Scaled agile development approaches are now used widely in modern software engineering, allowing businesses to improve teamwork, productivity, and product quality. The incorporation of artificial intelligence (AI) into scaled agile development methods (SADMs) has emerged as a potential strategy in response to the ongoing demand for simplified procedures and the increasing complexity of software projects. This paper explores the intersection of AI-driven assistants within the context of the scaled agile framework (SAFe) for large-scale software development, as it stands out as the most widely adopted framework. Our paper pursues three principal objectives: (1) an evaluation of the challenges and impediments encountered by organizations during the implementation of SADMs, (2) an assessment of the potential advantages stemming from the incorporation of AI in large-scale contexts, and (3) the compilation of aspects of SADMs that AI-driven assistants enhance. Through a comprehensive systematic literature review, we identified and described 18 distinct challenges that organizations confront. In the course of our research, we pinpointed seven benefits and five challenges associated with the implementation of AI in SADMs. These findings were systematically categorized based on their occurrence either within the development phase or the phases encompassing planning and control. Furthermore, we compiled a list of 15 different AI-driven assistants and tools, subjecting them to a more detailed examination, and employing them to address the challenges we uncovered during our research. One of the key takeaways from this paper is the exceptional versatility and effectiveness of AI-driven assistants, demonstrating their capability to tackle a broader spectrum of problems. In conclusion, this paper not only sheds light on the transformative potential of AI, but also provides invaluable insights for organizations aiming to enhance their agility and management capabilities.

As artificial intelligence advances, source code completion assistants are becoming more advanced and powerful. Existing traditional assistants are no longer up to all the developers’ challenges. Traditional assistants usually present proposals in alphabetically sorted lists, which does not make a developer’s tasks any easier (i.e., they still have to search and filter an appropriate proposal manually). As a possible solution to the presented issue, intelligent assistants that can classify suggestions according to relevance in particular contexts have emerged. Artificial intelligence methods have proven to be successful in solving such problems. Advanced intelligent assistants not only take into account the context of a particular source code but also, more importantly, examine other available projects in detail to extract possible patterns related to particular source code intentions. This is how intelligent assistants try to provide developers with relevant suggestions. By conducting a systematic literature review, we examined the current intelligent assistant landscape. Based on our review, we tested four intelligent assistants and compared them according to their functionality. GitHub Copilot, which stood out, allows suggestions in the form of complete source code sections. One would expect that intelligent assistants, with their outstanding functionalities, would be one of the most popular helpers in a developer’s toolbox. However, through a survey we conducted among practitioners, the results, surprisingly, contradicted this idea. Although intelligent assistants promise high usability, our questionnaires indicate that usability improvements are still needed. However, our research data show that experienced developers value intelligent assistants highly, highlighting their significant utility for the experienced developers group when compared to less experienced individuals. The unexpectedly low net promoter score (NPS) for intelligent code assistants in our study was quite surprising, highlighting a stark contrast between the anticipated impact of these advanced tools and their actual reception among developers.

Effort estimation is critical in software engineering to assess the resources needed for development tasks and to enable realistic commitments in agile iterations. This study investigates whether generative AI tools, which are transforming various aspects of software development, can improve effort estimation efficiency. A controlled experiment was conducted in which development teams upgraded an existing information system, with the experimental group using the generative-AI-based tool GitLab Duo for estimation and the control group using conventional methods (e.g., planning poker or analogy-based planning). Results show that while generative-AI-based estimation tools achieved only 16% accuracy—currently insufficient for industry standards—they offered valuable support for task breakdown and iteration planning. Participants noted that a combination of conventional methods and AI-based tools could offer enhanced accuracy and efficiency in future planning.

Technical debt is a well understood and used concept in IT development. The metaphor, rooted in the financial world, captures the amount of work that development teams owe to a product. Every time developers take a shortcut within development, the technical debt accumulates. Technical debt identification can be accomplished via manual reporting on the technical debt items, which is called self-admitted technical debt. Several specialised methods and tools have also emerged that promise to measure the technical debt. Based on experience in the community, the impression emerged that the measured technical debt is of a significantly different amount than the self-admitted debt. In this context, we decided to perform empirical research on the possible gap between the two. We investigated 14 production-grade software products while determining the amount of accumulated technical debt via (a) a self-admitting procedure and (b) measuring the debt. The outcomes show clearly the significant difference in the technical debt reported by the two methods. We urge development and quality-assurance teams not to rely on technical debt measurement alone. The tools demonstrated their strength in identifying low-level code technical debt items that violate a set of predefined rules. However, developers should have additional insight into violations, based on the interconnected source code and its relation to the domain and higher-level design decisions.