The use of prototypes to bridge knowledge boundaries in agile software development

Bridging knowledge boundaries among project team members is essential to prevent delays or complete failure of software development projects. Prior researchers have reported that software prototypes can be used to help bridge knowledge boundaries between team members in traditional software development settings, yet their use in an agile development setting remains unexplored. Agile development centers the interactions between team members on emerging representations of the prototype whose properties are prone to change over time. Therefore, we conducted an in‐depth study of an agile development project to enhance our understanding on how software prototypes are used as boundary objects in a distributed team setting. Our analyses of team member interactions during 46 virtual meetings that took place over a period of 6 months revealed four different prototype use practices (exemplifying, contrasting, relating, framing) that were effective in bridging syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic knowledge boundaries. We also provide empirically grounded evidence of how variations in object properties can afford different use practices, how the use practices take advantage of these properties, and how object properties are reshaped through these use practices as different types of knowledge boundaries are bridged. These findings bear important implications for research on prototypes as boundary objects in software development in particular and boundary object use in general.

[1]  Gurpreet Dhillon,et al.  A Framework and Guidelines for Context-Specific Theorizing in Information Systems Research , 2014, Inf. Syst. Res..

[2]  Lan Cao,et al.  Ambidexterity in Agile Distributed Development: An Empirical Investigation , 2012, Inf. Syst. Res..

[3]  Emmanuelle Vaast,et al.  Innovating or Doing as Told? Status Differences and Overlapping Boundaries in Offshore Collaboration , 2008, MIS Q..

[4]  Bill Doolin,et al.  Sociomateriality and boundary objects in information systems development , 2012, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[5]  Saonee Sarker,et al.  Exploring Agility in Distributed Information Systems Development Teams: An Interpretive Study in an Offshoring Context , 2009, Inf. Syst. Res..

[6]  Jacky Swan,et al.  Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration , 2012, Organ. Sci..

[7]  A. Strauss,et al.  Grounded theory , 2017 .

[8]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  Expertise Integration and Creativity in Information Systems Development , 2005, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[9]  S. L. Star,et al.  This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept , 2010 .

[10]  P. Carlile Understanding knowledge transformation in product development: Making knowledge manifest through boundary objects. , 1997 .

[11]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Explaining information systems change: a punctuated socio-technical change model , 2008, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[12]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges , 2007 .

[13]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[14]  A. Madill,et al.  Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. , 2000, British journal of psychology.

[15]  L PanShan,et al.  Digitally enabled disaster response , 2017 .

[16]  Patricia J. Guinan,et al.  Enabling Software Development Team Performance During Requirements Definition: A Behavioral Versus Technical Approach , 1998, Inf. Syst. Res..

[17]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Boundary Objects in Design: An Ecological View of Design Artifacts , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[18]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  The dynamics of IT boundary objects, information infrastructures, and organisational identities: the introduction of 3D modelling technologies into the architecture, engineering, and construction industry , 2008, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[19]  JoAnne Yates,et al.  Life in the Trading Zone: Structuring Coordination Across Boundaries in Postbureaucratic Organizations , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[20]  Beth A. Bechky Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[21]  Sue Newell,et al.  Developing a dynamic project learning and cross‐project learning capability: synthesizing two perspectives , 2008, Inf. Syst. J..

[22]  Emmanuelle Vaast,et al.  The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for Implementation and Use of Information Systems , 2005, MIS Q..

[23]  Elaine K. Yakura,et al.  Charting Time: Timelines as Temporal Boundary Objects , 2002 .

[24]  Donis Marshall,et al.  Solid Code , 2009 .

[25]  Torgeir Dingsøyr,et al.  A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development , 2012, J. Syst. Softw..

[26]  Harry Scarbrough,et al.  Coordinating Expertise Across Knowledge Boundaries in Offshore-Outsourcing Projects: The Role of Codification , 2014, MIS Q..

[27]  Shahla Ghobadi,et al.  Perceived barriers to effective knowledge sharing in agile software teams , 2016, Inf. Syst. J..

[28]  Amrit Tiwana,et al.  Beyond the black box: knowledge overlaps in software outsourcing , 2004, IEEE Software.

[29]  Eivor Oborn,et al.  Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams , 2010 .

[30]  MathiassenLars,et al.  Perceived barriers to effective knowledge sharing in agile software teams , 2016 .

[31]  Carsten S. Østerlund The Materiality of Communicative Practices , 2008, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[32]  Amrit Tiwana,et al.  Systems Development Process Improvement: A Knowledge Integration Perspective , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[33]  Jens Dibbern,et al.  Explaining Variations in Client Extra Costs Between Software Projects Offshored to India , 2008, MIS Q..

[34]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[35]  Stavros Stavru,et al.  A critical examination of recent industrial surveys on agile method usage , 2014, J. Syst. Softw..

[36]  Harry Scarbrough,et al.  Developing a Relational View of the Organizing Role of Objects: A study of the innovation process in computer games , 2015 .

[37]  J. Whyte,et al.  Knowledge Practices in Design: The Role of Visual Representations as `Epistemic Objects' , 2009 .

[38]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Agile requirements engineering practices and challenges: an empirical study , 2007, Inf. Syst. J..

[39]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[40]  Christoph Rosenkranz,et al.  Boundary Interactions and Motors of Change in Requirements Elicitation: A Dynamic Perspective on Knowledge Sharing , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[41]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Special Issue: Organizational Design: From Organization Design to Organization Designing , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[42]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[43]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[44]  Shan Ling Pan,et al.  Digitally enabled disaster response: the emergence of social media as boundary objects in a flooding disaster , 2017, Inf. Syst. J..

[45]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[46]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction , 2007, Organ. Sci..

[47]  Christine Nadel,et al.  Case Study Research Design And Methods , 2016 .