Information and Software Technology

Context: Developing a theory of agile technology, in combination with empirical work, must include assessing its performance effects, and whether all or some of its key ingredients account for any performance advantage over traditional methods. Given the focus on teamwork, is the agile technology what really matters, or do general team factors, such as cohesion, primarily account for a team’s success? Perhaps the more specific software engineering team factors, for example the agile development method’s collective ownership and code management, are decisive. Objective: To assess the contribution of agile methodology, agile-specific team methods, and general team factors in the performance of software teams. Method: We studied 40 small-scale software development teams which used Extreme Programming (XP). We measured (1) the teams’ adherence to XP methods, (2) their use of XP-specific team practices, and (3) standard team attributes, as well as the quality of the project’s outcomes. We used Williams et al.’s (2004a) [33] Shodan measures of XP methods, and regression analysis. Results: All three types of variables are associated with the project’s performance. Teamworking is important but it is the XP-specific team factor (continuous integration, coding standards, and collective code ownership) that is significant. Only customer planning (release planning/planning game, customer access, short releases, and stand-up meeting) is positively related to performance. A negative relationship between foundations (automated unit tests, customer acceptance tests, test-first design, pair programming, and refactoring) is found and is moderated by craftsmanship (sustainable pace, simple design, and metaphor/system of names). Of the general team factors only cooperation is related to performance. Cooperation mediates the relationship between the XP-specific team factor and performance. Conclusion: Client and team foci of the XP method are its critical active ingredients. 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V.

[1]  Lucas Layman,et al.  Extreme programming evaluation framework for object-oriented languages -- version 1.1 , 2003 .

[2]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  Perceived Cohesion in Small Groups , 1999 .

[3]  Kieran Conboy,et al.  Future Research in Agile Systems Development: Applying Open Innovation Principles Within the Agile Organisation , 2010, Agile Software Development.

[4]  Ajay Mehra,et al.  Top Management-Team Diversity and Firm Performance: Examining the Role of Cognitions , 2000 .

[5]  Tung Bui,et al.  Simulating mixed agile and plan-based requirements prioritization strategies: proof-of-concept and practical implications , 2009, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[6]  Gina J. Medsker,et al.  RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK TEAM CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: A REPLICATION AND EXTENSION , 1996 .

[7]  Tore Dybå,et al.  The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[8]  Lucas Layman,et al.  Exploring extreme programming in context: an industrial case study , 2004, Agile Development Conference.

[9]  Sherry D. Ryan,et al.  Global Agile Team Configuration , 2011 .

[10]  Brian Fitzgerald,et al.  Customising agile methods to software practices at Intel Shannon , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

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

[12]  Kieran Conboy,et al.  Agility from First Principles: Reconstructing the Concept of Agility in Information Systems Development , 2009, Inf. Syst. Res..

[13]  Brian Fitzgerald,et al.  Method and developer characteristics for effective agile method tailoring: A study of XP expert opinion , 2010, TSEM.

[14]  Martin Höst,et al.  Introducing an agile process in a software maintenance and evolution organization , 2005, Ninth European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering.

[15]  D. Beal,et al.  Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. , 2003, The Journal of applied psychology.

[16]  Venugopal Balijepally,et al.  Are Two Heads Better than One for Software Development? The Productivity Paradox of Pair Programming , 2009, MIS Q..

[17]  Tore Dybå,et al.  Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review , 2008, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[18]  Darren Dalcher,et al.  Development life cycle management: a multiproject experiment , 2005, 12th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on the Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS'05).

[19]  George Mangalaraj,et al.  Acceptance of software process innovations – the case of extreme programming , 2009, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Natalia Juristo Juzgado,et al.  Towards understanding the relationship between team climate and software quality—a quasi-experimental study , 2008, Empirical Software Engineering.

[21]  T. C. Chamberlin The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses , 1931, The Journal of Geology.

[22]  William Krebs,et al.  Turning the Knobs: A Coaching Pattern for XP through Agile Metrics , 2002, XP/Agile Universe.

[23]  Eliza Stefanova,et al.  Analyses of an agile methodology implementation , 2004 .

[24]  Xiaojun Zhang,et al.  Role of collective ownership and coding standards in coordinating expertise in software project teams , 2009, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[25]  Helen Sharp,et al.  The Characteristics of XP Teams , 2004, XP.

[26]  L. James,et al.  Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. , 1984 .

[27]  J. Hackman,et al.  Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey , 1975 .

[28]  Michele Marchesi,et al.  Empirical Analysis on the Satisfaction of IT Employees Comparing XP Practices with Other Software Development Methodologies , 2004, XP.

[29]  Philippe Kruchten,et al.  Agility in context , 2010, OOPSLA.

[30]  Steve Sawyer,et al.  Effects of intra‐group conflict on packaged software development team performance , 2001, Inf. Syst. J..

[31]  Mike Holcombe,et al.  Running an Agile Software Development Project , 2008 .

[32]  Tammy L. Rapp,et al.  Team Effectiveness 1997-2007: A Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse Into the Future , 2008 .

[33]  C. Gersick Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development , 1988 .

[34]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[35]  S. Webber,et al.  Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis , 2001 .

[36]  S. G. Cohen,et al.  What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite , 1997 .

[37]  M. Rijavec,et al.  Positive psychology at work , 2009 .

[38]  Forrest Shull,et al.  Are Two Heads Better than One? On the Effectiveness of Pair Programming , 2007, IEEE Software.

[39]  Alistair Cockburn,et al.  Agile Software Development: The Business of Innovation , 2001, Computer.

[40]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  The usage of systems development methods: are we stuck to old practices? , 1998, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[41]  J. McGrath Groups: Interaction and Performance , 1984 .

[42]  A. Lott,et al.  Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: a review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[43]  George Mangalaraj,et al.  Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies , 2005, CACM.

[44]  Marian Gheorghe,et al.  A formal experiment comparing extreme programming with traditional software construction , 2003, Proceedings of the Fourth Mexican International Conference on Computer Science, 2003. ENC 2003..

[45]  J. Barrie Thompson,et al.  Personality characteristics in an XP team , 2005, ACM SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes.

[46]  A. Cockburn,et al.  Agile Software Development: The People Factor , 2001, Computer.

[47]  Paul R. Yost,et al.  Potency in groups: articulating a construct. , 1993, The British journal of social psychology.

[48]  Robert Biddle,et al.  The Social Nature of Agile Teams , 2007, Agile 2007 (AGILE 2007).

[49]  Gina J. Medsker,et al.  RELATIONS BETWEEN WORK GROUP CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTIVENESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNING EFFECTIVE WORK GROUPS , 1993 .

[50]  K. Bollen,et al.  Perceived Cohesion: A Conceptual and Empirical Examination , 1990 .

[51]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Get Ready for Agile Methods, with Care , 2002, Computer.

[52]  S. Wood,et al.  Team approach, idea generation, conflict and performance , 2011 .

[53]  A. Carrón,et al.  Cohesiveness in Sport Groups: Interpretations ani Considerations , 1982 .