Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Business & Information Systems Engineering
Published in: Business & Information Systems Engineering 5/2017

14-06-2017 | Research Paper

Do Reflexive Software Development Teams Perform Better?

Author: Prof. Adarsh Kumar Kakar

Published in: Business & Information Systems Engineering | Issue 5/2017

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Reflexivity, the extent to which teams reflect upon and modify their functioning, is widely recognized as a key factor influencing performance of work teams. The paper proposes that outcome interdependence, defined as the extent to which team members perceive that attainment of goals by their colleagues will facilitate their own goal achievement, will moderate the effect of team reflexivity on its performance. An empirical study with 332 team members of 34 software projects reveals that as predicted team reflexivity and outcome interdependence have both synergistic and antagonistic impacts on team performance. While high outcome interdependence magnified the positive impacts of team reflexivity on its effectiveness, an increase in team reflexivity at low outcome interdependence had a deleterious impact. However, an opposite effect was observed for team efficiency. Further, agile teams demonstrated higher outcome interdependence and team reflexivity, and thereby higher effectiveness, but lower efficiency, compared to teams adopting plan-drive methods of software development. Finally, in general, agile software development projects performed better than plan driven projects for innovative software development, while projects adopting plan-driven methods performed better than agile projects for routine software development.
previous article Methodology and Tool Support for Adaptive Idea Exploitation in Open Innovation
next article Towards a User-Centered Feedback Design for Smart Meter Interfaces to Support Efficient Energy-Use Choices

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Show more products
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
Aiken L, West S (1991) Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Babbage C (1835) On the economy of machinery and manufacturing. Knight, London
Beck K (1999) Extreme programming explained: embrace change, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston
Boehm B (2002) Get ready for agile methods, with care. Comput 35(1):64–69CrossRef
Boehm B, Turner R (2004) Balancing agility and discipline: evaluating and integrating agile and plan-driven methods. In: Proceedings 26th international conference on software engineering (ICSE 2004), pp 718–719
Brodbeck FC (1994) Intensive Kommunikation lohnt sich für SE-Projekte. In: Brodbeck FC, Frese M (eds) Produktivität und Qualität in Software-Projekten. Oldenbourg, München, pp 51–67
Burns T, Stalker GM (1961) The management of innovation. Tavistock, London
Campbell JP, Pritchard RD (1976) Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In: Dunnette MD (ed) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Rand McNally, Chicago
Campion MA, Medsker GJ, Higgs AC (1993) Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Pers Psychol 46:823–850CrossRef
Capretz L (2003) Personality types in software engineering. Int J Hum Comput Stud 58(2):207–214CrossRef
Cohen J (1978) Partialled products are interactions: partialled powers are curve components. Psychol Bull 85:858–866CrossRef
Conboy K, Fitzgerald B (2004) Toward a conceptual framework of agile methods: a study of agility in different disciplines. In: Proceedings of XP/Agile Universe, Springer
Cortina JM (1993) Interaction, nonlinearity, and multicollinearity: implications for multiple regression. J Manag 19(4):915–922
Cummins RA, Gullone E (2000) The case for subjective quality of life measurement. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on quality of life in cities, pp 74–93
De Dreu C (2002) Team innovation and team effectiveness: the importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. Europ J Work Organ Psychol 3:285–298CrossRef
Deutsch M (1949) An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group process. Hum Relat 2:199–231CrossRef
Deutsch M (1973) The resolution of conflict: constructive and destructive processes. Yale University Press, New Haven
Deutsch M (1980) Fifty years of conflict. In: Festinger L (ed) Retrospections on social psychology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 46–77
Dingsøyr T, Nerur S, Balijepally V, Moe NB (2012) A decade of agile methodologies: towards explaining agile software development. J Syst Softw 85(6):1213–1221CrossRef
Duncan RB (1976) The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation. In: Kilmann RH, Pondy LR, Slevin D (eds) The management of organization. North-Holland, New York, pp 167–188
Dunlap WP, Kemery ER (1987) Failure to detect moderating effects: is multicollinearity the problem? Psychol Bull 102:418–420CrossRef
Faix WG, Laier A (1996) Soziale Kompetenz: Wettbewerbsfaktor der Zukunft, 2nd edn. Gabler, WiesbadenCrossRef
Flor N (1998) Side-by-side collaboration: a case study. Int J Hum Comput Stud 49:201–222CrossRef
Fraser R (1947) The incidence of neurosis among factory workers. Report No. 90, Industrial Health Research Board, HMSO, London
Gersick CJ, Hackman JR (1990) Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 47:65–97CrossRef
Grant AM, Parker SK (2009) Redesigning work design theories: the rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Acad Manag Ann 3(1):317–375CrossRef
Guzzo RA (1986) Group decision making and group effectiveness in organizations. In: Goodman P (ed) Designing effective work groups. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Hackman JR (1987) The design of work teams. In: Lorsch JW (ed) Handbook of organizational behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 67–102
Hair JF Jr, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2006) Multivariate data analysis, 6th edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey
He Z, Wong P (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ Sci 15(4):481–494CrossRef
Hirokawa RY (1990) The role of communication in group decision-making efficacy: a task-contigency perspective. Small Group Res 21:190–204CrossRef
Hirst G, Mann L, Bain P, Pirola-Merlo A, Richter A (2004) Learning to lead: the development and testing of a model of leadership learning. Leadersh Q 15:311–327CrossRef
Hislop GW, Lutz MJ, Naveda JF, McCracken WM, Mead NR, Williams LA (2002) Integrating agile practices into software engineering courses. Comput Sci Educ 12(39):169–185CrossRef
Hoegl M, Gemuenden H (2001) Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organ Sci 12(4):435–449CrossRef
Hoegl M, Parboteeah KP (2006) Team reflexivity in innovative projects. R&D Manag 36(2):113–125CrossRef
Jackson SE (1989) Does job control control job stress? In: Sauter SL, Hurrell JJ Jr, Cooper CL (eds) Job control and worker health. Wiley, Chichester
Jansen JJ, Van Den Bosch FA, Volberda HW (2005) Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: how do organizational antecedents matter? Acad Manag J 48(6):999–1015CrossRef
Jessop B (2002) Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance. Antelope 34:105–125
Johnson DW, Johnson RT (1989) Cooperation and competition: theory and research. Edina, MN Interaction Book
Johnson DW, Johnson RT (2005) New developments in social interdependence theory. Genet Soc Gen Psychol Monogr 134(4):285–358CrossRef
Johnson DW, Maruyama G, Nelson D, Skon S (1981) Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 89:47–62CrossRef
Kakar AK (2014) Teaching theories underlying agile methods in a systems development course. In: 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp 4970–4978
Locke EA, Latham GP (1990) A theory of goal-setting and task performance. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Loureiro-Koechlin C (2008) A theoretical framework for a structuration model of social issues in software development in information systems. Syst Res Behav Sci 25(1):99–109CrossRef
