Coordinating Global Software Development Activities

Requisite Variety in Information Systems as a Dependent Variable
  • Gambel O. Wiredu
Part of the IFIP International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 236)


In this paper, I explain how globally distributed software development subunits can coordinate their activities with information systems (IS). The basis of this explanation lies in the contemporary proliferation of global software development (GSD) activities that suggests an unexplained reality: organizations practicing GSD are somehow regulating their IS to cope with increasing and varied uncertainties. Through an empirical example of an organization’s subunit’s regulating and coping, I make the case that requisite variety in a subunit’s information systems is a dependent variable for managing uncertainties leading to optimal coordination. In this example, I show varied uncertainties that faced the subunit, and I explain how variety in its information system was requisite for managing the uncertainties satisfactorily. Based on these explanations, I suggest four characteristics of variety in IS that will be requisite for managing uncertainties in GSD: developers’ agility; developers’ continuity and traveling; high frequency of communications; and varied communication modes and technologies.


Software Development Information System Task Environment Global Software Development Business Requirement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    E. Carmeland and P. Tjia, Offshoring Information Technology: Sourcing and Outsourcing to a Global Workforce (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2005).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. E. Grinter, J. D. Herbsleb, and D. E. Perry, The Geography of Coordination: Dealing with Distance in R&D Work, in: GROUP’99 Phoenix, Arizona pp. 306–315, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. D. Herbsleb and R. E. Grinter, Splitting the Organization and Integrating the Code: Conway’s Law Revisited, in: ICSE’99 Los Angeles, CA, pp. 85–95, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Krishna, S. Sahay, and G. Walsham, Managing Cross-cultural Issues in Global Software Outsourcing, Communications of the ACM 47(4), 62–66, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    B. Nicholson and S. Sahay, Some Political and Cultural Issues in the Globalization of Software Development: Case Experience from Britain and India, Information and Organization 11, 25–43, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. J. Orlikowski, Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing, Organization Science 13(3), 249–273, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Sahay, B. Nicholson, and S. Krishna, Global IT Outsourcing: Software Development Across Border (Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK, 2003).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. L. Daft and R. H. Lengel, Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design, Management Science 32(5), 554–571, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. L. Tushman and D. A. Nadler, Information Processing as an Integrating Concept in Organizational Design, Academy of Management Review 3(3), 613–624, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. J. Allen and S. I. Cohen, Information Flow in Research and Development Laboratories, Administrative Science Quarterly 4(2), 12–19, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Hage, M. Aiken, and C. B. Marrett, Organization Structure and Communications, American Sociological Review 36(5), 860–871, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.L. Tushman, Technical Communications in R & D laboratories: The Impact of Project Work Characteristics, Academy of Management Journal 21(4), 624–645, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A.H. Van de Ven, A. L. Delbecq, and R. Koenig, Determinants of Coordination Modes Within Organizations, American Sociological Review 41(2), 322–328, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    I. Benbasat and R.W. Zmud, The Identity Crisis Within the IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating the Discipline’s Core Properties, MS Quarterly 27(2), 183–194, 2003.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J.L. King and K. Lyytinen, (ed.) Information Systems: The State of the Field (Wiley, Chichester, 2006).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Alter, The IS Core XI-Sorting Out Issues About the Core, Scope and Identity of the IS Field, Communications of the Association for Information Systems 12, 607–628, 2003.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A.S. Lee, Thinking about Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems, in: Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems, edited by J. Mingers and L. Willcocks (Wiley, Chichester, 2004), pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    W. Buckley, Society as a Complex Adaptive System, in: Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist, edited by W. Buckley (Aldine, Chicago, 1968), pp. 490–513.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    K. E. Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing (McGraw Hill, New York, 1979).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Kling, K.L. Kraemer, J.P. Allen, Y. Bakos, V. Gurbaxani, and M. Elliott, Transforming Coordination: The Promise and Problems of Information Technology in Coordination, in: Coordination Theory and Collaboration Technology, edited by G. M. Olson, T. W. Malone, and J. B. Smith (Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2001), pp. 507–533.