1 Background
RQ: How to quantitatively analyze the impact of AEA on GDAD communication and performance?
2 Theoretical background
Variable | Literature | Relevant Definitions/Concepts/Ideas |
---|---|---|
Agile Enterprise Architecture | Ambler 2014 | AEA should follow the strategy of “everyone owns the architecture” and be a team effort. AEA should use a minimum documentation and avoid big up-front design |
Bass et al. 2013 | System quality can be predicted based solely on an evaluation of its architecture | |
Gill 2013 | AEA is a blue print that the overall structural, technical, social, behavioral, and facility elements of an enterprise | |
Niemi & Pekkola 2015 | EA artefacts can be used as a communication medium in many situations | |
Ovaska et al. 2003 | The architecture represents an important communication tool and a coordination mechanism in multi-site development | |
Sauer (2010) | EA description can enhance communication in global software environment since EA can play as a common language among distributed developers | |
Smolander 2002 | Architecture can be assumed as a language metaphor such that architecture description about structures and solutions can be used as communication enabler between different stakeholders | |
Svensson et al. 2012 | Using architecture was perceived as delivering big amount of rich information in global sites and enhancing active communication by providing a common vocabulary among distributed teams | |
Communication Efficiency | Franke et al. 2010 | Efficiency concerns with short manufacturing times, cycle times, lead times and work times |
Herbsleb & Mockus 2003) | Splitting work across distributed sites slows the work down Communication efficiency can be enhanced by timely communication and right people to communicate with | |
Lee & Xia 2010 | Efficiency relates to the cost, time, resources and effort associated with software team responses | |
Melo et al. 2011 | Efficiency concerns with doing things right of any task, even if it is not important to the job, that meets all the standards of time, quality, etc. | |
Misra et al. 2009 | Fast communication is a success factor of GDAD practices Fast communication is hindered in larger team context | |
Communication Effectiveness | Bhalerao & Ingle 2010 | GDAD requires effective communication by adopting tools like teleconference and instant feedback from the customer |
Cannizzo et al. 2008 | Communication effectiveness concerns with minimum disruption, waiting time and misunderstanding to receive the message Communication effectiveness requires immediate feedback that reduces waiting time and helps team members to address problems | |
Dorairaj et al. 2011 | Communication effectiveness facilitates rapid knowledge transfer between teams, allows team members to understand customer’s requirements and helps team members perform development activities more efficiently Communication effectiveness can be increased by reducing the effect of communication challenges such as time-zone differences and language barrier, and increasing effective formal and informal communication | |
Herbsleb & Moitra 2003 | Communication effectiveness is defined as delivering a complete, adequate and accurate message Communication effectiveness requires more communication frequency and coordination between GDAD teams | |
Melo et al. 2011 | Effectiveness refers to doing the right things for the tasks that are important to the job, even if they are completed without meeting standards of time, quality, etc. | |
On-Time Completion | Chow & Cao 2008 | Delivering software project (system) on time |
Drury-Grogan 2014 | Refers to the scheduling of tasks and completion dates | |
Lee & Xia 2010 | The extent to which a software project meets its time baseline goals | |
Melo et al. 2011 | Refers to meeting datelines, overtime needed to complete the work, and other time related issues | |
On-Budget Completion | Chow & Cao 2008 | Delivering software project within estimated cost |
Lee & Xia 2010 | The extent to which a software project meets its cost baseline goals | |
Mahaney & Lederer 2006 | The extent to which a software project is completed within the estimated budget | |
Software Functionality | Chow & Cao 2008 | Meeting customer’s requirements and objectives |
Lee & Xia 2010 | The extent to which software project meets its functional goals, user needs and technical requirements | |
Mahaney & Lederer 2006 | meeting the technical goals of the software project | |
Software Quality | Bartelt & Dennis 2014 | Different communication tools (e.g., IM and forum) result in significant different decision quality and team outcome |
Chow & Cao 2008 | Delivering good product or project | |
Conboy & Fitzgerald 2004 | Achieving high standards of the software, supporting documentation and the development team | |
Drury-Grogan 2014 | Refers to how well the finished product functions | |
Mahaney & Lederer 2006 | Improving the project performance | |
Misra et al. 2009 | Quality criteria are productivity, customer satisfaction, business processes and functionality |
2.1 Agile Enterprise architecture
2.2 GDAD active communication
2.3 GDAD performance
3 Research model and hypotheses
3.1 Relationship between AEA and GDAD active communication
H1a: Agile Enterprise Architecture positively affects the efficiency of the GDAD communication.H1b: Agile Enterprise Architecture positively affects effectiveness of the GDAD communication.
