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.     

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.     

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.     

Successful extreme programming: Fidelity to the methodology or good teamworking?

ContextDeveloping a theory of agile technology, in combination with empirical work, must include assessing its performance effects, and whether all or some of its key ingredients account for any performance advantage over traditional methods. Given the focus on teamwork, is the agile technology what really matters, or do general team factors, such as cohesion, primarily account for a team’s success? Perhaps the more specific software engineering team factors, for example the agile development method’s collective ownership and code management, are decisive.ObjectiveTo assess the contribution of agile methodology, agile-specific team methods, and general team factors in the performance of software teams.MethodWe studied 40 small-scale software development teams which used Extreme Programming (XP). We measured (1) the teams’ adherence to XP methods, (2) their use of XP-specific team practices, and (3) standard team attributes, as well as the quality of the project’s outcomes. We used Williams et al.’s (2004a) [33] Shodan measures of XP methods, and regression analysis.ResultsAll three types of variables are associated with the project’s performance. Teamworking is important but it is the XP-specific team factor (continuous integration, coding standards, and collective code ownership) that is significant. Only customer planning (release planning/planning game, customer access, short releases, and stand-up meeting) is positively related to performance. A negative relationship between foundations (automated unit tests, customer acceptance tests, test-first design, pair programming, and refactoring) is found and is moderated by craftsmanship (sustainable pace, simple design, and metaphor/system of names). Of the general team factors only cooperation is related to performance. Cooperation mediates the relationship between the XP-specific team factor and performance.ConclusionClient and team foci of the XP method are its critical active ingredients.     

From Aristotle to Ringelmann: a large-scale analysis of team productivity and coordination in Open Source Software projects

Complex software development projects rely on the contribution of teams of developers, who are required to collaborate and coordinate their efforts. The productivity of such development teams, i.e., how their size is related to the produced output, is an important consideration for project and schedule management as well as for cost estimation. The majority of studies in empirical software engineering suggest that - due to coordination overhead - teams of collaborating developers become less productive as they grow in size. This phenomenon is commonly paraphrased as Brooks’ law of software project management, which states that “adding manpower to a software project makes it later”. Outside software engineering, the non-additive scaling of productivity in teams is often referred to as the Ringelmann effect, which is studied extensively in social psychology and organizational theory. Conversely, a recent study suggested that in Open Source Software (OSS) projects, the productivity of developers increases as the team grows in size. Attributing it to collective synergetic effects, this surprising finding was linked to the Aristotelian quote that “the whole is more than the sum of its parts”. Using a data set of 58 OSS projects with more than 580,000 commits contributed by more than 30,000 developers, in this article we provide a large-scale analysis of the relation between size and productivity of software development teams. Our findings confirm the negative relation between team size and productivity previously suggested by empirical software engineering research, thus providing quantitative evidence for the presence of a strong Ringelmann effect. Using fine-grained data on the association between developers and source code files, we investigate possible explanations for the observed relations between team size and productivity. In particular, we take a network perspective on developer-code associations in software development teams and show that the magnitude of the decrease in productivity is likely to be related to the growth dynamics of co-editing networks which can be interpreted as a first-order approximation of coordination requirements.     

Communication and personality profiles of global software developers

ContextPrior research has established that a small proportion of individuals dominate team communication during global software development. It is not known, however, how these members’ contributions affect their teams’ knowledge diffusion process, or whether their personality profiles are responsible for their dominant presence.ObjectiveWe set out to address this gap through the study of repository artifacts.MethodArtifacts from ten teams were mined from the IBM Rational Jazz repository. We employed social network analysis (SNA) to group practitioners into two clusters, Top Members and Others, based on the numbers of messages they communicated and their engagement in task changes. SNA metrics (density, in-degree and closeness) were then used to study practitioners’ importance in knowledge diffusion. Thereafter, we performed psycholinguistic analysis on practitioners’ messages using linguistic dimensions that had been previously correlated with the Big Five personality profiles.ResultsFor our sample of 146 practitioners we found that Top Members occupied critical roles in knowledge diffusion, and demonstrated more openness to experience than the Others. Additionally, all personality profiles were represented during teamwork, although openness to experience, agreeableness and extroversion were particularly evident. However, no specific personality predicted members’ involvement in knowledge diffusion.ConclusionTask assignment that promotes highly connected team communication networks may mitigate tacit knowledge loss in global software teams. Additionally, while members expressing openness to experience are likely to be particularly driven to perform, this is not entirely responsible for a global team’s success.     

