Advertisement

Towards understanding the relationship between team climate and software quality—a quasi-experimental study

  • Silvia T. Acuña
  • Marta Gómez
  • Natalia Juristo
Article

Abstract

This paper describes an empirical study that examined the work climate within software development teams. The question was whether the team climate in software developer teams has any relation to software product quality. We define team climate as the shared perceptions of the team’s work procedures and practices. The team climate factors examined were West and Anderson’s participative safety, support for innovation, team vision and task orientation. These four factors were measured before the project using the Team Selection Inventory (TSI) test to establish subject climate preferences, as well as during and after the project using the Team Climate Inventory (TCI) test, which establishes the subject’s perceptions of the climate. In this quasi-experimental study, data were collected from a sample of 35 three-member developer teams in an academic setting. These teams were formed at random and their members were blind to the quasi-experimental conditions and hypotheses. All teams used an adaptation of extreme programming (XP) to the students’ environment to develop the same software system. We found that high team vision preferences and high participative safety perceptions of the team were significantly related to better software. Additionally, the results show that there is a positive relationship between the categorization of better than preferred, as preferred and worse than preferred climate and software quality for two of the teamwork climate factors: participative safety and team vision. So it seems important to track team climate in an organization and team as one (of many) indicators of the quality of the software to be delivered.

Keywords

Work climate preferences Work climate perceptions Work climate preferences–perceptions fit Team climate Software quality 

