Slides for the "Five Agile Factors: Helping Self­‐Management to Self‐Reflect" paper presented at EuroSPI'11 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/v05305v384k388v4/)

1. Five
Agile
Factors
Helping
Self-­‐Management
to
Self-­‐Reflect
EuroSPI
2011,
Roskilde,
Denmark
Christoph J. Stettina (stettina@liacs.nl)
Werner Heijstek (heijstek@liacs.nl)
This research has been kindly supported by the EDAFMIS project
Leiden
University.
The
university
to
discover.

2. Contents
l Introduc*on
l Objec*ves
l Related
work
l Methodology
l Results
l Discussion
Leiden
University.
The
university
to
discover.

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. 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. 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. 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-­‐worker's
work
Redundancy
l I
feel
it
is
easy
to
complete
someone
else's
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. 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. Data:
79
individuals,
13
countries,
8
teams
Experience
Country
(in years)
Roles
Leiden
University.
The
university
to
discover.

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. Results:
Team
Sample
Leiden
University.
The
university
to
discover.

11. Results:
Team
Factors
Learning: High Autonomy: Low
Leiden
University.
The
university
to
discover.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. QuesKons?
Thank
you
for
your
agen*on!
steina@liacs.nl
Leiden
University.
The
university
to
discover.

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. Results:
Global
Sample
Leiden
University.
The
university
to
discover.