Lucas Gren
ABSTRACT
Agile processes explicitly focus more on team-work than more traditional management techniques when building software. With high velocity and responsiveness on team-level come the risk of interpersonal conflict in the agile organizations. Through a survey with 68 software developers from three large Swedish companies, I found that the presence of interpersonal conflict was negatively connected to the agile practices Iterative Development and Customer Access. The agile practices Iteration Planning and Iterative Development were positively linked to the measurement of the developers' perceived team productivity. However, Continuous Integration & Testing was negatively connected to productivity. These results show which agile practices are directly linked to team productivity, but also, and more importantly, indicate which of the agile practices that might be more prone to not work as intended, when the team struggles with interpersonal conflict. Therefore, I argue that members of agile teams need training in conflict resolution techniques in order to lower the risk of interpersonal conflict negatively affecting team productivity.
- Henri Barki and Jon Hartwick. 2001. Interpersonal conflict and its management in information system development. MIS Quarterly (2001), 195--228. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Kristin J Behfar, Randall S Peterson, Elizabeth A Mannix, and William MK Trochim. 2008. The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of applied psychology 93, 1 (2008), 170.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jacob Cohen. 1992. Quantitative methods in psychology -- A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin 112, 1 (1992), 155--159.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lee Cronbach. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16, 3 (1951), 297--334.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Madeline Ann Domino, Rosann Webb Collins, Alan R Hevner, and Cynthia F Cohen. 2003. Conflict in collaborative software development. In Proceedings of the 2003 SIGMIS conference on Computer personnel research. ACM, 44--51. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L.R. Fabrigar and D.T. Wegener. 2012. Exploratory Factor Analysis. OUP USA.Google Scholar
- M. Fowler and J. Highsmith. 2001. The Agile Manifesto. In Software Development, Issue on Agile Methodologies, last accessed on December 29th, 2006. (Aug. 2001).Google Scholar
- David H Gobeli, Harold F Koenig, and Iris Bechinger. 1998. Managing conflict in software development teams: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management 15, 5 (1998), 423--435.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel Graziotin, Xiaofeng Wang, and Pekka Abrahamsson. 2015. Do feelings matter? On the correlation of affects and the self-assessed productivity in software engineering. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 27, 7 (2015), 467--487. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L Gren, R Torkar, and R Feldt. 2015. The Prospects of a Quantitative Measurement of Agility: A Validation Study on an Agile Maturity Model. The Journal of Systems and Software 107 (2015), 38--49. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L Gren, R Torkar, and R Feldt. 2017. Group development and group maturity when building agile teams: A qualitative and quantitative investigation at eight large companies. The Journal of Systems and Software 124 (2017), 104--119. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Karen A Jehn and Elizabeth A Mannix. 2001. The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of management journal 44, 2 (2001), 238--251.Google Scholar
- Maarit Laanti, Jouni Simila, and Pekka Abrahamsson. 2013. Definitions of agile software development and agility. In European Conference on Software Process Improvement. Springer, 247--258.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Per Lenberg, Robert Feldt, and Lars-Göran Wallgren. 2015. Behavioral Software Engineering: A Definition and Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Systems and Software 107 (September 2015), 15--37. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Per Lenberg, Robert Feldt, and Lars-Göran Wallgren. 2015. Human Factors Related Challenges in Software Engineering: An Industrial Perspective. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering. IEEE, 43--49. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Julie YC Liu, Gary Klein, Jengchung V Chen, and James J Jiang. 2009. The negative impact of conflict on the information system development process, product, and project. Journal of Computer Information Systems 49, 4 (2009), 98--104.Google Scholar
- Julie Yu-Chih Liu, Hun-Gee Chen, Charlie C Chen, and Tsong Shin Sheu. 2011. Relationships among interpersonal conflict, requirements uncertainty, and software project performance. International Journal of Project Management 29, 5 (2011), 547--556.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brian Manata. 2016. Exploring the association between relationship conflict and group performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 20, 2 (2016), 93--104.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Grigori Melnik and Frank Maurer. 2004. Direct verbal communication as a catalyst of agile knowledge sharing. In Agile Development Conference, 2004. IEEE, 21--31. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dmitriy A Nesterkin, Tobin E Porterfield, and Xiaolin Li. 2016. Relationship Conflict, Conflict Management, and Performance of Information Technology Teams. Journal of Computer Information Systems 56, 3 (2016), 194--203.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rosalie J Ocker. 2001. The relationship between interaction, group development, and outcome: A study of virtual communication. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE, 1--10.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Steve Sawyer. 2001. Effects of intra-group conflict on packaged software development team performance. Information Systems Journal 11, 2 (2001), 155--178.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G Richard Shell. 2001. Teaching Ideas: Bargaining Styles and Negotiation: The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument in Negotiation Training. Negotiation Journal 17, 2 (2001), 155--174.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chaehan So and Wolfgang Scholl. 2009. Perceptive agile measurement: New instruments for quantitative studies in the pursuit of the social-psychological effect of agile practices. In Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming. Springer, 83--93.Google Scholar
- Viktoria Stray, Tor Erlend Fægri, and Nils Brede Moe. 2016. Exploring Norms in Agile Software Teams. In 17th International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES). 458--467.Google Scholar
- Alvin Teh, Elisa Baniassad, Dirk Van Rooy, and Clive Boughton. 2012. Social Psychology and Software Teams: Establishing Task-Effective Group Norms. IEEE Software 29, 4 (2012), 53--58. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kenneth J Trimmer, Rosann Webb Collins, Richard P Will, and J Ellis Blanton. 2000. Information systems development: can there be figoodfi conflict?. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGCPR conference on Computer personnel research. ACM, 174--179. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bogdan Vasilescu, Yue Yu, Huaimin Wang, Premkumar Devanbu, and Vladimir Filkov. 2015. Quality and productivity outcomes relating to continuous integration in GitHub. In Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering. ACM, 805--816. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S Wheelan. 2005. Group processes: A developmental perspective (2 ed.). Allyn and Bacon, Boston.Google Scholar
- Susan Wheelan. 2013. Creating effective teams: A guide for members and leaders (4 ed.). SAGE, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
- Susan Wheelan, Christian N Burchill, and Felice Tilin. 2003. The link between teamwork and patients' outcomes in intensive care units. American Journal of Critical Care 12, 6 (2003), 527--534.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Susan Wheelan, Barbara Davidson, and Felice Tilin. 2003. Group Development Across Time Reality or Illusion? Small group research 34, 2 (2003), 223--245.Google Scholar
- S. Wheelan and J. Hochberger. 1996. Validation studies of the group development questionnaire. Small Group Research 27, 1 (1996), 143--170.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Susan Wheelan, Donald Murphy, Eisaku Tsumura, and Sheryl Fried Kline. 1998. Member perceptions of internal group dynamics and productivity. Small Group Research 29, 3 (1998), 371--393.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Susan Wheelan and Felice Tilin. 1999. The relationship between faculty group development and school productivity. Small group research 30, 1 (1999), 59--81.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- The Links Between Agile Practices, Interpersonal Conflict, and Perceived Productivity
Recommendations
Measuring productivity in agile software development process: a scoping study
ICSSP 2015: Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Software and System ProcessAn agile software development process is often claimed to increase productivity. However, productivity measurement in agile software development is little researched. Measures are not explicitly defined nor commonly agreed upon. In this paper, we ...
Adopting to Agile Software Development
Abstract Agile software development can be made successful, but there is no well-defined way how to achieve this. The problem is that the successful adoption of agile methods and practices is a complex process and this process should be customizable for ...
Non-technical individual skills are weakly connected to the maturity of agile practices
AbstractContext: Existing knowledge in agile software development suggests that individual competency (e.g. skills) is a critical success factor for agile projects. While assuming that technical skills are important for every ...
Comments