References

  1. Acuña ST, Juristo N (2004) Assigning people to roles in software projects. Softw Pract Exp 34:675–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson N, Burch GJ (2003) The team selection inventory. ASE, NFER-Nelson, SloughGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson N, West M (1994) The team climate inventory. ASE, NFER-Nelson, WindsorGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson N, West M (1998) Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. J Organ Behav 19:235–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson N, West M (1999) The team climate inventory: user’s guide, 2nd edn. ASE, NFER-Nelson, WindsorGoogle Scholar
  6. Barry B, Stewart GL (1997) Composition, process and performance in self-managed groups: the role of personality. J Appl Psychol 82:62–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck K (1999) Extreme programming explained: embrace change. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  8. Beck K, Cunningham W (1989) A laboratory for teaching object-oriented thinking. Proc. of Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications 1989 (OOPSLA ‘89). SIGPLAN Not 24(10):1–6Google Scholar
  9. Beck K, Beedle M, Cockburn A, Cunnimgham W, Fowler M et al. (2001) Agile Manifesto [http://agilemanifesto.org/]
  10. Bentley J (2000) Programming pearls, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  11. Boehm BW, Abts C, Brown WA, Chulani S, Clark BK, Horowitz E, Madachy R, Reifer DJ, Steece B (2000) Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  12. Bostrom RP, Kaiser KM (1981) Personality differences within systems project teams: implications for designing solving centers. Proc. 18th Ann. ACM SIGCPR Conf. 248–285Google Scholar
  13. Brown S, Leigh TW (1996) A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. J Appl Psychol 81:358–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burch GJ, Anderson N (2004) Measuring person–team fit: development and validation of the team selection inventory. J Manage Psychol 19(4):406–426Google Scholar
  15. Burdett G, Li R-Y (1995) A quantitative approach to the formation of workgroups. Proc. 32nd Ann. ACM SIGCPR Conf. 202–212Google Scholar
  16. Chan D (1998) Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: a typology of composition models. J Appl Psychol 83:234–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cook TD, Campbell DT (1979) Quasi-experimentation design and analysis issues for the field settings. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  18. Curral LA, Forrester RH, Dawson JF, West MA (2001) It’s what you do and the way that you do it: team task, team size, and innovation-related group. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 10(2):187–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Curtis B, Hefley WE, Miller SA (2001) People capability model (P-CMM), Version 2.0, tech. report CMU/SEI-2001-MM-001, Software Eng. Inst., Carnegie Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  20. DeMarco T, Lister T (1999) Peopleware: productive projects and teams, 2nd edn. Dorset House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Detienne F (2002) Software design—cognitive aspects. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Faraj S, Sproull L (2000) Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Manage Sci 46(12):1554–1568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fay D, Lührmann H, Kohl C (2004) Proactive climate in a post-reorganization setting: when staff compensate managers’ weakness. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 13(2):241–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hackman JR, Oldham GR (1987) Work redesign. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  25. Hardiman LT (1997) Personality types and software engineers. Computer 301(10):10–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoc J-M, Green TRG, Samurcay R, Gilmore DJ (eds) (1990) Psychology of programming. Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Humphrey WS (1998) Managing technical people: innovation, teamwork and the software process. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  28. Humphrey WS, Konrad MD (2005) Motivation and process improvement. In: Acuña ST, Juristo N (eds) Software process modeling. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. IEEE (2004) Guide to the software engineering body of knowledge—SWEBOK version 2004. IEEE Computer Society, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  30. James LR, Jones AP (1980) Perceived job characteristics and job satisfaction: an examination of reciprocal causation. Pers Psychol 33:97–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. James LR, Tetrick LE (1986) Confirmatory analytic tests of three causal models relating job perceptions to job satisfaction. J Appl Psychol 71:77–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jarvenpaa SL, Leidner DE (1999) Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organ Sci 10(6):791–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jedlitschka A, Pfahl D (2005) Reporting guidelines for controlled experiments in software engineering [www.iese.fraunhofer.de/network/ISERN/pub/technical_reports/isern-05-01.pdf]
  34. Jehn KA (1997) A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Adm Sci Q 42:530–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Juristo N, Moreno AM (2001) Basics of software engineering experimentation. Kluwer, BostonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Katzenbach J, Smith D (2001) The discipline of teams: a mindbook–workbook for delivering small group performance. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Kellner MI, Madachy RJ, Raffo DM (1999) Software process simulation modelling: why? what? how? J Sys Software 46:91–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kenny DA, La Voie L (1985) Separating individual and group effects. J Pers Soc Psychol 48:339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lawler EE, Hall DT, Oldham GR (1974) Organizational climate: Relationship to organizational structure, process and performance. Organ Behav Human Perform 11:139–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Litwin GH, Stringer RA (1968) Motivation and organizational climate. Harvard University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  41. Mañas MA, González-Romá V, Peiro JM (1999) Work-group climate. Determinants and consequences. Universidad de Almería, Instituto de Estudios Almerienses, Almeria, SpainGoogle Scholar
  42. Martin RC (2000) Extreme programming development through dialog. IEEE Software, July–August, 12–13Google Scholar
  43. Mathieu JE, Hoffman DA, Farr JL (1993) Job perceptions–job satisfaction relations: an empirical comparison of three competing theories. Organ Behav Hum 56:370–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McDowell C, Werner L, Bullock H, Fernald J (2006) Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Commun ACM 49(8):90–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Molleman E, Nauta A, Jehn KA (2004) Person–job fit applied to teamwork: a multi-level approach. Small Gr Res 35(5):515–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moore E (1991) Personality characteristics of information systems professionals. Proc. 28th Ann. ACM SIGCPR Conf. 140–155Google Scholar
  47. Patterson MG, Warr PB, West MA (2004) Organizational climate and company performance: the role of employee affect and employee level. J Occup Organ Psychol 77:193–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pfleeger SL (2001) Software engineering: theory and practice, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  49. Pritchard RD, Karasick BW (1973) The effects of organizational climate on managerial job performance and satisfaction. Organ Behav Human Perform 9:126–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reichers AE, Schneider B (1990) Climate and culture: an evolution of constructs. In: Schneider B (ed) Organizational climate and culture. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  51. Rutherfoord RH (2001) Using personality inventories to help form teams for software engineering class projects. SIGCSE Bull 33(3):76–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schneider B, White SS, Paul MC (1998) Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: tests of a causal model. J Appl Psychol 83:150–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shaw ME, Harkey B (1976) Some effects of congruency of members characteristics and group structure upon group behaviour. J Pers Soc Psychol 34:412–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Teague J (1998) Personality type, career preference and implications for computer science recruitment and teaching. Proc. 3rd Australas. Conf. Comput. Sc. Educ. 155–63Google Scholar
  55. Tuckman B (1965) Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull 63:384–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Turley R, Bieman J (1995) Competencies of exceptional and nonexceptional software engineers. J Syst Softw 28(1):19–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Umphress DA, Hendrix TD, Cross JH (2002) Software process in the classroom: the capstone project experience. IEEE Software, September–October, 78–85Google Scholar
  58. West MA (1990) The social psychology of innovation in groups. In: West MA, Farr JL (eds) Innovation and creativity work. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  59. West MA, Anderson N (1996) Innovation in top management teams. J Appl Psychol 81:680–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. White K, Leifer R (1986) Information systems development success: perspectives from project team participants. MIS Quart 10(3):215–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wynekoop J, Walz D (2000) Investigating traits of top performing software developers. Inform Technol People 13(3):186–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yang H-L, Tang J-H (2004) Team structure and team performance in IS development: a social network perspective. Inform Manage 41:335–349CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  63. Zakarian A, Kusiak A (1999) Forming teams: an analytical approach. IIE Trans Des Manuf 31(1):85–97Google Scholar
  64. Zander A (1993) Making groups effective, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  65. Zuser W, Grechening T (2003) Reflecting skills and personality internally as means for team performance improvement. Proc. 6th Conf. Software Eng. Educ. Train., IEEE Computer Society. 234–241Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silvia T. Acuña
    • 1
  • Marta Gómez
    • 2
  • Natalia Juristo
    • 3
  1. 1.Universidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Universidad San Pablo—CEUMadridSpain
  3. 3.Universidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations