, C., Vodde, B.: Large-Scale Scrum more with Less. Pearson Education, London (2016)
Sutherland, J.: The Scrum@Scale guide - the definitive guide to Scrum@Scale: scaling that works. In: Scrum@Scale, pp. 1–19 (2019). https://www.scrumatscale.com/scrum-at-scale-guide/
Paasivaara, M., et al.: Adopting SAFe to scale agile in a globally distributed organization. In: ICGSE 2017, pp. 36–40 (2017)
Alsaqaf, W., et al.: Quality requirements challenges in the context of large-scale distributed agile: an empirical study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 110, 39–55 (2019)
COLLAB.NET and VERSIONONE.COM: 14th Annual State of Agile Report. VersionOne (2020). https://stateofagile.com/?_ga=2.145189495.276092471.1591726593-1008038165.1591726593#ufh-i-615706098-14th-annual-state-of-agile-report/7027494
Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J.: The scrum guide. Scrum.Org and ScrumInc, p. 19 (2017)
Appleton, J.V., Cowley, S.: Analysing clinical practice guidelines. A method of documentary analysis. J. Adv. Nurs. 25, 1008–1017 (1997)
Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research Design and Methods. 5th Revise. Sage Publications Inc. (2013)
Alsaqaf, W., Daneva, M., Wieringa, R.: Quality requirements in large-scale distributed agile projects – a systematic literature review. In: Grünbacher, P., Perini, A. (eds.) REFSQ 2017. LNCS, vol. 10153, pp. 219–234. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54045-0_17
Kasauli, R., et al.: Requirements engineering challenges and practices in large-scale agile system development. J. Syst. Softw. 172, 110851 (2021)
Moyon, F., et al.: How to integrate security compliance requirements with agile software engineering at scale? In: Morisio, M., Torchiano, M., Jedlitschka, A. (eds.) PROFES 2020. LNCS, vol. 12562, pp. 69–87. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64148-1_5
Beecham, S., et al.: Do scaling agile frameworks address global software development risks? An empirical study. J. Syst. Softw. 173, 110823 (2021)
Ambler, S.W., Lines, M.: Disciplined Agile Delivery: A Practitioner’s Guide to Agile Software Delivery in the Enterprise. IBM Press (2012)
Wagner, T.J., Ford, T.C.: Metrics to meet security & privacy requirements with agile software development methods in a regulated environment (2021)
Portman, H.: Scaling Agile in Organisaties. Van Haren Publ. (2017)
Kniberg, H., Ivarsson, A.: Scaling agile @ spotify - with tribes, squads, chapters & guilds (2012)
Hitchcock, D.: The practice of argumentative discussion. Argumentation 16, 287–298 (2002)
Conklin, J.: Dialog mapping: reflections on an industrial strength case study. In: Kirschner, P.A. et al. (eds.) Visualizing Argumentation. CSCW, pp. 117–136. Springer, London (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0037-9_6
Boyce, C., Neale, P.: Conducting in-depth interviews: a guide for designing and conducting in-depth interviews. Evaluation 2,1–16 (2006)
Benbasat, I., et al.: The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Q. 369–386 (1987). https://www.jstor.org/stable/248684?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Charmaz, K.: Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage (2006)
Kassab, M., et al.: An ontology based approach to non-functional requirements conceptualization. In: 4th International Conference on Software Engineering Advances, ICSEA 2009, pp. 299–308 (2009)
Mart, S., et al.: Dealing with non-functional requirements in model-driven development : a survey. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 45(4), 818–835 (2021)
Putta, A., Paasivaara, M., Lassenius, C.: Benefits and challenges of adopting the scaled agile framework (SAFe): preliminary results from a multivocal literature review. In: Kuhrmann, M., et al. (eds.) PROFES 2018. LNCS, vol. 11271, pp. 334–351. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03673-7_24
Ebert, C., Paasivaara, M.: Scaling agile. IEEE Softw. 34, 98–103 (2017)
Seddon, P., Scheepers, R.: Towards the improved treatment of generalization of knowledge claims in IS research: drawing general conclusions from samples. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 21, 6–21 (2011)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Alsaqaf, W., Daneva, M., Anish, P.R., Wieringa, R. (2021). Analyzing SAFe Practices with Respect to Quality Requirements: Findings from a Qualitative Study. In: Ardito, L., Jedlitschka, A., Morisio, M., Torchiano, M. (eds) Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13126. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91452-3_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91452-3_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-91451-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-91452-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)