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
Published in:
Strategic and Organizational Insights into Learning and Innovation in Hybrids and “New” Organizations Read chapter Read first chapter

2018 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

5. Investigating the Impact of Agile Methods on Learning and Innovation

Authors : Maria Carmela Annosi, Jens Hemphälä, Federica Brunetta

Published in: Learning and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In a turbulent environment, increased flexibility and efficiency are essential for most firms to survive. Many organizations have responded to the need for greater efficiency and productivity by building more Agile structures and shifting to the implementation of Agile software (SW) methodologies. Although the adoption of Agile methodologies is becoming widespread, robust empirical evidence on their effectiveness is lacking as is evidence of the improvements brought by Agile compared to other methods. This chapter provides empirical evidence on the impact of Agile on organizational product and process innovation and learning. Authors investigate the following research question:  How does use of Agile methods impact on product and process related innovation and learning in teams? While the relationship between the investment in knowledge and innovation output has been studied extensively, little work focuses on the role of Agile in growing the organization’s knowledge base through team learning. The data collected include traditional R&D innovation indicators and also in-depth measures of organizational performance and overall team outcomes, which allow us to study not only the extent to which Agile impacts on the firm’s innovation and learning performance but also the dynamic team learning process.  

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

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
previous chapter Collaborative Spaces and Coworking as Hybrid Workspaces: Friends or Foes of Learning and Innovation?
next chapter The Role of Networks for Innovation in Temporary and Project-Based Organizations
Literature
Abrahamsson, P., Conboy, K., & Wang, X. (2009). “Lots done, more to do”: The current state of Agile systems development research. European Journal of Information Systems, 18.
Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10, 43–68.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20, 696–717.CrossRef
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2010). Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long Range Planning, 43, 104–122.CrossRef
Argyris, C. (1982). Action science and organizational learning. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10(6), 20–26.CrossRef
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron age: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408–437.CrossRef
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47,676–706.CrossRef
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110,349–399.CrossRef
Callois, J. (2008). The two sides of proximity in industrial clusters: The trade-off between process and product innovation. Journal of Urban Economics, 63, 146–162.CrossRef
Cantarello, S., Martini, A., & Nosella, A. (2012). A multi-level model for organizational ambidexterity in the search phase of the innovation process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(1), 28–48.CrossRef
Chen, Y. S., Lin, M. J. J., & Chang, C. H. (2009). The positive effects of relationship learning and absorptive capacity on innovation performance and competitive advantage in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(2), 152–158.CrossRef
Cheng, C. C., & Krumwiede, D. (2010). The effects of market orientation and service innovation on service industry performance: An empirical study. Operations Management Research, 3(3–4), 1–11.
Chin, G. (2004). Agile project management: How to succeed in the face of changing project requirements. New York, NY: American Management Association.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Christensen, C., Cook, S., & Hall, T. (2005). Marketing malpractice. Harvard Business Review, 12, 74–83.
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.CrossRef
Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., & Moe, N. B. (2012). A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development. Journal of System and Software.
Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: a systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50, 833–859.CrossRef
Edmondson, A., & Moingeon, B. (1998). From organizational learning to the learning organization. Management Learning, 29(1), 5–20.CrossRef
Ellis, H. C. (1965). The Transfer of learning. Oxford: Macmillan.
Fang, E. (2008). Customer participation and the trade-off between new product innovativeness and speed to market. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 90–104.CrossRef
Flumerfelt, S., Siriban-Manalang, A. B., & Kahlen, F. J. (2012). Are agile and lean manufacturing systems employing sustainability, complexity and organizational learning? The Learning Organization, 19(3), 238–247.CrossRef
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.CrossRef
Gittel, J. H. (2002). Coordinating mechanisms in care provider groups: Relational coordination as a mediator and input uncertainty as a moderator of performance effects. Management Science, 48, 1408–1426.CrossRef
Hammond, J. S., West, D., Gilpin, M., & Silva, D. (2010). The forrester wave™: Agile development management tools, Q2. Forrester Report May.
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.CrossRef
Hemphälä, J., & Magnusson, M. (2012). Networks for innovation—But what networks and what innovation? Creativity and Innovation Management, 21, 3–16.
Highsmith, J. A. (2002). Agile software development ecosystems (Vol. 13). Indianapolis, IN: Addison-Wesley Professional.  
Highsmith, J. (2004). Agile project management: Creating innovative projects. Boston: Pearson Education.
Kim, W. C., & Renee, M. (1997). Value innovation. Harvard Business Review, (1).
Klepper, S. (1996). Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. The American Economic Review, 562–583.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.CrossRef
Kuhl, J., & Goschke, T. (1994). A Theory of action control: Mental subsystem, modes of control, and volitional conflict-resolution strategies. Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation, Hogrefe & Huber, 5, 93–124.
Laanti, M., Salo, O., & Abrahamsson, P. (2011). Agile methods rapidly replacing traditional methods at Nokia: A survey of opinions on agile transformation. Information and Software Technology, 53, 276–290.CrossRef
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 319–340.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.CrossRef
McAvoy, J., & Butler, T. (2007). The impact of the Abilene Paradox on double-loop learning in an Agile team. Information and Software Technology, 49(6), 552–563.CrossRef
McCarthy, I. P., & Brian, R. G. (2011). Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organization: A management control system approach. R&D Management, 41(3), 240–258.CrossRef
Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Nerur, S., & Balijepally, V. (2007). Theoretical reflections on agile development methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 50, 79–83.CrossRef
Nonaka, I. (1988). Toward middle-up-down management: Accelerating information creation. Sloan Management Review, 29(3), 9–18.
Nonaka, I. (1990). Redundant, overlapping organization: A Japanese approach to managing the innovation process. California Management Review, 32(3), 27–38.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization science, 5(1), 14–37.
O’Reilly 3rd, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard business review, 82(4), 74–81.
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20, 685–695.CrossRef
Ramesh, B., Kannan, M., & Lan, C. (2012). Ambidexterity in agile distributed development: An empirical investigation. Information System Research, 23(2), 323–339.CrossRef
Schwaber, K., Laganza, G., & D’Silva, D. (2007). The truth about agile processes: Frank answers to frequently asked questions. Forrester Report.
Senapathi, M., & Anant, S. (2012). Understanding post-adoptive agile usage: An exploratory cross-case analysis. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1255–1268.CrossRef
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.
Shaw, R. B., & Perkins, D. N. T. (1992). Teaching organization to lead: The power of productive failures. In D. A. Nadler, M. S.Gerstein, & R. B.Shaw (Eds.), Organizational architecture (pp. 175–191). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentrlized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14, 650–669.CrossRef
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(July), 63–74.CrossRef
Smith, W., & Tushman, M. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 522–536.CrossRef
Teece, D., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–556.CrossRef
Tushman, M., & Reill, C. (1996). Organizations. California Management Review, 38, 4.CrossRef
Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). The episodic process of learning by using. International Journal of Technology Management, 11, 790–798.
Utterback, J. M., & Abernathy, W. J. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3(6), 639–656.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Investigating the Impact of Agile Methods on Learning and Innovation
Authors
Maria Carmela Annosi
Jens Hemphälä
Federica Brunetta
Copyright Year
2018
Book
Learning and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62466-2

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-62467-9

Copyright Year: 2018

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62467-9_5