Leiden University. The university to discover. Leiden University. The university to discover.
Christoph J. Stettina ([email protected]) Werner Heijstek ([email protected])
Five Agile Factors Helping Self-‐Management to Self-‐Reflect EuroSPI 2011, Roskilde, Denmark
This research has been kindly supported by the EDAFMIS project
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Contents
l Introduc*on l Objec*ves l Related work l Methodology l Results l Discussion
Leiden University. The university to discover.
IntroducKon
Agile collaboraKve self-‐managing teams
l High-‐produc*vity (Guzzo and Dickson, 1996) l Increased problem solving (Tata and Prasad,1996) l Redundancy and backup behavior (Salas et al. 2005)
But, self-‐management is difficult to implement
l Human and social factors (Moe et al. 2009, 2010) l Company cultures, context dependency l Greater exposure, impression management → Awareness necessary
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Related Work
Five dimensions of agile teamwork (Moe et al.,2009)
l Shared Leadership Shared mental model and decision authority, transfer of leadership l Team Orienta*on Team cohesion, team goals over individual goals l Redundancy Avoids bottlenecks, shift workloads, mutual assistance l Learning Interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition, self-optimization in environment l Autonomy External influences, low: encourage group think
Qualita*ve framework build on theore*cal and empirical ground of ac*on research studies
Leiden University. The university to discover.
ObjecKves
To what extent can we use the findings of Moe et al. (2009) to measure self-‐management in order to support reflec@on in agile teams?
l Quan*ta*ve: anonymous and easy to deploy l Test alignment to original research l Provide feedback for the team l Create awareness
→ Strengthen agile teams
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Methodology
Shared Leadership – Team OrientaKon – Redundancy – Learning -‐ Autonomy l I feel everyone is involved in the decision-‐making process l I feel team members make important decisions without consul:ng other team
members l I feel the team vision is well defined and presented l I feel the team is designed (and redesigned) according to its purpose Team Orienta@on l I feel the team takes into account alterna:ve sugges:ons in team discussions l I feel the team values alterna:ve sugges:ons l I feel team members relate to the tasks of individuals l I regularly comment on a co-‐worker's work Redundancy l I feel it is easy to complete someone else's task l I feel I get help if I get stuck l I help others when they have problems l I feel it is easy to subs:tute a person if someone leaves the team# Learning I feel the team keeps what works well in the development process I feel the team improves the development method when so@ware development problems are iden:fied I feel the team gives feedback on all aspects of each others work {Autonomy I feel the team looses resources to other projects I feel people and groups outside the team have influence over important opera:onal decisions in the project I feel decisions made by the team are respected by people and groups outside the team
QuanKtaKve quesKonnaire: team data QualitaKve interviews: project environment
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Methodology: Data CollecKon
ParKcipant and team idenKficaKon: l SNS, Google Groups, SlideShare, Flickr, etc. l Ac:vely involved in Scrum at collec:on :me
l Unique IDs to iden:fy team results
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Roles
Data: 79 individuals, 13 countries, 8 teams
Experience (in years) Country
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Results: Team Sample
T1 (UK) MMO Game back-‐end T2 (US) Collabora*ve SW for construc*on T3 (UK) Digital media agency T4 (NO) Smart Card key solu*ons T5 (NL) Corporate sites and web shops T6 (SE) News guide, community website T7 (IN) E-‐commerce T8 (NZ) State insurance company → Representa*ve mul*na*onal sample
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Results: Team Sample
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Results: Team Factors
Learning: High Autonomy: Low
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Results: Team Agreement
T1 (UK) & T7 (IN): Both collocated teams → Max agreement
T4 (NO) & T8 (NZ): Diversified teams with different roles → Max disagreement
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Results: Team Sample
Agile Values l Low: Autonomy → consistent with Moe et al. l High: Learning → not consistent Team Agreement l Most: Autonomy, Team Orienta*on l Least: Redundancy, Shared Leadership
→ Does not reflect on agile values BUT: Correlates to team consistency
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Results: Global Sample
All 79 par*cipants Agile Factors l Low Autonomy l No significant difference among other factors on a global level
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Discussion
Results l Low Autonomy → consistent with Moe et al. l Individual, Team and Organiza*onal level l Context dependency of agile implementa*ons
Tool l Ques*onnaire met with interest (79/150) l Should be executed on team ini*a*ve, not to be used by organiza*onal control
Leiden University. The university to discover.
RecommendaKons
Shared Leadership l Share decision authority Team OrientaKon l Culture of trust Redundancy l Job rota*on, team colloca*on Learning l Apprecia*on of generalists (Fægri et al. 2010)
Autonomy l “One project at a *me” (Moe et al. 2009)
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Validity & Future Work
Validity ConsideraKons
l Consistency of data → Likert scales l Low amount of data → Team agreement l Socially Desirable Responding → Anonymity
Future Work
l Dedicated tool l 7 point Likert scales for more details l Improved ques*ons for Learning l Further tes*ng with a small student team
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Conclusions
To what extent can we use the findings of Moe et al. (2009) to measure self-‐management in order to support reflec@on in agile teams?
l Qualita*ve Framework → Quan*ta*ve Tool l Par*al consistency with original findings l Introduced a measure for team agreement l Found as a useful tool to improve discussion l Recommenda*ons to prac*ce
Leiden University. The university to discover.
QuesKons?
Thank you for your agen*on! [email protected]
Leiden University. The university to discover.
References Fægri, T.E., Dyb˚a, T., Dingsøyr, T.: Introducing knowledge redundancy prac*ce in sokware development: Experiences with job rota*on in support work. Inf. Sokw. Technol. 52, 1118–1132 (2010) Guzzo, R.A., Dickson, M.W.: Teams in organiza*ons: Recent research on performance and effec*veness. Annual Review of Psychology 47(1), 307–338 (1996) Moe, N., Dingsøyr, T., Røyrvik, E.: Pupng agile teamwork to the test – an preliminary instrument for empirically assessing and improving agile sokware development. In: Abrahamsson, P., Marchesi, M., Maurer, F. (eds.) Agile Processes in Sokware Engineering and Extreme Programming. LNBIP, vol. 31, pp. 114–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) Moe, N., Dingsøyr, T., Dyba, T.: Overcoming barriers to self-‐management in sokware teams. IEEE Sokware 26, 20–26 (2009) Moe, N.B., Dingsøyr, T., Dyba, T.: A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a scrum project. Inf. Sokw. Technol. 52, 480–491 (2010) Salas, E., Sims, D., Burke, C.: Is there a big five in teamwork? Small Group Research 36(5), 555–599 (2005) Tata, J., Prasad, S.: Team Self-‐Management, Organiza*onal Structure and Judgments of Team Effec*veness. Journal of Managerial Issues 16(2), 248+ (2004)
Leiden University. The university to discover.
Results: Global Sample