Coproduction in successful software development projects

ContextCoproduction of new products has been deemed successful in organizational partnerships by adding to the quality and scope of the product. Techniques that involve users during the development of software tend to mimic this environment, but differ in the type of product and internal client roles. The question is thus, whether coproduction improves the outcomes of a software development project as it has in other disciplines.ObjectiveThis paper evaluates how the coproduction relationship between software developers and users improves the outcomes of a development project. Coproduction is believed to improve outcomes when available knowledge is accessible and applicable to the objective of the development project. Should the relationships hold, coproduction approaches to development can be approached with confidence and improvements made by attention to the development and deployment of expertise.MethodA quantitative questionnaire related to the coproduction environment was developed for four variables to include coproduction, applying expertise, locating expertise, and project success. 128 users from development teams responded to the survey and represent a variety of industries, individual characteristics, and project sizes.ResultsExpertise is crucial to the success of a software development project and coproduction improves the ability to access and apply the needed expertise. In addition, coproduction directly improves outcomes.ConclusionCoproduction can be an effective approach to the development of systems in terms of meeting project goals. Additionally, the assembly of expertise on the team is an important contributor to successful outcomes that may be enhanced through effective selection of team members. The ability to locate the available expertise is crucial, indicating the value of team building functions to promote awareness of expertise location.     

Understanding agile software development practices using shared mental models theory

ContextAgile software development is an alternative software development methodology that originated from practice to encourage collaboration between developers and users, to leverage rapid development cycles, and to respond to changes in a dynamic environment. Although agile practices are widely used in organizations, academics call for more theoretical research to understand the value of agile software development methodologies.ObjectiveThis study uses shared mental models theory as a lens to examine practices from agile software methodologies to understand how agile practices enable software development teams to work together to complete tasks and work together effectively as a team.MethodA conceptual analysis of specific agile practices was conducted using the lens of shared mental models theory. Three agile practices from Xtreme Programming and Scrum are examined in detail, system metaphor, stand-up meeting, and on-site customer, using shared mental models theory.ResultsExamining agile practices using shared mental models theory elucidates how agile practices improve collaboration during the software development process. The results explain how agile practices contribute toward a shared understanding and enhanced collaboration within the software development team.ConclusionsThis conceptual analysis demonstrates the value of agile practices in developing shared mental models (i.e. shared understanding) among developers and customers in software development teams. Some agile practices are useful in developing a shared understanding about the tasks to be completed, while other agile practices create shared mental models about team processes and team interactions. To elicit the desired outcomes of agile software development methods, software development teams should consider whether or not agile practices are used in a manner that enhances the team’s shared understanding. Using three specific agile practices as examples, this research demonstrates how theory, such as shared mental models theory, can enhance our understanding regarding how agile practices are useful in enhancing collaboration in the workplace.     

Are team personality and climate related to satisfaction and software quality? Aggregating results from a twice replicated experiment

