Impact of classes of development coordination tools on software development performance

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Impact of classes of development coordination tools on software development performance: A multinational empirical study

Full text

Pdf (679 KB)

Source

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) archive
Volume 17 , Issue 2 (April 2008) table of contents

Article No. 11

Year of Publication: 2008

ISSN:1049-331X

Author

Amrit Tiwana

Iowa State University, Ames, IA

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 31, Downloads (12 Months): 266, Citation Count: 0

Additional Information:

abstract references index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1348250.1348257 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Although a diverse variety of software development coordination tools are widely used in practice, considerable debate surrounds their impact on software development performance. No large-scale field research has systematically examined their impact on software development performance. This paper reports the results of a multinational field study of software projects in 209 software development organizations to empirically examine the influence of six key classes of development coordination tools on the efficiency (reduction of development rework, budget compliance) and effectiveness (defect reduction) of software development performance.

Based on an in-depth field study, the article conceptualizes six holistic classes of development coordination tools. The results provide nuanced insights—some counter to prevailing beliefs—into the relationships between the use of various classes of development coordination tools and software development performance. The overarching finding is that the performance benefits of development coordination tools are contingent on the salient types of novelty in a project. The dimension of development performance—efficiency or effectiveness—that each class of tools is associated with varies systematically with whether a project involves conceptual novelty, process novelty, multidimensional novelty (both process and conceptual novelty), or neither. Another noteworthy insight is that the use of some classes of tools introduces an efficiency-effectiveness tradeoff. Collectively, the findings are among the first to offer empirical support for the varied performance impacts of various classes of development coordination tools and have important implications for software development practice. The paper also identifies several promising areas for future research.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Tarek K. Abdel-Hamid , Kishore Sengupta , Daniel Ronan, Software Project Control: An Experimental Investigation of Judgment with Fallible Information, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.19 n.6, p.603-612, June 1993 [doi>10.1109/32.232025]
	2	Beth Adelson , Elliot Soloway, The Role of Domain Expenence in Software Design, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.11 n.11, p.1351-1360, November 1985 [doi>10.1109/TSE.1985.231883]
	3	Adler, P. S. 1995. Interdepartmental interdependence and coordination---the case of the design/manufacturing interface. Organiz. Sci. 6, 2, 147--167.
	4	Aiken, L. and West, S. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage, Newbury, CA.
	5	Hayward P. Andres , Robert W. Zmud, A Contingency Approach to Software Project Coordination, Journal of Management Information Systems, v.18 n.3, p.41-70, Number 3/Winter 2001/02
	6	Babbie, E. R. 1973. Survey Research Methods. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
	7	Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., and Phillips, L.W. 1991. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Admin. Sci. Quarterly. 36, 3, 421--458.
	8	Rajiv D. Banker , Gordon B. Davis , Sandra A. Slaughter, Software Development Practices, Software Complexity, and Software Maintenance Performance: a Field Study, Management Science, v.44 n.4, p.433-450, April 1998 [doi>10.1287/mnsc.44.4.433]
	9	Henri Barki , Suzanne Rivard , Jean Talbot, An Integrative Contingency Model of Software Project Risk Management, Journal of Management Information Systems, v.17 n.4, p.37-69, Number 4/Spring 2001
	10	Baron, R. and Kenny, D. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1173--1182.
	11	Baskerville, R. and Pries-Heje, J. 1999. Grounded action research: A method for understanding IT in practice. Account. Manag. Info. Techno. 9, 1, 1--23.
	12	Belsley, D.A., Kuh, E., and Welsch, R.E. 1980. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Forces of Collinearity. Wiley, New York.
	13	David J. Brown, From the Editors: The Developer's Art Today: Aikido or Sumo?, Queue, v.1 n.6, September 2003 [doi>10.1145/945131.945159]
	14	Cohen, J. and Cohen, P. 1983. Applied Multiple Regression Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
	15	Creswell, J. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage Publications, Newbury, CA.
	16	Cronbach, L.J. and Meehl, P.E. 1955. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol. Bull. 52, 4, 281--302.
	17	Duncan, O. 1985. Path analysis: Sociological examples. In Causal Models in Social Sciences, H. Blalock (Ed.). Aldine Publishing, Hawthorne, NY,
	18	Samer Faraj , Lee Sproull, Coordinating Expertise in Software Development Teams, Management Science, v.46 n.12, p.1554-1568, December 2000 [doi>10.1287/mnsc.46.12.1554.12072]
	19	Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.
	20	Anandasivam Gopal , Konduru Sivaramakrishnan , M. S. Krishnan , Tridas Mukhopadhyay, Contracts in Offshore Software Development: An Empirical Analysis, Management Science, v.49 n.12, p.1671-1683, December 2003 [doi>10.1287/mnsc.49.12.1671.25120]
	21	Ellen Gottesdiener, Requirements by Collaboration: Getting It Right the First Time, IEEE Software, v.20 n.2, p.52-55, January 2003 [doi>10.1109/MS.2003.1184167]
	22	Robert Groth, Is the Software Industry's Productivity Declining?, IEEE Software, v.21 n.6, p.92-94, November 2004 [doi>10.1109/MS.2004.43]
	23	P. J. Guinan , J. G. Cooprider , S. Sawyer, The effective use of automated application development tools, IBM Systems Journal, v.36 n.1, p.124-139, 1997
	24	Joseph F. Hair, Jr. , Rolph E. Anderson , Ronald L. Tatham , William C. Black, Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.): with readings, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1995
	25	Violet T. Ho , Soon Ang , Detmar Straub, When Subordinates Become IT Contractors: Persistent Managerial Expectations in IT Outsourcing, Information Systems Research, v.14 n.1, p.66-86, March 2003 [doi>10.1287/isre.14.1.66.14764]
	26	King, S. and Galliers, R. 1994. Modelling the case process: Empirical issues and future directions. Info. Softw. Tech. 36, 10, 587--596.
	27	Laurie J. Kirsch , V. Sambamurthy , Dong-Gil Ko , Russell L. Purvis, