A Performance Management Model for Agile Information Systems Development Teams

Conference paper

Abstract

The prevailing trend in ISD is one of poor project performances, with budget overruns commonly in excess of 300 % and many failing altogether. To address this trend ISD research always focuses on the ISD process, user involvement and the people involved. Rarely, if ever are wider organisational processes questioned. This paper argues for a cohesive and ongoing inclusion of wider organisational factors in efforts to address and improve ISD project performance. Given the poor budgetary performance of ISD projects, budgeting is one that we feel requires particular attention. Contemporary research in budgeting (e.g. Beyond Budgeting) and in ISD (e.g. agile methods) attempts to address similar issues albeit from a different angles. This paper draws on two case studies of seven ISD teams to apply the Beyond Budgeting model to an ISD environment. We demonstrate the value of using the Beyond Budgeting model to develop a cohesive research agenda within ISD used to identify gaps and suggest improvements to agile methods, probably the most well-known and accepted contemporary ISD approach.

Keywords

Line Production Clarification 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported, in part, by Science Foundation Ireland grant 03/CE/11855 (for CSET2) to Lero, the Irish Software Engineering Research Centre (http://www.lero.ie)

References

  1. 1.
    Abrahamsson P, Conboy K, Wang X (2009) Lots done, more to do: the current state of agile systems development research. Eur J Inform Syst 18(4):281–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agerfalk PJ, Fitzgerald B, Slaughter SA (2009) Flexible and distributed information systems development: state of the art and research challenges introduction. Inform Syst Res 20(3):317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahituv N, Hadass M, Neumann S (1984) A flexible approach to information system development. MIS Quarterly 8(2):69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Avison DE, Fitzgerald G (2003) Where now for development methodologies? Comm ACM 46(1):78–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boehm B, Turner R (2004) Balancing agility and discipline: a guide for the perplexed. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bogsnes B (2009) Implementing beyond budgeting: unlocking the performance potential. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cockburn A (2007) Agile software development: the cooperative game. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conboy K (2009) Agility from first principles: reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Inform Syst Res 20(3):329–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Conboy K, Fitzgerald B (2004) Toward a conceptual framework of agile methods. In: Xp/Agile Universe 2004, proceedings, 3134, pp 105–116Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crowston K (1997) A coordination theory approach to organizational process design. Organ Sci 8:157–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dove R (2001) Response agility—the language, structure, and culture of the agile enterprise. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Drucker P (1988) The coming of the new organization. Harv Bus Rev 66(1):45–53Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dugdale D, Lyne S (2006) Budgeting. Financ Manag (14719185):32–35Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dybå T, Dingsøyr T (2008) Empirical studies of agile software development: a systematic review. Inform Software Technol 50(9–10):833–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fitzgerald B, Hartnett G, ConboY K (2006) Customising agile methods to software practices at Intel Shannon. Eur J Inform Syst 15(2):200–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gladden GR (1982) Stop the life-cycle, I want to get off. Software Eng Notes 7(2):35–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gulati R, Oldroyd JB (2005) The quest for customer focus. Harv Bus Rev 83(4):92–101Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gurton A (1999) Bye bye budget. Account Int, MarchGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hansen SC, Otley DT, Van Der Stede WA (2003) Practice developments in budgeting: an overview and research perspective. J Manag Account Res 15:95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hope J, Fraser R (2003) Beyond budgeting: how managers can break free from the annual performance trap. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ishida J (2006) Team incentives under relative performance evaluation. J Econ Manag Strat 15(1):187–206MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jensen MC (2003) Paying people to lie: the truth about the budgeting process. Eur Financ Manag 9(3):379–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kautz K, Madsen S, Nørbjerg J (2007) Persistent problems and practices in information systems development. Inform Syst J 17(3):217–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Keil M, Im GP, Mahring M (2007) Reporting bad news on software projects: the effects of culturally constituted views of face-saving. Inform Syst J 17(1):59–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Knight D, Durham CC, Locke EA (2001) The relationship of team goals, incentives, and efficacy to strategic risk, tactical implementation, and performance. Acad Manage J 44:326–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Larman C, Vodde B (2008) Scaling lean & agile development. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee G, Xia W (2010) Toward agile: an integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. MIS Quarterly 34:1MATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lohan G, Conboy K, Lang M (2010) Beyond budgeting and agile software development: a conceptual framework for the performance management of agile software development teams. International Conference on Information Systems, St LouisGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maruping LM, Zhang XJ, Venkatesh V (2009) Role of collective ownership and coding standards in coordinating expertise in software project teams. Eur J Inform Syst 18(4):355–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McFarland KR (2008) Should you build strategy like you build software? MIT Sloan Manag Rev 49(3):69–74Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miles M, Huberman A (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mintzberg H (2009) Rebuilding companies as communities. Harv Bus Rev 87(7/8):140–143Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mishra D, Mishra A (2009) Effective communication, collaboration, and coordination in eXtreme programming: human-centric perspective in a small organization. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf 19(5):438–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moe NB, Dingsoyr T, Dyba T (2010) A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: a case study of a Scrum project. Inform Software Technol 52(5):480–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    O’Brien R (1999) Living with budgeting. Manag Account 77:22Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pan G, Pan SL, Newman M, Flynn D (2006) Escalation and de-escalation of commitment: a commitment transformation analysis of an e-government project. Inform Syst J 16(1):3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Poppendieck M, Poppendieck T (2010) Leading lean software development: results are not the point. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rubinstein D (2007) Standish group report: there’s less development chaos today. Software Dev Times 169:1–2Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sommerville I (2007) Software engineering, 8th edn. Pearson Education Limited, Essex, EnglandMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wallander J (1999) Budgeting—an unnecessary evil. Scand J Manag 15:402–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Walsham G (2006) Doing interpretive research. Eur J Inform Syst 15(3):320–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  2. 2.The University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations