The Main and Interaction Effects of Process Rigor, Process Standardization, and Process Agility on System Performance in Distributed IS Development: An Ambidexterity Perspective

Information systems (IS) development is becoming increasingly more geographically dispersed. Although process rigor, process standardization, and process agility are generally believed to have a positive impact on software development, it has not been well understood how these process capabilities affect distributed IS development. More important, no prior research has investigated their interaction effects. Drawing upon prior literature on organizational ambidexterity, we hypothesize: positive main effects of process rigor, process standardization, and process agility; a positive interaction effect of process rigor and process agility; and a positive interaction effect of process standardization and process agility on system performance in distributed development. Our data analysis results support a positive main effect of the three process capabilities. We find a positive interaction effect of process rigor and process agility suggesting positive process ambidexterity of rigor and agility. Surprisingly, we find a negative interaction effect of process agility and process standardization suggesting negative process ambidexterity of agility and standardization.

[1]  P. M. Podsakoff,et al.  Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects , 1986 .

[2]  Sarma R. Nidumolu.  Standardization, requirements uncertainty and software project performance , 1996, Inf. Manag..

[3]  Mayuram S. Krishnan,et al.  Measuring Process Consistency: Implications for Reducing Software Defects , 1999, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[4]  Pankaj Jalote,et al.  CMM in Practice: Processes for Executing Software Projects at Infosys , 1999 .

[5]  Watts S. Humphrey,et al.  Software process improvement at Hughes Aircraft , 1991, IEEE Software.

[6]  Audris Mockus,et al.  An Empirical Study of Speed and Communication in Globally Distributed Software Development , 2003, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[7]  Boulevard de Constance.  Technology Selection and Commitment in New Product Development: The Role of Uncertainty and Design Flexibility , 2002 .

[8]  Arun Rai,et al.  Knowledge Sharing Ambidexterity in Long-Term Interorganizational Relationships , 2008, Manag. Sci..

[9]  Peng Xu,et al.  Can distributed software development be agile? , 2006, CACM.

[10]  P. Adler,et al.  Flexibility Versus Efficiency? a Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System , 1999 .

[11]  Mayuram S. Krishnan,et al.  Effects of Process Maturity on Quality, Cycle Time, and Effort in Software Product Development , 2000 .

[12]  Richard Turner,et al.  CMMI Distilled: A Practical Introduction to Integrated Process Improvement , 2001 .

[13]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  The myopia of learning , 1993 .

[14]  S. West,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. , 1994 .

[15]  R. H. Thayer,et al.  Guest Editors' Introduction: Software Engineering Project Management 20 Years Later , 2005, IEEE Softw..

[16]  S. Mohammed,et al.  Team Mental Model: Construct or Metaphor? , 1994 .

[17]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  The interplay between exploration and exploitation. , 2006 .

[18]  M. S. Krishnan,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of Productivity and Quality in Software Products , 2000 .

[19]  W. W. Muir,et al.  Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity , 1980 .

[20]  J. Mathieu,et al.  The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. , 2000, The Journal of applied psychology.

[21]  Peter J. Lane,et al.  Strategizing Throughout the Organization: Managing Role Conflict in Strategic Renewal , 2000 .

[22]  S. Athey,et al.  Product and Process Flexibility in an Innovative Environment , 1995 .

[23]  Naresh K. Malhotra,et al.  Common Method Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[24]  Ilan Oshri,et al.  Knowledge transfer in globally distributed teams: the role of transactive memory , 2008, Inf. Syst. J..

[25]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Information system development agility as organizational learning , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[26]  David A. Belsley,et al.  Regression Analysis and its Application: A Data-Oriented Approach.@@@Applied Linear Regression.@@@Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity , 1981 .

[27]  Dick Berry,et al.  Delivering expected value to users and stakeholders with user engineering , 2003, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[28]  Kent L. Beck,et al.  Extreme programming explained - embrace change , 1990 .

[29]  J. Alberto Espinosa,et al.  Ambidextrous coping strategies in globally distributed software development projects , 2006, CACM.

[30]  Jos van Hillegersberg,et al.  Change factors requiring agility and implications for IT , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[31]  Amrit Tiwana,et al.  The Antecedents of Information Systems Development Capability in Firms: A Knowledge Integration Perspective , 2003, ICIS.

[32]  Weidong Xia,et al.  Complexity of Information Systems Development Projects: Conceptualization and Measurement Development , 2005, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[33]  C. Cramton.  The Mutual Knowledge Problem and Its Consequences for Dispersed Collaboration , 2001 .

[34]  Bill Curtis,et al.  Process modeling , 1992, CACM.

[35]  Alistair Cockburn,et al.  Agile Software Development , 2001 .

[36]  Larry E. Toothaker,et al.  Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions , 1991 .

[37]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  Time: A New Research Lens , 2001 .

[38]  Weidong Xia,et al.  The ability of information systems development project teams to respond to business and technology changes: a study of flexibility measures , 2005, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[39]  V. Krishnan,et al.  Technology Selection and Commitment in New Product Development: The Role of Uncertainty and Design Flexibility , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[40]  Michael A. Cusumano.  Managing software development in globally distributed teams , 2008, CACM.

[41]  Walker Royce.  Successful software management style: steering and balance , 2005, IEEE Software.

[42]  Brian Fitzgerald,et al.  Systems development methodologies: the problem of tenses , 2000, Inf. Technol. People.

[43]  Mei Lu,et al.  How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality and understanding its impact in a global organization , 2005, Inf. Syst. J..

[44]  Weidong Xia,et al.  Toward Agile: An Integrated Analysis of Quantitative and Qualitative Field Data , 2010, MIS Q..

[45]  Watts S. Humphrey,et al.  Managing the software process , 1989, The SEI series in software engineering.

[46]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change , 1996 .

[47]  C. Gibson,et al.  THE ANTECEDENTS , CONSEQUENCES , AND MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY , 2004 .

[48]  V. Sambamurthy,et al.  PRIOR LITERATURE : CATEGORIZATION Identification of the Relevant Literature Base , 2007 .

[49]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Team Knowledge and Coordination in Geographically Distributed Software Development , 2007, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[50]  Lynda M. Applegate,et al.  Corporate information strategy and management , 2003 .