Individual empowerment of agile and non-agile software developers in small teams

ContextEmpowerment of employees at work has been known to have a positive impact on job motivation and satisfaction. Software development is a field of knowledge work wherein one should also expect to see these effects, and the idea of empowerment has become particularly visible in agile methodologies, in which proponents emphasise team empowerment and individual control of the work activities as a central concern.ObjectiveThis research aims to get a better understanding of how empowerment is enabled in software development teams, both agile and non-agile, to identify differences in empowering practices and levels of individual empowerment.MethodTwenty-five interviews with agile and non-agile developers from Norway and Canada on decision making and empowerment are analysed. The analysis is conducted using a conceptual model with categories for involvement, structural empowerment and psychological empowerment.ResultsBoth kinds of development organisations are highly empowered and they are similar in most aspects relating to empowerment. However, there is a distinction in the sense that agile developers have more possibilities to select work tasks and influence the priorities in a development project due to team empowerment. Agile developers seem to put a higher emphasis on the value of information in decision making, and have more prescribed activities to enable low-cost information flow. More power is obtained through the achievement of managing roles for the non-agile developers who show interest and are rich in initiatives.ConclusionAgile developers have a higher sense of being able to impact the organisation than non-agile developers and have information channels that is significantly differently from non-agile developers. For non-agile teams, higher empowerment can be obtained by systematically applying low-cost participative decision making practices in the manager–developer relation and among peer developers. For agile teams, it is essential to more rigorously follow the empowering practices already established.     

The impact of agile practices on communication in software development

Agile software development practices such as eXtreme Programming (XP) and SCRUM have increasingly been adopted to respond to the challenges of volatile business environments, where the markets and technologies evolve rapidly and present the unexpected. In spite of the encouraging results so far, little is known about how agile practices affect communication. This article presents the results from a study which examined the impact of XP and SCRUM practices on communication within software development teams and within the focal organization. The research was carried out as a case study in F-Secure where two agile software development projects were compared from the communication perspective. The goal of the study is to increase the understanding of communication in the context of agile software development: internally among the developers and project leaders and in the interface between the development team and stakeholders (i.e. customers, testers, other development teams). The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication. However, it further indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication. The study highlights the fact that hurdles and improvements in the communication process can both affect the feature requirements and task subtask dependencies as described in coordination theory. While the use of SCRUM and some XP practices facilitate team and organizational communication of the dependencies between product features and working tasks, the use of agile practices requires that the team and organization use also additional plan-driven practices to ensure the efficiency of external communication between all the actors of software development.

A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a Scrum project

ContextSoftware development depends significantly on team performance, as does any process that involves human interaction.ObjectiveMost current development methods argue that teams should self-manage. Our objective is thus to provide a better understanding of the nature of self-managing agile teams, and the teamwork challenges that arise when introducing such teams.MethodWe conducted extensive fieldwork for 9 months in a software development company that introduced Scrum. We focused on the human sensemaking, on how mechanisms of teamwork were understood by the people involved.ResultsWe describe a project through Dickinson and McIntyre’s teamwork model, focusing on the interrelations between essential teamwork components. Problems with team orientation, team leadership and coordination in addition to highly specialized skills and corresponding division of work were important barriers for achieving team effectiveness.ConclusionTransitioning from individual work to self-managing teams requires a reorientation not only by developers but also by management. This transition takes time and resources, but should not be neglected. In addition to Dickinson and McIntyre’s teamwork components, we found trust and shared mental models to be of fundamental importance.     

Performance Alignment Work: How software developers experience the continuous adaptation of team performance in Lean and Agile environments

ContextCompanies increasingly strive to adapt to market and ecosystem changes in real time. Gauging and understanding team performance in such changing environments present a major challenge.ObjectiveThis paper aims to understand how software developers experience the continuous adaptation of performance in a modern, highly volatile environment using Lean and Agile software development methodology. This understanding can be used as a basis for guiding formation and maintenance of high-performing teams, to inform performance improvement initiatives, and to improve working conditions for software developers.MethodA qualitative multiple-case study using thematic interviews was conducted with 16 experienced practitioners in five organisations.ResultsWe generated a grounded theory, Performance Alignment Work, showing how software developers experience performance. We found 33 major categories of performance factors and relationships between the factors. A cross-case comparison revealed similarities and differences between different kinds and different sizes of organisations.ConclusionsBased on our study, software teams are engaged in a constant cycle of interpreting their own performance and negotiating its alignment with other stakeholders. While differences across organisational sizes exist, a common set of performance experiences is present despite differences in context variables. Enhancing performance experiences requires integration of soft factors, such as communication, team spirit, team identity, and values, into the overall development process. Our findings suggest a view of software development and software team performance that centres around behavioural and social sciences.     

Acquiring and sharing tacit knowledge in software development teams: An empirical study

ContextSharing expert knowledge is a key process in developing software products. Since expert knowledge is mostly tacit, the acquisition and sharing of tacit knowledge along with the development of a transactive memory system (TMS) are significant factors in effective software teams.ObjectiveWe seek to enhance our understanding human factors in the software development process and provide support for the agile approach, particularly in its advocacy of social interaction, by answering two questions: How do software development teams acquire and share tacit knowledge? What roles do tacit knowledge and transactive memory play in successful team performance?MethodA theoretical model describing the process for acquiring and sharing tacit knowledge and development of a TMS through social interaction is presented and a second predictive model addresses the two research questions above. The elements of the predictive model and other demographic variables were incorporated into a larger online survey for software development teams, completed by 46 software SMEs, consisting of 181 individual team members.ResultsOur results show that team tacit knowledge is acquired and shared directly through good quality social interactions and through the development of a TMS with quality of social interaction playing a greater role than transactive memory. Both TMS and team tacit knowledge predict effectiveness but not efficiency in software teams.ConclusionIt is concluded that TMS and team tacit knowledge can differentiate between low- and high-performing teams in terms of effectiveness, where more effective teams have a competitive advantage in developing new products and bringing them to market. As face-to-face social interaction is key, collocated, functionally rich, domain expert teams are advocated rather than distributed teams, though arguably the team manager may be in a separate geographic location provided that there is frequent communication and effective use of issue tracking tools as in agile teams.     

Becoming agile together: Customer influence on agile adoption within commissioned software teams

Despite the ongoing expansion of agile practices beyond software firms, agile adoption remains risky, challenging, and poorly understood. Although agile practices emphasize self-organization and customer collaboration, we know little about how customers influence agile adoption within self-organizing teams. Here, we analyze how a commissioned software team engaged in customer collaboration during agile adoption at a Danish IT service provider. Our case study shows that the software team's transition to self-organized teamwork practices, agile planning routines, and active customer engagement was mutually dependent on the customer's trust in the software team and flexible collaborative routines. As a result, we advance a theoretical perspective of customer influence on agile adoption within commissioned software teams, implying that both software teams and customers need to navigate a contradictory tension between self-organization and collaboration to become agile together.     

Processes versus people: How should agile software development maturity be defined?

Maturity in software development is currently defined by models such as CMMI-DEV and ISO/IEC 15504, which emphasize the need to manage, establish, measure and optimize processes. Teams that develop software using these models are guided by defined, detailed processes. However, an increasing number of teams have been implementing agile software development methods that focus on people rather than processes. What, then, is maturity for these agile teams that focus less on detailed, defined processes? This is the question we sought to answer in this study. To this end, we asked agile practitioners about their perception of the maturity level of a number of practices and how they defined maturity in agile software development. We used cluster analysis to analyze quantitative data and triangulated the results with content analysis of the qualitative data. We then proposed a new definition for agile software development maturity. The findings show that practitioners do not see maturity in agile software development as process definition or quantitative management capabilities. Rather, agile maturity means fostering more subjective capabilities, such as collaboration, communication, commitment, care, sharing and self-organization.     

Mockup-Driven Development: Providing agile support for Model-Driven Web Engineering

