The impact of Multi-site Software Governance on Knowledge Management


Published on

This is the presentation of the paper "The impact of Multi-site Software Governance on Knowledge Management" from ICGSE2011 (Helsinki)

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The impact of Multi-site Software Governance on Knowledge Management

  1. 1. 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  
  2. 2. 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    
  3. 3. 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?  
  4. 4. 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.    
  5. 5. 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)  
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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  
  9. 9. 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.  
  10. 10. 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.  
  11. 11. COMMUNICATION  FREQUENCY  &  TASK   ALLOCATION   High Site NL - Site ACommunication Frequency medium Site NL - Site B Low Requirements Architecture Design Coding Testing Integration Maintenance
  12. 12. SUMMARY  Multi-site SGM KM Challenges• Business Strategy • Communication• Team Structure • Knowledge creation & Composition & storage• Task Allocation • Knowledge transfer
  13. 13. 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.  
  14. 14. 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.  
  15. 15. THANK  YOU.  Chris&na  Manteli,  Bart  van  den  Hooff,  Antony  Tang,  Hans  van  Vliet   VU  UNIVERSITY  AMSTERDAM  
  16. 16. 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.