ContextResearch into software engineering teams focuses on human and social team factors. Social psychology deals with the study of team formation and has found that personality factors and group processes such as team climate are related to team effectiveness. However, there are only a handful of empirical studies dealing with personality and team climate and their relationship to software development team effectiveness.ObjectiveWe present aggregate results of a twice replicated quasi-experiment that evaluates the relationships between personality, team climate, product quality and satisfaction in software development teams.MethodOur experimental study measures the personalities of team members based on the Big Five personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism) and team climate factors (participative safety, support for innovation, team vision and task orientation) preferences and perceptions. We aggregate the results of the three studies through a meta-analysis of correlations. The study was conducted with students.ResultsThe aggregation of results from the baseline experiment and two replications corroborates the following findings. There is a positive relationship between all four climate factors and satisfaction in software development teams. Teams whose members score highest for the agreeableness personality factor have the highest satisfaction levels. The results unveil a significant positive correlation between the extraversion personality factor and software product quality. High participative safety and task orientation climate perceptions are significantly related to quality.ConclusionsFirst, more efficient software development teams can be formed heeding personality factors like agreeableness and extraversion. Second, the team climate generated in software development teams should be monitored for team member satisfaction. Finally, aspects like people feeling safe giving their opinions or encouraging team members to work hard at their job can have an impact on software quality. Software project managers can take advantage of these factors to promote developer satisfaction and improve the resulting product.     

Development of a team measure for tacit knowledge in software development teams

In this paper we operationally define and measure tacit knowledge at the team-level in the software development domain. Through a series of three empirical studies we developed and validated the team tacit knowledge measure (TTKM) for software developers. In the first study, initial scale items were developed using the repertory grid technique and content analysis. In Study 2, supplied repertory grids were administered to novices and experts to establish differential items, and Study 3 validated the TTKM on a sample of 48 industrial software development teams. In developing the TTKM we explored the relationships between tacit knowledge, explicit job knowledge and social interaction and their effect on team performance as measured by efficiency and effectiveness. In addition we assess the implications for managing software development teams and increasing team performance through social interaction.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Developer Role Evolution in Open Source Software Ecosystem: An Explanatory Study on GNOME

An open source software (OSS) ecosystem refers to an OSS development community composed of many software projects and developers contributing to these projects. The projects and developers co-evolve in an ecosystem. To keep healthy evolution of such OSS ecosystems, there is a need of attracting and retaining developers, particularly project leaders and core developers who have major impact on the project and the whole team. Therefore, it is important to figure out the factors that influence developers’ chance to evolve into project leaders and core developers. To identify such factors, we conducted a case study on the GNOME ecosystem. First, we collected indicators reflecting developers’ subjective willingness to contribute to the project and the project environment that they stay in. Second, we calculated such indicators based on the GNOME dataset. Then, we fitted logistic regression models by taking as independent variables the resulting indicators after eliminating the most collinear ones, and taking as a dependent variable the future developer role (the core developer or project leader). The results showed that part of such indicators (e.g., the total number of projects that a developer joined) of subjective willingness and project environment significantly influenced the developers’ chance to evolve into core developers and project leaders. With different validation methods, our obtained model performs well on predicting developmental core developers, resulting in stable prediction performance (0.770, F-value).     

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.     

Team building criteria in software projects: A mix-method replicated study

ContextThe internal composition of a work team is an important antecedent of team performance and the criteria used to select team members play an important role in determining team composition. However, there are only a handful of empirical studies about the use of team building criteria in the software industry.ObjectiveThe goal of this article is to identify criteria used in industrial practice to select members of a software project team, and to look for relationships between the use of these criteria and project success. In addition, we expect to contribute with findings about the use of replication in empirical studies involving human factors in software engineering.MethodOur research was based on an iterative mix-method, replication strategy. In the first iteration, we used qualitative research to identify team-building criteria interviewing software project managers from industry. Then, we performed a cross-sectional survey to assess the correlations of the use of these criteria and project success. In the second iteration, we used the results of a systematic mapping study to complement the set of team building criteria. Finally, we performed a replication of the survey research with variations to verify and improve the results.ResultsOur results showed that the consistent use team building criteria correlated significantly with project success, and the criteria related to human factors, such as personality and behavior, presented the strongest correlations. The results of the replication did not reproduce the results of the original survey with respect to the correlations between criteria and success goals. Nevertheless, the variations in the design and the difference in the sample of projects allowed us to conclude that the two results were compatible, increasing our confidence on the existence of the correlations.ConclusionOur findings indicated that carefully selecting team member for software teams is likely to positively influence the projects in which these teams participate. Besides, it seems that the type of development method used can moderate (increase or decrease) this influence. In addition, our study showed that the choice of sampling technique is not straightforward given the many interacting factors affecting this type of investigation.     

The impact of global dispersion on coordination,team performance and software quality – A systematic literature review

ContextGlobal software development (GSD) contains different context setting dimensions, which are essential for effective teamwork and success of projects. Although considerable research effort has been made in this area, as yet, no agreement has been reached about the impact of these dispersion dimensions on team coordination and project outcomes.ObjectiveThis paper summarizes empirical evidence on the impact of global dispersion dimensions on coordination, team performance and project outcomes.MethodWe performed a systematic literature review of 46 publications from 25 journals and 19 conference and workshop proceedings, which were published between 2001 and 2013. Thematic analysis was used to identify global dimensions and their measures. Vote counting was used to decide on the impact trends of dispersion dimensions on team performance and software quality.ResultsGlobal dispersion dimensions are consistently conceptualized, but quantified in many different ways. Different dispersion dimensions are associated with a distinct set of coordination challenges. Overall, geographical dispersion tends to have a negative impact on team performance and software quality. Temporal dispersion tends to have a negative impact on software quality, but its impact on team performance is inconsistent and can be explained by type of performance.ConclusionFor researchers, we reveal several opportunities for future research, such as coordination challenges in inter-organizational software projects, impact of processes and practices mismatches on project outcomes, evolution of coordination needs and mechanism over time and impact of dispersion dimensions on open source project outcomes. For practitioners, they should consider the tradeoff between cost and benefits while dispersing tasks, alignment impact of dispersion dimensions with individual and organizational objectives, coordination mechanisms as situational approaches and collocation of development activities of high quality demand components in GSD projects.     

The effect of governance on global software development: An empirical research in transactive memory systems

ContextThe way global software development (GSD) activities are managed impacts knowledge transactions between team members. The first is captured in governance decisions, and the latter in a transactive memory system (TMS), a shared cognitive system for encoding, storing and retrieving knowledge between members of a group.ObjectiveWe seek to identify how different governance decisions (such as business strategy, team configuration, task allocation) affect the structure of transactive memory systems as well as the processes developed within those systems.MethodWe use both a quantitative and a qualitative approach. We collect quantitative data through an online survey to identify transactive memory systems. We analyze transactive memory structures using social network analysis techniques and we build a latent variable model to measure transactive memory processes. We further support and triangulate our results by means of interviews, which also help us examine the GSD governance modes of the participating projects. We analyze governance modes, as set of decisions based on three aspects; business strategy, team structure and composition, and task allocation.ResultsOur results suggest that different governance decisions have a different impact on transactive memory systems. Offshore insourcing as a business strategy, for instance, creates tightly-connected clusters, which in turn leads to better developed transactive memory processes. We also find that within the composition and structure of GSD teams, there are boundary spanners (formal or informal) who have a better overview of the network’s activities and become central members within their network. An interesting mapping between task allocation and the composition of the network core suggests that the way tasks are allocated among distributed teams is an indicator of where expertise resides.ConclusionWe present an analytical method to examine GSD governance decisions and their effect on transactive memory systems. Our method can be used from both practitioners and researchers as a “cause and effect” tool for improving collaboration of global software teams.     

Motivating developer performance to improve project outcomes in a high maturity organization

In this paper we discuss the impact software developer performance has on project outcomes. Project performance remains unreliable in the software industry with many compromised software systems reported in the press. We investigate the impact that developer performance has on aspects of project success and explore how developer performance is motivated. We present interview, focus group and questionnaire data collected from a team of developers working in a software organization that has been assessed at CMM level 5. Our main findings are that developers value technical skills in their colleagues, but appreciate these especially when supplemented with good human skills. Software developers with a proactive, flexible, adaptable approach who are prepared to share knowledge and follow good practice are said to be the best developers. Motivators for these developers are pay and benefits, recognition and opportunities for achievement in their work. Overall, we found that technical competence, interpersonal skills and adherence to good practices are thought to have the biggest impact on software project success.