ContextAgile software development approaches are currently becoming the industry standard for Web Application development. On the other hand, Model-Driven Web Engineering (MDWE) methodologies are known to improve productivity when building this kind of applications. However, current MDWE methodologies tend to ignore important aspects of Web Applications development supported by agile processes, such as constant customer feedback or early design of user interfaces.ObjectiveIn this paper we analyze the difficulties of supporting agile features in MDWE methodologies. Then, we propose an approach that eases the incorporation of well-known agile practices to MDWE.MethodWe propose using User Interface prototypes (usually known as mockups) as a way to start the modeling process in the context of a mixed agile-MDWE process. To assist this process, we defined a lightweight metamodel that allows modeling features over mockups, interacting with end-users and generating MDWE models. Then, we conducted a statistical evaluation of both approaches (traditional vs. mockup-based modeling).ResultsFirst we comment on how agile features can be added to MDWE processes using mockups. Then, we show by means of a quantitative study that the proposed approach is faster, less error-prone and still as complete as traditional MDWE processes.ConclusionThe use of mockups to guide the MDWE process helps in the reduction of the development cycle as well as in the incorporation of agile practices in the model-driven workflow. Complete MDWE models can be built and generated by using lightweight modeling over User Interface mockups, and this process suggests being more efficient, in terms of errors and effort, than traditional modeling in MDWE.     

Performance on agile teams: Relating iteration objectives and critical decisions to project management success factors

ContextWhile project management success factors have long been established via the golden triangle, little is known about how project iteration objectives and critical decisions relate to these success factors. It seems logical that teams’ iteration objectives would reflect project management success factors, but this may not always be the case. If not, how are teams’ objectives for iterations differing from the golden triangle of project management success factors?ObjectiveThis study identifies iteration objectives and the critical decisions that relate to the golden triangle of project management success factors in agile software development teams working in two-week iterations.MethodThe author conducted semi-structured interviews with members across three different agile software development teams using a hybrid of XP and Scrum agile methodologies. Iteration Planning and Retrospective meetings were also observed. Interview data was transcribed, coded and reviewed by the researcher and two independently trained research assistants. Data analysis involved organizing the data to identify iteration objectives and critical decisions to identify whether they relate to project management success factors.ResultsAgile teams discussed four categories of iteration objectives: Functionality, Schedule, Quality and Team Satisfaction. Two of these objectives map directly to two aspects of the golden triangle: schedule and quality. The agile teams’ critical decisions were also examined to understand the types of decisions the teams would have made differently to ensure success, which resulted in four categories of such decisions: Quality, Dividing Work, Iteration Amendments and Team Satisfaction.ConclusionThis research has contributed to the software development and project management literature by examining iteration objectives on agile teams and how they relate to the golden triangle of project management success factors to see whether these teams incorporate the golden triangle factors in their objectives and whether they include additional objectives in their iterations. What’s more, this research identified four critical decisions related to the golden triangle. These findings provide important insight to the continuing effort to better assess project management success, particularly for agile teams.     

When agile meets the enterprise

ContextWhile renowned agile methods like XP and Scrum were initially intended for projects with small teams, traditional enterprise environments, i.e. environments where plan-driven development is prevalent, have also become attracted by the promises of a faster time to market through agility. Agile software development methods emphasize lightweight software development. Projects within enterprise environments, however, are typically confronted with a large and complex IT landscape, where mission-critical information is at play whose criticality requires prudence regarding design and development. In many an organization, both approaches are used simultaneously.ObjectiveFind out which challenges the co-existence of agile methods and plan-driven development brings, and how organizations deal with those challenges.MethodWe present a grounded theory of the challenges of using agile methods in traditional enterprise environments, based on a Grounded Theory research involving 21 agile practitioners from two large enterprise organizations in the Netherlands.ResultsWe organized the challenges under two factors: Increased landscape complexity and Lack of business involvement. For both factors, we identify successful mitigation strategies. These mitigation strategies concern the communication between the agile and traditional part of the organization, and the timing of that communication.ConclusionAgile practices can coexist with plan-driven development. One should, however, keep in mind the context and take actions to mitigate the challenges incurred.     

Perceived barriers to effective knowledge sharing in agile software teams

While the literature offers several frameworks that explain barriers to knowledge sharing within software development teams, little is known about differences in how team members perceive these barriers. Based on an in‐depth multi‐case study of four software projects, we investigate how project managers, developers, testers and user representatives think about barriers to effective knowledge sharing in agile development. Adapting comparative causal mapping, we constructed causal maps for each of the four roles and identified overlap and divergence in map constructs and causal linkages. The results indicate that despite certain similarities, the four roles differ in how they perceive and emphasize knowledge‐sharing barriers. The project managers put primary emphasis on project setting barriers, while the primary concern of developers, testers and user representatives were project communication, project organization and team capabilities barriers, respectively. Integrating the four causal maps and the agile literature, we propose a conceptual framework with seven types of knowledge‐sharing barriers and 37 specific barriers. We argue that to bridge communication gaps and create shared understanding in software teams, it is critical to take the revealed concerns of different roles into account. We conclude by discussing our findings in relation to knowledge sharing in agile teams and software teams more generally.     