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. P. Walsh, Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip down Memory Lane, Organization Science 6(3), 280–321, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    T. W. Malone and K. Crowston, The Interdisciplinary Study of Coordination, ACM Computing Surveys 26(1), 87–119, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (Transactions Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, (First published in 1967), 2003).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. R. Galbraith, Organization Design (Addison-Wesley Reading, MA, 1977).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. I. Tushman, Work Characteristics and Subunit Communication Structure: A Contingency Analysis, Administrative Science Quarterly 24(1), 82–98, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    P. Carstensen and C. Sørensen, From the Social to the Systematic: Mechanisms Supporting Coordination in Design, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, The Journal of Collaborative Computing 5(4), 387–413, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. G. March and H.A. Simon, Organizations (Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, (First published in 1958), 1993).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. L. Daft and N.B. Macintosh, A Tentative Exploration into the Amount and Equivocality of Information Processing in Organizational Work Units, Administrative Science Quarterly 26, 207–224, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    C. Perrow, A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Organizations, American Sociological Review 32(2), 194–208, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    A. H. Van de Ven, and A.L. Delbecq, A Task Contingent Model of Work-Unit Structure, Administrative Science Quarterly 19(2), 183–197, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    C. D. Cramton, The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration, Organization Science 12(3), 346–371, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    R. M. Krauss and S.R. Fussell, Mutual Knowledge and Communication Effectiveness, in: Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, edited by J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut and C. Egido (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hilldale, NJ, 1990), pp. 111–145.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    S. Sarker and S. Sahay, Implications of Space and Time for Distributed Work: An Interpretive Study of US-Norwegian Systems Development Teams, European Journal of Information Systems 13, 3–20, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    M. J. Abel, Experiences in an Exploratory Distributed Organization, in: Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, edited by J. Galegher, R. E. Kraut and C. Egido (Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1990), pp. 489–510.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    C. D. Cramton, Attribution in Distributed Work Groups, in: Distributed Work, edited by P. J. Hinds and S. Kiesler (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2002), pp. 191–212.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    S. L. Jarvenpaa and D.E. Leidner, Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams, Organization Science 10(6), 791–815, 1999.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    S. L. Jarvenpaa, T.R. Shaw, and D.S. Staples, Toward Contextualized Theories of Trust: The Role of Trust in Global Virtual Teams, Information Systems Research 15(3), 250–267, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    C. D. Cramton and P.J. Hinds, Subgroup Dynamics in Internationally Distributed Teams: Ethnocentrism or Cross-National Learning, Research in Organizational Behavior 26, 231–263,2005.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    E. Carmel, Global Software Teams: Collaborating Across Borders and Time Zones (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    A. Schutz, Concept and Theory Formation in the Social Sciences, The Journal of Philosophy 51(9), 257–273, 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    K. E. Weick, Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination, Academy of Management Review 14(4), 516–531, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    H. Tsoukas, The Validity of Idiographic Research Explanations, Academy of Management Review 14(4), 551–561, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    B. Boehm and R. Turner, Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed (Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, 2004).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    G. M. Olson and J.S. Olson, Distance Matters, Human-Computer Interaction 15(2/3), 139–178,2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    P. G. Gerstberger and T.J. Allen, Criteria Used by Research and Development Engineers in the Selection of an Information Source, Journal of Applied Psychology 52(4), 272–279, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    R. Katz and M.L. Tushman, Communication Patterns, Project Performance, and Task Characteristics: An Empirical Evaluation and Integration in an R&D Setting, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 23, 139–162, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    B. Fitzgerald, G. Hartnett and K. Conboy, Customising Agile Methods to Software Practices at Intel Shannon, European Journal of Information Systems 15(2), 200–213, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    K. Lyytinen and G.M. Rose, Information System Development Agility as Organizational Learning, European Journal of Information Systems 15(2), 183–199, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gambel O. Wiredu
    • 1
  1. 1.Univeristy of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations