International Journal of Information Technology

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 367–378 | Cite as

Agile teams as complex adaptive systems (CAS)

  • Badri N. Srinivasan
  • Debarshi Mukherjee
Original Research


Self-Organizing teams have been studied in various forms and they are considered as an autonomous team operating with minimal dependencies. With the advent of agile methodologies in the late 1990s and the early 2000s, the focus shifted to the team attributes that lead to successful project delivery as compared to the individual attributes only. Agile methodologies are considered as another alternative process as compared to traditional software engineering practices for developing software products and systems. The focus on emphasizing and integrating people and team factors into the software development process forms a core part of agile development. This paper investigates the contemplation of the agile team as a complex adaptive system (CAS) for improved probability of successful project delivery. This is discussed as an important attribute while identifying the key characteristics of agile teams as part of an overall framework of the important characteristics of an agile team that leads to successful project delivery.


Agile methodologies Self-organizing teams Agile teams Software development Agile Complex adaptive systems (CAS) 


  1. 1.
    Abrahamsson P, Salo O, Ronkainen J and Warsta J (2002) Agile software development methods: Review and analysis, VTT Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ackoff R (1999) Ackoff’s best, his classic writings on management. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agile Manifesto (2001) Retrieved on 21 May 2017
  4. 4.
    Anderson P (1999) Complexity Theory and Organization Science. Organ Sci 10(3):216–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Appelo J (2011), Management 3.0: Leading Agile Developers, Developing Agile Leaders (Addison-Wesley Signature Series (Cohn)) - 2011 | ISBN-10: 9780321712479 | ISBN-13: 978-0321712479Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ashby WR (1960) Design for a brain, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bak P (1996) How nature works. Copernicus, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beck K, Andres C (2004) Extreme programming explained: embrace change, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bertalanffy LV (1950) An outline of general system theory. Br J Philos Sci 1:139–164MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bion WR (1961) Experiences in groups. Tavistock Publications, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boone H N and Boone D A (2012) Analyzing likert data. J Extens 50(2):2TOT2. Accessed 18 Mar 2017Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brown S, Eisenhardt K (1998) Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Canan M, Sousa-Poza A, and Dean A (2017) Complex Adaptive Behavior of Hybrid Teams, Engineering Management and Systems Engineering, Old Dominion University, 2101 Engineering Systems Building, Norfolk, VA, 235239, Complex Adaptive Systems Conference with Theme: Engineering Cyber Physical Systems, CAS October 30 – November 1, 2017, Chicago, Illinois, USA, Procedia Computer Science 114 (2017) 139–148Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cockburn A (2006) Agile software development: the cooperative game, 2nd Edn. October 29, 2006 | ISBN-10: 0321482751 | ISBN-13: 978-032148275Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carley K, Hill V (2001) Structural change and learning within organizations. In: Lomi A, Larsen ER (eds) Dynamics of organizational societies. AAAI/MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 63–92Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carley K, Lee JS (1998) Dynamic organizations: Organizational adaptation in a changing environment. Adv Strat Manag Res Annu 15:269–297Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Choi TY, Dooley K, Rungtusanatham M (2001) Supply networks and complex adaptive systems: control versus emergence. J Oper Manag 19(3):351–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Daniel L, Davis C (2009) What makes high-performance teams excel? Res Technol Manag 52(4):40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Melo C, Conradi R, Cruzes DS, Kon F (2013) Agile team productivity and management—Interpretative case studies. Inform SW Technol 55:412–427Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dingsøyr T and Lindsjørn Y (2013) SINTEF, Norwegian University (Science and Technology). In: computer and information science department, agile development teams—team performance, University of Oslo, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Donmez D, Grote G (2018) Two sides of the same coin –how agile software development teams approach uncertainty as threats and opportunities. Inf Softw Technol 93:94–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dooley KJ (1996) Complex adaptive systems: A nominal definition (1996, 10.26.96). Accessed 21 Sep 2016
  23. 23.
    Dyba T, Dingsøyr T (2008) Empirical studies of agile software development: a systematic review. Inform Softw Technol. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gharajedaghi J (1999) Systems thinking: Managing chaos and complexity: a platform for designing business architecture. Butterworth-Heinemann, BostonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goodwin B (1994) How the leopard changed its spots: the evolution of complexity. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hoegl M, Proserpio L (2004) Team member proximity and teamwork in innovative projects. Res Policy 33(8):1153–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Holcombe M (2008) Running an agile software development project. Wiley. Accessed 19 Nov 2016
  28. 28.
    Homans GC (1950) The human group. Harcourt, Brace and World, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR, Johnson M, Jundt D (2005) Teams in organizations: from input-process output models to IMOI models. Annu Rev Psychol 56(2005):517–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jain R and Meso P (2004) Theory of complex adaptive systems and agile software development. In: AMCIS 2004 Proceedings, Paper 197,
  31. 31.
