Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transition from Plan Driven to SAFe®: Periodic Team Self-Assessment

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 10611))

Abstract

Context: How to adopt, scale and tailor agile methods depends on several factors such as the size of the organization, business goals, operative model, and needs. The Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe®) was developed to support organizations to scale agile practices across the enterprise.

Problem: Early adopters of SAFe® tend to be large multi-national enterprises who report that the adoption of SAFe® has led to significant productivity and quality gains. However, little is known about whether these benefits translate to small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs).

Method: As part of a longitudinal study of an SME transitioning to SAFe we ask, to what extent are SAFe® practices adopted at the team level? We targeted all team members and administrated a mixed method survey in February, 2017 and in July, 2017 to identify and evaluate the adoption rate of SAFe® practices.

Results: Initially in Quarter 1, teams were struggling with PI/Release health and Technical health throughout the organization as most of the teams were transitioning from plan-driven to SAFe®. But, during the transition period in Quarter 3, we observed discernible improvements in different areas of SAFe practice adoption.

Conclusion: The observed improvement might be due to teams merely becoming more familiar with the practices over-time. However, management had also made some structural changes to the teams that may account for the change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.agilescaling.org/home.html.

  2. 2.

    https://www.agilealliance.org/glossary/scrum-of-scrums/.

  3. 3.

    https://less.works.

  4. 4.

    http://www.scaledagileframework.com.

  5. 5.

    http://www.disciplinedagiledelivery.com.

  6. 6.

    http://blog.crisp.se/2012/11/14/henrikkniberg/scaling-agile-at-spotify.

  7. 7.

    https://www.scrum.org/resources/nexus-guide.

  8. 8.

    https://www.scruminc.com/scrum-scale-case-modularity/.

  9. 9.

    http://www.scaledagileframework.com/metrics/#T4.

  10. 10.

    A list of criteria which must be met before a product increment “often a user story” is considered “done”.

References

  1. Kuhrmann, M., Fernández, D.M.: Systematic software development: a state of the practice report from Germany. In: 2015 IEEE 10th International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE), pp. 51–60. IEEE (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Abrahamsson, P., Conboy, K., Wang, X.: “Lots done, more to do”: the current state of agile systems development research (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Maples, C.: Enterprise agile transformation: the two-year wall. In: Agile Conference, AGILE 2009, pp. 90–95. IEEE (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Turk, D., France, R., Rumpe, B.: Limitations of agile software processes. In: Third International Conference on Extreme Programming and Flexible (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Paasivaara, M.: Adopting safe to scale agile in a globally distributed organization. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Global Software Engineering, pp. 36–40. IEEE Press (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  6. VersionOne: 11th annual state of agile report. https://explore.versionone.com/state-of-agile/versionone-11th-annual-state-of-agile-report-2. Accessed 07 July 2017

  7. Ambler, S.W.: Agile software development at scale. In: Meyer, B., Nawrocki, J.R., Walter, B. (eds.) CEE-SET 2007. LNCS, vol. 5082, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85279-7_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Leffingwell, D.: Scaled agile framework®4.0 (2015). http://scaledagileframework.com/. Accessed 15 Apr 2016

  9. Laanti, M.: Characteristics and principles of scaled agile. In: Dingsøyr, T., Moe, N.B., Tonelli, R., Counsell, S., Gencel, C., Petersen, K. (eds.) XP 2014. LNBIP, vol. 199. Springer, Cham (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pries-Heje, J., Krohn, M.M.: The safe way to the agile organization. In: Proceedings of the XP2017 Scientific Workshops, XP 2017, pp. 18:1–18:3. ACM, New York (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Turetken, O., Stojanov, I., Trienekens, J.J.: Assessing the adoption level of scaled agile development: a maturity model for scaled agile framework. J. Softw. Evol. Process 29(6) (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Beecham, S., Noll, J., Razzak, M.A.: Lean global project interview protocol (2017). http://bit.ly/2nPxaXH

  13. Raithatha, D.: Making the whole product agile – a product owners perspective. In: Concas, G., Damiani, E., Scotto, M., Succi, G. (eds.) XP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4536, pp. 184–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73101-6_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoda, R., Noble, J., Marshall, S.: The impact of inadequate customer involvement on self-organizing agile teams. Inf. Softw. Technol. 53(5), 521–534 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile Software Development with Scrum, vol. 1. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2002)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the members of TeamA, TeamB, and TeamC for their generous and thoughtful collaboration on this study, and for allowing us to study their software development efforts. This work was supported, in part, by Science Foundation Ireland grant 13/RC/2094 to Lero - the Irish Software Research Centre (www.lero.ie).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lero, The Irish Software Research Centre, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    Mohammad Abdur Razzak, Ita Richardson & Sarah Beecham

  2. University of East London, University Way, London, E16 2RD, UK

    John Noll

  3. Ocuco Ltd., Blanchardstown Corporate Park, Dublin, D15 N5DX, Ireland

    Clodagh Nic Canna

Authors
  1. Mohammad Abdur Razzak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Noll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ita Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Clodagh Nic Canna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sarah Beecham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Abdur Razzak .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

    Michael Felderer

  2. Technical University Munich, Garching, Germany

    Daniel Méndez Fernández

  3. Brunel University London, Uxbridge, United Kingdom

    Burak Turhan

  4. Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Marcos Kalinowski

  5. University College London, London, United Kingdom

    Federica Sarro

  6. Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria

    Dietmar Winkler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Razzak, M.A., Noll, J., Richardson, I., Canna, C.N., Beecham, S. (2017). Transition from Plan Driven to SAFe®: Periodic Team Self-Assessment. In: Felderer, M., Méndez Fernández, D., Turhan, B., Kalinowski, M., Sarro, F., Winkler, D. (eds) Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10611. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69926-4_47

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69926-4_47

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-69925-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-69926-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation