After initial analyzes of various agile frameworks / standards, we can present the conclusions in a summary analysis. The standards on which the analysis is based are:
Let us first compare the different standards to levels. Not unexpectedly, we find five levels that correspond nicely with other dimensions.
Some observations:
Levels
- Level 5 is a short, simple and limited description of the desired functionality seen from a user's perspective.
- Level 4 is a collection of stories that are logically grouped to be performed by a development team with a periodicity of 2-3 weeks.
- Level 3 is extensively deliverable which is adapted to be released with a periodicity of 2-3 months.
- Level 2 is a very comprehensive deliverable that leads to a major change where several value streams are affected.
- Level 1 is a collection of epics that drive towards a common goal.
Naming
There is agreement on the objects "Epic", "Capability", "Feature" and "Story". There are some differences, but largely the hierarchy of objects in the product backlog, in Archimate represented by "Deliverable".
A couple of deviations that are worth commenting on:
- SAFe has the most complete hierarchy, although it can be discussed whether "Program Epic" and "Portfolio Epic" are on the same level. However, it is clear that these group Epics (in SAFe "Solution Epics"). Epic groups "Capability" which groups "Feature" which in turn groups "Story".
- Atlassian has made a simplified hierarchy where the focus seems to be on grouping "Story" in "Epic" and upwards in "Initiative". There is also a "Theme" object, but its definition of "large focus areas that span across the organization" rather leads to the ability dimension, which is why we omit this object here.
- Scrum has a strong focus on development. All requirements are collected in "Product Backlog" and in order to be able to realize these, everything must be concretized, first in "Feature" which is then broken down into "Use Case" and "User Story". It can be discussed whether Use Case is a grouping of User Stories, as the definition rather divides these by perspective: "Use Case" describes the system's interaction with the user, while "User Story" describes the requirements from the user's perspective. However, it is clear that "Use Case" is larger in scope and can span several sprints, while a "User Story" can only be included in one sprint. It follows that we place "Use Case" at level 4 and "User Story" at level 5. The reasoning also agrees well with the separate analysis that Prime Arch made on the subject: User story or Use case?
- Microsoft has made several implementations of agile frameworks in its cloud platform Azure, and to get a complementary perspective, we have chosen to study their interpretation of CMMI. Very reminiscent of Scrum where the focus is on requirements breakdown, even if they have chosen other words.
- ArchiMate has a single general object and, as usual, leaves it to the user to create their own hierarchy.
Conclusions
There is a well-established hierarchy in the implementation dimension, although there are a few different variants.
The hierarchy consists of 5 levels, from an area-like division at level 1 to story at level 5. The following hierarchy should be used to represent deliverables at different levels:
- Initiative
- Epic
- Capability
- Feature
- Story
Nice mapping against Prime Arch's implementation hierarchy!