From Dichotomy to Ambidexterity: Transcending Traditions in Software Management

Despite documented best practices and specialized tools, managers continue to face major challenges in software development. While managers are traditionally advised to choose between plan-driven and agile principles, software organizations increasingly face situations in which they need to take advantage of both. There is, however, limited actionable advice on how managers can shape the organizational context to develop such capability. We therefore combine theory on ambidexterity and contextualist inquiry to report from a two-year action research study at TelSoft. As a result, we propose a model for how software organizations can become ambidextrous through the processes of diagnosing, visioning, intervening, and practicing and discuss the implications for research and practice into software management.

[1]  Adler,et al.  Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system , 1999 .

[2]  A. Langley.  Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data , 1999 .

[3]  Adrian J. Slywotzky,et al.  Adaptive Enterprise: Creating and Leading Sense-And-Respond Organizations , 1999 .

[4]  C. Bartlett,et al.  Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management , 2007 .

[5]  Sridhar P. Nerur,et al.  Can Agile and Traditional Systems Development Approaches Coexist? An Ambidextrous View , 2006, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[6]  A. Pettigrew.  Contextualistic Research: A Natural Way to Link Theory and Practice , 1985 .

[7]  Yael Grushka-Cockayne,et al.  The impact of project portfolio management on information technology projects , 2005 .

[8]  K. Clark,et al.  Organizing and Leading “Heavyweight” Development Teams , 1992 .

[9]  Pekka Abrahamsson,et al.  Integrating agile software development and software process improvement: a longitudinal case study , 2005, 2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2005..

[10]  F. W. McFarlan,et al.  Portfolio approach to information systems , 1989 .

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

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

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

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

[15]  Ivan Rozman,et al.  Managing the complexity of SPI in small companies , 2000 .

[16]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Collaborative Practice Research , 2000, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[17]  KA Thleen,et al.  Building Theories from Case Study , 2007 .

[18]  Ivan Rozman,et al.  Managing the complexity of SPI in small companies , 2000, Softw. Process. Improv. Pract..

[19]  Nannette P. Napier,et al.  Negotiating Response-ability and Repeat-ability in Requirements Engineering , 2006, ICIS.

[20]  Nannette P. Napier,et al.  Perceptions and Processes in Assessing Software Requirements Practices , 2006, AMCIS.

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

[22]  A. Pettigrew.  Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice , 1990 .

[23]  Judy McKay,et al.  The dual imperatives of action research , 2001, Inf. Technol. People.

[24]  G. Susman,et al.  An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. , 1978 .

[25]  L. Mathiassen,et al.  Survival Patterns in Fast-Moving Software Organizations , 2001, IEEE Softw..

[26]  M. Hobday.  The Project-Based Organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems? , 2000 .

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

[28]  R. Rapoport.  Three Dilemmas in Action Research , 1970 .

[29]  A. Pettigrew.  Context and Action in the Transformation of the Firm , 1987 .

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

[31]  Stephen H. Haeckel.  Adaptive enterprise design: The sense‐and‐respond model , 1995 .

[32]  Zi-Lin He,et al.  Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[33]  J. Alberto Espinosa,et al.  Ambidexterity and Global IS Project Success: A Theoretical Model , 2007, 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07).

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