# Integrating Interactive Detection of Code Smells into Scrum: Feasibility, Benefits, and Challenges
## 5 Offline Validation: Insights from a Focus Group
### Results  
The collected data from the focus group session were analyzed using a qualitative approach which involved consolidating, condensing, and interpreting the gathered information to gain deeper insights into the results. The audio recordings were transcribed and organized in a spreadsheet using the qualitative data analysis features of the Microsoft Excel tool. In the following sections, we present the main findings derived from the analysis of the focus group activities. Adaptation of Scrum Components: The second part of the focus group aimed to evaluate the participant consensus regarding the proposed adaptations to the Scrum components. Through data analysis, we examined the participants' perspectives on the relevance and feasibility of incorporating these adaptations into the Scrum framework. Adaptation of RolesInitially, the results associated with the proposal to create a new role (i.e., quality evaluator) in Scrum are presented. Most participants agreed (5) when asked about their agreement, while only three partially agreed with creating this role. This suggests that the focus group participants received the proposal well and that they see value in including this new role to improve the quality of the development process and, consequently, the quality of the code. However, most participants disagreed when asked if other role adaptations were necessary (6), and only two agreed. This may indicate that the participants see the proposed creation of the \"quality evaluator\" as sufficient to improve the development process and that other changes may be unnecessary or harmful. Adaptation of artifactsIn this activity, we present the results regarding the proposal to add a new artifact to the Scrum (i.e., Global List of smells in the Product Backlog). The results obtained during the focus group indicate that the participants received the creation of the artifact well. Most participants (6) fully agreed with the inclusion of this artifact, which suggests that they recognize the value that this artifact can add to the development process. This can be explained by the fact that the \"Global List\" can help manage code smells. On the other hand, when asked if there was a need for other adaptations of artifacts, most participants were neutral (5) or disagreed (3). These results can be explained by the fact that the inclusion of the \"Global List\" is already seen as a significant enough change to improve the development process. Adaptation of eventsThis activity demonstrates the results associated with the proposed adaptation of Scrum events. When asked about their agreement with this adaptation, half of the participants strongly agreed (4), and the other half partially agreed (4). These results may indicate that the participants saw the adaptation of the events as positive, although not all completely agreed. However, when asked if there was a need for further adaptations in the events, most participants disagreed (6) or were neutral (2). This may indicate that the proposed adaptations are sufficient to improve the development process and that other changes could be unnecessary or harmful. Presentation of the ApproachThe third part of the focus group analysis focused on gathering data related to integrating the ID technique into Scrum. The findings suggest that the proposed approach can potentially enhance the effectiveness of the code smell detection process. Most participants (seven out of eight) strongly agreed with this assertion. This positive response can be attributed to adopting the ID technique, which enables continuous detection of code smells during development. By promptly identifying and addressing these issues, developers can improve software quality. On the other hand, when considering whether integrating the ID technique into Scrum helps improve software quality, most participants (six out of eight) strongly agreed with the statement, while one disagreed. The dissenting opinion may stem from varying perspectives among participants regarding what constitutes an \"improvement\" in softwarequality.