In agile software development, a core responsibility of the product owner (PO) is to communicate business needs to the development team. In large-scale agile software development projects, many teams work toward an overall outcome, but they also need to manage interdependencies and coordinate efficiently. In such settings, POs need to coordinate knowledge about project status and goal attainment both within and across the development teams. Previous research has shown that the PO assumes a wide set of roles. Still, our knowledge about how POs coordinate amongst themselves and with their teams in large-scale agile is limited. In this case study, we explore PO coordination in a large-scale development program through the theoretical lens of Relational Coordination Theory. Our findings suggest that (1) coordination varies depending on the context of each PO, (2) a focus on achieving high-quality communication changes coordination over time, and (3) unscheduled coordination enables of high-quality communication.

In large-scale agile software development, many teams work together to achieve overarching project goals. The more teams, the greater the coordination requirements. Despite the growing popularity of large-scale agile, inter-team coordination is challenging to practice and research. We conducted a case study over 1.5 years in a large-scale software development firm to better understand which inter-team coordination mechanisms are used in large-scale agile and how they support inter-team coordination. Based on a thematic analysis of 31 interviews, 113 hours of observations, and supplemental material, we identified 27 inter-team coordination mechanisms. From this, we offer the following contributions. First, we propose a taxonomy of interteam coordination with three categories: coordination meetings, such as communities of practice, inter-team stand-ups, and retrospectives; coordination roles, such as the program architects and the platform team; and coordination tools and artefacts, such as Slack and JIRA as well as inter-team task boards, product backlogs, and roadmaps. Second, the coordination mechanisms displayed combinations of four key characteristics, technical, organizational, physical, and social (TOPS), which form the basis of the TOPS framework to capture the multifaceted characteristics of coordination mechanisms. Technical relates to the software product and/or technical tools supporting software development. Organizational pertains to the structural aspects of the organization. Physical refers to tangible or spatial characteristics. Social captures interpersonal and community-based characteristics. Finally, the taxonomy and the TOPS framework provide a knowledge base and a structured approach for researchers to study as well as for software practitioners to understand and improve inter-team coordination in large-scale agile.

Large-scale transformations of agile ways of working have received more attention in the industry in recent years. Some organizations have developed their own solutions for scaling, whereas many have chosen trademarked frameworks. In large-scale agile software development, many developers and development teams carry out work simultaneously. When autonomous teams need to coordinate toward a common goal, they must sacrifice some level of autonomy. Development, testing, and integrations need to be coordinated with other teams and aligned with an organization´s programs or portfolio. Through the conducting of 28 interviews and 17 on-site visits, this multiple case study explored how team autonomy changed in three agile software development organizations that implemented the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe). The positive changes to team autonomy that they experienced as a result included getting a better overview, making better long-term decisions, giving and receiving help, and signaling limitations. We found two negative impacts on team autonomy: limited feature choice and enforced refinement. The study extends previous research on large-scale agile software development and improves our understanding of impacts on team autonomy.

This file was downloaded from BI Open, the institutional repository (open access) at BI Norwegian Business School https://biopen.bi.no It contains the accepted and peer reviewed manuscript to the article cited below. It may contain minor differences from the journal's pdf version. Wong, S. I., & Berntzen, M. N. (2019). Transformational leadership and leadermember exchange in distributed teams: The roles of electronic dependence and team task interdependence.

Inter-team coordination in large-scale software development can be challenging when relying on agile development methods that emphasize iterative and frequent delivery in autonomous teams. Previous research has introduced the concept of coordination strategies, which refer to a set of coordination mechanisms to manage dependencies. We report on a case study in a large-scale agile development program with 16 development teams. Through interviews, meeting observations, and supplemental document analyses, we explore the challenges to inter-team coordination and how dependencies are managed. We found four coordination strategies: 1) aligning autonomous teams, 2) maintaining overview in the large-scale setting, 3) managing prioritizations, and 4) managing architecture and technical dependencies. This study extends previous research on coordination strategies within teams to the inter-team level. We propose that large-scale organizations can use coordination strategies to understand how they coordinate across teams and manage their unique coordination situation.