The impact of Multi-site Software Governance on Knowledge Management
THE IMPACT OF MULTI-‐SITE SOFTWARE GOVERNANCE ON KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT Chris&na Manteli, Bart van den Hooﬀ, Antony Tang, Hans van Vliet VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM
MULTI-‐SITE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT GOVERNANCE • SoHware development governance ensures that processes meet the requirements. • A governance model should have1 – A structural perspec7ve: “what governance looks like” – A func7onal perspec7ve: “what governance does” • Challenges to deﬁne a SoHware Governance Model increase when development ac&vi&es are distributed among remote loca&ons. • Challenges on KM increase when development goes global 1. P.L. Bannerman, “SoHware development governance: A meta-‐management perspec&ve”, in Proceedings of the 2009 ICSE Workshop on SoHware Development Governance, ser. SDG’09. IEEE Computer Society, 2009, pp. 3-‐8
RESEARCH APPROACH • A structural approach to a Mul&-‐site SoHware Governance Model (SGM) • Main Knowledge Management (KM) Challenges in Global SoHware Development. Multi-site SGM ? KM ChallengesHow do the diﬀerent mul7-‐site governance structures inﬂuence the knowledge management challenges?
MULTI-‐SITE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT GOVERNANCE • Business Strategy: the outsourcing strategy with the remote partners, including the legal implica&ons. • Team Structure & composiGon: team size, role descrip&ons and role distribu&ons. • Task AllocaGon: how work is distributed across sites.
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES • CommunicaGon: communica&on speed and frequency. • Knowledge creaGon & storage: capture informa&on, record it in a medium, transform it and encode it as knowledge. • Knowledge transfer: knowledge s7ckiness, transac&ve memory systems (TMS)
CASE STUDY OVERVIEW • Océ is a mul&na&onal company in prin&ng systems (Canon Group). • Qualita&ve data analysis – 20 interviews • SoHware Engineers, Testers, Site A Architects, Project Managers. – 3 loca&ons – 1 project Site B Site NL
CASE STUDY OVERVIEW • Diﬀerent governance structures iden&ﬁed: Site NL-Site A Site NL-Site B Business Different Companies: Legal Same Company: No legal barriers Strategy barriers between sites between sites • Site NL ﬂat organization; Site A • Site NL ﬂat organization; Site B Team hierarchically structured hierarchically structured Structure • Role descriptions differ between • Role descriptions differ between & sites sites Composition • Unequal team sizes • Unequal team sizes Co-development of distributed Independent development of Task components: Tightly coupled distributed components: Loosely Allocation activites coupled activities
THE IMPACT OF BUSINESS STRATEGY ON KM • Knowledge is not freely shared between site NL-‐ site A – Site A relies only on the available knowledge – Site A lacks “system-‐generic” knowledge • Knowledge shared from site NL to site A needs to be ﬁltered – More &me and eﬀort spent to share knowledge
THE IMPACT OF TEAM STRUCTURE & COMPOSITION ON KM • Hierarchical structures create boSlenecks in knowledge sharing. • Too much focus on agility stresses tacit communica&on. Documenta&on remains outdated. • Diﬀerent role descrip&ons make knowledge diﬃcult to locate. • Knowledge tends to s7ck where the majority of the teams are, or where the larger teams are located.
THE IMPACT OF TASK ALLOCATION ON KM • Site NL-‐Site A: Co-‐development – Higher communica&on frequency. – Increased need for knowledge sharing. – Increased need for codiﬁed knowledge. • Site NL-‐Site B: Independent development – Communica&on frequency depends more on the development phase. – Knowledge s&cks the more ‘independent’ teams.
COMMUNICATION FREQUENCY & TASK ALLOCATION High Site NL - Site ACommunication Frequency medium Site NL - Site B Low Requirements Architecture Design Coding Testing Integration Maintenance
SUMMARY Multi-site SGM KM Challenges• Business Strategy • Communication• Team Structure • Knowledge creation & Composition & storage• Task Allocation • Knowledge transfer
LESSONS LEARNED • The impact of mul&-‐site governance structures on knowledge management: – Legal barriers increase the eﬀort and &me spent on managing the crea&on, storage and transfer of knowledge – Unbalanced team structure & composi&on impedes smooth ﬂow of knowledge. – Tightly-‐coupled ac&vi&es among remote teams increases communica&on frequency as well as the need and eﬀort spent for knowledge sharing.
FUTURE RESEARCH • Expand and improve the 3 structural aspects of the mul&-‐site soHware governance model. • Create a mul&-‐site soHware governance framework: – How organiza&on and development ac&vi&es should be structured to best align business and development goals.
THANK YOU. Chris&na Manteli, Bart van den Hooﬀ, Antony Tang, Hans van Vliet VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM
Knowledge Management Multi-site Software Governance Challenges • No direct documentation due to Site NL-Site A: information barriers. • They are different companies • Information sent from Site NL to and information barriers exist Site A needs to be filtered. between the remote sites • Communication frequency is higher. Business Strategy Site NL-Site B: • They are the same company and no information barriers exist between the remote sites Site NL-Site A: • Site NL is a flat organization, while Site A is hierarchically • Hierarchical structures create structured. bottlenecks in knowledge sharing. • Role descriptions differ between • Too much focus on agility stresses sites. tacit communication andTeam Structure • Unbalanced team sizes. documentation remains outdated.& Composition Site NL-Site B: • Different role descriptions makes • Site NL is a flat organization, knowledge difficult to locate. while Site B is hierarchically • Knowledge tends to stick where the structured. majority of teams, or where the larger • Role descriptions differ between teams are located. sites. • Unbalanced team sizes. • Tightly coupled activities increase Site NL-Site A: the need for knowledge sharing. • They co-develop a function and • Co-development creates a greater their activities are tightly coupled. need for codified knowledge. • Communication frequency is high.Task Allocation Site NL-Site B: • Knowledge tends to stick to the independent development teams. • They develop independently and • Communication frequency depends their activities are loosely on the release phase. coupled.