Melnik G, Maurer F (2006) Comparative analysis of job satisfaction in agile and non-agile software development teams. In: International conference on extreme programming and agile processes in software engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 32–42CrossRef
Nerur S, Mahapatra R, Mangalaraj G (2005) Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies. Commun ACM 48(5):72–78CrossRef
O’Reilly CA III, Tushman ML (2004) The ambidextrous organization. Harv Bus Rev 82(4):74–81
Osterman P (2000) Work reorganization in an era of restructuring: trends in diffusion and effects on employee welfare. Ind Labor Relat Rev 53:179–196CrossRef
Parker SK (1998) Role breadth self-efficacy: relationship with work enrichment and other organizational practices. J Appl Psychol 83:835–852CrossRef
Parker SK, Wall T (1998) Job and work design: organizing work to promote well-being and effectiveness. Sage, London
Parker SK, Wall TD, Cordery J (2001) Future work design research and practice: towards an elaborated model of work design. J Occup Organ Psychol 74:413–440CrossRef
Petre M (2004) Team coordination through externalised mental imagery. Int J Hum Comput Stud 61(2):205–218CrossRef
Royce WW (1970) Managing the development of large software systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE WESTCON, p 8
Royce WW (1987) Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. In: ICSE, pp 328–339
Saavedra R, Earley PC, Van Dyne L (1993) Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. J Appl Psychol 78:61–72CrossRef
Schwaber K (1997) Scrum development process. In: Business object design and implementation. Springer, London, pp 117–134CrossRef
Schwenk CR (1988) The essence of strategic decision making. Lexington, DC Heath
Sicotte H, Langley A (2000) Integration mechanisms and R&D project performance. J Eng Technol Manag 17:1–37CrossRef
Smith A (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Strahan and Cadell, LondonCrossRef
Steiner ID (1966) Models for inferring relationships between group size and potential group productivity. Behav Sci 11:273–283CrossRef
Stevens MJ, Campion MA (1994) The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: implications for human resource management. J Manag 20(2):503–530
Stone EF, Hollenbeck JR (1989) CIarifying some controversial issues surrounding statistical procedures for detecting moderator variables: empirical evidence and related matters. J Appl Psychol 74:3–10CrossRef
Taylor FW (1911) The principles of scientific management. Harper, New York
Tesluk PE, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ, Marks MA (1997) Task and aggregation issues in the analysis and assessment of team performance. In: Brannick MT, Salas E, Prince C (eds) Team performance and measurement: theory, methods, and applications. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 197–224
Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill, New York
Tjosvold D, Deemer DK (1980) Effects of controversy within a cooperative or competitive context on organizational decision making. J Appl Psychol 65:590–595CrossRef
Tjosvold D, Andrews IR, Struthers JT (1991) Power and interdependence in work groups. Group Organ Stud 16:285–299CrossRef
Trist E (1981) The evolution of socio-technical systems. Occasional paper
Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA III (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manag Rev 38(4):8–30CrossRef
Van De Ven AH, Delbecq AL, Koenig RJ (1976) Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. Am Soc Rev 41(2):322–338CrossRef
Van der Vegt GS, Emans BJM, Van de Vliert E (1998) Motivating effects of task and outcome interdependence in work teams. Group Organ Manag 23:12–144
Vinekar V, Slinkman CW, Nerur S (2006) Can agile and traditional systems development approaches coexist? An ambidextrous view. Inf Syst Manag 23(3):31–42CrossRef
Wageman R (1995) Interdependence and group effectiveness. Adm Sci Q 40:145–180CrossRef
Walker CR, Guest RH (1952) The man on the assembly line. Harv Univ Press, CambridgeCrossRef
Wall TD, Cordery JL, Clegg CW (2002) Empowerment, performance, and operational uncertainty: a theoretical integration. Appl Psychol 51:146–169CrossRef
West MA (1996) Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: a conceptual integration. In: West MA (ed) Handbook of work group psychology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 555–579
West MA (2000) Reflexivity, revolution and innovation in work teams. In: Beyerlein MM, Johnson DA, Beyerlein ST (eds) Product development teams, vol 5. JAI, Stamford, pp 1–29
Wright BM, Cordery JL (1999) Production uncertainty as a contextual moderator of employee reactions to job design. J Appl Psychol 84:456–463CrossRef
Zand DE (1981) Information, organization, and power: effective management in the knowledge society. McGraw-Hill, New York
Metadata
Title
Do Reflexive Software Development Teams Perform Better?
Author
Prof. Adarsh Kumar Kakar
Publication date
14-06-2017
Publisher
Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
Published in
Business & Information Systems Engineering / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 2363-7005
Electronic ISSN: 1867-0202
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0481-5

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

Business & Information Systems Engineering 5/2017 Go to the issue

Research Paper

Methodology and Tool Support for Adaptive Idea Exploitation in Open Innovation

Editorial

Responsible Data Science

Research Paper

A Multilevel Model of IT Platforms for the Needs of Enterprise IT Landscape Analyses

Research Paper

Towards a User-Centered Feedback Design for Smart Meter Interfaces to Support Efficient Energy-Use Choices

Catchword

Integration Platform as a Service

Premium Partner

    Image Credits