Investigating the Impact of Agile Methods on Learning and Innovation

  • Maria Carmela Annosi
  • Jens Hemphälä
  • Federica Brunetta
Chapter

Abstract

In a turbulent environment, increased flexibility and efficiency are essential for most firms to survive. Many organizations have responded to the need for greater efficiency and productivity by building more Agile structures and shifting to the implementation of Agile software (SW) methodologies. Although the adoption of Agile methodologies is becoming widespread, robust empirical evidence on their effectiveness is lacking as is evidence of the improvements brought by Agile compared to other methods. This chapter provides empirical evidence on the impact of Agile on organizational product and process innovation and learning. Authors investigate the following research question:  How does use of Agile methods impact on product and process related innovation and learning in teams? While the relationship between the investment in knowledge and innovation output has been studied extensively, little work focuses on the role of Agile in growing the organization’s knowledge base through team learning. The data collected include traditional R&D innovation indicators and also in-depth measures of organizational performance and overall team outcomes, which allow us to study not only the extent to which Agile impacts on the firm’s innovation and learning performance but also the dynamic team learning process.  

References

  1. Abrahamsson, P., Conboy, K., & Wang, X. (2009). “Lots done, more to do”: The current state of Agile systems development research. European Journal of Information Systems, 18.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10, 43–68.Google Scholar
  3. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20, 696–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2010). Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long Range Planning, 43, 104–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Argyris, C. (1982). Action science and organizational learning. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10(6), 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron age: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47,676–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110,349–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callois, J. (2008). The two sides of proximity in industrial clusters: The trade-off between process and product innovation. Journal of Urban Economics, 63, 146–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cantarello, S., Martini, A., & Nosella, A. (2012). A multi-level model for organizational ambidexterity in the search phase of the innovation process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(1), 28–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, Y. S., Lin, M. J. J., & Chang, C. H. (2009). The positive effects of relationship learning and absorptive capacity on innovation performance and competitive advantage in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(2), 152–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheng, C. C., & Krumwiede, D. (2010). The effects of market orientation and service innovation on service industry performance: An empirical study. Operations Management Research, 3(3–4), 1–11.Google Scholar
  14. Chin, G. (2004). Agile project management: How to succeed in the face of changing project requirements. New York, NY: American Management Association.Google Scholar
  15. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  16. Christensen, C., Cook, S., & Hall, T. (2005). Marketing malpractice. Harvard Business Review, 12, 74–83.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., & Moe, N. B. (2012). A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development. Journal of System and Software.Google Scholar
  19. Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: a systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50, 833–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Edmondson, A., & Moingeon, B. (1998). From organizational learning to the learning organization. Management Learning, 29(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ellis, H. C. (1965). The Transfer of learning. Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Fang, E. (2008). Customer participation and the trade-off between new product innovativeness and speed to market. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flumerfelt, S., Siriban-Manalang, A. B., & Kahlen, F. J. (2012). Are agile and lean manufacturing systems employing sustainability, complexity and organizational learning? The Learning Organization, 19(3), 238–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gittel, J. H. (2002). Coordinating mechanisms in care provider groups: Relational coordination as a mediator and input uncertainty as a moderator of performance effects. Management Science, 48, 1408–1426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hammond, J. S., West, D., Gilpin, M., & Silva, D. (2010). The forrester wave™: Agile development management tools, Q2. Forrester Report May.Google Scholar
  27. He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hemphälä, J., & Magnusson, M. (2012). Networks for innovation—But what networks and what innovation? Creativity and Innovation Management, 21, 3–16.Google Scholar
  29. Highsmith, J. A. (2002). Agile software development ecosystems (Vol. 13). Indianapolis, IN: Addison-Wesley Professional.  Google Scholar
  30. Highsmith, J. (2004). Agile project management: Creating innovative projects. Boston: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  31. Kidd, P. T. (2000). Agile manufacturing: A strategy for the 21st century. available at: www.cheshirehenbury.com/agility/agilitypapers/paper1095.html.
  32. Kim, W. C., & Renee, M. (1997). Value innovation. Harvard Business Review, (1).Google Scholar
  33. Klepper, S. (1996). Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. The American Economic Review, 562–583.Google Scholar
  34. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuhl, J., & Goschke, T. (1994). A Theory of action control: Mental subsystem, modes of control, and volitional conflict-resolution strategies. Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation, Hogrefe & Huber, 5, 93–124.Google Scholar
  36. Laanti, M., Salo, O., & Abrahamsson, P. (2011). Agile methods rapidly replacing traditional methods at Nokia: A survey of opinions on agile transformation. Information and Software Technology, 53, 276–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 319–340.Google Scholar
  38. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McAvoy, J., & Butler, T. (2007). The impact of the Abilene Paradox on double-loop learning in an Agile team. Information and Software Technology, 49(6), 552–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCarthy, I. P., & Brian, R. G. (2011). Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organization: A management control system approach. R&D Management, 41(3), 240–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Nerur, S., & Balijepally, V. (2007). Theoretical reflections on agile development methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 50, 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nonaka, I. (1988). Toward middle-up-down management: Accelerating information creation. Sloan Management Review, 29(3), 9–18.Google Scholar
  44. Nonaka, I. (1990). Redundant, overlapping organization: A Japanese approach to managing the innovation process. California Management Review, 32(3), 27–38.Google Scholar
  45. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization science, 5(1), 14–37.Google Scholar
  46. O’Reilly 3rd, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard business review, 82(4), 74–81.Google Scholar
  47. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20, 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ramesh, B., Kannan, M., & Lan, C. (2012). Ambidexterity in agile distributed development: An empirical investigation. Information System Research, 23(2), 323–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schwaber, K., Laganza, G., & D’Silva, D. (2007). The truth about agile processes: Frank answers to frequently asked questions. Forrester Report.Google Scholar
  50. Senapathi, M., & Anant, S. (2012). Understanding post-adoptive agile usage: An exploratory cross-case analysis. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1255–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.Google Scholar
  52. Shaw, R. B., & Perkins, D. N. T. (1992). Teaching organization to lead: The power of productive failures. In D. A. Nadler, M. S.Gerstein, & R. B.Shaw (Eds.), Organizational architecture (pp. 175–191). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  53. Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentrlized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14, 650–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(July), 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith, W., & Tushman, M. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tushman, M., & Reill, C. (1996). Organizations. California Management Review, 38, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). The episodic process of learning by using. International Journal of Technology Management, 11, 790–798.Google Scholar
  59. Utterback, J. M., & Abernathy, W. J. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3(6), 639–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Carmela Annosi
    • 1
  • Jens Hemphälä
    • 2
  • Federica Brunetta
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Social Sciences and Management StudiesWageningen University and ResearchWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Department of Business and Management and LUISS Business SchoolLUISS Guido Carli UniversityRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations