Globally Distributed Agile Release Trains

269 Pages·2016·10.63 MB·English

Globally Distributed Agile Release Trains
Adjusting the Scaled Agile Framework® (SAFe®) for distributed
environments

Master thesis

Peter van Buul

Globally Distributed Agile Release Trains
Adjusting the Scaled Agile Framework® (SAFe®) for distributed
environments

Thesis

submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

in

Computer Science
Information Architecture Track

by

Peter van Buul
born in Leiden

at thDee lDfte Ulftn iUvneirvseitrys iotyf Toef cThencohlnooglyo gy,
Ftoa cbuelt dy eEfleencdtreidca pl uEbnlgicinlye oenri nTgh,u Mrsadtahye mDeacteicms baenrd 1 C5o, m20p1u6te art S 1c6ie:0n0ce.
Thesis committee: Prof.dr.ir. Rini van Solingen TU Delft, supervisor university
Dr. Georgios Gousios TU Delft
Ir. Hendrik-Jan van der Waal Prowareness, supervisor company
An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/

Globally Distributed Agile Release Trains
Adjusting the Scaled Agile Framework® (SAFe®) for distributed
environments

Author: Peter van Buul
Student ID: 1512269
Email: [email protected]

Abstract

SAFe is a framework that applies both agile and lean practices
for developing software. The current trend is that increasingly more organizations
develop their software in a globally distributed setting. Although SAFe is being
deployed in such a setting, SAFe was not originally developed for such a setting but
for a co-located setting. Therefore, this research investigates the application of
SAFe in globally distributed settings. Five problems are discovered that can be
expected to fail when SAFe is applied in distributed settings: incorrect execution of
SAFe, language barriers, time zone differences, increased communication effort, and
inefficient communication tools. Given these problems, four SAFe elements are
identified that can be expected to fail when SAFe is applied in distributed settings:
the PI planning, the inspect & adapt meeting, the DevOps team, and the system team.
Finally, a customization of SAFe for distributed settings is proposed. This
customization is focused on solving the discovered problems for the elements
identified to fail.
Thesis committee:

Prof.dr.ir. Rini van Solingen TU Delft, supervisor university
Dr. Georgios Gousios TU Delft
Ir. Hendrik-Jan van der Waal Prowareness, supervisor company

Preface
This thesis presents the research that is conducted as part of the Information Architecture Master
track of the Computer Science programme of the Delft University of Technology. A workplace during
this research was provided by Prowareness. The research is focused on the Scaled Agile Framework®
(SAFe®) in globally distributed environments. SAFe and Scaled Agile Framework are registered
trademarks of Scaled Agile Inc. referred in [1]1.
SAFe is a framework that applies both agile and lean practices for developing software. This
framework is publicly available and widely used in mainly the IT industry. The current trend is that
increasingly more organizations develop their software in a globally distributed setting. Although SAFe
is being deployed in such a setting, SAFe was not originally developed for such a setting, but for a co-
located setting. Therefore, it is interesting to research the application of SAFe in globally distributed
settings.
This research has discovered that the following five problems can be expected when SAFe is applied
in a distributed setting: incorrect execution of SAFe, language barriers, time zone differences,
increased communication effort, and inefficient communication tools.
Given these five problems, this research identified that the following four elements of SAFe can be
expected to fail when SAFe is applied in a distributed setting: the PI planning, the inspect & adapt
meeting, the DevOps team, and the system team.
This research is concluded by proposing a customization of SAFe for distributed settings. This
customization is focused on solving the discovered problems for the elements identified to fail. The PI
planning and inspect & adapt can be customized by having a Release Train Engineer at each location,
using a video conferencing system, using a digital program board & digital PI objectives, and extending
the PI planning over multiple days if needed. The DevOps team can be customized by enabling the
team to travel regularly to the other locations. Finally, the system team can be distributed over all
locations.
First, and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Rini van Solingen, for guiding me in giving
direction to this research, and providing critical feedback during this research. Without his guidance
and feedback, the systematic approach and critical view in this report would not have been possible.
Second, I would like to thank my supervisor at Prowareness, Hendrik-Jan van der Waal, for giving his
insights on SAFe, and his critical feedback on the results of this research. Third, because most of my
time I have spent working at Prowareness, I would like to thank all my colleagues for always being
there to help me, and for being a sparring partner to discuss ideas. Fourth, I would like to thank the
participants of the focus groups for their contributions to this research.
Last, but not least, I would like to thank my girlfriend, my family, and my friends for always supporting
me during this project. Without these loving and caring people, taking an interest in my progress,
reviewing my work, and helping me to finish the project, this result would not have been possible.
Finally, I present you my thesis, I hope you will enjoy reading it.
Peter van Buul
Leiden, the Netherlands
December 1, 2016

1 It should be noted that all information regarding SAFe in this thesis is as interpreted by the author, and verified
with SAFe experts. Any information is therefore not officially supported by Scaled Agile, Inc., unless quoted
directly from Scaled Agile, Inc., in which case this is specified.
i
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4
1.1. Context .................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2. Research questions ................................................................................................................. 6
1.3. Reading guide .......................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 2 Research background .......................................................................................................... 8
2.1. Globally Distributed Software Engineering ............................................................................. 8
2.2. SAFe......................................................................................................................................... 9
2.3. Agile scaling frameworks ...................................................................................................... 14
2.4. Research scope ..................................................................................................................... 18
Chapter 3 Research methodology ..................................................................................................... 21
3.1. Research approach................................................................................................................ 21
3.2. Systematic Literature Review ............................................................................................... 22
3.3. Multiple informant methodology ......................................................................................... 24
3.4. Focus group ........................................................................................................................... 26
Chapter 4 Distributed SAFe problems ............................................................................................... 30
4.1. Problems of Distributed Agile Development: Systematic Literature Review ....................... 30
4.2. Distributed SAFe problems: Multiple informant methodology ............................................ 37
Chapter 5 Identification of failing SAFe elements ............................................................................. 42
5.1. Identification based on theory: Literature ............................................................................ 42
5.2. Identification based on theory: Expert focus group ............................................................. 43
5.3. Identification based on practice: Practitioner focus group .................................................. 49
5.4. Result of triangulation .......................................................................................................... 56
Chapter 6 Customizations of SAFe ..................................................................................................... 59
6.1. Customizations of SAFe based on theory: Literature ........................................................... 59
6.2. Customizations of SAFe based on practical experience: Practitioner focus group .............. 61
6.3. Combining theory and practical experience ......................................................................... 65
Chapter 7 Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 68
7.1. Answers to the research questions....................................................................................... 68
7.2. Limitations............................................................................................................................. 69
7.3. Reflection .............................................................................................................................. 73
7.4. Recommendations for future research ................................................................................. 76
Chapter 8 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 78
8.1. Summary ............................................................................................................................... 78
8.2. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 78
2
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 81
List of tables .......................................................................................................................................... 93
List of figures ......................................................................................................................................... 98
Appendix A Systematic Literature Review protocol ....................................................................... 100
Appendix B Multiple informant protocol ....................................................................................... 102
Appendix C Expert focus group: protocol ...................................................................................... 103
Appendix D Practitioner focus group: protocol .............................................................................. 109
Appendix E Multiple informant execution ..................................................................................... 115
Appendix F List of SAFe elements .................................................................................................. 117
Appendix G Description of the Agile Release Train elements ........................................................ 120
Appendix H Rejected studies .......................................................................................................... 126
Appendix I Problems and challenges of accepted studies ............................................................ 128
Appendix J Result of SLR reviews .................................................................................................. 133
Appendix K Problem groups ........................................................................................................... 135
Appendix L Ungrouped problems .................................................................................................. 142
Appendix M Expert focus group: invitation letter ........................................................................... 143
Appendix N Expert focus group: attachment ................................................................................. 145
Appendix O Expert focus group: execution .................................................................................... 156
Appendix P Expert focus group: individual votes round 2 ............................................................. 177
Appendix Q Expert focus group: consequences per element round 3 ........................................... 179
Appendix R Expert focus group: individual votes focus group: round 4 ........................................ 185
Appendix S Expert focus group: visualization dot voting consequences: round 4 ........................ 190
Appendix T Survey .......................................................................................................................... 198
Appendix U Results of the survey ................................................................................................... 205
Appendix V Practitioner focus group: invitation letter .................................................................. 219
Appendix W Practitioner focus group: forms .................................................................................. 220
Appendix X Practitioner focus group: execution ........................................................................... 225
Appendix Y Practitioner focus group: categorization participants ................................................ 242
Appendix Z Practitioner focus group: individual votes round 2 .................................................... 243
Appendix AA Practitioner focus group: individual solutions round 3........................................... 248
Appendix BB Practitioner focus group: group solutions round 3 ................................................. 255
Appendix CC Practitioner focus group: individual votes round 4 ................................................ 257

3
Chapter 1 Introduction

In this chapter a short introduction to the research is given. First, the context for this research is
presented. Second, the research questions are described. Finally, a reading guide is given.
1.1. Context
This thesis presents the research that is conducted as part of the Information Architecture Master
track of the Computer Science programme of the Delft University of Technology. A workplace during
this research was provided by Prowareness. This research is done in the research chair on Global
Software Engineering, in the Software Engineering group of the Software Technology department in
the Faculty Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science of Delft University of
Technology.
The research presented in this thesis is on the Scaled Agile Framework® (SAFe®) in globally distributed
environments. SAFe and Scaled Agile Framework are registered trademarks of Scaled Agile Inc.
referred in [1]2. To provide context, first, distributed is briefly described. Second, a brief overview of
SAFe is presented. Third, the original way of software development is briefly sketched. Finally, the
agile scaling frameworks that are replacing this original way are briefly mentioned. A more elaborate
description of the agile scaling frameworks and SAFe can be found in Chapter 2.
1.1.1. Distributed
Because of the globalization of business in the 21st century, increasingly more companies develop
software in a globally distributed setting [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. When working in a globally
distributed environment, different problems and challenges can occur regarding, among other things,
communication, coordination, and time zone differences, according to [3] and [9]. Despite these
problems, the use of fully distributed teams can be successful, as presented in [10], [11], and [12].
However, the research of [10], [11], and [12], is focused on Scrum, with a small team. SAFe, on which
the research presented in this thesis focusses, is executed with multiple teams, possibly having
different problems.
1.1.2. SAFe
In this section, SAFe is briefly described. A full overview of SAFe can be found at the SAFe website
provided by Scaled Agile, Inc. www.scaledagileframework.com [1]. SAFe is a framework that applies
both agile and lean practices for developing software. This framework is publicly available and widely
used in mainly the IT industry. In the 10th Annual State of Agile report by VersionOne from 2015 [13],
27% of the respondents name SAFe as the method to scale agile. This ranks SAFe as the second most
used scaling method and the most used scaling framework.
As stated previously, the current trend is that increasingly more organizations develop their software
in a globally distributed setting. Although SAFe is being deployed in such a setting, as seen in multiple
case studies [14], [15], [16], and [17], SAFe was not originally developed for such a setting, but for a
co-located setting. Therefore, it is interesting to investigate the application of SAFe in globally
distributed settings.

2 It should be noted that all information regarding SAFe in this thesis is as interpreted by the author, and verified
with SAFe experts. Any information is therefore not officially supported by Scaled Agile, Inc., unless quoted
directly from Scaled Agile, Inc., in which case this is specified.
4