The Impacts of Culture on System Development Methodology in Practice

7/31/2019 The Impacts of Culture on System Development Methodology in Practice

1/21

1

Research Paper

The Im pacts of Culture on System D evelopm ent M ethodology in Practice

Author: Lena Salim (u4431957)

ABSTRACT

Information system methodologies are undoubtedly one of the most important topics in

information system field (Fitzgerald et al, 2002). M any researches had been conducted to

provide both business practitioners and academia with deeper understanding in this field;

however, this particular topic is still considered remains in unclear, less structured grey area.

This paper aims for contributing a clearer vision towards development methodologies by

inviting the readers to view this topic from the culture point of view. Arguments and wide

discussion will be covered in this paper to assist project practitioners to answer the question

how organization culture can affect the development practice.

1. Introduction

Culture is defined as the whole range of learned values that guide the patterns of

thinking, feeling and acting of people coming from that culture (based on Hofstede, 1997).

It assists people in categorizing and projecting their world by understanding the habits,

regulations, and expectations from others attitudes (based onOlson and Olson, 2003). M any

crucial decisions in business are m ade with a high regard on culture; often time,

organizations have to pay a great expense after a less careful consideration on culture.

Information system development methodology (ISD M ) is a project framework that

provides a clear step by step guideline for approaching a development situation (based on

Fitzgerald et al, 2002; Turbit, 2005). This project framework will be applied onto personnel

who are involved in a project throughout life cycle; therefore, it should be accepted as a partday to day pattern of thinking, feeling and behaviors in an organization. Or in other words,

regardless to which ISD M that is adopted by an organization, it should be well accepted or at

least does not contradicted with the organization culture.

M any of IS researches have been conducted into the effects of culture but only few

of them that particularly touched the area of development methodologies (based on M yers

and Tan, 2002). Some of these researches are either too theoretical or too specific that focus

only on some parts of the culture. A paper written by M oores and Gregory, for instance,

focused only on two small areas of culture: the avoidance of group debates and the use of

multiple languages (M yers and Tan, 2002). This paper aims for providing a wider perspective

of culture and developing arguments that will assists the readers to have a betterunderstanding on the how culture could effect the development methodologies in practice.

By the end of this paper, the author aims to deliver:

The fundamental theory of both culture and ISD M s that will be used as the basic for

developing the whole ideas covered in this paper.

Developing hypotheses that postulates how certain type of culture can affect the certain

pratices of ISD M .


2/21

2

To testify the developed hypotheses by using the global survey results pre-collected by

Cusumano et al in 2003.

To produce a guideline for assisting developers bridge the gap between organization

culture and ISDM s.

2. Background Theory

To reveal the relationship between culture and the implementation of ISDM in

practice, one must first have a sound understanding on the basic culture theories and the

variety of ISDM s exist in software industry. This section provides discussions on key cultural

dimensions and different types of ISDM s that are very crucial for the following sections. An

overview of paper by Cusum ano et al will also be provided here to sum marize the results

from the survey of global software development practice.

2.1.H oftedes cultural dim ension

Plenty of researches have been conducted by social scientists to answer the question

on how cultures differ among social groups (based on Olson and O lson, 2003). Hofstede de

Geert is arguably the most popular social scientists in this area (based on Gorlenko, 2006).

Indeed most of IS researches that analyzed the effect of national culture had been conducted

based on Hofstedes dimensions of culture (M yers and Tan, 2003). The five cultural

dimensions suggested by Geert Hofstede are sum marized as follows:

Low versus high power distance (PDI).

Power distance refers to what extent the less powerful members of organizations and

institutions (such as family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally (Hofstede

and M C Crae, 2004). All social groups have som e inequalities attached to them, but som e are

more unequal compared to the others (Hofstede and M C Crae, 2004). Countries with higher

power distance tend to have more inequalities in their societies.

Individualism versus collectivism (IDV)

Individualism versus collectivism refers to what extent individuals are integrated into

groups (Hofstede and M C Crae, 2004). Individualists expect to look after themselves and

tend to value individual interests over the ones of a group (based on Hofstede, 1991).

Collectivists, on the other hand, are very dependent to their group and perceive that

allocating individual over group interests is evil (based on Hofstede, 2001).

M asculinity versus feminity (M AS)

M asculinity versus fem inist refers to the distribution of em otional roles between sexes

Hofstede and M C Crae, 2004). The m asculinity side is characterized with the more assertivebehavior whereas caring and modest are determined towards feminity (Hofstede and M C

Crae, 2004).

Low versus high uncertainty avoidance (UAI)

Uncertainty avoidance refers to what extent a society can deal with ambiguity (Hofstede and

M C Crae, 2004). Societies with low uncertainty avoidance are m ore tolerant to ambiguity and

accept it as a part of their lives (based on Hofstede, 2001). Societies with high uncertainty


3/21

3

avoidance on the other hand, feel very uncomfortable with ambiguity and tend to minimize

it (Hofstede and M C Crae, 2004).

Long term versus short term orientation (LTO )

Societies with long term orientation are characterized as being m ore preserving, ordering

relationships by status, thrift and having a sense of shame (Hofstede, 2001). On the other

pole, societies with short term orientation are perceived as societies with personal

steadiness, self-face protecting, respect for tradition, and reciprocation of greetings, favors

and gifts (Hofstede, 2001).

2.2.Form alized Inform ation System D evelopm ent M ethodologies (ISD M )

In their book, Fitzgerald et.al. (2002) use the term formalized methodologies to

refer to all development methodologies that are formally documented, including both

com mercial methods and in-house methods. Formalized m ethods provide guidelines for

developers to approach development situation in a methodical way (Fitzgerald et al, 2002).

Some examples for these formalized m ethodologies are waterfall, Extreme Programming

(XP), and M ultiview. There are plenty of formalized methodologies available in softwareindustry nowadays and most of them can be categorized into these two following

dimensions: flexibility and paradigm .

Figure 1 Categorization of Formalized M ethodologies

Flexibility : Rigid versus Agile

The rigid methodologies assum e that user requirements are static and are predictable at the

beginning of the development process. W aterfall SD LC, for example, consists of no sub

cycle and user requirements are therefore gathered once only at the beginning phase of thelife cycle. Rigid methodologies rely heavily on extensive documentations and usually involve

a large num ber of project team members (based on Chavarat, 2003b). Agile methodologies,

on the other side, are particularly designed to adapt to the changing environment and

emphasize heavily on the importance of team work (Abrahamson et al, 2002). Agile

methodologies like XP and scrum consist of more than one sub cycles; therefore,

requirements are more flexible and being refined throughout the development process.


4/21

4

Good relationship with customer is more preferable in agile m ethods, as it is com pared to

the strict agreements written on the contract (Abrahamson et al, 2002).

Paradigm : Scientific versus System atic (holistic)

The science paradigm approaches problems by reducing the com plexity in the real world and

discover explanation through validated and repeatable exam ination (based on Checkland in

Avison and Fitzgerald, 2006). The structured approach, for instance, divides the complex

requirements into smaller parts and assumes the break downs would not disrupt the system

as a whole (based on Checkland in Avison and Fitzgerald, 2006). The systematic paradigm ,

on the other hand, approach problems by requiring software developers to look beyond the

obvious boundaries of the system and to allocate more attention to the systems external

factors such as customers, competitors and governments (based on Avison and Fitzgerald,

2006). System atic approaches also acknowledge the possibility of more than one alternative

in problem solving and suggest the formation of development team that involves members

from variety discipline areas (on Avison and Fitzgerald, 2006). Exam ple for the systematic

ISDM s is SSM (Soft System M ethods).

2.3. Software D evelopm ent W orldwide: The state of the Practice

There is one survey in particular that is going to be used for testifying the hypotheses

developed in this research. During 2001 and 2002, Cusum ano et. al. conducted a global

survey of software development (Cusum ano et al., 2001). The sample com prised of 104

projects with 27 participating companies, originated from India, Japan, USA and W estern

Europe (Cusum ano et al., 2001). The result of this survey is summarized here in table1. The

key factors listed in the first column of the table indicate the factors being observed in the

survey and the num bers in the other colum ns show the percentage of projects in each

country that actually implem ent these key factors in practice.

Table 1. Software Development W orldwide (Source: Cusum ano et al, 2003)

The survey respondents were questioned whether they followed a m ore conventional

approach such as waterfall or a more flexible one that involves multiple mile stones or sub

cycles (based on Cusum ano et al., 2001). In their paper, Cusum ano et. al. defines firms that


5/21

5

followed a m ore conventional waterfall approach as those that did not use sub cycles in

system development practice. The respondents were also questioned whether they wrote

specifications and produced detailed design before they commenced the coding phase (based

on Cusumano et al., 2001). Finally, respondents were asked whether they used pair testing as

a technique to review their codes prior to submission (based on Cusumano et al., 2001).

3. Research M odel and H ypothesis

This research is conducted based on the idea that culture m ay play an influential role

in software development practice. In their book, Fitzgerald et al (2002) argue that

development context is the foundation of system development and therefore deserves more

attention and detailed understanding from development practitioners. Development context

here is described as the business context in which software development takes place,

including technology, culture, change strategies and other philosophical, practical and

method considerations (Fitzgerald et al, 2002).

Figure 2 The D evelopment Context (Fitzgerald et al, 2002)

As it is painted in Figure 2, culture is one element of development context that

shapes up the implementation of development methods in action. The word culturehere

mainly refers to the organization culture that is shared and reflected in the procedures andprocess within the organization (Fitzgerald et al, 2002). An organization culture will

determines what is possible or not to be conducted in the organization and therefore will

serve as either catalyzing or restraining factors for the implem entation of certain software

development practices (based on Fitzgerald et al, 2002). For example, in som e organization

cultures there is a strict em phasize on the importance of administration and bureaucracy.

This characteristic will eventually influence critical decisions such as which ISD M s to be

selected for an organization or how well will they adopt a particular development practice.


6/21

6

This paper will use the development framework painted in Figure 2 (particularly for

the area marked with red circle) as its research model and will draw some hypothesis by

using the five Hofstedes cultural dimensions. All these hypotheses are to be tested in section

4 by using the survey result from Cusum ano et al. M ost data that is currently available from

other researches conducted in this field are m ainly focus on national culture instead of

organizational culture; therefore, this paper will firstly analyze the hypotheses from the

national cultures perspective before projecting its result from organizational cultures point

of view. The developers model crafted in section 5 will provide a clearer framework on how

organizational culture would effect the implementation of development methods in action.

