Introduction

  • Kai Spohrer
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)

Abstract

#x201C;Two heads are better than one” may well be the most discussed proverb in information systems research (e.g., Balijepally et al. 2009; Dybå et al. 2007 Mangalaraj et al. 2014). Whereas information systems development (ISD) traditionally relied on well-defined processes, extensive documentation, and numerous distinctive roles, the movement of Agile Software Development overthrew this paradigm (Dingsøyr et al. 2012). It aimed for more flexibility and higher quality in ISD by radically embracing collaboration and empowerment of developers, active involvement of customers, and short development cycles (Cockburn and Williams 2002; Highsmith and Cockburn 2001). Today, these principles are widely adopted in industry (Dingsøyr et al. 2012) and the altered paradigm now regards teams of empowered developers as the decisive entities, also with respect to the quality of software.

Keywords

Theoretical Lens Information System Research Information System Development Pair Programming Agile Software Development 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Aaltonen, A., & Tempini, N. (2014). Everything counts in large amounts: A critical realist case study on data-based production. Journal of Information Technology, 29(1), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackroyd, S., & Fleetwood, S. (Eds.). (2000). Realist perspectives on management and organisations. Ontological explorations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Ågerfalk, P. J. (2013). Embracing diversity through mixed methods research. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(3), 251–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aguirre-Urreta, M., & Marakas, G. (2013). Partial least squares and models with formatively specified endogenous constructs: A cautionary note. Information Systems Research, 25(4), 761–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Akgün, A., Byrne, J., & Keskin, H. (2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective. Information & Management, 42(8), 1105–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Akgün, A., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., & Lynn, G. (2006). Transactive memory system in new product development teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(1), 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ambrose, P. J., & Chiravuri, A. (2010). A socio-cognitive interpretation of the potential effects of downsizing on software quality performance. Information Systems Journal, 20(3), 239–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T., & Norrie, A. (Eds.). (1998). Critical realism: Essential readings. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Archer, M. S. (1998). Realism and morphogenesis. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norrie (Eds.), Critical realism: Essential readings (pp. 356–382). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Archer, M. S. (2010). Routine, reflexivity, and realism. Sociological Theory, 28(3), 272–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Argote, L., Beckman, S. L., & Epple, D. (1990). The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings. Management Science, 36(2), 140–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Arisholm, E., Gallis, H., Dyba, T., & Sjoberg, D. I. (2007). Evaluating pair programming with respect to system complexity and programmer expertise. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 33(2), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Austin, J. R. (2003). Transactive memory in organizational groups: The effects of content, consensus, specialization, and accuracy on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 866–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Avgerou, C. (2013). Social mechanisms for causal explanation in social theory based IS research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(8), 80–94.Google Scholar
  17. Avison, D., & Fitzgerald, G. (2006). Information systems development: Methodologies, techniques and tools (4th ed.). Maidenhaed: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
  18. Bacchelli, A., & Bird, C. (2013). Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, San Francisco, CA, USA (pp. 712–721).Google Scholar
  19. Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515.Google Scholar
  20. Bahli, B. (2005). The role of knowledge creation in adopting extreme programming model: An empirical study. In ITI 3rd International Conference on Information and Communications Technology (pp. 75–87).Google Scholar
  21. Balci, B., Rosenkranz, C., & Schuhen, S. (2014). Identification of different affordances of information technology systems: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv, Israel.Google Scholar
  22. Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2006). The architecture of participation: Does code architecture mitigate free riding in the open source development model? Management Science, 52(7), 1116–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Balijepally, V., Mahapatra, R., Nerur, S., & Price, K. H. (2009). Are two heads better than one for software development? The productivity paradox of pair programming. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 91–118.Google Scholar
  24. Balzert, H. (2009). Lehrbuch der softwaretechnik: Basiskonzepte und requirements engineering (3rd ed.). Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. The XP series. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.Google Scholar
  26. Begel, A., & Nagappan, N. (2008). Pair programming: What’s in it for me? In Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (pp. 120–128), New York.Google Scholar
  27. Beller, M., Bacchelli, A., Zaidman, A., & Juergens, E. (2014). Modern code reviews in open-source projects: Which problems do they fix? In Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (pp. 202–211).Google Scholar
  28. Bellini, E., Canfora, G., García, F., Piattini, M., & Visaggio, C. A. (2005). Pair designing as practice for enforcing and diffusing design knowledge. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, 17(6), 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Bernhard, E., Recker, J., & Burton-Jones, A. (2013). Understanding the actualization of affordances: A study in the process modeling context. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Milano, Italy.Google Scholar
  30. Bernhart, M., Mauczka, A., & Grechenig, T. (2010). Adopting code reviews for Agile software development. In Agile Conference, AGILE 2010 (pp. 44–47), Orlando, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Bettenburg, N., Hassan, A., Adams, B., & German, D. (2013). Management of community contributions. Empirical Software Engineering, 20, 252–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Bhaskar, R. (1998a). Possibility of naturalism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Bhaskar, R. (1998b). The logic of scientific discovery. In M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson, & A. Norrie (Eds.), Critical realism: Essential readings (pp. 48–103). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Bjørnson, F. O., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Knowledge management in software engineering: A systematic review of studied concepts, findings and research methods used. Information and Software Technology, 50(11), 1055–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new direction (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  36. Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., & Kaspar, H. (1978). Characteristics of software quality. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  37. Boh, W. F., Slaughter, S. A., & Espinosa, J. A. (2007). Learning from experience in software development: A multilevel analysis. Management Science, 53(8), 1315–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Bollen, K. A. (2002). Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 605–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Bosu, A., & Carver, J. C. (2014). Impact of developer reputation on code review outcomes in OSS projects: An empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (pp. 33–42), Torino, Italy.Google Scholar
  40. Brandon, D. P., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2004). Transactive memory systems in organizations: Matching tasks, expertise, and people. Organization Science, 15(6), 633–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Brusoni, S., & Prencipe, A. (2001). Unpacking the black box of modularity: Technologies, products and organizations. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(1), 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Bygstad, B. (2010). Generative mechanisms for innovation in information infrastructures. Information and Organization, 20(3), 156–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Bygstad, B., & Munkvold, B. E. (2011). In search of mechanisms. Conducting a critical realist data analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai, China.Google Scholar
  44. Canfora, G., Cimitile, A., Garcia, F., Piattini, M., & Visaggio, C. A. (2007). Evaluating performances of pair designing in industry. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(8), 1317–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(2), 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In J. J. N. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and group decision making (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. Cao, L., Mohan, K., Ramesh, B., & Sarkar, S. (2013). Adapting funding processes for Agile IT projects: An empirical investigation. European Journal of Information Systems, 22, 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Cenfetelli, R. T., & Bassellier, G. (2009). Interpretation of formative measurement in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 33(4), 689–707.Google Scholar
  49. Chemero, A. (2003). An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Chen, X., Li, X., Clark, J. G., & Dietrich, G. B. (2013). Knowledge sharing in open source software project teams: A transactive memory system perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 33(3), 553–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Child, J. T., & Shumate, M. (2007). The impact of communal knowledge repositories and people-based knowledge management on perceptions of team effectiveness. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(1), 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Chin, W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.Google Scholar
  53. Choi, S. Y., Lee, H., & Yoo, Y. (2010). The impact of information technology and transactive memory systems on knowledge sharing, application, and team performance: A field study. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 855–870.Google Scholar
  54. Chong, J., & Hurlbutt, T. (2007). The social dynamics of pair programming. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 354–363).Google Scholar
  55. Chou, S.-W., & He, M.-Y. (2011). The factors that affect the performance of open source software development - The perspective of social capital and expertise integration. Information Systems Journal, 21(2), 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Cockburn, A., & Williams, L. (2002). The costs and benefits of pair programming. In G. Succi & M. Marchesi (Eds.), Extreme programming examined (pp. 223–247). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  57. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. Coman, I. D., Robillard, P. N., Sillitti, A., & Succi, G. (2014). Cooperation, collaboration and pair-programming: Field studies on backup behavior. Journal of Systems and Software, 91(0), 124–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Conboy, K., & Fitzgerald, B. (2010). Method and developer characteristics for effective Agile method tailoring: A study of XP expert opinion. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 20(1), Article 2.Google Scholar
  60. D’Adderio, L. (2011). Artifacts at the centre of routines: Performing the material turn in routines theory. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(02), 197–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Daniel, S., Agarwal, R., & Stewart, K. (2012). The effects of diversity in global, distributed collectives: A study of open source project success. Information Systems Research, 24(2), 312–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Davern, M., Shaft, T., & Te’eni, D. (2012). Cognition matters: Enduring questions in cognitive IS research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(4), 273–314.Google Scholar
  63. Dawande, M., Johar, M., Kumar, S., & Mookerjee, V. (2008). A comparison of pair versus solo programming under different objectives: An analytical approach. Information Systems Research, 19(1), 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Decuyper, S., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2010). Grasping the dynamic complexity of team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organisations. Educational Research Review, 5(2), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. DeSanctis, G., & Poole, M. S. (1994). Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: Adaptive structuration theory. Organization Science, 5(2), 121–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Di Bella, E., Fronza, I., Phaphoom, N., Sillitti, A., Succi, G., & Vlasenko, J. (2013). Pair programming and software defects - A large, industrial case study. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 39(7), 930–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Dibbern, J., Guttler, W., & Heinzl, A. (2001). Die Theorie der Unternehmung als Erklärungsansatz für das selektive Outsourcing der Informationsverarbeitung: Entwicklung eines theoretischen Bezugsrahmens. Zeitschrift fur Betriebswirtschaft, 71(6), 675–700.Google Scholar
  68. Dibbern, J., Winkler, J., & Heinzl, A. (2008). Explaining variations in client extra costs between software projects offshored to India. MIS Quarterly, 32(2), 333–366.Google Scholar
  69. Dingsøyr, T., Djarraya, H. K., & Røyrvik, E. (2005). Practical knowledge management tool use in a software consulting company. Communications of the ACM, 48(12), 96–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., & Moe, N. B. (2012). A decade of Agile methodologies: Towards explaining Agile software development. The Journal of Systems & Software, 85, 1213–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Domino, M., Collins, R., & Hevner, A. (2007). Controlled experimentation on adaptations of pair programming. Information Technology and Management, 8(4), 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Dourish, P. (2003). The appropriation of interactive technologies: Some lessons from placeless documents. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12(4), 465–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Dybå, T., Arisholm, E., Sjøberg, D. I., Hannay, J. E., & Shull, F. (2007). Are two heads better than one? On the effectiveness of pair programming. IEEE Software, 24(6), 12–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of Agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50(9–10), 833–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Eco, U. (1983). Horns, hooves, insteps: Some hypotheses on three types of abduction. In U. Eco & T. A. Sebeok (Eds.), The sign of three: Dupin, Holmes, Peirce (pp. 198–220). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Edmondson, A. C., Dillon, J. R., & Roloff, K. S. (2007). Three perspectives on team learning. The Academy of Management Annals, 6, 269–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1155–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  79. Ellis, A., Porter, C., & Wolverton, S. (2008). Learning to work together: An examination of transactive memory system development in teams. In M. London & V. I. Sessa (Eds.), Work group learning: Understanding, improving, and assessing how groups learn in organizations (pp. 91–115). New York, NY: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  80. Ellis, A. P. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Porter, C. O., West, B. J., & Moon, H. (2003). Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 821–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Erickson, J., Lyytinen, K., & Siau, K. (2005). Agile modeling, Agile software development, and extreme programming: The state of research. Journal of Database Management, 16(4), 88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Espinosa, J. A., Slaughter, S. A., Kraut, R. E., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2007). Team knowledge and coordination in geographically distributed software development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), 135–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Fægri, T. E., Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2010). Introducing knowledge redundancy practice in software development: Experiences with job rotation in support work. Information and Software Technology, 52(10), 1118–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Fagan, M. (1986). Advances in software inspections. IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, 12(7), 744–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Faraj, S., & Azad, B. (2012). The materiality of technology: An affordance perspective. In P. M. Leonardi, B. A. Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (Eds.), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 237–258). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Faraj, S., & Sproull, L. (2000). Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Management Science, 46(12), 1554–1568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Fitzgerald, B., Hartnett, G., & Conboy, K. (2006). Customising Agile methods to software practices at intel Shannon. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 200–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Fleetwood, S. (2005). Ontology in organization and management studies: A critical realist perspective. Organization, 12(2), 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Fleetwood, S., & Ackroyd, S. (Eds.). (2004). Critical realist applications in organisation and management studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  90. Flor, N. V., & Hutchins, E. L. (1991). A case study of team programming during perfective software maintenance. In Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fourth Workshop (p. 36).Google Scholar
  91. Floridi, L. (2002). What is the philosophy of information? Metaphilosophy, 33, 123–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Floridi, L. (2005). Is semantic information meaningful data? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70(2), 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Floridi, L. (2008). A defence of informational structural realism. Synthese, 161(2), 219–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Floridi, L. (2010). Information: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Floridi, L. (2011). The philosophy of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Floridi, L., & Illari, P. (Eds.). (2014). The philosophy of information quality. Synthese library (Vol. 358). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  97. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  98. Gagsch, S. (1980). Subsystembildung. In Handwörterbuch der Organisation (pp. 2156–2171). Stuttgart: Poeschel.Google Scholar
  99. Gallis, H., Arisholm, E., & Dyba, T. (2003). An initial framework for research on pair programming. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (pp. 132–142).Google Scholar
  100. Gefen, D., Rigdon, E. E., & Straub, D. (2011). An update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), III–XIV.Google Scholar
  101. Ghobadi, S. (2015). What drives knowledge sharing in software development teams: A literature review and classification framework. Information & Management, 52(1), 82–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  103. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  104. Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E., & Todorova, G. (2010). First, get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111(2), 102–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Goh, J. M., Gao, G. G., & Agarwal, R. (2011). Evolving work routines: Adaptive routinization of information technology in healthcare. Information Systems Research, 22(3), 565–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Gomes, P. J., & Joglekar, N. R. (2008). Linking modularity with problem solving and coordination efforts. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29(5), 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Goodhue, D. L., Lewis, W., & Thompson, R. (2012). Does PLS have advantages for small sample size or non-normal data? MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 891–1001.Google Scholar
  108. Goodhue, D. L., Thompson, R., & Lewis, W. (2013). Why you shouldn’t use PLS: Four reasons to be uneasy about using PLS in analyzing path models. In Proceedings of the 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 4739–4748).Google Scholar
  109. Goodman, P. S., & Dabbish, L. A. (2011). Methodological issues in measuring group learning. Small Group Research, 42(4), 379–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Gopal, A., Espinosa, J., Gosain, S., & Darcy, D. (2011). Coordination and performance in global software service delivery: The vendor’s perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58(4), 772–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Gray, P. H. (2000). The effects of knowledge management systems on emergent teams: Towards a research model. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9(2–3), 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Gray, P., & Meister, D. (2004). Knowledge sourcing effectiveness. Management Science, 50(6), 821–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611–642.Google Scholar
  115. Griffith, T., Sawyer, J., & Neale, M. (2003). Virtualness and knowledge in teams: Managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 265–287.Google Scholar
  116. Griffith, T. L., & Sawyer, J. E. (2010). Multilevel knowledge and team performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(7), 1003–1031.Google Scholar
  117. Grunwald, R., & Kieser, A. (2007). Learning to reduce interorganizational learning: An analysis of architectural product innovation in strategic alliances. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(4), 369–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Guinan, P. J., Cooprider, J. G., & Faraj, S. (1998). Enabling software development team performance during requirements definition: A behavioral versus technical approach. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 101–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Gupta, N., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2010). Differentiated versus integrated transactive memory effectiveness: It depends on the task. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14(4), 384–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  121. Hanks, B., Fitzgerald, S., McCauley, R., Murphy, L., & Zander, C. (2011). Pair programming in education: A literature review. Computer Science Education, 21(2), 135–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Hannay, J., Sjoberg, D. I., & Dyba, T. (2007). A systematic review of theory use in software engineering experiments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 33(2), 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Hannay, J. E., Dybå, T., Arisholm, E., & Sjøberg, D. I. K. (2009). The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis. Information and Software Technology, 51(7), 1110–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. He, J., Butler, B. S., & King, W. R. (2007). Team cognition: Development and evolution in software project teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(2), 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Heinrich, L. J., Heinzl, A., & Riedl, R. (2011). Wirtschaftsinformatik: Einführung und Grundlegung (4th ed.). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Hemmer, E., & Heinzl, A. (2011). Where is the “I” in “IS research”? The quest for a coherent research stream in the context of human information behavior. In A. Heinzl, P. Buxmann, O. Wendt, & T. Weitzel (Eds.), Theory-guided modeling and empiricism in information systems research. Heidelberg: Physica.Google Scholar
