Context: Generative AI (GenAI) is argued to transform software engineering (SE) in various ways, and GenAI tools show promise for various SE tasks. Software organizations across the globe are currently exploring the use of GenAI for SE. Objective: While numerous studies have recently been published on GenAI, few studies have looked at the adoption of these tools and their usage from an organizational point of view, focusing instead on individual users. Our objective is to understand how organizations adopt these tools and what their impacts are in industrial contexts, with a focus on the European perspective. Method: We conducted a multiple case study of seven European companies. We collected data through semi-structured interviews (n=15), as well as through longitudinal observation in one case company. All data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: We analyzed 28 transcripts, resulting in 456 quotations and 557 code occurrences split between 66 individual codes that were categorized under 6 high-level themes. We identified 25 types of tasks GenAI was currently being used for in our case organizations. We identified 12 benefits for GenAI in SE and 10 adoption and use challenges. Key adoption challenges for organizations include data privacy and legislative concerns, the emerging and fast-moving market of GenAI tools, difficulty of measuring the positive impact of the tools, and potential change resistance. For individuals, the key challenges are related to prompting, such as understanding what a good prompt is, and how to write prompts for specific tasks. Conclusion: GenAI adoption is becoming widespread in SE, but good practices and use cases are still emerging. While GenAI can potentially produce various benefits in SE, companies and individual users are facing various challenges in making the most of GenAI in SE. Our results provide insights into the current state of practice.

Abstract Agile methodologies are sometimes adopted, with the assumption that benefits can be attained by only using a set of best practices, which can sometimes work to a degree. In this paper, a case is discussed where a software‐producing organization of seven teams achieved significant improvements. The goal of the research was to answer two questions: how an already agile organization could improve its performance further and what is the impact of promoting quality aspects? The questions were answered by implementing interventions based on prior literature and data emerging from semi‐structured interviews. The context was an established business with a complex revenue stream structure, meaning the mix of various project/service/product based work rendered the adoption of agile methods a challenge. Action research comprising three rounds of interventions was conducted to improve the organization and its quality culture while enforcing code review practices. Interventions resulted in a significant improvement in quality, as measured by reported defects. Therefore, it is suggested that agile methods are not sufficient on their own to take software business forward unless a quality‐focused culture is simultaneously achieved through a mindset change and organizational structures to enforce quality practices. The paper contributes to research on the managerial practices of software business and agile transformation by providing empirical support to introducing formal quality improvement to the agile mix as a method for practitioners to improve organizations with complex business models and multiple teams.