Logo PTI
Polish Information Processing Society
Logo FedCSIS

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 18

Proceedings of the 2019 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems

Real-Life Challenges in Automotive Release Planning

, ,

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2019F326

Citation: Proceedings of the 2019 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 18, pages 831839 ()

Full text

Abstract. Context: The use of agile software development is increasing, even in regulated domains like the automotive domain. At the same time, traditional sequential processes are still in use. Collaboration between agile and hybrid projects within these complex traditional product development processes is difficult. Especially the creation and synchronization of a qualification phase plan is challenging. Objective: The aim of this study is to provide insights into the state of the practice to understand challenges related to the combined use of agile and traditional paradigms in release planning in the automotive domain. Method: Based on semi-structured interviews, an online survey with 39 respondents was conducted at Dr. Ing. h. c. F. Porsche AG. Results: We present the challenges identified in release planning, such as lack of transparency regarding the status quo of related projects. Furthermore, we motivate how agile development methods could improve collaboration between projects in release planning. Conclusions: There are many challenges in the context of co-existing agile and traditional projects. We discuss how agile practices like daily standup or continuous integration could address the identified challenges.


  1. VersionOne: The 13th annual state of agile report. (2019). www.collab.net
  2. Hohl, P., Münch, J., Schneider, K., Stupperich, M. (2016). Forces that prevent agile adoption in the automotive domain. In proc. of the International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, PROFES 2016: Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (pp 468-476). DOI.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49094-6_32.
  3. Diebold, P., Zehler, T. (2016). The right degree of agility in rich processes. In Managing Software Process Evolution (pp. 15-37). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31545-4_2.
  4. Diebold, P., Theobald, S. (2018). How is agile development currently being used in regulated embedded domains? In proc. of JSEP’18. DOI.org/10.1002/smr.1935.
  5. Klünder, J., Hohl, P., Fazal-Baqaie, M., Krusche, S., Küpper, S., Linssen, O., & Prause, C.R. (2017). HELENA study: reasons for combining agile and traditional software development approaches in german companies. In proc. of PROFES’17. DOI.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69926-4_32.
  6. Kuhrmann, M., Diebold, P., Münch, J., Tell, P., Garousi, V., Felderer, M., Trektere, K., McCaffery, F., Linssen, O., Hanser, E., Prause, C. R. (2017). Hybrid software and system development in practice: waterfall, scrum, and beyond. In proc. of the 2017 International Conference on Software and System Process (pp. 30-39). https://doi.org/10.1145/3084100.3084104.
  7. Theobald S., Diebold P. (2018): Interface Problems of Agile in a Non-agile Environment. In: Garbajosa J., Wang X., Aguiar A. (eds) Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming. XP 2018. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 314. Springer, Cham. DOI.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91602-6_8.
  8. Tell, P., Klünder, J., Küpper, S., Raffo, D., MacDonell, S. G., Münch, J., Pfahl, D., Linssen, O., Kuhrmann, M. (2019). What are Hybrid Development Methods Made Of? An Evidence-based Characterization. In proc. of the ICSSP19.DOI.org/10.1109/ICSSP.2019.00022.
  9. Broy, M. (2006). Challenges in automotive software engineering. In proc. of the 28th international conference on Software engineering (pp. 33-42). ACM. DOI.org/10.1145/1134285.1134292
  10. Hohl, P. (2019). An assessment model to foster the adoption of agile software product lines in the automotive domain. University of Hannover, Hannover, Germany. DOI.org/10.1109/ICE.2018.8436325.
  11. Saliu, O., Ruhe, G. (2005). Supporting Software Release Planning Decisions for Evolving Systems. In proc. of NASE SEW-29, Washington DC. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SEW.2005.42.
  12. Heikkilä, V. T., Paasivaara, M., Rautiainen, K., Lassenius, C., Toivola, T., & Järvinen, J. (2015). Operational release planning in large-scale scrum with multiple stakeholders–A longitudinal case study at F-Secure Corporation. In Information and Software Technology, 57, (pp.116-140). DOI.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.09.005.
  13. Sax, E., Reussner, R., Guissouma, H., Klare, H. (2017). A Survey on the state and future of automotive software release and configuration management. Karlsruhe Reports in Informatics, 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5445/IR/1000075673.
  14. Bestfleisch, U., Herbst, J., & Reichert, M. (2005). Requirements for the workflow-based support of release management processes in the automotive sector. In proc. of the 12th European Concurrent Engineering Conference ECEC'05.
  15. Müller, D., Herbst, J., Hammori, M., Reichert, M. (2006). IT support for release management processes in the automotive industry. In proc. of the International Conference on Business Process Management (pp. 368-377).
  16. Lindgren, M., Land, R., Norström, C., Wall, A. (2008). Key aspects of software release planning in industry. In proc. of the 19th Australian Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 320-329). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ASWEC.2008.4483220.
  17. Danesh, A. S., Ahmad, R. B., Saybani, M. R., & Tahir, A. (2012). Companies approaches in software release planning-based on multiple case studies. JSW, 7(2), 471-478. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/jsw.7.2.471-478.
  18. Heikkilä, V. T., Paasivaara, M., Lassenius, C., & Engblom, C. (2013). Continuous release planning in a large-scale scrum development organization at ericsson. In proc. of the International Conference on Agile Software Development (pp. 195-209). DOI.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38314-4_14.
  19. Heikkilä, V., Rautiainen, K., & Jansen, S. (2010). A revelatory case study on scaling agile release planning. In proc. of the 2010 36th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (pp. 289-296). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/SEAA.2010.37.
  20. Karvonen, T., Behutiye, W., Oivo, M., & Kuvaja, P. (2017). Systematic literature review on the impacts of agile release engineering practices. Information and Software Technology, 86, (pp. 87-100). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017.01.009.
  21. Ameller, D., Farré, C., Franch, X., & Rufian, G. (2016). A survey on software release planning models. In International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (pp. 48-65). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49094-6_4.
  22. M. Svahnberg, T. Gorschek, R. Feldt, R. Torkar, S. B. Saleem, and M. U. Shafique (2010). A systematic review on strategic release planning models. Information and Software Technology (pp. 237–248). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.006
  23. Carlshamre, P. (2002). Release planning in market-driven softwareproduct development: Provoking an understanding. Requir. Eng. 7(3), (pp. 139–151). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s007660200010.
  24. Jantunen, S., Lehtola, L., Gause, D. C., Dumdum, U. R., Barnes, R. J. (2011). The challenge of release planning. In proc. of the Fifth International Workshop on Software Product Management, (pp. 36–45). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/IWSPM.2011.6046202.
  25. Benestad, H.C., Hannay, J.E (2011). A comparison of model-based and judgment-based release planning in incremental software projects. In proc. of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, (pp. 766–775). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1985793.1985901.
  26. Spiegler S.V., Heinecke C., Wagner S. (2019). Leadership Gap in Agile Teams: How Teams and Scrum Masters Mature. In: Kruchten P., Fraser S., Coallier F. (eds) Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming. XP 2019. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 355. Springer, Cham. (pp 37-52) http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19034-7_3