Advertisement

Five Agile Factors: Helping Self-management to Self-reflect

  • Christoph J. Stettina
  • Werner Heijstek
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 172)

Abstract

In this paper a tool is proposed to foster reflection in agile software development teams. Based upon the qualitative model of Moe et al. [11], we contribute a quantitative questionnaire organized along five dimensions of agile teamwork analogous to the “Five Factor Model” in contemporary psychology. To test this survey tool and its alignment with existing studies, we have executed an empirical validation of the tool with 79 individuals and 8 international Scrum teams. We find that inter-team agreement on the factors is high and that the survey tool is found very useful. The instrument offers a comparable measure to agile teams and gives recommendations for each of the factors helping to understand individual as well as organizational level barriers.

Keywords

self-management software development agile teams scrum organizational management and coordination process implementation and change 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Allen, T.J.: Communication networks in R & D laboratories. R & D Management 1(1), 14–21 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boehm, B., Turner, R.: Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Digman, J.: Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology 41, 417–440 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dybå, T., Dingsøyr, T.: Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50, 833–859 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Emery, F., Thorsrud, E.: Democracy at Work - The Report of the Norwegian Industrial Democracy Program. Springer, Heidelberg (1976)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fægri, T.E., Dybå, T., Dingsøyr, T.: Introducing knowledge redundancy practice in software development: Experiences with job rotation in support work. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52, 1118–1132 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guzzo, R.A., Dickson, M.W.: Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology 47(1), 307–338 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hewitt, B., Walz, D.: Using shared leadership to foster knowledge sharing in information systems development projects. In: HICSS 8, p. 256a (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karau, S., Williams, K.: Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(4), 681–706 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moe, N., Dingsøyr, T., Dybå, T.: Overcoming barriers to self-management in software teams. IEEE Software 26, 20–26 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moe, N., Dingsøyr, T., Røyrvik, E.: 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.) Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming. LNBIP, vol. 31, pp. 114–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moe, N.B., Dingsøyr, T.: Scrum and Team Effectiveness: Theory and Practice. In: Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming pp. 11–20 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moe, N.B., Dingsøyr, T., Dybå, T.: A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a scrum project. Inf. Softw. Technol. 52, 480–491 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morgan, G.: Images of Organization. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paulhus, D.L.: Socially desirable responding: the evolution of a construct. In: The Role of Constructs in Psychological and Educational Measurement, pp. 46–69. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pearce, C.L.: The Future of Leadership: Combining Vertical and Shared Leadership to Transform Knowledge Work. Academy of Management Executive 18(1), 47–57 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Salas, E., Sims, D., Burke, C.: Is there a big five in teamwork? Small Group Research 36(5), 555–599 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shea, G., Guzzo, R.: Group effectiveness: What really matters? Sloan Management Review 28, 25–31 (1987)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Takeuchi, H., Nonaka, I.: The new new product development game. Harvard Business Review (1986)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tata, J., Prasad, S.: Team Self-Management, Organizational Structure and Judgments of Team Effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues 16(2), 248+ (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thompson, E.R., Phua, F.T.T.: Reliability among senior managers of the marlowe-crowne short-form social desirability scale. Journal of Business and Psychology 19(4), 541–554 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thompson, L.: Making the Team. ch. 2, ch. 4. Prentice-Hall, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Walton, R.E., Hackman, J.R.: Designing Effective Work Groups. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco (1986)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph J. Stettina
    • 1
  • Werner Heijstek
    • 1
  1. 1.Leiden Institute of Advanced Computer ScienceLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations