| Course | PM 591 Agile Project Management (PM/591) |
|---|---|
| Week | 4 |
| Paper type | Graduate agile scaling analysis |
| Length | about 1,216 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PM 591 Week 4
Sixteen Teams, Three Games and One Engine: Scaling Agile From Teams to a Program at an Independent Game Studio
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
PM/591: Agile Project Management
Week 4 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Bluebonnet Forge Games, its teams, games and figures are composites written for a model paper.
Four months into its agile change, the Austin studio in this course runs sixteen agile teams: twelve feature teams and platform, tools and content production teams on the role-playing game still in production, plus two operations teams for its live games. All three games run on the studio's own engine. After four months of team-level agile, team health surveys are better and playable builds arrive every sprint. But problems have appeared that no single team can solve. This paper scales the studio's agile approach to the program level.
Coordination Problems That Appeared
Four problems recur. First, shared engine changes: twice, an engine change made for the new title broke a live game's build, once delaying a seasonal content release by a week. Second, duplicated work: two feature teams each built a dialogue scripting tool before discovering the other's. Third, late dependencies: teams discovered at sprint reviews that they needed something from another team, too late to plan for it. Fourth, uneven priorities: the platform team receives more requests than it can handle and has no clear way to rank requests from three games.
What Research Says About Scaling
Dikert et al. (2016) systematically reviewed reports of large-scale agile transformations and identified common challenges, including difficulty implementing agile practices, integrating non-development functions, resistance to change, requirements engineering across levels and coordination among many teams, as well as success factors such as management support, choosing and customizing the approach and training and coaching. Edison et al. (2022) compared methods for large-scale agile development in a systematic review and found that each method addressed coordination in different ways, with trade-offs between prescriptiveness and flexibility, and that evidence on their relative effectiveness was limited. Both reviews suggest choosing a scaling approach by the problems to be solved rather than by reputation.
Comparing Three Frameworks
Scaled Agile Framework: adds a program level with release trains of teams, a ten-week planning increment opened by a large planning event, roles such as release train engineer and product management and a portfolio level. Strength: thorough handling of dependencies and planning. Cost: many new roles and events, which could overwhelm a 240-person studio.
Large-Scale Scrum: keeps one product backlog and one product owner for many teams, with feature teams and shared sprint events. Strength: simplicity and a focus on whole-product thinking. Cost: assumes one product, while the studio has three games.
Nexus: an exoskeleton for three to nine Scrum teams on one product, adding an integration team and a shared backlog refinement and sprint planning. Strength: light and focused on integration. Cost: designed for a single product and limited team count.
None fits perfectly. The studio has three products sharing one engine, which none of the frameworks treats as its central problem.
The studio's hardest coordination problem is not sixteen teams; it is one engine serving three games.
A Lightweight Program Layer
The studio adopts selected elements rather than a whole framework.
Quarterly planning day: every quarter, all sixteen teams spend one day planning together, taking ideas from the Scaled Agile Framework's planning event but shortened. Teams present their goals, map dependencies on a shared board and agree on commitments between teams.
Engine roadmap and technical product owner: the platform team gains a technical product owner who owns a single engine backlog, ranks requests from all three games against a published set of criteria and publishes a quarterly engine roadmap.
Integration rules: engine changes go through a shared branch with automated tests from all three games, so a change that breaks a live game is caught before it merges. This borrows Nexus's emphasis on integration.
Communities of practice: designers, programmers, artists and producers meet across teams biweekly; a shared catalog of internal tools prevents duplicated building.
Program board: the production director, the creative directors of the three games, the technical product owner and the head of live operations meet biweekly to resolve conflicts the planning day cannot.
The current standard encourages tailoring at every level, including the structures that coordinate multiple teams, and warns against adopting more process than the work requires (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2021).
What the Studio Leaves Out
The studio deliberately does not adopt release trains, a portfolio management layer or new full-time roles beyond the technical product owner. It may revisit that if it grows or adds a fourth game.
Rolling Out the Program Layer
The layer is introduced in stages rather than all at once. The first quarterly planning day comes first, because it addresses the most painful problem, late dependencies, and gives everyone a shared picture of the quarter. The technical product owner and engine backlog follow within a month, once the platform team has cleared its oldest requests. Integration rules for the shared engine branch take about six weeks to build, since the live games' automated tests must first be extended to cover the systems most often affected. Communities of practice and the tools catalog start immediately, as they need little setup. Introducing one element at a time lets the studio see which parts help before adding the next.
A First Quarterly Planning Day
The first planning day showed both the value and the cost. Teams identified 47 dependencies, 11 of which nobody had known about; three would have blocked a feature team for a full sprint. But the day ran two hours long, and several artists said the large-room sessions felt irrelevant to them. The second planning day will use shorter plenary sessions and give content teams their own breakout.
Culture and Leadership
Scaling also asks leaders to change. The production director models transparency by publishing the program board's decisions and reasons. Creative directors of the three games agree to trade-offs in the open at the planning day rather than lobbying the platform team privately. Coaches from the studio's two experienced scrum masters support teams new to cross-team planning.
What It Costs
The program layer is not free. The technical product owner is a new senior position, about $180,000 a year with benefits. Each quarterly planning day takes all sixteen teams out of production for a day, roughly 1,200 hours of work. The integration test suite needs about two months of engineering to build and ongoing upkeep. Against these costs sit a delayed seasonal release worth several hundred thousand dollars in lost revenue, duplicated tools and sprints lost to late dependencies.
Measures
Five measures tell the studio whether the layer helps: live game builds broken by engine changes, target zero; dependencies discovered within a sprint rather than at planning, target a 50 percent reduction; duplicated tools found in the catalog, target zero; percentage of cross-team commitments met each quarter; and team survey ratings of whether the program layer helps or hinders, reviewed quarterly. If the last measure turns negative, the layer will be simplified.
Conclusion
Scaling agile at Bluebonnet Forge started from four coordination problems, not from a framework. Research on large-scale agile warned of coordination, integration and resistance challenges and showed that no framework has clearly superior evidence. The studio therefore built a light program layer from selected elements: a quarterly planning day, an engine roadmap with a technical product owner, integration rules, communities of practice and a program board, with measures to keep it honest.
References
Dikert, K., Paasivaara, M., & Lassenius, C. (2016). Challenges and success factors for large-scale agile transformations: A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 119, 87-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.06.013
Edison, H., Wang, X., & Conboy, K. (2022). Comparing methods for large-scale agile software development: A systematic literature review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 48(8), 2709-2731. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2021.3069039
Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.
What the PM 591 Week 4 instructions ask
Week 4 of PM 591 has graduate students work out how agile ways of working stretch from one team to a program or a whole organization. Prompts may ask students to compare scaling frameworks such as the Scaled Agile Framework, Large-Scale Scrum, Nexus or Scrum@Scale, identify coordination challenges such as dependencies, integration and shared architecture, evaluate research on large-scale agile transformations and recommend an approach for an organization. Carry your earlier organization forward, set out the coordination problems it actually faces before naming any framework and cite journal studies of large-scale agile in APA, including at least one systematic review.
How this PM 591 Week 4 example is built
Our example begins with what went wrong when a dozen agile teams worked side by side: engine changes for the new title broke the live games twice, two teams built nearly the same dialogue tool and dependencies surfaced only at sprint reviews. It names four coordination problems and compares three scaling frameworks on how they would address them and what each costs in roles and ceremony. Research on large-scale transformations shows common challenges with coordination, resistance and requirements across levels. The studio chooses a lightweight program layer: a shared quarterly planning day, an engine roadmap owned by a technical product owner, integration rules for the shared engine, cross-team communities and a program board. Measures check that the layer helps.
PM 591 Week 4 grading rubric: where the points go
Graduate graders look for scaling choices grounded in actual coordination problems. Excellent papers identify specific challenges, compare scaling frameworks by their mechanisms and overhead rather than their popularity and use research on large-scale agile to anticipate difficulties. Recommendations should be proportionate, adding only the structure the organization needs, and should address shared architecture, integration and dependencies concretely. Credit goes to measures that show whether scaling helps. A comparison built around the organization's own problems, a logical argument and properly formatted APA references earn the remaining credit. Naming the framework elements deliberately left out, and the conditions under which they would be added, shows the judgment the course is looking for.
PM 591 Week 4 help: mistakes to avoid
Recommending the largest framework by default is the most common weakness; heavy frameworks add roles and events that small programs may not need. Start from your coordination problems. Another frequent issue is describing frameworks without comparing how they handle the same problem. Use the same problems as the basis for comparison. Students also forget shared technology, which in many organizations is the hardest coordination issue. Address it directly. Some papers treat scaling as a structural change only, overlooking culture and leadership. Finally, describe how you will know if the program layer is adding value or bureaucracy, and what you would remove first. A tutor can help you build a comparison table around your organization's problems.
Related PM 591 sample papers
Other PM 591 week samples
- PM 591 Week 1: Agile Foundations
- PM 591 Week 2: Agile Teams and Leadership
- PM 591 Week 3: Tailoring Agile Approaches
- PM 591 Week 5: Agile Portfolio Management
- PM 591 Week 6: Measuring Value Delivery
More MBA sample papers
- PM 570 Week 4: Selecting and Balancing a Portfolio
- PM 583 Week 4: Change Management Models
- PM 585 Week 4: Building the Schedule
- PM 587 Week 4: Planning Risk Responses
PM 591 Week 4 questions, answered
What does PM 591 Week 4 usually cover?
It usually covers scaling agile from teams to programs: coordination challenges, frameworks such as SAFe, LeSS and Nexus, research on large-scale agile and choosing an approach that fits an organization.
Where can I find a free PM 591 Week 4 sample paper?
The Week 4 paper above scales agile across sixteen teams and three games at a game studio, comparing three frameworks, and it is free.
What is the difference between SAFe and LeSS?
SAFe adds program and portfolio layers with defined roles, events and planning increments. LeSS keeps Scrum largely as is and scales it with minimal added roles, emphasizing one product backlog for many teams.
What are common challenges in scaling agile?
Coordinating dependencies among teams, integrating work continuously, managing shared architecture, aligning requirements across levels and resistance to changes in roles and power.
When is a heavy scaling framework a poor fit?
When an organization's coordination problems are few and specific, a heavy framework can add roles and meetings that cost more than the problems they solve.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All PM 591 week samples · All courses