Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userHow do Globally Distributed Agile Teams Self-organise? Initial Insights from a Case Study
157
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Stephen MacDonell
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Agile software developers are required to self-organize, occupying various informal roles as needed in order to successfully deliver software features. However, previous research has reported conflicting evidence about the way teams actually undertake this activity. The ability to self-organize is particularly necessary for software development in globally distributed environments, where distance has been shown to exacerbate human-centric issues. Understanding the way successful teams self-organise should inform distributed team composition strategies and software project governance. We have used psycholinguistics to study the way IBM Rational Jazz practitioners enacted various roles, expressed attitudes and shared competencies to successfully self-organize in their global projects. Among our findings, we uncovered that practitioners enacted various roles depending on their teams cohort of features; and that team leaders were most critical to IBM Jazz teams self-organisation. We discuss these findings and highlight their implications for software project governance.
rate research
Read More
The ability to self-organise is posited to be a fundamental requirement for successful agile teams. In particular, self-organising teams are said to be crucial in agile globally distributed software development (AGSD) settings, where distance exacerbates team issues. We used contextual analysis to study the specific interaction behaviours and enacted roles of practitioners working in multiple AGSD teams. Our results show that the teams studied were extremely task focussed, and those who occupied team lead or programmer roles were central to their teams self-organisation. These findings have implications for AGSD teams, and particularly for instances when programmers - or those occupying similar non-leadership positions - may not be willing to accept such responsibilities. We discuss the implications of our findings for information system development (ISD) practice.
Motivation: How immature teams can become agile is a question that puzzles practitioners and researchers alike. Scrum is one method that supports agile working. Empirical research on the Scrum Master role remains scarce and reveals contradicting results. While the Scrum Master role is often centred on one person in rather immature teams, the role is expected to be shared among multiple members in mature teams. Objective: Therefore, we aim to understand how the Scrum Master role changes while the team matures. Method: We applied Grounded Theory and conducted qualitative interviews with 53 practitioners of 29 software and non-software project teams from Robert Bosch GmbH. Results: We discovered that Scrum Masters initially plays nine leadership roles which they transfer to the team while it matures. Roles can be transferred by providing a leadership gap, which allows team members to take on a leadership role, and by providing an internal team environment with communication on equal terms, psychological safety, transparency, shared understanding, shared purpose and self-efficacy. Conclusion: The Scrum Master role changes while the team matures. Trust and freedom to take over a leadership role in teams are essential enablers. Our results support practitioners in implementing agile teams in established companies.
Agile methods are predominantly focused on delivering business values. But can Agile methods be adapted to effectively address and deliver human values such as social justice, privacy, and sustainability in the software they produce? Human values are what an individual or a society considers important in life. Ignoring these human values in software can pose difficulties or risks for all stakeholders (e.g., user dissatisfaction, reputation damage, financial loss). To answer this question, we selected the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe), one of the most commonly used Agile methods in the industry, and conducted a qualitative case study to identify possible intervention points within SAFe that are the most natural to address and integrate human values in software. We present five high-level empirically-justified sets of interventions in SAFe: artefacts, roles, ceremonies, practices, and culture. We elaborate how some current Agile artefacts (e.g., user story), roles (e.g., product owner), ceremonies (e.g., stand-up meeting), and practices (e.g., business-facing testing) in SAFe can be modified to support the inclusion of human values in software. Further, our study suggests new and exclusive values-based artefacts (e.g., legislative requirement), ceremonies (e.g., values conversation), roles (e.g., values champion), and cultural practices (e.g., induction and hiring) to be introduced in SAFe for this purpose. Guided by our findings, we argue that existing Agile methods can account for human values in software delivery with some evolutionary adaptations.
Agile software teams are expected to follow a number of specific Team Practices (TPs) during each iteration, such as estimating the effort (points) required to complete user stories and coordinating the management of the codebase with the delivery of features. For software engineering instructors trying to teach such TPs to student teams, manually auditing teams if teams are following the TPs and improving over time is tedious, time-consuming and error-prone. It is even more difficult when those TPs involve two or more tools. For example, starting work on a feature in a project-management tool such as Pivotal Tracker should usually be followed relatively quickly by the creation of a feature branch on GitHub. Merging a feature branch on GitHub should usually be followed relatively quickly by deploying the new feature to a staging server for customer feedback. Few systems are designed specifically to audit such TPs, and existing ones, as far as we know, are limited to a single specific tool. We present Bluejay, an open-source extensible platform that uses the APIs of multiple tools to collect raw data, synthesize it into TP measurements, and present dashboards to audit the TPs. A key insight in Bluejays design is that TPs can be expressed in terminology similar to that used for modeling and auditing Service Level Agreement (SLA) compliance. Bluejay therefore builds on mature tools used in that ecosystem and adapts them for describing, auditing, and reporting on TPs. Bluejay currently consumes data from five different widely-used development tools, and can be customized by connecting it to any service with a REST API. Video showcase available at governify.io/showcase/bluejay
Eliciting scalability requirements during agile software development is complicated and poorly described in previous research. This article presents a lightweight artifact for eliciting scalability requirements during agile software development: the ScrumScale model. The ScrumScale model is a simple spreadsheet. The scalability concepts underlying the ScrumScale model are clarified in this design science research, which also utilizes coordination theory. This paper describes the open banking case study, where a legacy banking system becomes open. This challenges the scalability of this legacy system. The first step in understanding this challenge is to elicit the new scalability requirements. In the open banking case study, key stakeholders from TietoEVRY spent 55 hours eliciting TietoEVRYs open banking projects scalability requirements. According to TietoEVRY, the ScrumScale model provided a systematic way of producing scalability requirements. For TietoEVRY, the scalability concepts behind the ScrumScale model also offered significant advantages in dialogues with other stakeholders.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