Interpretative case studies on agile team productivity and management

ContextThe management of software development productivity is a key issue in software organizations, where the major drivers are lower cost and shorter time-to-market. Agile methods, including Extreme Programming and Scrum, have evolved as “light” approaches that simplify the software development process, potentially leading to increased team productivity. However, little empirical research has examined which factors do have an impact on productivity and in what way, when using agile methods.ObjectiveOur objective is to provide a better understanding of the factors and mediators that impact agile team productivity.MethodWe have conducted a multiple-case study for 6 months in three large Brazilian companies that have been using agile methods for over 2 years. We have focused on the main productivity factors perceived by team members through interviews, documentation from retrospectives, and non-participant observation.ResultsWe developed a novel conceptual framework, using thematic analysis to understand the possible mechanisms behind such productivity factors. Agile team management was found to be the most influential factor in achieving agile team productivity. At the intra-team level, the main productivity factors were team design (structure and work allocation) and member turnover. At the inter-team level, the main productivity factors were how well teams could be effectively coordinated by proper interfaces and other dependencies and avoiding delays in providing promised software to dependent teams.ConclusionTeams should be aware of the influence and magnitude of turnover, which has been shown negative for agile team productivity. Team design choices remain an important factor impacting team productivity, even more pronounced on agile teams that rely on teamwork and people factors. The intra-team coordination processes must be adjusted to enable productive work by considering priorities and pace between teams. Finally, the revised conceptual framework for agile team productivity supports further tests through confirmatory studies.     

Challenges of shared decision-making: A multiple case study of agile software development

ContextAgile software development changes the nature of collaboration, coordination, and communication in software projects.ObjectiveOur objective was to understand the challenges of shared decision-making in agile software development teams.MethodWe designed a multiple case study consisting of four projects in two software product companies that recently adopted Scrum. We collected data in semi-structured interviews, through participant observations, and from process artifacts.ResultsWe identified three main challenges to shared decision-making in agile software development: alignment of strategic product plans with iteration plans, allocation of development resources, and performing development and maintenance tasks in teams.ConclusionAgile software development requires alignment of decisions on the strategic, tactical, and operational levels in order to overcome these challenges. Agile development also requires a transition from specialized skills to redundancy of functions and from rational to naturalistic decision-making. This takes time; the case companies needed from one to two years to change from traditional, hierarchical decision-making to shared decision-making in software development projects.     

Using an ethnographic process to conduct requirements analysis for agile systems development

Since the late 1990s, agile or lightweight software development methodologies have experienced a meteoric rise of interest among systems developers who consider traditional systems development methodologies (such as Structured Systems Development, Information Engineering, and Rational Unified Process) too inflexible for building systems having unpredictable and changing requirements. Agile methodologies try to adapt to rapid requirement changes by having short, iterative development cycles and by encouraging frequent, open communication with customers. However, agile methodologies are still in the process of devising systematic approaches on how to be adaptive to unpredictable and changing requirements and how to incorporate customers into the systems development process. In this study, we show how an ethnographic research process called Strip Resolution can be applied as a systematic complement to projects applying agile development principles. We illustrate, in detail, how the Strip Resolution Process (SRP) enabled us, in the role of systems developers, to adapt to changing and unpredictable user requirements and to incorporate customers into the systems development process.     

Using CMMI together with agile software development: A systematic review

BackgroundThe search for adherence to maturity levels by using lightweight processes that require low levels of effort is regarded as a challenge for software development organizations.ObjectiveThis study seeks to evaluate, synthesize, and present results on the use of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) in combination with agile software development, and thereafter to give an overview of the topics researched, which includes a discussion of their benefits and limitations, the strength of the findings, and the implications for research and practice.MethodsThe method applied was a Systematic Literature Review on studies published up to (and including) 2011.ResultsThe search strategy identified 3193 results, of which 81 included studies on the use of CMMI together with agile methodologies. The benefits found were grouped into two main categories: those related to the organization in general and those related to the development process, and were organized into subcategories, according to the area to which they refer. The limitations were also grouped into these categories. Using the criteria defined, the strength of the evidence found was considered low. The implications of the results for research and practice are discussed.ConclusionAgile methodologies can be used by companies to reduce efforts in getting to levels 2 and 3 of CMMI, there even being reports of applying agile practices that led to achieving level 5. However, agile methodologies alone, according to the studies, were not sufficient to obtain a rating at a given level, it being necessary to resort to additional practices to do so.     