3.2 Relationship between AEA and GDAD performance
H1c: Agile Enterprise Architecture positively influences on-time completion of GDAD project.H1d: Agile Enterprise Architecture positively influences on-budget completion of GDAD project.H1e: Agile Enterprise Architecture positively influences GDAD project quality.H1f: Agile Enterprise Architecture positively influences GDAD project functionality.
3.3 Relationship between GDAD active communication dimensions (efficiency and effectiveness)
H2: GDAD communication efficiency negatively affects effectiveness of the GDAD communication.
3.4 Relationship between GDAD active communication and GDAD performance
H3a. Communication efficiency positively influences on-time completion of GDAD project.H3b. Communication efficiency positively influences on-budget completion of GDAD project.H3c. Communication efficiency positively influences GDAD project functionality.H3d. Communication efficiency positively influences GDAD project quality.
H4a. Communication effectiveness negatively influences on-time completion of GDAD project.H4b. Communication effectiveness negatively influences on-budget completion of GDAD project.H4c. Communication effectiveness positively influences GDAD project functionality.H4d. Communication effectiveness positively influences GDAD project quality.
4 Measurement model evaluation
4.1 Research measures development
4.2 Pre-test, pilot test and item screening
Variable | Items | Source |
---|---|---|
Enterprise Architecture | 7 items | Designed by the research team, based on experts’ feedback |
Communication Efficiency | 5 items | |
Communication Effectiveness | 4 items | |
On-Time Completion | 2 items | |
On-Budget Completion | 2 items | |
Software Functionality | 3 items | Lee & Xia, 2010 |
Software Quality | 3 items | Mahaney & Lederer, 2006 |
4.3 Measurement model assessment using survey questionnaire
Variable | Value | Frequency | Percent % |
---|---|---|---|
Job Title | Developer | 20 | 54 |
Team leader/Scrum Master | 4 | 10.8 | |
Analyst | 4 | 10.8 | |
Architect | 7 | 19 | |
QA/test | 2 | 5.4 | |
Industry | Banking and financial | 20 | 54 |
Automotive | 5 | 13.5 | |
Telecommunications | 8 | 21.7 | |
Other | 4 | 10.8 | |
GDAD Experience | < 2 years | 5 | 13.5 |
2–4 years | 25 | 67.5 | |
5–10 years | 7 | 19 |
4.3.1 Reflective measurement model
Scale Items | EFFIC | EFFECT | TIME | BUDGT | FUNC | QLTY |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EFFIC1 | 0.928*** | 0.321 | 0.445 | 0.329 | 0.511 | 0.544 |
EFFIC2 | 0.905*** | 0.412 | 0.423 | 0.298 | 0.533 | 0.567 |
EFFIC3 | 0.886*** | 0.512 | 0.388 | 0.344 | 0.574 | 0.582 |
EFFIC4 | 0.854*** | 0.433 | 0.456 | 0.421 | 0.433 | 0.511 |
EFFIC5 | 0.880*** | 0.522 | 0.423 | 0.412 | 0.428 | 0.564 |
EFFECT1 | 0.399 | 0.869*** | 0.522 | 0.377 | 0.541 | 0.587 |
EFFECT2 | 0.333 | 0.883*** | 5.340 | 0.433 | 0.587 | 0.612 |
EFFECT3 | 0.412 | 0.860*** | 0.511 | 0.375 | 0.486 | 0.678 |
EFFECT4 | 0.421 | 0.844*** | 0.545 | 0.388 | 0.487 | 0.487 |
TIME1 | 0.512 | 0.365 | 0.968*** | 0.612 | 0.435 | 0.422 |
TIME2 | 0.562 | 0.398 | 0.968*** | 0.588 | 0.412 | 0.387 |
BUDGT1 | 0.436 | 0.411 | 0.611 | 0.861*** | 0.511 | 0.395 |
