Directing High-Performing Software Teams: Proposal of a Capability-Based Assessment Instrument Approach

  • Petri Kettunen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 166)


It is not clearly understood, what high performance means for software development enterprises. Product development team performance has been investigated extensively in various industries, but software development teams and their knowledge-intensive work are still open to even fundamental questions and gaps. Software team performance is relative to the particular context. The performance outcomes of the teams are products of their specific capabilities, provided by the underlying software competencies. This paper proposes a high-performing software team capability analysis approach supported by provisional instrumentation. The goal of such an analyzer is to facilitate software teams and organizations to identify their essential capabilities and – in case of mismatches or weaknesses – to gauge the development of necessary ones. An industrial team case demonstrates how it is able to capture and characterize different team capability traits for performance analysis and improvement with respect to the overall aims of the software organization.


software teams performance management capability development process improvement high-performing organization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J.: Lean, Rapid, and Profitable New Product Development. BookSurge Publishing, North Charleston (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McLeod, L., MacDonnell, S.G.: Factors that Affect Software Systems Development Project Outcomes: A Survey of Research. ACM Computing Surveys 43(4) (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kettunen, P., Moilanen, S.: Sensing High-Performing Software Teams: Proposal of an Instrument for Self-monitoring. In: Wohlin, C. (ed.) XP 2012. LNBIP, vol. 111, pp. 77–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kettunen, P.: The Many Facets of High-Performing Software Teams: A Capability-Based Analysis Approach. In: McCaffery, F., O’Connor, R.V., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2013. CCIS, vol. 364, pp. 131–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kleinschmidt, E., de Brentani, U., Salomo, S.: Information Processing and Firm-Internal Environment Contingencies: Performance Impact on Global New Product Development. Creativity and Innovation Management 19(3), 200–218 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kettunen, P.: Agile Software Development in Large-Scale New Product Development Organization: Team-Level Perspective. In: Dissertation. Helsinki University of Technology, Finland (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hackman, J.R.: Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petersen, K.: Measuring and predicting software productivity: A systematic map and review. Information and Software Technology 53, 317–343 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chenhall, R.H., Langfield-Smith, K.: Multiple Perspectives of Performance Measures. European Management Journal 25(4), 266–282 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stensrud, E., Myrtveit, I.: Identifying High Performance ERP Projects. IEEE Trans. Software Engineering 29(5), 398–416 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berlin, J.M., Carlström, E.D., Sandberg, H.S.: Models of teamwork: ideal or not? A critical study of theoretical team models. Team Performance Management 18(5/6), 328–340 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kasunic, M.: A Data Specification for Software Project Performance Measures: Results of a Collaboration on Performance Measurement. Technical report TR-012, CMU/SEI (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Winter, M., Szczepanek, T.: Projects and programmes as value creation processes: A new perspective and some practical implications. International Journal of Project Management 26, 95–103 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ancona, D., Bresman, H.: X-Teams: How to Build Teams that Lead, Innovate, and Succeed. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Allee, V.: Value Network Analysis and value conversion of tangible and intangible assets. Journal of Intellectual Capital 9(1), 5–24 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buschmann, F.: Value-Focused System Quality. IEEE Software 27(6), 84–86 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anderson, D.J.: Agile Management for Software Engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Staron, M., Meding, W., Karlsson, G.: Developing measurement systems: an industrial case study. J. Softw. Maint. Evol.: Res. Pract. 23, 89–107 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Agresti, W.W.: Lightweight Software Metrics: The P10 Framework, pp. 12–16. IT Pro (September-October 2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y.: Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. John Wiley & Sons, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tonini, A.C., Medina, J., Fleury, A.L., de Mesquita Spinola, M.: Software Development Strategic Management: A Resource-Based View Approach. In: Proc. PICMET, pp. 1072–1080 (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Professional Staff Core Capability Dictionary. University of Adelaide, Australia (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Day, G.S.: The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations. Journal of Marketing 58, 37–52 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Neely, A., Adams, C., Crowe, P.: The performance prism in practice. Measuring Business Excellence 5(2), 6–13 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    von Hertzen, M., Laine, J., Kangasharju, S., Timonen, J., Santala, M.: Drive For Future Software Leverage: The Role, Importance, and Future Challenges of Software Competences in Finland. Review 262. Tekes, Helsinki (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Downey, J.: Designing Job Descriptions for Software Development. In: Barry, C., et al. (eds.) Information Systems Development: Challenges in Practice, Theory, and Education, vol. 1, pp. 447–460. Springer Science+Business Media (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Conboy, K., Fitzgerald, B.: Toward a conceptual framework for agile methods: a study of agility in different disciplines. In: Mehandjiev, N., Brereton, P. (eds.) Workshop on Interdisciplinary software engineering research (WISER), pp. 37–44. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    CMMI for Development. Technical report, CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guidance on use for process improvement and process capability determination. Information technology, Process assessment, Part 4: 15504-4, ISO/IEC (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    EFQM Excellence Model. EFQM Foundation, Belgium (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Baldrige National Quality Program: Criteria for Performance Excellence. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, MD (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Drexler, A., Sibbet, D.: Team Performance Model (TPModel). The Grove Consultants International, San Francisco (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Humphrey, W.S.: Introduction to the Team Software Process. Addison Wesley Longman Inc., Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Humphrey, W.S., Chick, T.A., Nichols, W.R., Pomeroy-Huff, M.: Team Software Process (TSP) Body of Knowledge (BOK). Technical report, CMU/SEI-2010-TR-020. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pikkarainen, M.: Towards a Framework for Improving Software Development Process Mediated with CMMI Goals and Agile Practices. Dissertation, University of Oulu, Finland (2008)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moe, N.B., Dingsøyr, T., Røyrvik, E.A.: Putting Agile Teamwork to the Test – An Preliminary Instrument for Empirically Assessing and Improving Agile Software Development. In: Abrahamsson, P., Marchesi, M., Maurer, F. (eds.) XP 2009. LNBIP, vol. 31, pp. 114–123. Springer, Heidelberg (1975)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Glazer, H.: Love and Marriage: CMMI and Agile Need Each Other. CrossTalk 23(1), 29–34 (2010)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fenton, N.E., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software Metrics: A Rigorous & Practical Approach. International Thompson Computer Press (1996)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wirtenberg, J., Lipsky, D., Abrams, L., Conway, M., Slepian, J.: The Future of Organization Development: Enabling Sustainable Business Performance Through People. Organization Development Journal 25(2), 11–22 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petri Kettunen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations