Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Five Agile Factors: Helping Self­‐Management to Self‐Reflect


Published on

Slides for the "Five Agile Factors: Helping Self­‐Management to Self‐Reflect" paper presented at EuroSPI'11 (

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Five Agile Factors: Helping Self­‐Management to Self‐Reflect

  1. 1. Five  Agile  Factors    Helping  Self-­‐Management  to  Self-­‐Reflect      EuroSPI  2011,  Roskilde,  Denmark   Christoph J. Stettina ( Werner Heijstek ( This research has been kindly supported by the EDAFMIS project                          Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  2. 2. Contents    l  Introduc*on  l  Objec*ves    l  Related  work  l  Methodology  l  Results  l  Discussion                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  3. 3. IntroducKon  Agile  collaboraKve  self-­‐managing  teams    l  High-­‐produc*vity  (Guzzo  and  Dickson,  1996)    l  Increased  problem  solving  (Tata and Prasad,1996)  l  Redundancy  and  backup  behavior  (Salas et al. 2005)    But,  self-­‐management  is  difficult  to  implement    l  Human  and  social  factors  (Moe et al. 2009, 2010)  l  Company  cultures,  context  dependency  l  Greater  exposure,  impression  management  →  Awareness  necessary                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  4. 4. Related  Work  Five  dimensions  of  agile  teamwork  (Moe  et  al.,2009)  l  Shared  Leadership   Shared mental model and decision authority, transfer of leadership  l  Team  Orienta*on   Team cohesion, team goals over individual goals  l  Redundancy   Avoids bottlenecks, shift workloads, mutual assistance  l  Learning   Interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition, self-optimization in environment  l  Autonomy   External influences, low: encourage group think    Qualita*ve  framework  build  on  theore*cal  and  empirical  ground   of  ac*on  research  studies                              Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  5. 5. ObjecKves  To  what  extent  can  we  use  the  findings  of    Moe  et  al.  (2009)  to  measure  self-­‐management   in  order  to  support  reflec@on  in  agile  teams?    l  Quan*ta*ve:  anonymous  and  easy  to  deploy    l  Test  alignment  to  original  research  l  Provide  feedback  for  the  team  l  Create  awareness    →  Strengthen  agile  teams                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  6. 6. Methodology  QuanKtaKve  quesKonnaire:  team  data  QualitaKve  interviews:  project  environment  Shared  Leadership  –  Team  OrientaKon  –  Redundancy  –  Learning  -­‐  Autonomy  l   I  feel  everyone  is  involved  in  the  decision-­‐making  process  l   I  feel  team  members  make  important  decisions  without  consul:ng  other  team   members  l   I  feel  the  team  vision  is  well  defined  and  presented  l   I  feel  the  team  is  designed  (and  redesigned)  according  to  its  purpose      Team  Orienta@on  l  I  feel  the  team  takes  into  account  alterna:ve  sugges:ons  in  team  discussions  l  I  feel  the  team  values  alterna:ve  sugges:ons  l  I  feel  team  members  relate  to  the  tasks  of  individuals  l  I  regularly  comment  on  a  co-­‐workers  work    Redundancy  l  I  feel  it  is  easy  to  complete  someone  elses  task  l  I  feel  I  get  help  if  I  get  stuck  l  I  help  others  when  they  have  problems  l  I  feel  it  is  easy  to  subs:tute  a  person  if  someone  leaves  the  team#    Learning  I  feel  the  team  keeps  what  works  well  in  the  development  process                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  7. 7. Methodology:  Data  CollecKon  ParKcipant  and  team  idenKficaKon:  l  SNS,  Google  Groups,  SlideShare,  Flickr,  etc.  l  Ac:vely  involved  in  Scrum  at  collec:on  :me    l  Unique  IDs  to  iden:fy  team  results                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  8. 8. Data:  79  individuals,  13  countries,  8  teams   Experience Country (in years) Roles                          Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  9. 9. Results:  Team  Sample  T1  (UK)  MMO  Game  back-­‐end  T2  (US)  Collabora*ve  SW  for  construc*on  T3  (UK)  Digital  media  agency  T4  (NO)  Smart  Card  key  solu*ons  T5  (NL)  Corporate  sites  and  web  shops  T6  (SE)  News  guide,  community  website  T7  (IN)  E-­‐commerce  T8  (NZ)  State  insurance  company    →  Representa*ve  mul*na*onal  sample                              Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  10. 10. Results:  Team  Sample                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  11. 11. Results:  Team  Factors   Learning: High Autonomy: Low                          Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  12. 12. Results:  Team  Agreement  T1 (UK) & T7 (IN): Both collocated teams→ Max agreement T4 (NO) & T8 (NZ): Diversified teams with different roles → Max disagreement                          Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  13. 13. Results:  Team  Sample  Agile  Values  l  Low:  Autonomy  →  consistent  with  Moe  et  al.  l  High:  Learning  →  not  consistent    Team  Agreement  l  Most:  Autonomy,  Team  Orienta*on  l  Least:  Redundancy,  Shared  Leadership    →  Does  not  reflect  on  agile  values            BUT:  Correlates  to  team  consistency                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  14. 14. Results:  Global  Sample  All  79  par*cipants            Agile  Factors  l  Low  Autonomy  l  No  significant  difference  among  other  factors     on  a  global  level                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  15. 15. Discussion  Results  l  Low  Autonomy  →  consistent  with  Moe  et  al.  l  Individual,  Team  and  Organiza*onal  level  l  Context  dependency  of  agile   implementa*ons      Tool  l  Ques*onnaire  met  with  interest  (79/150)  l  Should  be  executed  on  team  ini*a*ve,  not  to   be  used  by  organiza*onal  control                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  16. 16. RecommendaKons  Shared  Leadership  l  Share  decision  authority  Team  OrientaKon  l  Culture  of  trust  Redundancy  l  Job  rota*on,  team  colloca*on  Learning  l  Apprecia*on  of  generalists  (Fægri  et  al.  2010)  Autonomy  l  “One  project  at  a  *me”  (Moe  et  al.  2009)                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  17. 17. Validity  &  Future  Work  Validity  ConsideraKons    l  Consistency  of  data  →  Likert  scales  l  Low  amount  of  data  →  Team  agreement  l  Socially  Desirable  Responding  →  Anonymity    Future  Work    l  Dedicated  tool  l  7  point  Likert  scales  for  more  details  l  Improved  ques*ons  for  Learning  l  Further  tes*ng  with  a  small  student  team                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  18. 18. Conclusions  To  what  extent  can  we  use  the  findings  of    Moe  et  al.  (2009)  to  measure  self-­‐management   in  order  to  support  reflec@on  in  agile  teams?    l  Qualita*ve  Framework  →  Quan*ta*ve  Tool  l  Par*al  consistency  with  original  findings  l  Introduced  a  measure  for  team  agreement  l  Found  as  a  useful  tool  to  improve  discussion  l  Recommenda*ons  to  prac*ce                                Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  19. 19. QuesKons?    Thank  you  for  your  agen*on!                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  20. 20. References  Fægri,  T.E.,  Dyb˚a,  T.,  Dingsøyr,  T.:  Introducing  knowledge  redundancy  prac*ce  in  sokware  development:  Experiences  with  job  rota*on  in  support  work.  Inf.  Sokw.  Technol.  52,  1118–1132  (2010)    Guzzo,  R.A.,  Dickson,  M.W.:  Teams  in  organiza*ons:  Recent  research  on  performance  and  effec*veness.  Annual  Review  of  Psychology  47(1),  307–338  (1996)    Moe,  N.,  Dingsøyr,  T.,  Røyrvik,  E.:  Pupng  agile  teamwork  to  the  test  –  an  preliminary  instrument  for  empirically  assessing  and  improving  agile  sokware  development.  In:  Abrahamsson,  P.,  Marchesi,  M.,  Maurer,  F.  (eds.)  Agile  Processes  in  Sokware  Engineering  and  Extreme  Programming.  LNBIP,  vol.  31,  pp.  114–123.  Springer,  Heidelberg  (2009)      Moe,  N.,  Dingsøyr,  T.,  Dyba,  T.:  Overcoming  barriers  to  self-­‐management  in  sokware  teams.  IEEE  Sokware  26,  20–26  (2009)    Moe,  N.B.,  Dingsøyr,  T.,  Dyba,  T.:  A  teamwork  model  for  understanding  an  agile  team:  A  case  study  of  a  scrum  project.  Inf.  Sokw.  Technol.  52,  480–491  (2010)    Salas,  E.,  Sims,  D.,  Burke,  C.:  Is  there  a  big  five  in  teamwork?  Small  Group  Research  36(5),  555–599  (2005)    Tata,  J.,  Prasad,  S.:  Team  Self-­‐Management,  Organiza*onal  Structure  and  Judgments  of  Team  Effec*veness.  Journal  of  Managerial  Issues  16(2),  248+  (2004)                                Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
  21. 21. Results:  Global  Sample                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.