  127. Highsmith, J., & Cockburn, A. (2001). Agile software development: The business of innovation. IEEE Computer, 34(9), 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Hildenbrand, T. (2008). Improving traceability in distributed collaborative software development a design science approach. Informationstechnologie und Ökonomie (Vol. 33). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  129. Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(2), 174–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Hollingshead, A. B. (1998a). Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(5), 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Hollingshead, A. B. (1998b). Group and individual training the impact of practice on performance. Small Group Research, 29(2), 254–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Hollingshead, A. B. (1998c). Retrieval processes in transactive memory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 659–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Hollingshead, A. B. (2000). Perceptions of expertise and transactive memory in work relationships. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Hollingshead, A. B. (2001). Cognitive interdependence and convergent expectations in transactive memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1080–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Hollingshead, A. B., Gupta, N., Yoon, K., & Brandon, D. P. (2011). Transactive memory theory and teams: Past, present, and future. In E. Salas, S. M. Fiore, & M. Letsky (Eds.), Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 421–455). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  136. Houston, M. J., & Sudman, S. (1975). A methodological assessment of the use of key informants. Social Science Research, 4(2), 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Hsu, J. S.-C., Shih, S.-P., Chiang, J. C., & Liu, J. Y.-C. (2012). The impact of transactive memory systems on IS development teams’ coordination, communication, and performance. International Journal of Project Management, 30(3), 329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Huang, M. (2009). A conceptual framework of the effects of positive affect and affective relationships on group knowledge networks. Small Group Research, 40(3), 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Huber, P. J. (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions. In Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability (pp. 221–233), Berkley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  140. Huckman, R. S., Staats, B. R., & Upton, D. M. (2009). Team familiarity, role experience, and performance: Evidence from Indian software services. Management Science, 55(1), 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Hulkko, H., & Abrahamsson, P. (2005). A multiple case study on the impact of pair programming on product quality. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 495–504).Google Scholar
  142. Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  144. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 517–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Jackson, M., & Moreland, R. (2009). Transactive memory in the classroom. Small Group Research, 40(5), 508–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Janz, B., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge management: The importance of a knowledge-centered culture. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 351–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Janz, B., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2009). Freedom to cooperate: Gaining clarity into knowledge integration in information systems development teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 56(4), 621–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak, A. (2008). Knowledge collaboration among professionals protecting national security: Role of transactive memories in ego-centered knowledge networks. Organization Science, 19(2), 260–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Jones, E. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2013). The psychological costs of knowledge specialization in groups: Unique expertise leaves you out of the loop. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 174–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2007). The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 783–808.Google Scholar
  151. Kang, K., & Hahn, J. (2009). Learning and forgetting curves in software development: Does type of knowledge matter? In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Paper 194.Google Scholar
  152. Karg, L. M., Grottke, M., & Beckhaus, A. (2011). A systematic literature review of software quality cost research. Journal of Systems and Software, 84(3), 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Keeling, M. (2010). Put it to the test: Using lightweight experiments to improve team processes. In Agile processes in software engineering and extreme programming (Vol. 48, pp. 287–296). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  154. Kettinger, W. J., & Li, Y. (2010). The infological equation extended: Toward conceptual clarity in the relationship between data, information and knowledge. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(4), 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Kilmann, R. H. (1984). Beyond the quick: Managing five tracks to organizational success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  156. Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Klimpke, L. (2013). Konzeption und Realisierung eines integrierten Mirkoblog-basierten Kommunikationsansatzes für die verteilte Softwareentwicklung. Informationstechnologie und Ökonomie (Vol. 51). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Kock, N. (2013). WarpPLS 4.0 user manual. Laredo, TX, USA: ScriptWarp Systems.Google Scholar
  159. Kock, N., & Gaskins, L. (2014). The mediating role of voice and accountability in the relationship between Internet diffusion and government corruption in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. Information Technology for Development, 20(1), 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Kock, N., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(7), 546–580.Google Scholar
  161. Kotlarsky, J., & Oshri, I. (2005). Social ties, knowledge sharing and successful collaboration in globally distributed system development projects. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Kotlarsky, J., Scarbroug, H., & Oshri, I. (2014). Coordinating expertise across knowledge boundaries in offshore-outsourcing projects: The role of codification. MIS Quarterly, 38(2), 607–627.Google Scholar
  163. Kotlarsky, J., van den Hooff, B., & Houtman, L. (2015). Are we on the same page? Knowledge boundaries and transactive memory system development in cross-functional teams. Communication Research, 42(3), 319–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. Kozlowski, S., & Bell, B. (2008). Team learning, development, and adaptation. In V. I. Sessa & M. London (Eds.), Work group learning: Understanding, improving and assessing how groups learn in organizations (pp. 15–44). New York, NY: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  165. Kozlowski, S., & Klein, K. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  166. Krcmar, H. (2005). Informationsmanagement (4th ed.). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  167. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  168. Larman, C., & Vodde, B. (2010). Practices for scaling lean & Agile development: large, multisite, and offshore product development with large-scale scrum. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  169. Lau, A. K., Richard, C., & Tang, E. (2009). The complementarity of internal integration and product modularity: An empirical study of their interaction effect on competitive capabilities. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 26(4), 305–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Lau, A. K., Yam, R., & Tang, E. (2007). The impacts of product modularity on competitive capabilities and performance: An empirical study. International Journal of Production Economics, 105(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Lee, A. S. (1991). Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organization Science, 2(4), 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2010). Toward Agile: An integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 87–114.Google Scholar
  174. Lee, G. K., & Cole, R. E. (2003). From a firm-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation: The case of the linux kernel development. Organization Science, 14(6), 633–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Leonardi, P. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167.Google Scholar
  176. Leonardi, P. (2012). When does technology use enable network change in organizations? A comparative study of feature use and shared affordances. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 749–775.Google Scholar
  177. Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2010). What’s under construction here? Social action, materiality, and power in constructivist studies of technology and organizing. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Levesque, L., Wilson, J., & Wholey, D. (2001). Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(SI), 135–144.Google Scholar
  179. Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2008). Innovating or doing as told? Status differences and overlapping boundaries in offshore collaboration. MIS Quarterly, 32(2), 307–332.Google Scholar
