Drivers of agile software development use: Dialectic interplay between benefits and hindrances

Context: Agile software development with its emphasis on producing working code through frequent releases, extensive client interactions and iterative development has emerged as an alternative to traditional plan-based software development methods. While a number of case studies have provided insights into the use and consequences of agile, few empirical studies have examined the factors that drive the adoption and use of agile. Objective: We draw on intention-based theories and a dialectic perspective to identify factors driving the use of agile practices among adopters of this software development methodology. Method: Data for the study was gathered through an anonymous online survey of software development professionals. We requested participation from members of a selected list of online discussion groups, and received 98 responses. Results: Our analyses reveal that subjective norm and training play a significant role in influencing software developers' use of agile processes and methods, while perceived benefits and perceived limitations are not primary drivers of agile use among adopters. Interestingly, perceived benefit emerges as a significant predictor of agile use only if adopters face hindrances to their agile practices. Conclusion: We conclude that research in the adoption of software development innovations should examine the effects of both enabling and detracting factors and the interactions between them. Since training, subjective norm, and the interplay between perceived benefits and perceived hindrances appear to be key factors influencing the adoption of agile methods, researchers can focus on how to (a) perform training on agile methods more effectively, (b) facilitate the dialog between developers and managers about perceived benefits and hindrances, and (c) capitalize on subjective norm to publicize the benefits of agile methods within an organization. Further, when managing the transition to new software development methods, we recommend that practitioners adapt their strategies and tactics contingent on the extent of perceived hindrances to the change.

[1]  Ajay S. Vinze,et al.  Barriers to adoption of software reuse: A qualitative study , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[2]  Kenneth A. Kozar,et al.  Adopting Systems Development Methods: An Exploratory Study , 1989, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[3]  F. Bookstein,et al.  Two Structural Equation Models: LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory , 1982 .

[4]  Christine Harbottle,et al.  Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change , 1991 .

[5]  Raul Sidnei Wazlawick,et al.  The influence of organizational culture on the adoption of extreme programming , 2008, J. Syst. Softw..

[6]  Dorothy Leonard-Barton,et al.  Implementing Structured Software Methodologies: A Case of Innovation in Process Technology , 1987 .

[7]  Martin Fowler,et al.  Planning Extreme Programming , 2000 .

[8]  Diane B. Walz,et al.  The failure of SDT diffusion: a case for mass customization , 1997 .

[9]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Explaining Software Developer Acceptance of Methodologies: A Comparison of Five Theoretical Models , 2002, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[10]  S. Higgins,et al.  Internal diffusion of high technology industrial innovations: an empirical study , 1999 .

[11]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  Investigating Determinants of Software Developers' Intentions to Follow Methodologies , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[12]  Tore Dybå,et al.  A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a Scrum project , 2010, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[13]  Gert-Jan de Vreede,et al.  Field Experiences with eXtreme Programming: Developing an Emergency Response System , 2006, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  Extending the technology acceptance model: the influence of perceived user resources , 2001, DATB.

[15]  Bob Schatz,et al.  Primavera gets agile: a successful transition to agile development , 2005, IEEE Software.

[16]  Wynne W. Chin Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling by , 2009 .

[17]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications , 1988 .

[18]  Joseph W. Rottman,et al.  Before and after CASE adoption , 1996, Inf. Manag..

[19]  June M. Verner,et al.  Drivers for software development method usage , 2000, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[20]  Denise Johnson McManus,et al.  Software Development Methodologies in Organizations: Field Investigation of Use, Acceptance, and Application , 2009, Inf. Resour. Manag. J..

[21]  Pekka Abrahamsson,et al.  Agile methods in European embedded software development organisations: a survey on the actual use and usefulness of Extreme Programming and Scrum , 2008, IET Softw..

[22]  Laurie A. Williams,et al.  Strengthening the Case for Pair Programming , 2000, IEEE Softw..

[23]  Patrick Y. K. Chau,et al.  An empirical investigation on factors affecting the acceptance of CASE by systems developers , 1996, Inf. Manag..

[24]  E. Clemons,et al.  Newly vulnerable markets in an age of pure information products: an analysis of online music and online news , 2002, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[25]  Marie-Claude Boudreau,et al.  Accounting for the Contradictory Organizational Consequences of Information Technology: Theoretical Directions and Methodological Implications , 1999, Inf. Syst. Res..

[26]  R. Rosenfeld Belief , 2012, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[27]  Rajiv Sabherwal,et al.  Persistence and change in system development: a dialectical view , 2003, J. Inf. Technol..

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

[29]  Karma Sherif,et al.  Resources and incentives for the adoption of systematic software reuse , 2006, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[30]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[31]  Afzaal H. Seyal,et al.  Use of software systems development methods An empirical study in Brunei Darussalam , 1998, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[32]  Renee Prendergast,et al.  Schumpeter, Hegel and the vision of development , 2006 .

[33]  I. Ajzen The theory of planned behavior , 1991 .

[34]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

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

[36]  Jeanne W. Ross,et al.  Learning to Implement Enterprise Systems: An Exploratory Study of the Dialectics of Change , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[37]  L. Chan,et al.  The adoption of new technology: the case of object-oriented computing in software companies , 2000, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[38]  David Gefen,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling Techniques and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice , 2000 .

[39]  Steven A. Morris,et al.  Prediction of CASE adoption: a neural network approach , 2004, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[40]  R. Kelly Rainer,et al.  Factors that Impact Implementing a System Development Methodology , 1998, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[41]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[42]  Bernhard Rumpe,et al.  Assumptions Underlying Agile Software-Development Processes , 2005, J. Database Manag..

[43]  R. Zmud An Examination of Push-Pull Theory Applied to Process Innovation in Knowledge Work , 1984 .

[44]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic - Mail Emotion/Adoption Study , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[45]  Alexander Hars,et al.  Web Based Knowledge Infrastructures for the Sciences: An Adaptive Document , 2000, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[46]  Doris Schmedding,et al.  Pair programming in software development teams - An empirical study of its benefits , 2008, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[47]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  The Effects of Group Attitudes Toward Alternative GDSS Designs on the Decision‐making Performance of Computer‐Supported Groups* , 1994 .

[48]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[49]  Neil Anderson,et al.  A Dialectic Perspective on Innovation: Conflicting Demands, Multiple Pathways, and Ambidexterity , 2009, Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

[50]  Arun Rai,et al.  A Structural Model for CASE Adoption Behavior , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

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

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

[53]  R. P. McDonald,et al.  Structural Equations with Latent Variables , 1989 .

[54]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Balancing agility and discipline: evaluating and integrating agile and plan-driven methods , 2004, Proceedings. 26th International Conference on Software Engineering.

[55]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  Why are CASE tools not used? , 1996, CACM.

[56]  Jerry Drobka,et al.  Piloting XP on four mission-critical projects , 2004, IEEE Software.

[57]  Pekka Abrahamsson,et al.  Agile methods rapidly replacing traditional methods at Nokia: A survey of opinions on agile transformation , 2011, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[58]  Liang Huang,et al.  Empirical investigation towards the effectiveness of Test First programming , 2009, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[59]  E. Rogers Diffusion of Innovations , 1962 .

[60]  James Y. L. Thong,et al.  Acceptance of Agile Methodologies: A Critical Review and Conceptual Framework , 2009, Decis. Support Syst..

[61]  Wynne W. Chin,et al.  A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and Voice Mail Emotion/Adoption Study , 1996, ICIS.

[62]  D. Sandy Staples,et al.  A Self-Efficacy Theory Explanation for the Management of Remote Workers in Virtual Organizations , 1999, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[63]  이훈,et al.  지각된 유용성(Perceived Usefulness)의 영향분석 , 2004 .

[64]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  The Relationship Between Organisational Culture and the Deployment of Systems Development Methodologies , 2001, CAiSE.

[65]  Bill C. Hardgrave,et al.  Toward an information systems development acceptance model: the case of object-oriented systems development , 2003, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[66]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Perceived control and the diffusion of software process innovations , 2004 .

[67]  Suzanne Pawlowski,et al.  Constraints and Flexibility in Enterprise Systems: A Dialectic of System and Job , 1999 .

[68]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Dialectics of resilience: a multi-level analysis of a telehealth innovation , 2007, J. Inf. Technol..

[69]  O. E. Flippo Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change , 1993 .

[70]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development , 1993, MIS Q..

[71]  Sia Siew Kien,et al.  Misalignments in ERP Implementation: A Dialectic Perspective , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[72]  L. Harlow,et al.  Causation issues in structural equation modeling research , 1994 .

[73]  BoudreauMarie-Claude,et al.  Accounting for the Contradictory Organizational Consequences of Information Technology , 1999 .

[74]  E. Vance Wilson,et al.  Asynchronous health care communication , 2003, CACM.

[76]  Guy Fitzgerald,et al.  Where now for development methodologies? , 2003, CACM.

[77]  Richard V. McCarthy,et al.  Does UML make the grade? Insights from the software development community , 2005, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[78]  C. Fornell,et al.  Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. , 1981 .

[79]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[80]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  The Successful Diffusion of Innovations: Guidance for Software Development Organizations , 2000, IEEE Softw..