Towards a Framework for Shared Understanding and Shared Commitment in Agile Distributed ISD Project Teams

Agile distributed Information Systems Development (ISD) is an innately social process in which distributed team members must continuously interact to develop new IT solutions. Existing literature suggests that shared understanding and shared commitment are essential for the effective functioning of agile distributed ISD project teams; however, the factors that shape the emergence of these two phenomena remain elusive. In this paper, we seek to develop a framework for investigating the interplay of factors that shape shared understanding and shared commitment during agile distributed ISD project team interactions. We draw on in-depth case study findings from an agile distributed ISD project called the “CHP project” which involved team members from diverse backgrounds such as academia, healthcare, and industry. The study reveals that shared understanding and shared commitment in agile distributed project teams are shaped by the dynamic interplay between macro-level (contextual) and micro-level (localised) factors. In particular, we find that diverse macro-level structures, identities, and cultures interplay with the micro-level vision, approach, and means of the project to impact shared understanding and shared commitment. Empirical findings also suggest that the absence of shared understanding and shared commitment can sometimes be constructive as conflict allows team members to air differences of opinion.

[1]  Robert O. Briggs,et al.  AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) , 2018 .

[2]  Myra H. Strober,et al.  Habits of the Mind: Challenges for Multidisciplinary Engagement , 2006 .

[3]  Tore Dybå,et al.  What Do We Know about Agile Software Development? , 2009, IEEE Software.

[4]  Saonee Sarker,et al.  Assessing the relative contribution of the facets of agility to distributed systems development success: an Analytic Hierarchy Process approach , 2009, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[5]  Anthony M. Cresswell,et al.  Information systems development as emergent socio-technical change: a practice approach , 2005, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[6]  P. Leonardi Materiality, Sociomateriality, and Socio-Technical Systems: What Do These Terms Mean? How are They Related? Do We Need Them? , 2012 .

[7]  Jan Marco Leimeister,et al.  Creating Shared Understanding in Heterogeneous Work Groups: Why It Matters and How to Achieve It , 2014, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[8]  Rajiv Sabherwal,et al.  Determinants of Commitment to Information Systems Development: A Longitudinal Investigation , 1996, MIS Q..

[9]  Talcott Parsons,et al.  Social Structure & Personality , 1965 .

[10]  Adel M. Aladwani An Integrated Performance Model of Information Systems Projects , 2002, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

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

[12]  L. Henderson On the Social System , 1993 .

[13]  Sabine Matook,et al.  A Competency Model for Customer Representatives in Agile Software Development Projects , 2014, MIS Q. Executive.

[14]  Stacie Petter,et al.  Understanding agile software development practices using shared mental models theory , 2014, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[15]  Lars Mathiassen,et al.  Agile distributed software development: enacting control through media and context , 2012, Inf. Syst. J..

[16]  Deanne N. Den Hartog,et al.  Diversity and team outcomes: the moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of reflexivity , 2003 .

[17]  Theodore R. Schatzki,et al.  Practices and Actions A Wittgensteinian Critique of Bourdieu and Giddens , 1997 .

[18]  Ingrid M. Nembhard,et al.  Product Development and Learning in Project Teams: The Challenges Are the Benefits* , 2009 .

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

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

[21]  Victor R. Prybutok,et al.  Global Agile Team Design: An Informing Science Perspective , 2014, Informing Sci. Int. J. an Emerg. Transdiscipl..

[22]  Harvey Pinney The Structure of Social Action , 1940, Ethics.

[23]  Jochen Runde,et al.  Technological Objects, Social Positions, and the Transformational Model of Social Activity , 2013, MIS Q..

[24]  Lucy Suchman,et al.  Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions , 2006 .

[25]  Mark Lycett,et al.  Information systems development: a perspective on the challenge of evolutionary complexity , 1999 .

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

[27]  Bonnie Kaplan,et al.  Qualitative Research Methods for Evaluating Computer Information Systems , 2005 .

[28]  Pierre Bourdieu,et al.  Outline of a Theory of Practice , 2020, On Violence.

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

[30]  Guy Fitzgerald,et al.  Exploring Adoption and Use of Agile Methods: A Comparative Case Study , 2013, AMCIS.

[31]  Davide Nicolini Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction , 2013 .

[32]  Gerhard Fischer,et al.  Transcending the individual human mind—creating shared understanding through collaborative design , 2000, TCHI.

[33]  Likoebe M. Maruping,et al.  E-profiles, Conflict, and Shared Understanding in Distributed Teams , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[34]  Steve Sawyer,et al.  Social interactions of information systems development teams: a performance perspective , 2010, Inf. Syst. J..

[35]  Sadhana Puntambekar,et al.  Analyzing collaborative interactions: divergence, shared understanding and construction of knowledge , 2006, Comput. Educ..

[36]  Peng Xu,et al.  Can distributed software development be agile? , 2006, CACM.

[37]  James Noble,et al.  Self-Organizing Roles on Agile Software Development Teams , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[38]  Cliff Hooker,et al.  Design, science and wicked problems , 2013 .

[39]  Maaike Kleinsmann,et al.  Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects , 2008 .

[40]  Jeff Conklin,et al.  Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems , 2005 .

[41]  Pär J. Ågerfalk,et al.  Agile Practices Reduce Distance in Global Software Development , 2006, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[42]  P. Bourdieu Forms of Capital , 2002 .

[43]  M. Patton,et al.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods , 1992 .

[44]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving , 1989, Distributed Artificial Intelligence.

[45]  Atreyi Kankanhalli,et al.  Conflict and Performance in Global Virtual Teams , 2006, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[46]  David Sammon,et al.  Towards an ontology of innovation models - a conceptual framework , 2011, ECIS.

[47]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method , 1995 .

[48]  T. G.,et al.  Logic in Practice , 1934, Nature.

[49]  Pär J. Ågerfalk,et al.  Global software development , 2009, Commun. ACM.

[50]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Structure of Ill Structured Problems , 1973, Artif. Intell..

[51]  Paul M. Leonardi,et al.  Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter , 2010, First Monday.

[52]  Christoph Rosenkranz,et al.  The Role of Shared Understanding in Distributed Scrum Development: an Empirical Analysis , 2016, ECIS.

[53]  Xue Yang,et al.  Fostering Fast-response Spontaneous Virtual Team: Effects of Member Skill Awareness and Shared Governance on Team Cohesion and Outcomes , 2015, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..