Context. In recent years Agile has gained lots of importance in the fieldof software development. Many organization and software practitioners hasalready adopted agile practice due to its flexibility in nature. Hence, agiledevelopment methodologies have been replaced to traditional developmentmethods. Agile is a family of several methodologies namely Scrum. eXtremeprogramming (XP) and several others. These several methods areembedded with different set of agile practices for the organizations to adoptand implement for their development process. But there is still a need forempirical research to understand the benefits of implementing the Agilepractices which contributes to the overall success of accomplishment of thesoftware project. Several agile maturity models have been published over adecade but not all of the models have been empirically validated. Hence,additional research in the context of agile maturity is essential and needed. Objectives. This study focus on providing a comprehensive knowledgeon the Agile Maturity Models which help in guiding the organizations regardingthe implementation of Agile practices. There are several maturitymodels published with different set of Agile practices that are recommendedto the industries. The primary aim is to compare the agile maturity maturitymodels and to investigate how the agile practices are implemented inthe industry Later the benefits and limitations faced by the software practitionersdue to implementation of agile practices are identified. Methods. For this particular research an industrial survey was conductedto identify the agile practices that are implemented in the industry. Inaddition, this survey aims at identifying the benefits and limitations of implementingthe agile practices. A literature review is conducted to identifythe order of agile practices recommended from the literature in agile MaturityModels. Results. From the available literature nine Maturity Models have beenextracted with their set of recommended agile practices. Then the resultsfrom the survey and literature are compared and analyzed to see if thereexist any commonalities or differences regarding the implementation of agilepractices in a certain order. From the results of the survey the benefitsand limitations of implementing the Agile practices in a particular order areidentified and reported. Conclusions. The findings from the literature review and the survey resultsin evaluating the agile maturity models regarding the implementationof agile practices.

Background. Over the years, agile software development has become increasingly popular in the software industry. One of the reasons is that agile development addressed the needs of the organisations better than the traditional models, such as the waterfall model. However, the textbook version of agile development still leaves something to be desired. This could be learnt by observing the implementation of agile methods/frameworks in the industry. The teams often customize agile methods to suit their context-specific needs. When teams in the industry decide to adopt the agile way of working, they are confronted by a choice¾either they have to implement all the agile practices at a time or adopt them over the time. The former choice has shown to come with risks and, therefore, was found that practitioners generally preferred the latter. However, agile practices are not independent, they have dependencies amongst them. A new approach to agile development emerged in the recent years known as Agile Maturity Models (AMMs). AMMs claim to offer a better path to agile adoption. In AMMs, the practices are typically introduced gradually in a particular order. However, these AMMs are multifarious and haven’t been sufficiently evaluated¾especially in the industry practice. Thus, they need to be evaluated in order to understand their relevance in the industry.   Objectives. The goal is to evaluate the relevance of AMMs in the industry. By finding relevant AMMs, they could be used to alleviate the formation of agile teams and contribute toward their smoother functioning. By finding those that aren’t, this research could act as a cautionary to those practitioners who could potentially implement these AMMs and risk failure. The objectives are: identifying the agile practice dependencies in the AMMs; finding the agile practice dependencies in an agile team by conducting a case study in the industry; comparing the dependencies from the case study with those in the AMMs.
   Methods. The agile maturity models were identified and analysed. A case study was conducted on an agile team to identify the dependencies between the agile practices in the industry practice. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of the agile team. Qualitative coding was used to analyse the collected data. The dependencies from the case study were compared with the AMMs to achieve the aim of this research.   Results. It was found that dependencies between individual agile practices in the AMMs were almost never possible to be found. However, practices suggested in each maturity levels were derived. Hence, the dependencies were found in the maturity-level level. From the case study, 20 agile practice dependencies were found. 7/8 AMMs were found to be not relevant. 1 AMM couldn’t be evaluated as it heavily relied on the practitioner’s choices.   Conclusions. The researchers could use the evaluation method presented in this thesis to conduct more such evaluations. By doing so, the dynamics present in the industry teams could be better understood. On their basis, relevant AMMs could be developed in the future. Such AMMs could help practitioners leverage agile development.