BUDGT2 | 0.469 | 0.433 | 0.633 | 0.935*** | 0.574 | 0.355 |
FUNC1 | 0.355 | 0.542 | 0.645 | 0.377 | 0.894*** | 0.588 |
FUNC2 | 0.322 | 0.387 | 0.322 | 0.322 | 0.811*** | 0.468 |
FUNC3 | 0.378 | 0.455 | 0.332 | 0.411 | 0.906*** | 0.611 |
QLTY1 | 0.413 | 0.512 | 0.412 | 0.322 | 0.487 | 0.919*** |
QLTY2 | 0.391 | 0.532 | 0.356 | 0.465 | 0.455 | 0.887*** |
QLTY3 | 0.458 | 0.511 | 0.298 | 0.395 | 0.467 | 0.847*** |
Construct | α | CR | AVE | EFFIC | EFFECT | TIME | BUDGET | FUNC | QLTY |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EFFIC | 0.935 | 0.954 | 0.805 | 0.897 | |||||
EFFECT | 0.886 | 0.889 | 0.670 | 0.144 | 0.864 | ||||
TIME | 0.932 | 0.980 | 0.961 | 0.209 | 0.674 | 0.968 | |||
BUDGET | 0.768 | 0.954 | 0.895 | 0.345 | 0.499 | 0.348 | 0.899 | ||
FUNC | 0.841 | 0.925 | 0.804 | 0.090 | 0.679 | 0.121 | 0.469 | 0.871 | |
QLTY | 0.862 | 0.961 | 0.891 | 0.201 | 0.624 | 0.093 | 0.781 | 0.483 | 0.885 |
Component | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Construct Items | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
Communication efficiency | ||||||
EFFIC1 | 0.854 | 0.294 | 0.222 | −0.120 | −0.024 | 0.100 |
EFFIC2 | 0.796 | 0.355 | 0.301 | −0.051 | 0.001 | −0.093 |
EFFIC3 | 0.791 | 0.224 | 0.151 | −0.448 | −0.082 | 0.075 |
EFFIC4 | 0.816 | 0.167 | − 0.014 | − 0.212 | 0.070 | − 0.189 |
EFFIC5 | 0.855 | 0.143 | 0.068 | − 0.006 | − 0.078 | − 0.187 |
Communication effectiveness | ||||||
EFFECT1 | − 0.458 | 0.698 | 0.193 | 0.012 | 0.299 | −0.177 |
EFFECT2 | −0.355 | 0.698 | 0.056 | −0.107 | 0.500 | −0.090 |
EFFECT3 | −0.195 | 0.826 | −0.130 | −0.278 | 0.023 | 0.267 |
EFFECT4 | −0.466 | 0.592 | 0.255 | −0.357 | 0.189 | 0.250 |
On-Time completion | ||||||
TIME1 | 0.138 | 0.095 | 0.120 | 0.357 | 0.813 | 0.192 |
TIME2 | 0.178 | 0.034 | 0.319 | 0.314 | 0.818 | 0.125 |
In-Budget completion | ||||||
BUDGT1 | 0.248 | 0.160 | −0.363 | 0.402 | −0.002 | 0.668 |
BUDGT2 | −0.096 | 0.240 | −0.185 | 0.047 | −0.156 | 0.819 |
Functionality | ||||||
FUNC1 | −0.235 | −0.257 | 0.193 | 0.712 | 0.309 | 0.287 |
FUNC2 | −0.362 | −0.328 | 0.202 | 0.625 | 0.402 | −0.184 |
FUNC3 | −0.059 | −0.325 | 0.197 | 0.667 | 0.475 | −0.160 |
Quality | ||||||
QLTY1 | −0.082 | −0.123 | 0.809 | −0.342 | − 0.178 | −0.018 |
QLTY2 | 0.156 | 0.032 | 0.773 | −0.366 | 0.172 | −0.287 |
QLTY3 | −0.204 | 0.176 | 0.740 | −0.345 | −0.258 | − 0.045 |
Eigenvalue | 3.971 | 2.989 | 2.352 | 2.279 | 1.874 | 1.625 |
Variance Extracted | 26.887 | 20.613 | 13.258 | 13.004 | 6.525 | 4.476 |
Cumulative Variance (%) | 26.887 | 47.500 | 60.759 | 73.763 | 80.288 | 84.764 |
Unrotated Variance (%) | 34.439 | 30.079 | 6.946 | 5.569 | 4.481 | 3.250 |
4.3.2 Formative measurement model
Formative indicator | Tolerance | VIF | Outer weights | t-value | Sig | p-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AEA1 | 0.445 | 4.073 | 0.201 | 2.206 | ** | 0.037 |
AEA2 | 0.293 | 3.405 | 0.214 | 2.349 | ** | 0.028 |
AEA3 | 0.445 | 2.246 | 0.369 | 4.758 | *** | 0.004 |
AEA4 | 0.362 | 2.758 | 0.329 | 3.675 | *** | 0.008 |
AEA5 | 0.293 | 3.410 | 0.224 | 2.462 | ** | 0.015 |
AEA6 | 0.403 | 2.481 | 0.333 | 3.789 | *** | 0.006 |
AEA7 | 0.290 | 3.445 | 0.188 | 2.015 | ** | 0.043 |