Balancing the Paradox of Formal and Social Governance in Distributed Agile Development Projects

  • Esmeralda Thomson
  • Richard Vidgen
Conference paper


Distributed agile development (DAD) projects require effective governance mechanisms to address challenges such as coordination, communication, culture, and technology as well as maintaining the agility of the project in order to enhance project outcome. Such effective governance requires having formal and social mechanisms to control as well as facilitate coordination in DAD projects. However, the coexistence of formal and social governance mechanisms in the system raises a paradox that makes applying such governance framework challenging. This study aims to investigate and explore potential benefits and challenges of adopting formal and social governance mechanisms in DAD projects. The scarce literature on real industrial case studies reporting on experiences of using effective governance in DAD projects makes this study to research in companies involve in DAD projects.


Project Team Governance Mechanism Social Mechanism Network Governance Formal Governance 
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. Ågerfalk P, Fitzgerald B (2006) Flexible and distributed software processes: old petunias in new bowls? Commun ACM 49(10):27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agile Manifesto (2001). Last visit Jan 2011
  3. Ambler WS (2009) Scaling agile software development through lean governance. In: Proceeding of ICSE workshop on software development governance (SDG), pp 1–2Google Scholar
  4. Anderson W, Carney D (2009) Distributed project governance assessment (DPGA): contextual, hands-on analysis for project governance across Sovereign boundaries. In: Proceeding of ICSE workshop on SDG, pp 27–28Google Scholar
  5. Bannerman PL (2009) Software development governance: a meta-management perspective. In: Proceeding of ICSE workshop on SDG, pp 3–8Google Scholar
  6. Beck K (1999) Extreme programming explained. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown CV (1999) Horizontal mechanisms under differing IS organization contexts. MIS Q 23(3):421–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng T, Jansen S, Remmers M (2009) Controlling and monitoring agile software development in three Dutch product software companies. In: Proceeding of ICSE workshop on SDG, pp 29–35Google Scholar
  9. Chulani S, Williams C, Yaeli A (2008) Software development governance and its concerns. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on SDG, ACM, pp 3–6Google Scholar
  10. Das TK, Teng B (2001) Trust, control and risk in strategic alliances: an integrated framework. Organ Stud 22(2):251–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dubinsky Y, Kruchten Ph (2009) Software development governance ICSE:455–456Google Scholar
  12. Granovetter M (1992) Economic institutions as social constructions: a framework for analysis. Acta Sociol 35(1):3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hildenbrand T, Geisser M, Kude T, Bruch D, Acker T (2008) Agile methodologies for distributed collaborative development of enterprise applications. International conference on complex, intelligent and software intensive systems, pp 540–545Google Scholar
  14. Jensen MC (2001) A theory of the firm: governance, residual claims, and organizational forms. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 237Google Scholar
  15. Jones C, Hesterly WS, Borgatti SP (1997) A general theory of network governance: exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Acad Manage J 22(4):911–945Google Scholar
  16. Lewis M (2000) Exploring paradox: toward a more comprehensive guide. Acad Manage Rev 25(4):760–776Google Scholar
  17. Mckay J, Marshall P, Smith L (2003) Steps towards effective IT governance: strategic IT planning, evaluation and benefits management. In: PACIS proceedings, pp 956–970Google Scholar
  18. Meyer ND (2004) Systemic IS governance: an introduction. Inf Syst Manage 21(4):23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Peterson RR (2001) Configurations and coordination for global information technology governance: complex designs in a transnational European context. In: Proceedings of 34th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp 10Google Scholar
  20. Pye G, Warren MJ (2006) Striking a balance between ethics and ICT 3 governance. Aust J Inf Syst 13(2):201–207Google Scholar
  21. Qumer A (2007) Defining an integrated agile governance for large agile software development environments. Springer, Berlin, pp 157–160Google Scholar
  22. Ramesh B, Cao L, Mohan K, Xu P (2006) Can distributed software development be agile? Commun ACM 49(10):40–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosen SM (1994) Science, paradox, and the moebius principle. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  24. Schwaber K, Beedle M (2002) Agile software development with SCRUM. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  25. Simonsson M, Johnson P (2006) Defining IT governance: a consolidation of literature. Working paper of the Department of Industrial Information and Control Systems. 18th conference on advanced information systemsGoogle Scholar
  26. Sundaramurthy C, Lewis M (2003) Control and collaboration: paradoxes of governance. Acad Manage Rev 28(3):397–415Google Scholar
  27. Talby D, Dubinsky Y (2009) Governance of an agile software project. In: Proceeding of ICSE workshop on SDG, pp 40–45Google Scholar
  28. Tarr P, Williams C, Hailpern B (2008) Toward governance of emergent processes and adaptive organizations. First workshop on SDG, pp 21–24Google Scholar
  29. Vidgen R, Madsen S, Kautz K (2004) Mapping the information system development process. International Federation for Information Processing, pp 157–171Google Scholar
  30. Wang X, O’Conchuir E, Vidgen R (2008) A paradoxical perspective on contradictions in agile software development. In: Proceedings of ECIS, pp 9–11Google Scholar
  31. Weill P, Ross JW (2004) IT governance on one page. CISR WP No. 49 and MIT Sloan WP No. 4516–04Google Scholar
  32. Williamson OE (1994) Visible and invisible governance. Am Econ Rev 84(2):323–326Google Scholar
  33. Winkler I (2006) Network governance between individual and collective goals: qualitative evidence from six networks. J Leadersh Organ Stud 12(3):119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yadav V, Ayda M, Nath D, Sridhar V (2007) Investigating an ‘Agile-Rigid’ approach in globally distributed requirements analysis. PACIS proceedings (paper 12)Google Scholar
  35. Yaeli A, Klinger T (2008) Enacting responsibility assignment in software development environments. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on SDG, ACM, pp 7–10Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Esmeralda Thomson
    • 1
  • Richard Vidgen
    • 2
  1. 1.University Of New south WalesSouth WalesAustralia
  2. 2.University Of HullHullUK

Personalised recommendations