Investigating Daily Team Meetings in Agile Software Projects

An increasing amount of time is being spent at organizational meetings. One common type of meeting in software projects is the daily team meeting, which is the most important forum for coordinating and planning daily work. To better understand how software teams make decisions, communicate, and coordinate their work, we must uncover the micro-level interaction processes among the team members at these meetings. We analyzed transcriptions of eight daily meetings from two software development teams. The agile literature states that the daily meeting should focus on answering questions such as "What have I done? What will be done? What obstacles are in my way?" However, on average, only 24% of each of the meetings that we studied focused on this task. We found that 35% of the meeting was spent on elaborating problem issues and discussing possible solutions. Very little time was used for coordinating tasks. Our results indicate that many project decisions are made in daily team meetings and that this quick decision making requires team members to be experts. These experts need to have a shared understanding of who is responsible for what and of the information and requirements needed to solve the tasks.

[1]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  Why Scrum Works: A Case Study from an Agile Distributed Project in Denmark and India , 2011, 2011 AGILE Conference.

[2]  Linda Myrsiades,et al.  Meeting sabotage: met and conquered , 2000 .

[3]  Kieran Conboy,et al.  Using Agile Practices to Build Trust in an Agile Team: A Case Study , 2010, ISD.

[4]  M. Hoegl,et al.  Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects , 2001 .

[5]  Torgeir Dingsøyr,et al.  Challenges to Teamwork: A Multiple Case Study of Two Agile Teams , 2011, XP.

[6]  Andraž Cej,et al.  Agile software development with Scrum , 2010 .

[7]  Gary Klein,et al.  Naturalistic Decision Making , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[8]  F. Zijlstra,et al.  Temporal factors in mental work: Effects of interrupted activities , 1999 .

[9]  Pekka Abrahamsson,et al.  The impact of agile practices on communication in software development , 2008, Empirical Software Engineering.

[10]  Allen C. Bluedorn,et al.  The effects of stand-up and sit-down meeting formats on meeting outcomes , 1999 .

[11]  Johnny Saldaña,et al.  The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers , 2009 .

[12]  S. Rogelberg,et al.  "Not another meeting!" Are meeting time demands related to employee well-being? , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[13]  E. Salas,et al.  Taking stock of naturalistic decision making , 2001 .

[14]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  The Functional Perspective as a Lens for Understanding Groups , 2004 .

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

[16]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Coordination in software development , 1995, CACM.

[17]  Linda Rising,et al.  The Scrum Software Development Process for Small Teams , 2000, IEEE Softw..

[18]  Jeff Sutherland,et al.  The Scrum Guide , 2012 .

[19]  A. Luong,et al.  Meetings and More Meetings: The Relationship Between Meeting Load and the Daily Well-Being of Employees. , 2005 .

[20]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Meeting analysis: findings from research and practice , 2001, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[21]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Escalation: The Determinants of Commitment to a Chosen Course of Action , 1977 .

[22]  Torgeir Dingsøyr,et al.  A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development , 2012, J. Syst. Softw..

[23]  Marvin D. Troutt,et al.  A review of naturalistic decision making research with some implications for knowledge management , 2002, J. Knowl. Manag..

[24]  Harold Lazarus,et al.  Why is a third of your time wasted in meetings , 1997 .

[25]  Tore Dybå,et al.  Escalation of Commitment: A Longitudinal Case Study of Daily Meetings , 2012, XP.

[26]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Small Group Design Meetings: An Analysis of Collaboration , 1992, Hum. Comput. Interact..