3.1.The adoption of form alized ISD M .

Despite the popularities of the formalized methodologies in software industry

nowadays, a research by Fitzgerald shows that there was no organization that had

implemented them rigorously (based on Fitzgerald, 1997). The diversity of development

context, along with the given time constraints had forced system developers to deliberatelyomit some part of development methodologies and tailored them to their development

situation (based on Fitzgerald, 1997). An exam ple for these omitted parts was the system

documentation (Fitzgerald, 1997).Indian software com panies are arguably one of the most

rigid adopters of formalized methodologies in the world. This is supported by the fact that

more than half of the CM M level 5 software firms in the world are located in the country

(M oitra, 2001; Arora et al, 2001). In 2001, there were m ore than 175 Indian software

companies that had acquired ISO 9001 certification (Arora et al, 2001). In order to be

eligible for either of these ISO or CM M certifications, a software firm must first adopt a

formalized system development methodology (based on Arora and Asundi, 1999).

One dimension of culture that presumably will affect the adoption of formalizedmethod is the power distance index (PDI). According to Hofstede, societies with high power

distance are characterized with the centralized decision-making style and the existence of

status inequalities among employees as the result from the organizational hierarchy

(Hofstede, 2001). In these societies, subordinates are more dependent on their supervisors

and expect to be told what to do (Hofstede, 2001). These characteristics lead to the

argument that societies with high power distance will have tendency to adopt the formalized

development methodology more rigorously than the others. The implementation of

formalized methodologies is usually imposed by people from upper management (Hiusman

and Livari, 2002). Therefore, managem ent from high power distance societies will be more

successful in convincing their developers to adopt formalized methodologies. This argument

can be summarized in a hypothesis as follows:

H1: The higher power distance score will have a positive impact on the

implementation of formalized methodology.

There is another cultural dimension that seems to bring impact on the adoption of

formalized m ethod. According to Hofstede in Narayanaswamy and Henry (2005), societies

with high uncertainty avoidance prefer sets of regulations in order to deal with uncertainties

and to provide m ore feelings of predictability. The implementation of formal control in


7/21


8/21

8

The last cultural dimension that may effect on the selection of development

methodology is the masculinity level. M asculinity determines to what extent a society values

their ego and material belongings over their relationship with others (based on Hofstede,

2001). Societies with high masculinity level are m ore competitive and are characterized with

mass production (Hofstede, 1997). Societies with low masculinity level, on the other hand,

show empathy to others and are usually characterized with custom made products

(Hofstede, 1997). The agile software development methodologies stress the importance of

relationship between developers and clients higher than the strict contracts and technology

(Abrahamsson et al, 2002; M iller, 2001 in Abrahamsson et al, 2002). Agile methodologies are

tailored to changes and corrections; therefore, they are more receptive towards changing in

user requirements (based on Favaro, 2002 in Abraham sson et al, 2002). These

methodologies are therefore more suitable for societies with low masculinity level which

values relationships over strict contracts and are more willing to tailor their products based

on customer requirements. This argument leads to the following hypothesis:

H5: The higher masculinity score will have a negative influence on the adoption of

agile methodologies.

3.3.Am ount of effort spent for detailed design

Not all developers have the same level of preferences when it comes to producing

detailed designs. Having a more detailed design -both the functional and the architectural

ones- instead of jumping directly from specifications to coding will lead to fewer software

defects (based on Cusum ano et al, 2003). This is the best practice, however, according to

Cusum ano et al was not always been implemented in the real world.

There is one dimension of the Hofstedes national culture that could possibly affect

the developers decisions on the am ount of effort spent for producing detailed designs. Thelong term orientation dimension, according to M ooij in Ryu and Eyugbolu (2003) refers to

what extent that a country embraces to the future- oriented perspectives as it is opposed to

the traditional short- term point of view. Societies with long term orientation put more

focus on the future state instead of current state in decision makings. This statem ent leads to

the argument that societies with higher long-term orientation are the m ost likely ones that

will go through detailed designs before jumping to the coding stage. Since detailed designs

oblige developers to describe functions and operations in details, discrepancies between

requirements and the system to be developed are more likely to be discovered soon enough

at the early stage of project life cycle. This will result in fewer amounts of changes required

during the development process and decrease the amount of the overall project cost.

Developers with long term perspectives are assumed to be more able to see how detailed

design will impact to the future state of the project and this can serve as their motivation for

allocating m ore effort in producing complete designs. For more details on the relationship

between cost and changes in software development process, please refer to Figure 2.


9/21

9

Figure 3 Cost of Change Curve: Traditional and Agile (Source: Ambler, 2002)

The following hypothesis is built based on the argument developed in this section:

H6: The higher long term orientation score will have a positive impact on the

amount of effort spent for detailed design.

3.4.The use of pair testing

Pair testing is one popular technique used for program testing in software projects.

