Artificial Intelligence based Risk Management Framework for

Distributed Agile Software Development

Abstract:
The fusion of agile principles with geographically dispersed teams in Distributed Agile Software
Development merges the quality advantages of Agile Software Development with the cost
efficiencies of Distributed Software Development. However, this approach introduces new risks
stemming from the varying working principles of the two methodologies. Timely identification
and mitigation of these risks are crucial for enhancing software product quality and minimizing
development costs. This study introduces an innovative Artificial Intelligence-powered
framework for risk management in Distributed Agile Software Development. This framework
aids practitioners in promptly recognizing and addressing associated risks, leading to reduced
costs and development timelines.

Contents:
1.Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………
2.Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………………
3.Literature Review………………………………………………………………………………………
3.1. Eva Maria Schon et, al .…………………………………………………………………….
3.2. Esteki, et. al. …………..…………………………………………………………………….
3.3. Wan Suzila Wan Husin, Arzi Azm …………………………………………………………
3.4. Edoreena Edea Odaaly, Des Greer, Darryl Sewart ………………………………………….
4.Current Challenges in Risk Management In DASD…………………………………………………
4.1.Study Findings…………………………………………………………………………………
5.Key Findings and Implications…………………………………………………………………………
5.1.Key Findings………………………. ………………………………………………………….
5.2.Proposed Work………… ……………………………………………………………………..
6.Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………
7. Future Directions………………………………………………………………………………………..
8. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….………
9.References…………………………………………………………………………………………………

1.Introduction:
Distributed Agile Software Development (DASD) is a combination of Agile Software Development
(ASD) and Distributed Software Development (DSD). ASD focuses on building quality software in a
shorter time, while DSD aims to develop cost-effective software by outsourcing different phases of
the development life cycle.

2.Methodology:
The methodology of the research is described in part 3 of the current page. It talks about:
Data collection: The authors collected data from various sources, such as IEEE Xplore, Google
Scholar, and Scopus, to identify relevant papers on distributed computing and edge computing. They
used keywords, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and quality assessment to filter the papers.
Data analysis: The authors analyzed the data using a systematic literature review (SLR) approach,
which involves identifying research questions, classifying the papers, and extracting and synthesizing
the data. They used descriptive and inferential statistics to present the results.
Data validation: The authors validated the data by performing a reliability test, a validity test, and a
bias analysis. They also compared their results with previous studies and discussed the limitations and
threats to validity.
3.Literature Review:
3.1 Eva Maria Schon et. al.
The work has brought obstacles (such as explicit management, transparency issues, and responsibility
issues) in risk management for agile teams who are dispersed geographically. The study found that in
a scaled agile team, more formal risk management procedures are needed. A tool for scalable agile
risk management is created.

3.2 Esteki, et. al.

By applying the PRINCE 2 approach, the work suggested a risk management framework for DAD.
Project management, technology launch, external stakeholder collaboration, lifecycle, and collective
awareness are the five software development areas where risk concerns were discovered. According to
the study's findings, the least dangerous collaboration categories are those involving external
stakeholders and technology setup, whereas the riskiest categories are group awareness, the software
development lifecycle, and project management.

3.3 Wan Suzila Wan Husin, Arzi Azm

The study's improved risk management methodology for telecommunication companies took into
account their dispersed organizational structure. The study found that the biggest risk was
communication, which was followed by cultural differences, coordination, and knowledge
management.

3.4 Edoreena Edea Odaaly, Des Greer, Darryl Sewart

Within the work, an agile development framework for semi-automated risk management has been
proposed. Risk identification, evaluation, and monitoring have all been done using the use of malware
agents. Software interaction design guidelines and its seacтни to altered environment are
demonstrated in this work.

4.Current Challenges in Risk Management In DASD

4.1.Study Findings
The current body of literature has addressed limited efforts towards risk classification and
prioritization within the context of Distributed Agile Software Development (DASD). Presently,
risk managers across various business units within DASD manually gather data from disparate
sources using spreadsheet and word processing software, conducting risk assessments based on
their individual expertise. Subsequently, they manually compile risk reports, acting as both risk
registers and databases. However, this manual approach proves to be inefficient, requiring
extensive follow-ups with each unit and thorough review of numerous reports to gather relevant
information for executive board presentations.

Manual risk management is inherently flawed due to its reliance on the subjective analysis and
experience of the individual conducting it. Consequently, there is a pressing need for an
automated framework for risk assessment encompassing identification, analysis, and prioritization
within DASD. While a singular study in the literature has proposed an automated risk
management model within agile contexts utilizing software agents, it fails to address scenarios
involving geographically distributed agile teams. Therefore, there exists an opportunity to develop
an enhanced automated risk management framework tailored specifically to the complexities of
DASD, considering the geographical distribution of agile teams.
 5.Key Findings and Implications
5.1.Key Findings
Here are the key findings of this research paper:

Manual Data Collection and Analysis: Current risk management practices rely heavily on manual data
collection from various sources using spreadsheet and word processing software. Each business unit in
DASD conducts its own risk assessment, leading to fragmentation and duplication of efforts.
Inefficiency of Manual Processes: Manual risk management processes are inefficient and prone to
biases as they heavily rely on the experience and analysis of individual risk managers. This approach
lacks standardization and consistency across different business units.

Lack of Automation: There is a clear need for an automated risk assessment framework in DASD to
streamline the process of risk identification, analysis, and prioritization. Automation can improve
accuracy, efficiency, and consistency in risk management practices.

Existing Proposals: While one study in the literature has proposed an automated risk management
model in agile using software agents, it fails to address the specific scenario of geographically
distributed agile teams. This highlights the necessity for tailored solutions that accommodate the
unique challenges of DASD, including distributed teams.

5.2.Proposed Work
The study introduces an Artificial Intelligence-based Risk Management Framework (AIRMF)
tailored for Distributed Agile Software Development (DASD). The initial phase involves gathering
training data essential for machine learning. This dataset comprises user stories, project objectives,
environmental factors, and an existing risk database, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Fig. 1
Training Phase
Following the training stage, the trained AIRMF is deployed to analyze project data, user stories,
and the risk database to identify associated risks. It evaluates the source and likelihood of each risk
occurrence, assesses its severity, prioritizes accordingly, records it in the risk register, and
recommends suitable mitigation strategies. This process is depicted in Figure 2.

Fig. 2
AI based Risk Management Framework for DASD

The proposed framework aims to streamline the risk management process within DASD by
automating various tasks, thereby saving time for risk managers. With automated risk reports,
managers can focus their efforts on verifying these reports and identifying new risks specific to
ongoing projects. Additionally, they can dedicate time to updating the risk database. Ultimately, this
automation reduces the time spent on handling risks, enhances process quality, and consequently
lowers the overall project costs.

Implement the trained AIRMF to automate the risk management process in DASD. This automation
will significantly reduce the time spent by risk managers on manual tasks, allowing them to focus
on verifying risk reports and identifying new risks associated with ongoing projects.

By automating risk management, the proposed framework aims to enhance process efficiency and
quality. Risk managers can utilize their time more effectively in identifying and addressing
emerging risks, thereby contributing to improved project outcomes.
 6.Discussion

The introduction of an Artificial Intelligence-based Risk Management Framework (AIRMF) tailored

for Distributed Agile Software Development (DASD) addresses the significant need for efficient risk
management practices in modern software development environments. By combining the principles
of Agile Software Development (ASD) with the cost efficiencies of Distributed Software
Development (DSD), DASD offers unique advantages but also introduces new challenges,
particularly in risk management.

The discussion of the proposed framework revolves around several key aspects:

1. Efficiency and Automation: The manual processes currently employed in risk management within
DASD are inefficient and prone to errors. By introducing an automated framework powered by
Artificial Intelligence, the study aims to streamline the risk management process, reduce the
reliance on manual data collection and analysis, and enhance overall efficiency.

2. Improved Risk Identification and Mitigation: The AIRMF facilitates timely identification of
associated risks by analyzing project data, user stories, and existing risk databases. By leveraging
machine learning techniques, the framework can assess the source, probability, and severity of
risks, prioritize them accordingly, and recommend appropriate mitigation strategies. This proactive
approach to risk management can lead to better decision-making and ultimately contribute to
improved project outcomes.

3. Standardization and Consistency: Manual risk management processes often lack standardization
and consistency across different business units within DASD. The introduction of an automated
framework ensures uniformity in risk assessment practices, reducing fragmentation and
duplication of efforts. This standardized approach enhances the reliability and accuracy of risk
management practices across the organization.

4. Adaptability and Scalability: The proposed framework is designed to be adaptable to the dynamic
nature of DASD projects and scalable to accommodate varying project sizes and complexities. By
incorporating machine learning algorithms, the framework can continuously learn and adapt to
evolving project requirements and risk profiles, ensuring its effectiveness in diverse contexts.

5. Future Directions: While the AIRMF presents a significant advancement in risk management
practices within DASD, there are opportunities for further research and development. Future
studies could explore the integration of real-time data streams and advanced analytics techniques
to enhance the predictive capabilities of the framework. Additionally, research could focus on
addressing specific challenges related to geographically distributed agile teams, such as
communication and collaboration barriers.

Overall, the introduction of the AIRMF represents a promising step towards enhancing risk
management practices in Distributed Agile Software Development. By leveraging Artificial
Intelligence and automation, organizations can mitigate risks more effectively, improve project
outcomes, and ultimately drive greater success in software development initiatives.

7.Future Directions:

1. Integration of Real-Time Data Streams: Future research could explore the integration of real-time
data streams from various sources, such as project management tools, version control systems, and
communication platforms. By incorporating real-time data analytics techniques, the risk management
framework could provide more timely and accurate insights into emerging risks, enabling proactive
 mitigation strategies.

2. Advanced Analytics Techniques: There is potential to leverage advanced analytics techniques, such
as predictive modeling, machine learning, and natural language processing, to enhance the predictive
capabilities of the framework. By analyzing historical project data and identifying patterns and
trends, the framework could anticipate potential risks and recommend preemptive actions to mitigate
them.

3. Contextual Adaptability: Future iterations of the risk management framework could focus on
enhancing its adaptability to different project contexts and organizational environments. This could
involve developing customizable risk assessment models and decision-making algorithms that can be
tailored to specific industry domains, project types, and team structures.

4. Integration with Agile Methodologies: Given the dynamic nature of Agile methodologies, future
research could explore ways to integrate the risk management framework more seamlessly into Agile
development processes. This could involve developing agile-specific risk assessment techniques and
incorporating risk management practices into Agile ceremonies and workflows.

5. Addressing Geographical Challenges: As Distributed Agile Software Development involves

geographically dispersed teams, future research could focus on addressing the unique challenges
associated with communication, collaboration, and coordination across distributed teams. This could
involve developing communication protocols, collaboration tools, and virtual team-building
strategies to facilitate effective risk management in distributed environments.

6. Stakeholder Engagement and User Feedback: Continuous stakeholder engagement and user feedback
are essential for refining and improving the risk management framework. Future research could
involve conducting user studies, surveys, and interviews to gather insights from risk managers,
project stakeholders, and development teams, thereby informing iterative enhancements to the
framework.

7. Evaluation and Validation: It is crucial to rigorously evaluate and validate the effectiveness of the
risk management framework in real-world DASD settings. Future research could involve conducting
empirical studies and case studies to assess the framework's impact on project outcomes, risk
mitigation efforts, and overall software development performance.

By exploring these future directions, researchers and practitioners can continue to advance the state-
of-the-art in risk management for Distributed Agile Software Development, ultimately enhancing the
quality, efficiency, and success of software development initiatives in distributed environments.

8. Conclusion

In Distributed Agile Software Development (DASD), risks emerge from the distinct working principles
of Agile Software Development (ASD) and Distributed Software Development (DSD). These
differences pose challenges that, if not addressed, can jeopardize project success and software quality.
Hence, it's imperative to identify and mitigate these risks promptly to ensure optimal outcomes.

The current challenges in risk management within DASD stem from the amalgamation of ASD and
DSD methodologies. These challenges include the potential for fragmentation and duplication of efforts
due to manual risk management processes, as well as the inherent subjectivity and variability in risk
assessment practices across different business units. These inefficiencies hinder effective risk
identification and mitigation, leading to increased project costs and potential delays.

To address these challenges, the study conducts a comprehensive literature review to identify gaps in
existing risk management practices within DASD. By synthesizing findings from previous research, the
study highlights the need for a more streamlined and automated approach to risk management in
DASD, particularly in the context of geographically distributed agile teams.

Building upon the identified gaps in the literature, the study proposes an innovative AI-based Risk
Management Framework specifically tailored for DASD. This framework leverages artificial
intelligence and machine learning techniques to automate various aspects of risk identification,
assessment, and mitigation. By analyzing project data, user stories, and existing risk databases, the
framework can proactively identify and prioritize risks, thereby enabling timely mitigation strategies.

The implementation of the AI-based Risk Management Framework is expected to significantly

reduce the time and effort required for managing risks in DASD. By automating routine tasks and
providing timely insights, the framework enhances efficiency, improves decision-making, and
ultimately reduces the overall cost of the project. Moreover, by promoting consistency and
standardization in risk management practices, the framework contributes to enhanced software
quality and project success.