Applying standard independent verification and validation (IV&V) techniques within an Agile framework: Is there a compatibility issue?

Abstract

Agile methods have gained wide acceptance over the past several years, to the point that they are now a standard management and execution approach for small-scale software development projects. While conventional Agile methods are not generally applicable to large multi-year and mission-critical systems, Agile hybrids are now being developed (such as SAFe) to exploit the productivity improvements of Agile while retaining the necessary process rigor and coordination needs of these projects. From the perspective of Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V), however, the adoption of these hybrid Agile frameworks is becoming problematic. Hence, we find it prudent to question the compatibility of conventional IV&V techniques with (hybrid) Agile practices. This paper documents our investigation of (a) relevant literature, (b) the modification and adoption of Agile frameworks to accommodate the development of large scale, mission critical systems, and (c) the compatibility of standard IV&V techniques within hybrid Agile development frameworks. Specific to the latter, we found that the IV&V methods employed within a hybrid Agile process can be divided into three groups: (1) early lifecycle IV&V techniques that are fully compatible with the hybrid lifecycles, (2) IV&V techniques that focus on tracing requirements, test objectives, etc. are somewhat incompatible, but can be tailored with a modest effort, and (3) IV&V techniques involving an assessment requiring artifact completeness that are simply not compatible with hybrid Agile processes, e.g., those that assume complete requirement specification early in the development lifecycle.