Testers in this case work collaboratively as a pair, sometimes split up- working side by side at

two computers and then rejoin once they find defects in order to find the best solution(Ratzmann and Young, 2003). There is one cultural dimension suggested by Hofstede that is

closely related to the adoption of pair testing in system development. The individualism

index, according to Hofstede (2001), measures the extent to how people in a country look

after themselves and those of the social groups that they been part of. Societies with low

individualism index tend to expect opinions to be predetermined by in-group, contrary to

those who expect opinions to be coming personals (Hofstede, 2001). This way of thinking is

highly required in the implementation of pair testing, more especially when both testers

developers and tester have conflicting perspectives in defining a defect or simply finding the

best way to solve defects. Societies with low individualism disvalue the practice of placing

individual over group interests; therefore, it is more likely for them to put aside their

personal opinions and resolve conflicts based on consensus (based on Hofstede, 2001).

Hence, it is assumed that societies with low individualism will adopt pair testing more widely

than those are not.

H7: The higher individualism score will have a negative impact on the use of pair

testing.

Cost of Change: Traditional Cost of Change: Agile


10/21

10

3.5.The adoption of system atic (holistic) m ethods

The system atic (holistic) methods require software developers to have a system

perspective over the system to be developed. Since there is no such thing as systematic

dimension mentioned in the Hofstedes theory, this paper will draw out two other popular

cultural dimensions that presum ably will affect the adoption ofsystem perspective. These two

dimensions are: individualism and uncertainty avoidance.

The systematic perspective views an organization / system as a whole and

discourages the practice of emphasizing the detail of one particular domain or perceiving the

domain from one single point of view (Avison and Fitzgerald, 2006). From the cultural point

of view, individualistic societies are characterized with the tendency to look after them selves

or their immediate relatives rather than the society where they belong to (Hofstede, 1997).

The individual interests in this case sit on a higher priority as they are opposed to collective

interests (Hofstede, 1997). Such characteristics will restrain developers to allocate the

organization interests above the ones of their departments -or perhaps the ones of their

own. The system atic (holistic) approach is therefore considered less suitable for societies

with high individualism.

H8: The higher individualism score will have a negative impact on the adoption of

system atic (holistic) methods.

The other cultural dimension that presumably will bring a strong impact to the

adoption of systematic approach is the uncertainty avoidance. According to Hofstede (2001),

societies with high uncertainty avoidance prefer well-structured regulations and believe that

there is only one truth exists in this world: the one that they currently believe in. These

characteristics will restrain developers from acknowledging the existence of more than one

alternative in solving a problem , which is one of the most crucial success factors in

systematic perspective. Systematic methods encourage the formation of development teamwith multidisciplinary members; team members with high uncertainty avoidance in this case

will possibly fail to accept opinions from the others and will eventually cost a great expense

to the project success. This argument is framed in the following hypothesis:

H9: The higher uncertainty avoidance score will have a negative impact on the

adoption of systematic (holistic) methods.

4. Analysis

After the long discussion provided in the previous section, this paper will testify the

developed hypotheses by using data collected by Cusum ano et al sum marized in table 1.

There are nine hypotheses drawn in total but not all of them will be evaluated here due to

data insufficiency. There is no adequate information given in table 1 that could be used for

testifying the last two hypotheses; therefore, these hypotheses are not to be covered in this

section. Hypotheses accepted in this section will be documented in section 5 for

constructing a m odel dedicated to software practitioners.

4.1.Analysis: The adoption of form alized system developm ent m ethodologies


11/21

11

The adoption of formalized methodologies in organizations is usually imposed by

people from upper management (Hiusman and Livari, 2002). However in som e cases,

software developers decided to ignore such methodologies and implement the ones of their

own. There are five key factors used in this section for measuring to what extent software

projects have adopted the formalized methods: the amount of projects that produce

architectural specifications, functional specifications, code generation, design reviews and

code reviews. All these mentioned factors are also the basic parts of most formalized

methodologies; therefore, omission of one key factor may be perceived as the indicator of

methodology ignorance. The data allocated for each key factor here is gathered and averaged

from the survey results listed in table 1. Followings are the hypotheses to be testified in this

section:



H2: The higher uncertainty avoidance score will have a positive impact on the


Country Amount of projects

that perform

specifications, code

generation and

reviews %

PDI

*H1

IDV MAS UAI

*H2

LTO

India 87.48 77 48 56 40 61

Japan 75.56 54 46 95 92 80

Western Europe 73.62 42 64 45 67 31

USA 65.8 40 91 62 46 29

Conclusion SR MR MR

Table 2. The adoption of formalized system development methodologies vs. Hofstedes scores

PDI= Power Distance Index

IDV= Individualism Index

M AS=M asculinity SR=Strong Relationship

UAI= Uncertainty Avoidance Index M R=M oderate Relationship

LTO =Long term Orientation

The data figure in table 2 shows a strong relationship between the adoption of

formalized method and PDI. The PDI score listed in the table decreases along with the

declination of the % projects that implement formalized methods. India -the country withthe highest power distance score- is also ranked as the first when it comes to the

implementation of formalized ISD M s. On the other hand, USA -the country with the lowest

power distance score- ranked at the last in terms of the implementation of formalized

ISDM s. This data pattern indicates that there is a strong relationship between the two factors

being observed; which also m eans that H1 is supported in this analysis.