  180. Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 587–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. Lewis, K. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams. Management Science, 50(11), 1519–1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B., & Keller, J. (2007). Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Lewis, K., & Herndon, B. (2011). Transactive memory systems: Current issues and future research directions. Organization Science, 22, 1254–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Lewis, K., Lange, D., & Gillis, L. (2005). Transactive memory systems, learning, and learning transfer. Organization Science, 16(6), 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Li, Y., Jiang, J., & Klein, G. (2009). The role of team learning in enabling shared leadership in ISD teams. In Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems. Paper 182.Google Scholar
  186. Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 384–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. Liang, J., & Mizuno, O. (2011). Analyzing involvements of reviewers through mining a code review repository. In Joint Conference of the 21st International Workshop on Software Measurement and the 6th International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement, Nara, Japan.Google Scholar
  188. Liang, T.-P., Jiang, J., Klein, G., & Liu, J.-C. (2010). Software quality as influenced by informational diversity, task conflict, and learning in project teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 57(3), 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. Lin, T.-C., Hsu, J. S.-C., Cheng, K.-T., & Wu, S. (2011). Understanding the role of behavioural integration in ISD teams: An extension of transactive memory systems concept. Information Systems Journal, 22(3), 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. Lui, K. M., Chan, K. C., & Nosek, J. T. (2008). The effect of Pairs in program design tasks. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 34(2), 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. MacKenzie, S., Podsakoff, P., & Podsakoff, N. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293–334.Google Scholar
  192. Madeyski, L. (2006). Is external code quality correlated with programming experience or feelgood factor? In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering (pp. 65–74), Oulu, Finland.Google Scholar
  193. Majchrzak, A., Faraj, S., Kane, G. C., & Azad, B. (2013a). The contradictory influence of social media affordances on online communal knowledge sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1), 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Majchrzak, A., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Hollingshead, A. B. (2007). Coordinating expertise among emergent groups responding to disasters. Organization Science, 18(1), 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Majchrzak, A., & Markus, M. L. (2012). Technology affordances and constraints in management information systems (MIS). In E. Kessler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  196. Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C., & Yates, D. (2013b). The impact of shaping on knowledge Reuse for organizational improvement with wikis. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 455–469.Google Scholar
  197. Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). How virtual teams use their virtual workspace to coordinate knowledge. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems, 3(1), 6. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2151163.2151169
  198. Mangalaraj, G., Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R., & Price, K. H. (2014). Distributed cognition in software design: An experimental investigation of the role of design patterns and collaboration. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 249–274.Google Scholar
  199. Markus, M. L., & Silver, M. S. (2008). A foundation for the study of IT effects: A new look at DeSanctis and poole’s concepts of structural features and spirit. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(10), 609–632.Google Scholar
  200. Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., & Agarwal, R. (2009a). A control theory perspective on Agile methodology use and changing user requirements. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 377–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. Maruping, L. M., Zhang, X., & Venkatesh, V. (2009b). Role of collective ownership and coding standards in coordinating expertise in software project teams. European Journal of Information Systems, 18(4), 355–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. Mc Call, J. A., Richards, P. K., & Walters, G. F. (1977). Factors in software quality: Final report. Information Systems Programs: General Electric Company.Google Scholar
  203. Mc Connell, S. (2004). Code complete - A practical handbook of software construction (2nd ed.). Redmond: Microsoft Press.Google Scholar
  204. McIntosh, S., Kamei, Y., Adams, B., & Hassan, A. E. (2014). The impact of code review coverage and code review participation on software quality: A case study of the Qt, VTK, and ITK projects. In Proceedings of the 11th Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (pp. 192–201), New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  205. McKinney, E. H., Jr., Charles, J., & Yoos, I. (2010). Information about information: A taxonomy of views. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 329–344.Google Scholar
  206. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  207. Mingers, J. (2001). Combining IS research methods: Towards a pluralist methodology. Information Systems Research, 12(3), 240–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. Mingers, J. (2003). The paucity of multimethod research: A review of the information systems literature. Information Systems Journal, 13(3), 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. Mingers, J. (2004). Real-izing information systems: Critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for information systems. Information and Organization, 14(2), 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. Mingers, J. (2013). Prefiguring Floridi’s theory of semantic information. tripleC, 11(2), 388–401.Google Scholar
  211. Mingers, J., & Brocklesby, J. (1997). Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega, 25(5), 489–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. Mingers, J., Mutch, A., & Willcocks, L. (2013). Critical realism in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 795–802.Google Scholar
  213. Mingers, J. C. (1995). Information and meaning: Foundations for an intersubjective account. Information Systems Journal, 5(4), 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. Mookerjee, V., & Chiang, I. (2002). A dynamic coordination policy for software system construction. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(7), 684–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  216. Moreland, R. L., & Myaskovsky, L. (2000). Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  217. Müller, M. M. (2004). Are reviews an alternative to pair programming? Empirical Software Engineering, 9(4), 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  218. Müller, M. M. (2005). Two controlled experiments concerning the comparison of pair programming to peer review. Journal of Systems and Software, 78, 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. Müller, M. M. (2006). A preliminary study on the impact of a pair design phase on pair programming and solo programming. Information and Software Technology, 48(5), 335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  220. Müller, M. M. (2007). Do programmer Pairs make different mistakes than solo programmers? Journal of Systems and Software, (80(9), 1460–1471.Google Scholar
  221. Müller, M. M., & Padberg, F. (2004). An empirical study about the feelgood factor in pair programming. In IEEE Metrics (pp. 151–158).Google Scholar
  222. Mutch, A. (2010). Technology, organization, and structure: A morphogenetic approach. Organization Science, 21(2), 507–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  223. Myers, M. D., & Klein, H. K. (2011). A set of principles for conducting critical research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 17–36.Google Scholar