While agile development is becoming ever more popular, studies have shown that few organisations successfully transition from traditional to agile practices. One such study showed that large organisations can benefit greatly from agile methods, but evaluating agile maturity and tailoring the method to the organisation’s needs is crucial. An agile maturity model is a tool with which an organisation’s practices and their conformance to agile development is evaluated. The purpose of this study is to discover the best suited agile maturity model for large organisations and to minimise costs, resources and the subjectivity of the model’s evaluation. In this study we take a closer look at four agile maturity models, the Scaled Agile Framework Maturity Model (SAFeMM) by Turetken, Stojanov and Trienekens (2017), the Scaled Agile Maturity Model (SAMM) by Chandrasekaran (2016), the Agile Adoption Framework (AAF) by Sidky, Arthur and Bohner (2007) and the Scaled Agile Framework Business Agility Assessment (SAFeBAA) by the Scaled Agile Incorporation. By evaluating each model on their scalability, completeness, generality, precision, simplicity, usability and meaningfulness, consistency, minimum overlapping, balance and proportion of automatable measurements, the best model is chosen. Based on the evaluation criteria for the maturity models, the SAFeMM is deemed the most suitable model. It proves to be a comprehensive, well-rounded tool with persistent high scores in all criteria. In order to improve the model’s objectivity and resource needs, it is also applied in a case study at the Swedish Tax Agency, where the possibilities to automate the model are investigated. The results show that the SAFeMM can be automated to roughly 50%, with the use of process mining and software system querying. Process mining uses event logs to extract and analyse information, while software querying extracts information directly from the software systems used in an organisation. The study suggests primary sources for querying and process mining techniques and perspectives to enable and encourage future research in the area of process mining within agile development. / Agil utveckling är en mycket populär utvecklingsmetod, samtidigt visar studier att få stora organisationer lyckas med övergången från traditionella metoder direkt. Som hjälpmedel kan dessa organisationer använda så kallade agila mognadsmodeller. En agil mognadsmodell är ett verktyg som mäter hur väl en organisation och dess processer överensstämmer med agila principer. Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka vilken agil mognadsmodell som är bäst lämpad för stora organisationer och kan samtidigt minimera kostnader, resurser och subjektiviteten i mätningarna. Därför tittar denna studie på fyra agila mognadsmodeller, Scaled Agile Framework Maturity Model (SAFeMM) av Turetken, Stojanov och Trienekens (2017), Scaled Agile Maturity Model (SAMM) av Chandrasekaran (2016), Agile Adoption Framework (AAF) av Sidky, Arthur och Bohner (2007) och Scaled Agile Framework Business Agility Assessment (SAFeBAA) av Scaled Agile Incorporation. Genom att utvärdera varje modell baserat på dess skalbarhet, helhetsbild, generaliserbarhet, precision, enkelhet, användbar-het och meningfullhet, kontinuitet, minimal överlappning, balans och andel automatiserbara mätvärden, bestäms vilken modell som är bäst. Resultaten visar, att baserat på de ovannämnda kriterierna, är SAFeMM modellen den bäst lämpade för stora organisationer. Den visade sig vara särsilkt helhetstäckande, enkel att förstå och använda, med höga poäng på de flesta kriterierna. För att förbättra modellens objektivitet och resurskrav, gjordes även en fallstudie där modellen applicerades på Skatteverkets IT avdelning. Där undersöktes möjligheterna för att automatisera modellen. Resultaten visar att knappt 50% av modellen är automatiserbar genom metoder såsom process mining och software querying. Process mining, använder event loggar från mjukvarusystem för att analysera och utvinna information, medan software querying utvinnar information direkt från mjukvarusystemen. Studien presenterar förslag på utvinningskällor och process mining tekniker och metoder för sammanhanget.