12/21

12


The second hypothesis to be evaluated in this section, H2, argues that there is a

positive relationship between the adoption of formalized ISD M s and UAI. This argument is

not supported by the data shown in table 2. Logically speaking, countries with high

uncertainty avoidance will prefer formalized methodologies as a tool to deal with project

uncertainties and to provide more feelings of predictability. One thing that seems to be

missing here is the fact that there are many types of formalized methodologies available in

the world, varying from the ones with low uncertainty level such as waterfall SD LC to the

ones with high uncertainly such as agile methods. Therefore, there is still a chance that

societies with high uncertainty avoidance will refuse to adopt formalized methods if they are

coming from the agile ones. Since the analysis results in this case do not appear to support

the hypothesis, H2 should therefore be rejected.

H2: The higher uncertainty avoidance score will have a positive impact on

the implementation of formalized methodology.

There are two new relationships revealed during this analysis that are not yet beinghypothesized in the previous section. The analysis results show moderate relationships

between the other two cultural dimensions IDV and LTO- and the adoption of formalized

methodology. The termmoderate relationshipis used here because there is one cultural score in

particular that deviates from the data pattern shown in table 2 (e.g. the IDV score or LTO

score for Japan). Omission of this score will result in a perfect relationship between both

factors being observed.

The first newly discovered relationship in this section is the relationship between

IDV and the adoption of formalized ISDM s. In his paper, Turbit (2005) suggested som e

restraining factors that might prevent software developers from adopting the formalized

methodologies. These restraining factors are: the formalized methodologies are beingperceived as the enemy of creativity and software developers in this case have their own

methodologies that are considered will work better. Societies with high individualism are

characterized with individual freedom and the importance of private opinions (Hofstede,

1997). Individual creativity / opinions are highly appreciated in these societies; therefore,

software developers in this case will have the tendencies to come out with their own

methodologies that they consider will work better or enhance their creativities. This

relationship leads to the following conclusion.

C10: The higher individualism score will have a negative impact on the


The second relationship that has just been revealed in this section is the relationship

between LTO and the adoption of formalized ISD M s. Based on a research conducted by

Chatzoglou in 1997, software projects that implement no formalized methodology will endup with higher cost, time and effort spent for the entire projects. The adoption of formalized

methodologies, on the other hand, will result in the increase in productivity by 10% -30%

(Turbit, 2005). Societies with high LTO are characterized with the tendency to focus on the

future status when it comes to decision making. Therefore, while deciding whether to adopt


13/21

13

a formalized methodology or not, software developers from LTO societies will automatically

predict the effect of their decisions on the future results of their projects. By holding upon

the research results from Chatzglou (1997), these software developers will therefore prefer to

adopt the formalized methodologies for their project.

C11: The higher long term orientation score will have a positive impact on

the implementation of formalized methodology.

4.2.Analysis: M ethodology preference (rigid vs agile m ethods)

There are three cultural dimensions hypothesized in section 3 to bring impact on the

methodology preferences of a society. These cultural dimensions, along with the nature of

their impacts are listed as follows:

H3: The higher power distance score will have a negative influence on the adoption

of agile m ethodologies.

H4: The higher uncertainly avoidance score will have a negative influence on theadoption of agile methodologies.

H5: The higher masculinity score will have a negative influence on the adoption of

agile methodologies.

Societies that less prefer agile methodologies will have the tendency adopt the m ore

rigid ones, and vice versa. The measurement used for indicating the adoption of agile

approaches in this section is taken from the percentage of sub cycles usage listed in table 1.

Software projects that adopt newer / more flexible m ethodologies are the ones that come

out with more iterative and incremental sub cycles (based on Cusumano et al, 2003; M iller,

2001 in A brahamsson et al, 2002).

Country Amount of projects that usesub cycles (%)

PDI

*H3

IDV MAS

*H5

UAI

*H4

LTO

Western Europe 86.2 42 64 45 67 31

India 79.2 77 48 56 40 61

USA 54.8 40 91 62 46 29

Japan 44.4 54 46 95 92 80

Conclusion SR

Table 3. M ethodology preference vs. Hofstedes Scores




UAI= Uncertainty Avoidance Index

LTO =Long term Orientation


14/21

14

The data figure in table 4 shows that there is no relationship between the adoption of

agile methodologies and PDI. It was previously argued in H3 that societies with high PDI

will restrain software developers to express their opinions freely in front of their managers,

which in turn will prevent them to benefit from agile methods. One point that seems to be

missing here is: How if it is the management itself who insists on the adoption of agile

methods? It is believed that the implementation of methodologies is usually imposed by

people from upper management (based on Hiusman and Livari, 2002). Since high PDI

societies are characterized with obedient sub ordinates; this situation will result with two

conflicting behaviors created by the high PDI score: the unwillingness to express their

opinions and the obedience to adopt methodologies imposed. The success of methodologies

in this case will possibly be dependent on another external factor such as the management

support. In other words, the m anagem ents ability in lubricating the adoption of agile

methods can also make a significant difference here. For example, project managers from

high PDI may consider using one popular technique in m anagem ent such as devils advocate

in order to stimulate reactions from their subordinates. However, since the argument made

in H3 is not supported in table 3, this hypothesis should therefore be rejected.

H3: The higher power distance score will have a negative influence on theadoption of agile methodologies.

The second hypothesis to be testified in this section, H4, argues that there is a

negative correlation between UAI and the societies preference over agile methodologies.

This argument, however, is not supported in the analysis results. Logically speaking, societies

with high UAI will refuse to adopt agile methodologies with less certain work models,

significant amount of changes and risks attached to them. The information gathered and

data used in this research are still not sufficient enough to come out with explanations for

such analysis results. The author believes that a deeper research in the future will help

revealing the answer for this situation.

H4: The higher uncertainly avoidance score will have a negative influence

on the adoption of agile m ethodologies.

The last hypothesis to be testified in this section, H5, is supported by the data figure

shown in table 3. The analysis results come out with astrong relationshipfor describing the

correlation between M AS and the societies preference over the agile m ethods. Therefore,

H5 in this case is supported and should be accepted.

H5: The higher masculinity score will have a negative influence on the

adoption of agile methodologies.

4.3.Analysis: Am ount of effort spent for detailed design

Logically speaking, the m ore detail design crafted before the code generation will

lead to the fewer defects and less reworks throughout the project. There is one H ofstedes

cultural dimension that is postulated to have a relationship with the amount of effort spent


15/21

15

for detailed design: the long term orientation. Following is the hypothesis set for this

relationship:

H6: The higher long term orientation score will have a positive impact on the

amount of effort spent for detailed design.

Country Am ount of projects

that produce detailed

design %

PDI IDV MAS UAI LTO

H6

India 100 77 48 56 40 61

Japan 85.2 54 46 95 92 80

Western Europe 68.2 42 64 45 67 31

USA 32.3 40 91 62 46 29

Conclusion SR MR MR

Table 5. Detailed design versus vs. Hofstedes Scores





LTO=Long term Orientation

The data in table 5 shows a moderate correlation between the amount of projects

that produce detailed design and LTO. This correlation, however, is not the only relationship

shown in the analysis results. In addition to what has been postulated in H6, there are two

other unexplained relationships projected in table 5: the relationships between PDI and IDV

and the amount of projects that went through detailed design. There are two possible

scenarios that would likely be the explanation for this situation: either the information

gathered by this research is not yet sufficient for describing these new revealed relationships

or there is another unconsidered external factor that causes these results to take place. It is

strongly believed that the latter scenario is the m ost likely one in this research. There are

plenty of development methodologies available in the current software industry and different

methodologies may require different level of detail in design (based on S Fraser 2008, pers.

comm., 31 Oct). W aterfall SD LC, for example, requires software developers to produce a

more detailed design before coding compared to other methodologies such as prototyping.

The amount of effort spent for detailed design in this case is more related to the type of

methodology adopted rather than other factors such as LTO score. A deeper research in the

future is required in this case to discover a strong supported explanation for results shown intable 5.

H6: The higher long term orientation score will have a positive impact on

the amount of effort spent for detailed design.


16/21

16

4.4.Analysis: The use of pair testing

There is one H ofstedes cultural dimension that is postulated to contribute negatively

to use of pair testing: the individualism level of a society. Following is the hypothesis taken

from the previous section that is soon to be evaluated:

H7: The higher individualism score will have a negative impact on the use of pair

testing.

Country Amount of project thatuse pair testing %

PDI IDV

H7MAS UAI LTO

India 54.4 77 48 56 40 61

Japan 44.4 54 46 95 92 80

USA 35.5 40 91 62 46 29

Western Europe 31.8 42 64 45 67 31

Conclusion SR

Table 6. Pair Testing versus vs. Hofstedes scores.





LTO=Long term Orientation

The analysis results in table 6 show that there is no relationship between the adoption

of pair testing and the individualism score rated for each country. The PDI score, on the

other hand, is projected to have a strong relationship with the adoption of pair testing in

practice. Similar to the previous case, the author strongly believes that there is anotherexternal factor that may have contributed significantly here to these analysis results. Pair

testing is one technique that is recommended for agile development practices; therefore, the

adoption of pair testing in this case is very dependent on the type of methodologies chosen

for software projects (based on Nawaz and M alik, 2008). Since the data used in table 6 failed

to consider this important factor, results shown by the analysis should not be accepted for

the next section. A deeper research in the future is still required in this case to discover

explanation for results shown in table 6.

H7: The higher individualism score will have a negative impact on the use

of pair testing.

5. A fram ework for software practitioners

After a long discussion and analysis provided in the previous sections, this paper will

finally come out with a framework dedicated to software practitioners. There were nine

hypotheses drawn during this research but only seven of them were evaluated in section 4.

The results came out with two accepted hypotheses; by adding to the two other relationships


17/21

17

discovered during the analysis, there are four relationships being accepted in total. The

following framework sum marizes all these accepted hypotheses.

Figure 4. A Framework for Software Practitioners

This developed framework will assist project personnel in mitigating the potential

issues arise from the adoption of development methodologies. Implementation of ISD M

that is not suitable to culture of a society will result in user resistance and the excessive time

/ effort spent for educating m ethodology users. It is also important to note that software

practitioners in this case should refer to organizational culture instead of national culture.

The Hofstedes national culture scores provide a strong basic for evaluating the developed

hypotheses but when it comes to practice, one is strongly encouraged to recognize theirown

organizational culture. By using the five cultural dimensions from Hofstede for predicting

the culture of an organization, one may then use the framework painted in figure 4 fordecision makings. The national culture theory has long been criticized for its assum ption of

cultural homogeneity and stability (based on W alsham , 2004). If software practitioners insist

on referring to the national culture score from Hofstede, there is a chance that they will

neglect the m ulticultural issues that exists within a country and discount the dynamic nature

of culture.

6. Constraints and assum ptions

Just like other research papers written on the similar topic, this research is conducted

based on som e constraints and assumptions. These constraints and assumptions are stated asfollows:

There is a significant time gap exists between the two sets of data being analyzed in this

paper. The cultural score from Hofstede is collected in 1980s, which is about 23 years

before the survey results from Cusumano et. al.

Due to data insufficiency, there are only four countries being analyzed in this paper.

M ore data from other countries would have been very helpful for concluding a stronger

analysis result.

High Power distance

Low Individualism,

High Long term Orientation

Formalized

M ethodologies

Non Formalized

M ethodologies

High masculinity?

Rigid

M ethodologies

Agile

methodologies

Yes

Yes

No

No


18/21

18

There is no clear information provided in Cusum ano et al regarding to which countries

in W estern Europe that were being analyzed. The culture score for W estern Europe used

in this paper is calculated from the average from all countries in Hofstedes table that

belong to W estern Europe.

This paper discounts the other factors that may also bring impact to system development

practice. Factors such as the size of a project and project complexity may have playedinfluential roles in the survey results used for testifying the hypotheses.

7. Im plication for further research

From nine hypotheses drawn in this paper, two are left unevaluated and three

remains unsolved and are suggested for further research. The m ain issue faced by this

research is the lack of data available for testifying the developed hypotheses. In his book,

Geert Hofstede comes out with culture scores allocated for 74 countries around the world;

however, there is no similar amount of information made available in the current academic

literature that specifies the world practice of development methodologies. Such information

will not only be useful for testifying the hypotheses developed, but will also be a significant

contribution to all related researches conducted in the future.

8. Conclusion

Although there are some questions that are still left unsolved in this paper, the

conducted research has shown a significant role played culture in software development

practice. Certain type / dimension of culture will bring impacts to how well an organization

will adopt a certain practice of development methodology; some organization may accept a

development practice much better than the others. Project practitioners are recommended to

pay a high regard on organization culture before m aking any decisions regarding to

development methodologies. There are som e hypotheses that are left un-testified by the end

of this paper; a more complete of information on global system development practice will bevery helpful for research in the future.


19/21

19

Reference

i) Ambler, S.W . (2002). Agile M odeling. http://www.agilemodeling.com /essays

/costOfChange.htm. Date accessed 13 September 2008.

ii) Abraham sson, P., Salo, O., Ronkainen, J. and Juhani W arsta (2002). Agile Software

Development M ethods Review ad Analysis. VTT. Finland.

http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2002/P478.pdf.Date accessed: 4 September

2008.

iii) Arora, A. and Jai Asundi (1999). Quality Certification and the Economics of Contract

Software Development: A Study of the Indian Software Industry.

http://www.inomics.com/cgi/repec?handle=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:7260Date accessed:

4 September 2008.

iv) Arora, A., Arunachalam, V.S., Asundi, J. and Ronald Fernandes (2001). The Indian

Software Services Industry.Research Policy. 30, 8, pp. 1267-1287.

v) Avison, D. and Fitzgerald, G. (2006). Information Systems Development

M ethodologies, techniques and tools. 4th Ed. M c G raw Hill. Berkshire.

vi) Charvat, J., (2003a), Chapter 1: Understanding project methodologies, ProjectManagement Methodologies, Wiley: New Jersey, pp.1-29

vii) Charvat, J., (2003b). Chapter 4: Development M ethodology selection and utilization,

Project M anagement Methodologies, W iley: New Jersey, pp.102-103.

viii) Chatzoglou, P.D., (1997). Use of methodologies: An empirical analysis of their

impact on the economics of the development process. European Journal ofInformation Systems. 6. pp.256-270

ix) Cusumano, M ., M acCormack, A., Kemerer, C.F. and Bill Crandall (2003). Software

Development W orldwide: The State of the Practice. IEEE Software. 20. 6. pp. 28-34.

x) Fitzgerald, B. (1997). The Use of Systems Development M ethodologies in Practice: A

Field Study.Information Systems Journal, 7, 3, pp. 201-212.

xi) Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N.L. and Erik Stolterman (2002). Information System

Development: M ethods in Action. M c Graw Hill. Berkshire.

xii) Gorlenko, L. (2006). The Moment of Truth: How Much Does Culture Matter to

You?Interactions. 13, 2, pp. 29-31.

xiii) Hiusman, M., and Iivari, J., (2002), The organisational deployment of systemsdevelopment methodologies, in M. Kirikova, W. Wojjtkowski, S. Wrycza, and J.

Zupancic, (Eds), Information Systems Development: Advances in Methodologies,
http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays%20/costOfChange.htmhttp://www.agilemodeling.com/essays%20/costOfChange.htmhttp://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2002/P478.pdfhttp://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2002/P478.pdfhttp://www.inomics.com/cgi/repec?handle=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:7260http://www.inomics.com/cgi/repec?handle=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:7260http://www.inomics.com/cgi/repec?handle=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:7260http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/publications/2002/P478.pdfhttp://www.agilemodeling.com/essays%20/costOfChange.htmhttp://www.agilemodeling.com/essays%20/costOfChange.htm


20/21

20

Components, and Management, KluwerAcademic/Plenum Publishers: New York,

pp.87-100

xiv) Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organizations Software of the M ind. M c Graw Hill.

Berkshire.

xv) Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors,

Institutions and O rganizations Across Nations. 2ndEd. Sage Publications. California

xvi) M acgregor, E., Hsieh, Y. and Kruchten, P. (2005). Patterns in Software Process

M ishaps:Incidents in Global Projects.ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering N otes.30(4).

xvii) M oitra, D. (2001). Indias Software Industry.IEEE Software. 18, 1, pp. 77-80

xviii)Myers, M. D. and Tan, F. B. 2003. Beyond models of national culture in

information systems research. In Advanced Topics in Global information

Management. IGI Publishing, Hershey, PA. http://www.igi-

pub.com/downloads/excerpts/Szewczak Excerpt.pdf Date accessed 13 September2008.

xix) Narayanaswamy, R. and Raymond M . Henry (2005). Effects of culture on control

mechanisms in offshore outsourced IT projects.Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGM IS

CPR conference on Computer personnel research. pp. 139-145.

xx) Nawaz, A. and Kashif M asood M alik (2008). Software Testing Process in Agile

Developm ent. M aster Thesis. http://www.bth.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/249945527

e869a47c125746c0002f4e1/$file/Software_Testing_Process_in_Agile_D evelopment.p

dfDate accessed: 2 N ovember 2008.

xxi) Olson, J.S. and G ary M . Olson. (2003). Culture Surprises in Remote Software

Developm ent Teams.Queue. 1, 9, pp. 52-59.

xxii) Ratzmann, M . and Clinton D e Young (2003). Software Testing and Internalization.

Galileo Press GmbH . http://wise.vub.ac.be/Members/mushtaha/PhD/phd-

activity/GalileoSoftwareTesting.pdfDate accessed 13 September 2008.

xxiii)Ryu, Sungmin and N ermin Eyuboglu (2003). The Influence of Long-Term Orientation

Culture on Channel Relationships: The Korean Case.The H awaii International Conference

on Business, Honolulu.

http://www.hicbusiness.org/biz2003proceedings/Sungmin% 20Ryu. pdf Dateaccessed 13 September 2008.

xxiv)Turbit, N. (2005),Project M anagement & Software Development M ethodology, The Project

Perfect W hite Paper collection.
http://www.igi-pub.com/downloads/excerpts/Szewczak%20Excerpt.pdfhttp://www.igi-pub.com/downloads/excerpts/Szewczak%20Excerpt.pdfhttp://www.bth.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/249945527%20e869a47c125746c0002f4e1/$file/Software_Testing_Process_in_Agile_Development.pdfhttp://www.bth.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/249945527%20e869a47c125746c0002f4e1/$file/Software_Testing_Process_in_Agile_Development.pdfhttp://www.bth.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/249945527%20e869a47c125746c0002f4e1/$file/Software_Testing_Process_in_Agile_Development.pdfhttp://wise.vub.ac.be/Members/mushtaha/PhD/phd-activity/GalileoSoftwareTesting.pdfhttp://wise.vub.ac.be/Members/mushtaha/PhD/phd-activity/GalileoSoftwareTesting.pdfhttp://wise.vub.ac.be/Members/mushtaha/PhD/phd-activity/GalileoSoftwareTesting.pdfhttp://www.hicbusiness.org/biz2003proceedings/Sungmin%20Ryu.%20pdfhttp://www.hicbusiness.org/biz2003proceedings/Sungmin%20Ryu.%20pdfhttp://www.hicbusiness.org/biz2003proceedings/Sungmin%20Ryu.%20pdfhttp://wise.vub.ac.be/Members/mushtaha/PhD/phd-activity/GalileoSoftwareTesting.pdfhttp://wise.vub.ac.be/Members/mushtaha/PhD/phd-activity/GalileoSoftwareTesting.pdfhttp://www.bth.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/249945527%20e869a47c125746c0002f4e1/$file/Software_Testing_Process_in_Agile_Development.pdfhttp://www.bth.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/249945527%20e869a47c125746c0002f4e1/$file/Software_Testing_Process_in_Agile_Development.pdfhttp://www.bth.se/fou/cuppsats.nsf/all/249945527%20e869a47c125746c0002f4e1/$file/Software_Testing_Process_in_Agile_Development.pdfhttp://www.igi-pub.com/downloads/excerpts/Szewczak%20Excerpt.pdfhttp://www.igi-pub.com/downloads/excerpts/Szewczak%20Excerpt.pdf


21/21

xxv) W alsham, G. (2004). Cross-Cultural Issues in Global Software Outsourcing.

http://www.almaden.ibm .com /institute/pdf/2004/Geoff_W alsham_1.pdf Date

accessed: 2 O ctober 2008.
http://www.almaden.ibm.com/institute/pdf/2004/Geoff_Walsham_1.pdfhttp://www.almaden.ibm.com/institute/pdf/2004/Geoff_Walsham_1.pdfhttp://www.almaden.ibm.com/institute/pdf/2004/Geoff_Walsham_1.pdf

Documents

The Impacts of Culture on System Development Methodology in Practice