Five Agile Factors: Helping Self­‐Management to Self‐Reflect

  • Published on
    23-Jan-2015

  • View
    569

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Slides for the "Five Agile Factors: Helping SelfManagement to SelfReflect" paper presented at EuroSPI'11 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/v05305v384k388v4/)

Transcript

<ul><li> 1. Five Agile Factors Helping Self-Management to Self-Reect EuroSPI 2011, Roskilde, Denmark Christoph J. Stettina (stettina@liacs.nl)Werner Heijstek (heijstek@liacs.nl)This research has been kindly supported by the EDAFMIS project Leiden University. The university to discover. </li></ul> <p> 2. Contents lIntroduc*on lObjec*ves lRelated work lMethodology lResults lDiscussion Leiden University. The university to discover. 3. IntroducKon Agile collaboraKve self-managing teams lHigh-produc*vity (Guzzo and Dickson, 1996) lIncreased problem solving (Tata and Prasad,1996) lRedundancy and backup behavior (Salas et al. 2005) But, self-management is dicult 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. 4. 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. 5. ObjecKves To what extent can we use the ndings of Moe et al. (2009) to measure self-management in order to support reec@on in agile teams? lQuan*ta*ve: anonymous and easy to deploy lTest alignment to original research lProvide feedback for the team lCreate awareness Strengthen agile teams Leiden University. The university to discover. 6. Methodology QuanKtaKve quesKonnaire: team data QualitaKve interviews: project environment 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 dened 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-workers work Redundancy l I feel it is easy to complete someone elses 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 Leiden University. The university to discover. 7. Methodology: Data CollecKon ParKcipant and team idenKcaKon: l SNS, Google Groups, SlideShare, Flickr, etc. l Ac:vely involved in Scrum at collec:on :me lUnique IDs to iden:fy team results Leiden University. The university to discover. 8. Data: 79 individuals, 13 countries, 8 teams ExperienceCountry (in years)Roles Leiden University. The university to discover. 9. 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. 10. Results: Team Sample Leiden University. The university to discover. 11. Results: Team Factors Learning: HighAutonomy: Low Leiden University. The university to discover. 12. Results: Team Agreement T1 (UK) &amp; T7 (IN): Both collocated teams Max agreement T4 (NO) &amp; T8 (NZ): Diversified teams with different roles Max disagreement Leiden University. The university to discover. 13. 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 reect on agile values BUT: Correlates to team consistency Leiden University. The university to discover. 14. Results: Global Sample All 79 par*cipants Agile Factors l Low Autonomy l No signicant dierence among other factors on a global level Leiden University. The university to discover. 15. 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. 16. 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 (Fgri et al. 2010) Autonomy l One project at a *me (Moe et al. 2009) Leiden University. The university to discover. 17. Validity &amp; Future Work Validity ConsideraKons lConsistency of data Likert scales lLow amount of data Team agreement lSocially Desirable Responding Anonymity Future Work lDedicated tool l7 point Likert scales for more details lImproved ques*ons for Learning lFurther tes*ng with a small student team Leiden University. The university to discover. 18. Conclusions To what extent can we use the ndings of Moe et al. (2009) to measure self-management in order to support reec@on in agile teams? l Qualita*ve Framework Quan*ta*ve Tool l Par*al consistency with original ndings 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. 19. QuesKons? Thank you for your agen*on! steina@liacs.nl Leiden University. The university to discover. 20. References Fgri, T.E., Dyba, T., Dingsyr, T.: Introducing knowledge redundancy prac*ce in sokware development: Experiences with job rota*on in support work. Inf. Sokw. Technol. 52, 11181132 (2010) Guzzo, R.A., Dickson, M.W.: Teams in organiza*ons: Recent research on performance and eec*veness. Annual Review of Psychology 47(1), 307338 (1996) Moe, N., Dingsyr, T., Ryrvik, 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. 114123. Springer, Heidelberg (2009) Moe, N., Dingsyr, T., Dyba, T.: Overcoming barriers to self-management in sokware teams. IEEE Sokware 26, 2026 (2009) Moe, N.B., Dingsyr, T., Dyba, T.: A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a scrum project. Inf. Sokw. Technol. 52, 480491 (2010) Salas, E., Sims, D., Burke, C.: Is there a big ve in teamwork? Small Group Research 36(5), 555599 (2005) Tata, J., Prasad, S.: Team Self-Management, Organiza*onal Structure and Judgments of Team Eec*veness. Journal of Managerial Issues 16(2), 248+ (2004) Leiden University. The university to discover. 21. Results: Global Sample Leiden University. The university to discover. </p>

Recommended

View more >