    Kauffman SS (1993) The origins of order. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kettunen P and Moilanen S (2012) In: Wohlin, C (eds), XP 2012, Agile Processes in SW Engineering and XP, Instrument for Self-monitoring(proposal)—sensing high-performing software teams, information processing(Business) (lecture notes), vol 111. Springer, Heidelberg, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Levy S (1992) Artificial life: the quest for new creation. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lewin R (1992) Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. Macmillan Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lichtenstein B, Uhl-Bien M, Marion R, Seers A, Orton D, Schreibe C et al (2006) complexity leadership theory: an interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems. Emerg Complex Organ 8(4):2–12Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lorenz E (1993) The essence of chaos. University of Washington Press, SeattleCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Marion R (1999) The edge of organization: Chaos and complexity theories of formal social organizations. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Marion R, Uhl-Bien M (2001) Leadership in complex organizations. Lead Q 12(2001):389–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Marion R, Uhl-Bien M (2003) Complexity theory and Al-Qaeda: examining complex leadership. Emerg J Complex Issues Organ Manag 5:56–78Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    McGeachy R (2010) Building high performing agile development team. Applied Research Project. Athabasca University, AthabascaGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    McKelvey B, Boisot MH (2003) Transcendental organizational foresight in nonlinear contexts. In: Paper presented at the INSEAD Conference on Expanding Perspectives on Strategy Processes, Fontainebleau, France (2003)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    McKelvey B, Marion R, Uhl-Bien M et al. (2003) A simple-rule approach to CEO leadership in the 21st century. In: Paper presented at the University of Lecce Conference on New Approaches to Strategic Management, Ostuni, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Meghann LD-G, Orla OD (2013) An Investigation of the decision making process in agile teams. Int J Inform Technol Decis Making 12(6):1097–1120. (World Scientific Publishing Company) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Merali Y (2004) Complexity and information systems. In: Mingers J, Willcocks L (eds) Social theory and philosophy of information systems. Wiley, Sussex, pp 407–446Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mitleton-Kelly E (1997) Organizations as Co-evolving Complex Adaptive Systems. British Academy of Management Conference, BPRC (Business Processes Resource Center) Paper Series, No 5Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mitleton-Kelly E (2003) Ten principles of complexity & enabling infrastructures. In: Mitleton-Kelly E (ed) Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives of organizations: the application of complexity theory to organizations. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 23–50. ISBN 9780080439570Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mitleton-Kelly E (2003) Ten principles of complexity and enabling infrastructures. In: Mitleton-Kelly Eve (ed) Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organizations: the application of complexity theory to organizations. Advanced series in management. Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford, pp 3–20. ISBN 9780080439570Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nedelko Z (2008) The role and importance of groupware for teamwork. Bus Rev Cambr 10(1):211Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Peterson CM, Seligman MEP (2003) Positive organizational studies: lessons from positive psychology. In: Cameron KS, Dutton JE, Quinn RE (eds) Positive organizational scholarship: foundations of a new discipline. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, pp 14–27Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Poppendieck M, Poppendieck T (2003) Lean software development: an agile toolkit. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Prigogine I (1997) The end of certainty. The end of certainty, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ross TM, Jones EC, Adams SG (2008) Can team effectiveness be predicted? Team Perform Manag 14(5/6):248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Roy D (1954) Efficiency and ‘the fix’: informal intergroup relations in a piecework machine shop. Am J Sociol 60(1954):255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Salas E, Sims DE, Burke CS (2005) Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Res 36(5):555–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schein E (1965) Organizational psychology. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Currency–Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Srinivasan BN, Mukherjee D (2015) Characteristics of agile teams—a discussion on technology and culture. IMS Manthan X(1):75–82Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Stacey RD (2003) Strategic management and organizational dynamics: the challenge of complexity, vol 4. Financial Times Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Stewart GL (2006) A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. J Manag 32(1):29–55Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Strode D (2015) Applying adapted big five teamwork theory to agile SW development. In: Australasian conference on information systems 2015, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tajfel H, Turner JC (1986) The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In: Worchel S, Austin LW (eds) Psychology of intergroup relations. Nelson-Hall, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Thamhain HJ (2004) Team leadership effectiveness in technology-based project environments. Proj Manag J 35(4):35Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ulloa BCR, Adams SG (2004) Attitude toward teamwork and effective teaming. Team Perform Manag 10(7/8):145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Vidgen R and Wang X (2006) Organizing for agility: a complex adaptive systems perspective on agile software development process. In: Proceedings of the 14th european conference on information systems, Goteborg, June 12–14, 2006Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Whitworth E and Biddle R (2007) The social nature of agile teams. In: Proceedings of Agile 2007 Conference, 2007 (ISBN: 0-7695-2872-4)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Williams L, Cockburn A (2003) Agile software development: it’s about feedback and change. IEEE Comput 36:39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Bharati Vidyapeeth's Institute of Computer Applications and Management 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BusinessGalgotias UniversityGreater NoidaIndia
  2. 2.Department of Business ManagementTripura University (A Central University)BikramnagarIndia

Personalised recommendations