  224. Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods for coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3), 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  225. Nemanich, L., Keller, R., Vera, D., & Chin, W. (2010). Absorptive capacity in R & D project teams: A conceptualization and empirical test. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 57(4), 674–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  226. Nevo, D., Benbasat, I., & Wand, Y. (2012). Understanding technology support for organizational transactive memory: Requirements, application, and customization. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(4), 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  227. Nevo, D., & Ophir, R. (2012). Transactive memory and its application in IS research. In Y. K. Dwivedi, M. R. Wade, & S. L. Schneberger (Eds.), Information systems theory (pp. 41–58). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  228. Nevo, D., & Wand, Y. (2005). Organizational memory information systems: A transactive memory approach. Decision Support Systems, 39(4), 549–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  229. Nidumolu, S. (1995). The effect of coordination and uncertainty on software project performance: Residual performance risk as an intervening variable. Information Systems Research, 6(3), 191–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  230. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  231. Nosek, J. T. (1998). The case for collaborative programming. Communications of the ACM, 41(3), 105–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  232. Ohtsubo, Y. (2005). Should information be redundantly distributed among group members? Effective use of group memory in collaborative problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19(9), 1219–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  233. O’Leary, M. B., & Mortensen, M. (2010). Go (con)figure: Subgroups, imbalance, and isolates in geographically dispersed teams. Organization Science, 21(1), 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  234. Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  235. Oshri, I., van Fenema, P., & Kotlarsky, J. (2008). Knowledge transfer in globally distributed teams: The role of transactive memory. Information Systems Journal, 18(6), 593–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  236. Pangsakulyanont, T., Thongtanunam, P., Port, D., & Iida, H. (2014). Assessing MCR discussion usefulness using semantic similarity. In 6th International Workshop on Empirical Software Engineering in Practice (pp. 49–54).Google Scholar
  237. Paulk, M. C. (2001). Extreme programming from a CMM perspective. IEEE Software, 18(6), 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  238. Peltokorpi, V. (2004). Transactive memory directories in small work units. Personnel Review, 33(4), 446–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  239. Peltokorpi, V. (2008). Transactive memory systems. Review of General Psychology, 12(4), 378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  240. Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 623–656.Google Scholar
  241. Phongpaibul, M., & Boehm, B. (2006). An empirical comparison between pair development and software inspection in Thailand. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering 2006, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Google Scholar
  242. Phongpaibul, M., & Boehm, B. (2007). A replicate empirical comparison between pair development and software development with inspection. In First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (pp. 265–274).Google Scholar
  243. Plonka, L., Sharp, H., Van der Linden, J., & Dittrich, Y. (2015). Knowledge transfer in pair programming: An in-depth analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 73, 66–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  244. Plonka, L., & van der Linden, J. (2012). Why developers don’t pair more often. In 5th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (pp. 123–125).Google Scholar
  245. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  246. Poppendieck, M., & Poppendieck, T. (2003). Lean software development: An Agile toolkit. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  247. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  248. Pozzi, G., Pigni, F., & Vitari, C. (2014). Affordance theory in the IS discipline: A review and synthesis of the literature. In Proceedings of the 20th Americas Conference on Information Systems, Savannah, GA.Google Scholar
  249. Rai, A., Song, H., & Troutt, M. (1998). Software quality assurance: An analytical survey and research prioritization. Journal of Systems and Software, 40(1), 67–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  250. Rau, D. (2005). The influence of relationship conflict and trust on the transactive memory performance relation in top management teams. Small Group Research, 36(6), 746–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  251. Ravichandran, T., & Rai, A. (2000). Quality management in systems development: An organizational system perspective. MIS Quarterly, 24(3), 381–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  252. Ren, Y., & Argote, L. (2011). Transactive memory systems 1985–2010: An integrative framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 189–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  253. Ren, Y., Carley, K., & Argote, L. (2006). The contingent effects of transactive memory: When is it more beneficial to know what others know? Management Science, 52(5), 671–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  254. Rigby, P. (2011). Understanding open source software peer review: Review processes, parameters and statistical models, and underlying behaviours and mechanisms. Ph.D. thesis, University of Ottawa, Department of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  255. Rigby, P., Cleary, B., Painchaud, F., Storey, M.-A., & German, D. (2012). Contemporary peer review in action: Lessons from open source development. IEEE Software, 29(6), 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  256. Rigby, P., German, D., & Storey, M. (2008). Open source software peer review practices: A case study of the apache server. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 541–550), Leipzig.Google Scholar
  257. Rigby, P. C., & Bird, C. (2013). Convergent contemporary software peer review practices. In Proceedings of the 2013 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (pp. 202–212).Google Scholar
  258. Rigby, P. C., & Storey, M.-A. (2011). Understanding broadcast based peer review on open source software projects. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 541–550), Honolulu, HI, USA.Google Scholar
  259. Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), iii–xiv.Google Scholar
  260. Robert, L. P., Jr., Dennis, A. R., & Ahuja, M. K. (2008). Social capital and knowledge integration in digitally enabled teams. Information Systems Research, 19(3), 314–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  261. Robey, D., & Anderson, C. (2013). Information technology, materiality, and organizational change: A professional odyssey. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(7), 379–398.Google Scholar
  262. Rogers, W. H. (1993). sg17: Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bulletin, 13, 19–23.Google Scholar
  263. Ronkainen, J., & Abrahamsson, P. (2003). Software development under stringent hardware constraints: Do Agile methods have a chance? In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering.Google Scholar
  264. Rosenkranz, C. (2011). Information systems development as a social process: A structuration model. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai, China.Google Scholar
  265. Rulke, D. L., & Rau, D. (2000). Investigating the encoding process of transactive memory development in group training. Group & Organization Management, 25(4), 373–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  266. Ryan, S., & O’Connor, R. V. (2013). Acquiring and sharing tacit knowledge in software development teams: An empirical study. Information and Software Technology, 55(9), 1614–1624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  267. Rönkkö, M., & Evermann, J. (2013). A critical examination of common beliefs about partial least squares path modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 16(3), 425–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  268. Salas, E., Fiore, S. M., Letsky, M. P. (Eds.). (2012). Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  269. Salleh, N., Mendes, E., & Grundy, J. (2014). Investigating the effects of personality traits on pair programming in a higher education setting through a family of experiments. Empirical Software Engineering, 19(3), 714–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  270. Salleh, N., Mendes, E., & Grundy, J. C. (2011). Empirical studies of pair programming for CS/SE teaching in higher education: A systematic literature review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 37(4), 509–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  271. Sarker, S., Sarker, S., Kirkeby, S., & Chakraborty, S. (2011). Path to “Stardom” in globally distributed hybrid teams: An examination of a knowledge-centered perspective using social network analysis. Decision Sciences, 42(2), 339–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  272. Sawyer, S., Guinan, P. J., & Cooprider, J. (2010). Social interactions of information systems development teams: A performance perspective. Information Systems Journal, 20(1), 81–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  273. Sayer, A. (2000) Realism and social science. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  274. Schilling, M. A. (2000). Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 312–334.Google Scholar
  275. Schmidt, C. T., Kude, T., Heinzl, A., & Mithas, S. (2014). How Agile practices influence the performance of software development teams: The role of shared mental models and backup. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  276. Schmidt, C. T., Spohrer, K., Kude, T., & Heinzl, A. (2012). The impact of peer-based software reviews on team performance: The role of feedback and transactive memory systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
  277. Schmitz, P., Bons, H., & van Megen, R. (1982). Software-Qualitätssicherung - Testen im Software-Lebenszyklus. Braunschweig: Vieweg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  278. Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2002). Agile software development with scrum (Vol. 18). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  279. Schöne, H. (2003). Die teilnehmende Beobachtung als Datenerhebungsmehtode in der Politikwissenschaft. Methodologische Reflexion und Werkstattbericht. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 4(2), 168–199.Google Scholar
  280. Schütz, A. (1970). On phenomenology and social relations (Vol. 360). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  281. Seidel, S., Recker, J., & vom Brocke, J. (2014). Sensemaking and sustainable practicing: Functional affordances of information systems in green transformations. MIS Quarterly 37(4), 1275–1299.Google Scholar
  282. Senapathi, M., & Srinivasan, A. (2012). Understanding post-adoptive Agile usage: An exploratory cross-case analysis. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1255–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  283. Sessa, V. I., & London, M. (Eds.). (2008). Work group learning: Understanding, improving & assessing how groups learn in organizations. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  284. Sharp, H., & Robinson, H. (2006). A distributed cognition account of mature XP teams. In P. Abrahamsson, M. Marchesi, & G. Succi (Eds.), Extreme programming and Agile processes in software engineering (pp. 1–10). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  285. Sharp, H., & Robinson, H. (2008). Collaboration and co-ordination in mature eXtreme programming teams. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(7), 506–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  286. Shaw, M., & Garlan, D. (1996). Software architecture: An emerging discipline. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  287. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial (Vol. 136). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  288. Skerlavaj, M., Dimovski, V., & Desouza, K. C. (2010). Patterns and structures of intra-organizational learning networks within a knowledge-intensive organization. Journal of Information Technology, 25(2), 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  289. Sommerville, I. (2012). Software engineering (9th ed.). Munich: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  290. Spohrer, K., Gholami, B., & Heinzl, A. (2012). Team learning in information systems development - A literature review. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  291. Spohrer, K., Kude, T., Heinzl, A., & Schmidt, C. T. (2013a). Peer-based quality assurance in information systems development: A transactive memory perspective. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
  292. Spohrer, K., Kude, T., Schmidt, C. T., & Heinzl, A. (2013b). Knowledge creation in information systems development teams: The role of pair programming and peer code review. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems, Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  293. Stamelos, I., Angelis, L., Oikonomou, A., & Bleris, G. (2002). Code quality analysis in open source software development. Information Systems Journal, 12(1), 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  294. Stoffregen, T. A. (2003). Affordances as properties of the animal-environment system. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  295. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basic of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  296. Strong, D., & Volkoff, O. (2010). Understanding organization-enterprise system fit: A path to theorizing the information technology artifact. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), 731.Google Scholar
  297. Strong, D. M., Volkoff, O., Johnson, S. A., Pelletier, L. R., Tulu, B., Bar-On, I., et al. (2014.) A theory of organization-EHR affordance actualization. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 15(2), 53–85.Google Scholar
  298. Stuckenberg, S. (2014). Exploring the organizational impact of software-as-a-service on software vendors: The role of organizational integration in software-as-a-service development and operation. Informationstechnologie und Ökonomie (Vol. 55). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  299. Stuckenberg, S., Kude, T., & Heinzl, A. (2014). Understanding the role of organizational integration in developing and operating software-as-a-service. Journal of Business Economics, 84(8), 1019–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  300. Su, C. (2012). Who knows who knows what in the group? The effects of communication network centralities, use of digital knowledge repositories, and work remoteness on organizational members’ accuracy in expertise recognition. Communication Research, 39(5), 614–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  301. Subramanyam, R., Ramasubbu, N., & Krishnan, M. S. (2012). In search of efficient flexibility: Effects of software component granularity on development effort, defects, and customization effort. Information Systems Research, 23(3), 787–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  302. Sun, W. (2011). The true cost of pair programming: Development of a comprehensive model and test. Ph.D. thesis, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  303. Sutcliffe, A. G., Gonzalez, V., Binder, J., & Nevarez, G. (2011). Social mediating technologies: Social affordances and functionalities. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 27(11), 1037–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  304. Sutherland, A., & Venolia, G. (2009). Can peer code reviews be exploited for later information needs? In 31st International Conference on Software Engineering-Companion Volume, 2009 (pp. 259–262).Google Scholar
  305. Sutton, R., & Straw, B. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  306. Teasley, S., Covi, L., Krishnan, M., & Olson, J. (2002). Rapid software development through team collocation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(7), 671–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  307. Thongtanunam, P., Tantithamthavorn, C., Kula, R. G., Yoshida, N., Iida, H., & Matsumoto, K. (2015). Who should review my code? A file location-based code-reviewer recommendation approach for modern code review. In Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  308. Thongtanunam, P., Yang, X., Yoshida, N., Kula, R., Camargo Cruz, A., Fujiwara, K., et al. (2014). ReDA: A web-based visualization tool for analyzing modern code review dataset. In IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (pp. 605–608).Google Scholar
  309. Tiwana, A. (2004). An empirical study of the effect of knowledge integration on software development performance. Information and Software Technology, 46(13), 899–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  310. Tiwana, A., & Mclean, E. (2005). Expertise integration and creativity in information systems development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 13–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  311. Tomayko, J. E. (2002). A comparison of pair programming to inspections for software defect reduction. Computer Science Education, 12(3), 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  312. Tsang, E. W. (2014). Case studies and generalization in information systems research: A critical realist perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23(2), 174–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  313. Van Osch, W., & Mendelson, O. (2011). A typology of affordances: Untangling sociomaterial interactions through video analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Shanghai, China.Google Scholar
  314. Vanhanen, J. (2011). Empirical asssessment of the adoption, use, and effects of pair programming. Ph.D. thesis, Aalto University.Google Scholar
  315. Vanhanen, J., & Lassenius, C. (2005). Effects of pair programming at the development team level: An experiment. In International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, Noosa Heads, Australia.Google Scholar
  316. Vanhanen, J., & Lassenius, C. (2007). Perceived effects of pair programming in an industrial context. In 33rd EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (pp. 211–218), Lübeck, Germany.Google Scholar
  317. Vanhanen, J., Lassenius, C., & Mantyla, M. V. (2007). Issues and tactics when adopting pair programming: A longitudinal case study. In International Conference on Software Engineering Advances, 2007. ICSEA, 2007 (pp. 70–70), Cap Esterel, France.Google Scholar
  318. Vanhanen, J., & Mäntylä, M. V. (2013). A systematic mapping study of empirical studies on the use of pair programming in industry. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 23(09), 1221–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  319. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54.Google Scholar
  320. Vidgen, R., & Wang, X. (2009). Coevolving systems and the organization of Agile software development. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  321. Vlaar, P. W. L., van Fenema, P. C., & Tiwari, V. (2008). Cocreating understanding and value in distributed work: How members of onsite and offshore vendor teams give, make, demand, and break sense. MIS Quarterly, 32(2), 227–255.Google Scholar
  322. Volkoff, O., Strong, D., & Elmes, M. (2007). Technological embeddedness and organizational change. Organization Science, 18(5), 832–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  323. Volkoff, O., & Strong, D. M. (2013). Critical realism and affordances: Theorizing IT-associated organizational change processes. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 819–834.Google Scholar
  324. von Hellens, L. A. (1997). Information systems quality versus software quality - A discussion from a managerial, an organisational and an engineering viewpoint. Information and Software Technology, 39(12), 801–808. Information System Quality.Google Scholar
  325. Walsham, G. (1995a). Interpretive case studies in is research: Nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4(2), 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  326. Walsham, G. (1995b). The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Information Systems Research, 6(4), 376–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  327. Walsham, G. (2006). Doing interpretive research. European Journal of Information Systems, 15, 320–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  328. Walz, D., Elam, J., & Curtis, B. (1993). Inside a software-design team: Knowledge acquisition, sharing, and integration. Communications of the ACM, 36(10), 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  329. Wang, C. L., Ahmed, P. K., & Rafiq, M. (2008). Knowledge management orientation: Construct development and empirical validation. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(3), 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  330. Wang, J., & Carroll, J. (2011). Behind linus’s law: A preliminary analysis of open source software peer review practices in mozilla and python. In International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (pp. 117–124).Google Scholar
  331. Wang, X., Conboy, K., & Pikkarainen, M. (2012). Assimilation of Agile practices in use. Information Systems Journal, 22(6), 435–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  332. Ward, J., & Peppard, J. (2002). Strategic planning for information systems (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  333. Waterman, M. G. (2014). Reconciling agility and architecture: A theory of Agile architecture. Ph.D. thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
  334. Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  335. Wegner, D. M., Giuliano, T., & Hertel, P. T. (1985). Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 253–276). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  336. Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schroder, G., & van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 177–195.Google Scholar
  337. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  338. Williams, L., Kessler, R. R., Cunningham, W., & Jeffries, R. (2000). Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Software, 17(4), 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  339. Williams, L. A. (2000). The collaborative software process. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Utah.Google Scholar
  340. Williams, L. A., & Kessler, R. R. (2000). All I really need to know about pair programming I learned in kindergarten. Communincations of the ACM, 43(5), 108–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  341. Wilson, J. M., Goodman, P. S., & Cronin, M. A. (2007). Group learning. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1041–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  342. Winkler, D., & Biffl, S. (2006). An empirical study on design quality improvement from best-practice inspection and pair programming. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (pp. 319–333), Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  343. Wong, S. (2008). Task knowledge overlap and knowledge variety: The role of advice network structures and impact on group effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 591–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  344. Wray, S. (2010). How pair programming really works. IEEE Software, 27(1), 50–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  345. Wynn, D., Jr., & Williams, C. K. (2012). Principles for conducting critical realist case study research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 787–810.Google Scholar
  346. Yang, X. (2014). Social network analysis in open source software peer review. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (pp. 820–822), Hong Kong, China.Google Scholar
  347. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research. Applied social research methods series (4th ed., Vol. 5). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  348. Yoo, Y., & Kanawattanachai, P. (2001). Developments of transactive memory systems and collective mind in virtual teams. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(2), 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  349. Yuan, Y. C., Fulk, J., & Monge, P. R. (2007). Access to information in connective and communal transactive memory systems. Communication Research, 34(2), 131–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  350. Yuan, Y. C., Fulk, J., Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. (2010). Expertise directory development, shared task interdependence, and strength of communication network ties as multilevel predictors of expertise exchange in transactive memory work groups. Communication Research, 37(1), 20–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  351. Zachariadis, M., Scott, S., & Barrett, M. (2013). Methodological implications of critical realism for mixed-methods research. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 855–879.Google Scholar
  352. Zammuto, R. F., Griffith, T. L., Majchrzak, A., Dougherty, D. J., & Faraj, S. (2007). Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organization Science, 18(5), 749–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  353. Zhang, X., Venkatesh, V., & Brown, S. A. (2011). Designing collaborative systems to enhance team performance. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 12(8), 556–584.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Spohrer
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations