Placing Agile in a Safety Context

  • Geir Kjetil Hanssen
  • Tor Stålhane
  • Thor Myklebust


What This Chapter Is About
  • We explain the important ideas in SafeScrum ® —separation of concern and the relevant parts of the V-model.

  • We present the overall SafeScrum ® process—Scrum plus the needed add-ons.

  • First we discuss important issues such as prioritizing activities, issues related to the development of safety-critical software.

  • Then we discuss issues related to safety culture, IEC 61508:2010 information items and how to prepare for SafeScrum®.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    The Business Dictionary. 2017 [cited 2017]; Available from:
  2. 2.
    Bentley, C. (2010). Prince2: A practical handbook. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bjerke-Gulstuen, K., Larsen, E.W., Stålhane, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2015) High level test driven development – Shift left. In C. Lassenius, T. Dingsøyr, & M. Paasivaara (Eds.), Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming: 16th International Conference, XP 2015, Helsinki, Finland, May 25–29, 2015, Proceedings. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 239–247, 978-3-319-18612-2.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bukowski, J. V. & Chastain-Knight, D. (2016) Assessing safety culture via the site safety index (TM). In Proceedings of AIChE 12th Global Congress on Process Safety. Houston, TX: Exida.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cooper, R. G. (2011). Winning at new products: Creating value through innovation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daniels, J. (2003). Modelling in an agile world. Fastnloose ltd, p. 15,
  7. 7.
    Friedrichsen, U. (2016). Resilience reloaded – More resilience patterns.
  8. 8.
    Grote, G., & Künzler, C. (2000). Diagnosis of safety culture in safety management audits. Safety Science, 34(1), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henry, S., & Kafura, D. (1981). Software structure metrics based on information flow. IEEE transactions on Software Engineering, 5, 510–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kazman, R., Klein, M., & Clements, P. (2001). Evaluating software architectures-methods and case studies. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laukkarinen, T., Kuusinen, K., & Mikkonen, T. (2018). Regulated software meets DevOps. Information and Software Technology, 97, 176–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McCabe, T. J. (1976). A complexity measure. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 4, 308–320.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moe, N. B., Aurum, A., & Dybå, T. (2012). Challenges of shared decision-making: A multiple case study of agile software development. Information and Software Technology, 54(8), 853–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Needle, D. (2010). Business in context: An introduction to business and its environment. Andover: Cengage Learning EMEA.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pender, T. (2003). UML bible. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shannon. (2014). 4 Reasons Why UML is Agile (or Could Be), in GenMyModel.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sommer, A. F., Hedegaard, C., Dukovska-Popovska, I., & Steger-Jensen, K. (2015). Improved product development performance through agile/stage-gate hybrids: The next-generation stage-gate process? Research Technology Management, 58(1), 34–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geir Kjetil Hanssen
    • 1
  • Tor Stålhane
    • 2
  • Thor Myklebust
    • 1
  1. 1.Software Engineering, Safety and SecuritySINTEF DigitalTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.NTNUTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations