Breaking the flow: a study of contradictions in information systems development (ISD)

The purpose of this paper is to examine contradictions (specifically tertiary and quaternary contradictions) that can disrupt the flow of work in contemporary systems development methods.,This study uses Activity theory (AT) as a theoretical lens to: examine ISD flow as an interrelated activity system; and identify contradictions. AT is pertinent in the context of this study as rather than view contradictions as a threat to prematurely abandon the use of flow tools and metrics, it shows how contradictions can act as a motor for change and continuity. This study adopts a longitudinal single case study approach including face-to-face interviews with management and software development project teams, as well as direct observations and document analysis.,This study identifies tertiary and quaternary contradictions, and highlights the influence of contradictions on flow-based systems development.,This study provides a set of contradictions for researchers and practitioners. It shows that contradictions can be culturally or politically challenging to confront, and even when resolved, can have intended or unintended consequences.,This paper fulfils an identified need to study ISD flow from the perspective of interrelated activity systems and beyond its initial implementation phase.

[1]  Tom Mens,et al.  Techniques and Tools for Parallelizing Software , 2012, IEEE Software.

[2]  Elizabeth Murphy,et al.  Contradictions between the virtual and physical high school classroom: A third-generation Activity Theory perspective , 2008, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[3]  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 .

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

[5]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems , 1987, MIS Q..

[6]  Kirsty Williamson,et al.  Information use and secondary school students: a model for understanding plagiarism , 2006, Inf. Res..

[7]  Dan Remenyi,et al.  Some aspects of methodology for research in information systems , 1995, J. Inf. Technol..

[8]  Stan Karanasios,et al.  Mobile technology in mobile work: contradictions and congruencies in activity systems , 2014, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[9]  Jason Bennett Thatcher,et al.  IS Employee Attitudes and Perceptions at Varying Levels of Software Process Maturity , 2012, MIS Q..

[10]  Michele Marchesi,et al.  Studying Lean-Kanban Approach Using Software Process Simulation , 2011, XP.

[11]  Effie Lai-Chong Law,et al.  Whose Experience Do We Care About? Analysis of the Fitness of Scrum and Kanban to User Experience , 2015, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

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

[13]  M. Packer,et al.  Sociocultural and Constructivist Theories of Learning: Ontology, Not Just Epistemology , 2000 .

[14]  K. Foot.  Cultural‐historical activity theory as practice theory: illuminating the development of conflict‐monitoring network , 2001 .

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

[16]  Christoph Rosenkranz,et al.  The emergence of shared understanding: applying functional pragmatics to study the requirements development process , 2013, Inf. Syst. J..

[17]  Michele Marchesi,et al.  Simulation of software maintenance process, with and without a work‐in‐process limit , 2013, J. Softw. Evol. Process..

[18]  Helga Drummond,et al.  MIS and illusions of control: an analysis of the risks of risk management , 2011, J. Inf. Technol..

[19]  M. Cole.  A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition , 1993 .

[20]  Carl Adams.  Managing crowdsourcing assignments , 2011 .

[21]  Stan Karanasios,et al.  Toward a unified view of technology and activity: The contribution of activity theory to information systems research , 2018, Inf. Technol. People.

[22]  Yrjö Engeström,et al.  Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework , 2011 .

[23]  Clay Spinuzzi,et al.  Losing by Expanding , 2011 .

[24]  Katharina Burger,et al.  Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory , 2016, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[25]  Michael A. Cusumano,et al.  Lean Software Development: A Tutorial , 2012, IEEE Software.

[26]  Peter Middleton,et al.  Lean Software Management: BBC Worldwide Case Study , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[27]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Information system development agility as organizational learning , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[28]  Barbara Kitchenham,et al.  What's up with software metrics? - A preliminary mapping study , 2010, J. Syst. Softw..

[29]  Stan Karanasios,et al.  Working with activity theory: Context, technology, and information behavior , 2011, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[30]  Dag I. K. Sjøberg,et al.  Quantifying the Effect of Using Kanban versus Scrum: A Case Study , 2012, IEEE Software.

[31]  Charles Puryear Nelson,et al.  Contradictions in learning to write in a second language classroom: insights from radical constructivism, activity theory, and complexity theory , 2002 .

[32]  Pekka Abrahamsson,et al.  Lean Software Development , 2012, IEEE Softw..

[33]  Kieran Conboy,et al.  Project failure en masse: a study of loose budgetary control in ISD projects , 2010, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[34]  Helen Sharp,et al.  Ethnographically-informed empirical studies of software practice , 2007, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[35]  K. Kuutti.  Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research , 1995 .

[36]  Klaas-Jan Stol,et al.  Continuous software engineering: A roadmap and agenda , 2017, J. Syst. Softw..

[37]  C. Burke,et al.  The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[38]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Enriching the Theory of Expansive Learning: Lessons From Journeys Toward Coconfiguration , 2007 .

[39]  Rajiv Sabherwal,et al.  Portfolios of Control in Outsourced Software Development Projects , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[40]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams , 2005 .

[41]  Mark Keil,et al.  The user–developer communication process: a critical case study , 2003, Inf. Syst. J..

[42]  Per Runeson,et al.  Early identification of bottlenecks in very large scale system of systems software development , 2014, J. Softw. Evol. Process..

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

[44]  Shari Lawrence Pfleeger,et al.  Preliminary Guidelines for Empirical Research in Software Engineering , 2002, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[45]  Robert L. Nord,et al.  Making Architecture Visible to Improve Flow Management in Lean Software Development , 2012, IEEE Software.

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

[47]  Julien Malaurent,et al.  Reconciling global and local needs: a canonical action research project to deal with workarounds , 2016, Inf. Syst. J..

[48]  Claes Wohlin,et al.  Measuring the flow in lean software development , 2011, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[49]  Viljan Mahnič.  From scrum to Kanban: introducing lean principles to a software engineering capstone course , 2015 .

[50]  Ken Power.  Definition of Ready: An Experience Report from Teams at Cisco , 2014, XP.

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

[52]  Tony Gorschek,et al.  Extending value stream mapping through waste definition beyond customer perspective , 2014, J. Softw. Evol. Process..

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