![](bga.png)
approach because of two features. The classifica-
tion presented in Section 2 intends to guide RIMPRO
users to classify PO risks, as described in Section
3.2. Also, the data obtained by surveying the risks
involving the PO was used to create a database for
the SAPM-Extended that was used to automate RIM-
PRO. Thus, during the RIMPRO assessment, users
were able to access the risk database through SAPM-
Extended. The participants considered this database
as a strong point that helped to understand RIMPRO,
although it still requires expansion. Another feature
that distinguishes RIMPRO from a general risk man-
agement approach is the fact that the Risk Master is
the PO because the PO is the most important mem-
ber of the Scrum Team for risk management, and the
risks can be related to the client and the PO is the
most suitable member to treat them, since (s)he is the
one, among the other members of the Scrum Team,
who has direct contact with the client throughout the
project.
6 CONCLUSION
Although Scrum is one of the most widely used agile
methods today, it does not have a structured way of
managing risks that may arise throughout the project.
This work contributed to structuring the RIMPRO to
support the Scrum Team to implement a systematic
way of managing risks, based on the PMBoK Guide,
without interfering with the agile values of Scrum.
Structuring a risk management framework for agile
projects contributes to this area maturity and, conse-
quently, promotes the advancement of research aimed
at its improvement.
The results obtained through the preliminary
RIMPRO assessment are promising. This assessment
provides evidence of the feasibility of RIMPRO in
supporting the Scrum Team by taking decisions based
on the risks related to the PO that may arise in an ag-
ile and satisfactory manner. However, we have not
applied RIMPRO to real agile projects. Furthermore,
another limitation of RIMPRO is the non-use of quan-
titative techniques to perform risk analysis. There-
fore, we intend to evaluate the effectiveness of RIM-
PRO by conducting experiments and realistic case
studies in companies, as well as improving RIMPRO
by using quantitative risk analysis without infringing
agile manifesto.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to God for everything, as well as Con-
selho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient
´
ıfico
e Tecnol
´
ogico (CNPq) and Coordenac¸
˜
ao de
Aperfeic¸oamento de Pessoal de N
´
ıvel Superior
(CAPES) for the financial support.
REFERENCES
Alliance, A. (2017). Agile Practice Guide, volume 1. Buku-
pedia.
Alsaqaf, W., Daneva, M., and Wieringa, R. (2017). Ag-
ile quality requirements engineering challenges: First
results from a case study. In 2017 ACM/IEEE Interna-
tional Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering
and Measurement (ESEM), pages 454–459.
Andrat, H. and Jaswal, S. (2015). An alternative approach
for risk assessment in scrum. In 2015 International
Conference on Computing and Network Communica-
tions (CoCoNet), pages 535–539. IEEE.
Asghar, A. R., Tabassum, A., Bhatti, S. N., and Jadi, A. M.
(2017). Impact and challenges of requirements elicita-
tion & prioritization in quality to agile process: Scrum
as a case scenario. In 2017 International Conference
on Communication Technologies (ComTech), pages
50–55. IEEE.
Bista, R., Karki, S., and Dongol, D. (2017). A new approach
for software risk estimation. In 2017 11th Interna-
tional Conference on Software, Knowledge, Informa-
tion Management and Applications (SKIMA), pages
1–8.
Boone, H. N. and Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing likert
data. Journal of extension, 50(2):1–5.
Curcio, K., Navarro, T., Malucelli, A., and Reinehr, S.
(2018). Requirements engineering: A systematic
mapping study in agile software development. Jour-
nal of Systems and Software, 139:32–50.
Dalkey, N. and Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental ap-
plication of the delphi method to the use of experts.
Management science, 9(3):458–467.
de Godoi Contessoto, A., Sant’Ana, L. A., De Souza, R.
C. G., Val
ˆ
encio, C. R., Doneg
´
a, G. F., Amorim, A. R.,
and Esteca, A. M. N. (2016). Improving risk identi-
fication process in project management. In Proceed-
ings of the International Conference on Software En-
gineering and Knowledge Engineering, SEKE, pages
555–558.
Dikert, K., Paasivaara, M., and Lassenius, C. (2016). Chal-
lenges and success factors for large-scale agile trans-
formations: A systematic literature review. Journal of
Systems and Software, 119:87–108.
Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., and Moe, N. (2012).
A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining
agile software development. Journal of Systems and
Software, 85(6):1213 – 1221.
Elghariani, K. and Kama, N. (2016). Review on agile re-
quirements engineering challenges. In 2016 3rd In-
ternational conference on computer and information
sciences (ICCOINS), pages 507–512. IEEE.
A Risk Management Framework for Scrum Projects
39