Agile Implementation and Expansive Learning: Identifying Contradictions and Their Resolution Using an Activity Theory Perspective

A key challenge organisations face when transitioning to agile delivery methods is that of quickly and effectively learning new ways of working. This study posits that fundamental historical, cultural and behavioural aspects affect the transition and contribute to the poor performance of many agile implementations. In order to address such factors, this study applies a modified Activity Theory (AT) based framework to a case study agile implementation within a large public sector organisation. An activity is closely defined, and six generic activities associated with all agile implementations are identified. These are validated against the agile maturity model literature and a set of evaluation criteria of contradictions, congruences and collaboration is established. Evidence is gathered from participant interviews and the framework is used to surface learning and development obstacles and issues within an expansive learning cycle. The study argues that analysis via this modified AT framework brings original insight. Initial findings indicate that there are relatively few learning and development issues associated with the use of agile tools and techniques themselves and that most problems arise at the interface where the “changed” (more agile) delivery teams meet the organisation’s behavioural norms and practices.

[1]  Hanifa Shah,et al.  A Comparative Survey of Activity-Based Methods for Information Systems Development , 2004, ICEIS.

[2]  Helen Sharp,et al.  Strategies for doing Agile in a non-Agile Environment , 2016, ESEM.

[3]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Management challenges to implementing agile processes in traditional development organizations , 2005, IEEE Software.

[4]  Victor Kaptelinin,et al.  Methods & tools: The activity checklist: a tool for representing the “space” of context , 1999, INTR.

[5]  Ben J Hicks,et al.  Activity Theory as a means for multi-scale analysis of the engineering design process: A protocol study of design in practice , 2015 .

[6]  W. Karwowski,et al.  Activity theory as a basis for the study of work , 2004, Ergonomics.

[7]  Wolff‐Michael Roth Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory: On the Inclusion of Emotions, Identity, and Ethico-Moral Dimensions of Actions , 2009 .

[8]  Andreia Malucelli,et al.  Processes versus people: How should agile software development maturity be defined? , 2014, J. Syst. Softw..

[9]  Denis Dennehy,et al.  Breaking the flow: a study of contradictions in information systems development (ISD) , 2019, Inf. Technol. People.

[10]  Jakob E. Bardram,et al.  Designing for the dynamics of cooperative work activities , 1998, CSCW '98.

[11]  Y. Engeström Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. , 2001 .

[12]  Mario Bunge,et al.  Consciousness and Personality , 1980 .

[13]  Daisy Mwanza,et al.  Where Theory Meets Practice: A Case for an Activity Theory Based Methodology to Guide Computer System Design , 2001, INTERACT.

[14]  Stan Karanasios,et al.  Information sharing and interoperability: the case of major incident management , 2014, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[15]  Helen Sharp,et al.  The challenges that challenge: Engaging with agile practitioners' concerns , 2016, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[16]  Pritam Chita,et al.  Agile Software Development - Adoption and Maturity: An Activity Theory Perspective , 2018, XP.

[17]  D. Jonassen,et al.  Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments , 1999 .

[18]  David Wasserman The Activity Checklist : A Tool for Representing the “ Space ” of Context , 1999 .

[19]  A. Sannino Activity theory as an activist and interventionist theory , 2011 .

[20]  SharpHelen,et al.  The challenges that challenge , 2016 .

[21]  Rjoè,et al.  Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work , 2005 .

[22]  Denis Dennehy,et al.  Going with the flow: An activity theory analysis of flow techniques in software development , 2017, J. Syst. Softw..

[23]  B. Reich,et al.  Rethinking IT project management: Evidence of a new mindset and its implications , 2009 .

[24]  Oscar Pastor,et al.  An activity-theory-based model to analyse Web application requirements , 2008, Inf. Res..

[25]  Stan Karanasios,et al.  HOW SHOULD TECHNOLOGY-MEDIATED ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE BE EXPLAINED ? A COMPARISON OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF CRITICAL REALISM AND ACTIVITY THEORY 1 , 2013 .

[26]  Andreia Malucelli,et al.  Maturity Models for Agile Software Development: What Are They? , 2018, EuroSPI.

[27]  P. John Clarkson,et al.  Assessing Organizational Capabilities: Reviewing and Guiding the Development of Maturity Grids , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[28]  Kenneth M. Anderson,et al.  A View of Software Development Environments Based on Activity Theory , 2002, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[29]  Bertrand Meyer,et al.  Agile! , 2014, Springer International Publishing.

[30]  Luiz Eduardo Galvão Martins,et al.  An approach to software requirements elicitation using precepts from activity theory , 1999, 14th IEEE International Conference on Automated Software Engineering.

[31]  Susanne Bødker Activity Theory as a Challenge to Systems Design , 1990 .

[32]  JaatunMartin Gilje,et al.  Agile Software Development , 2002, Comput. Sci. Educ..

[33]  G. Bedny,et al.  The Systemic-Structural Theory of Activity: Applications to the Study of Human Work , 2005 .

[34]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research , 2014 .

[35]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization , 2001 .

[36]  Helen Hasan,et al.  The unit of analysis in IS theory: The case for activity , 2010 .

[37]  Mikko Korpela,et al.  Activity Theory in information systems research and practice - theoretical underpinnings for an information systems development method , 2007, Inf. Res..

[38]  Per Runeson,et al.  Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering , 2009, Empirical Software Engineering.

[39]  Sue Newell,et al.  Facilitating – or inhibiting – knowing in practice , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[40]  A. N. Leont’ev,et al.  Activity, consciousness, and personality , 1978 .