Impact of physical ambiance on communication,collaboration and coordination in agile software development: An empirical evaluation

ContextCommunication, collaboration and coordination are key enablers of software development and even more so in agile methods. The physical environment of the workspace plays a significant role in effective communication, collaboration, and coordination among people while developing software.ObjectiveIn this paper, we have studied and further evaluated empirically the effect of different constituents of physical environment on communication, coordination, and collaboration, respectively. The study aims to provide a guideline for prospective agile software developers.MethodA survey was conducted among software developers at a software development organization. To collect data, a survey was carried out along with observations, and interviews.ResultsIt has been found that half cubicles are ‘very effective’ for the frequency of communication. Further, half cubicles were discovered ‘effective’ but not ‘very effective’ for the quality/effectiveness of communication. It is found that half-height cubicles and status boards are ‘very effective’ for the coordination among team members according to the survey. Communal/discussion space is found to be ‘effective’ but not ‘very effective’ for coordination among team members. Our analysis also reveals that half-height glass barriers are ‘very effective’ during the individuals problem-solving activities while working together as a team. Infact, such a physically open environment appears to improve communication, coordination, and collaboration.ConclusionAccording to this study, an open working environment with only half-height glass barriers and communal space plays a major role in communication among team members. The presence of status boards significantly help in reducing unnecessary communication by providing the required information to individuals and therefore, in turn reduce distractions a team member may confront in their absence. As communication plays a significant role in improving coordination and collaboration, it is not surprising to find the effect of open working environment and status boards in improving coordination and collaboration. An open working environment increases the awareness among software developers e.g. who is doing what, what is on the agenda, what is taking place, etc. That in turn, improves coordination among them. A communal/discussion space helps in collaboration immensely.     

Agile systems development: Privacy theoretical lens to challenge the full information disclosure paradigm.

Software development requires intense collaboration within, across teams, and with the client. Since the popularization of agile software development in the 2000s, the virtuous effects of transparent collaboration have been emphasized. However, some studies have alluded to concerns with full information disclosure and mentioned that teams may benefit by withholding some information. We used case studies to explore such situations. We adopted a privacy theoretical lens because it is antithetical to the information disclosure lens and offers frames to comprehend how professional information can be retained by individuals, shared to restricted circles or entirely divulged. We found situations when the disclosure paradigm is challenged in agile processes. There is ambiguity in the disclosure message because individual and collective information retention do play a role in agile development. Our findings help refine information systems development philosophies and practices. We also extend our understanding of the communication privacy management theory to a context where full disclosure is preferred to privacy, and where control over privacy depends on allowances granted by a third party, which can generalize to other settings (e.g., social media platforms).     

Agile Methodologies: Organizational Adoption Motives,Tailoring, and Performance

Today, organizations tailor the practices from several agile methodologies to serve their particular environment. But are there situations that drive how an organization should tailor methodologies in a particular manner? This article places 12 commonly used agile development practices into a typology based upon whether they are primarily project management focused or software development approach focused and examines how organizations’ motivations for adopting agile impact the practices they adopt. Finally, it explores how a fit between an organization’s motives for agile method adoption and the tailored agile practices it adopts may lead (or not lead) to differences in project performance.     

Acceptance of agile methodologies: A critical review and conceptual framework

It is widely believed that systems development methodologies (SDMs) can help improve the software development process. Nevertheless, their deployment often encounters resistance from systems developers. Agile methodologies, the latest batch of SDMs that are most suitable in dealing with volatile business requirements, are likely to face the same challenge as they require developers to drastically change their work habits and acquire new skills. This paper addresses what can be done to overcome the challenge to agile methodologies acceptance. We provide a critical review of the extant literature on the acceptance of traditional SDMs and agile methodologies, and develop a conceptual framework for agile methodologies acceptance based on a knowledge management perspective. This framework can provide guidance for future research into acceptance of agile methodologies, and has implications for practitioners concerned with the effective deployment of agile methodologies.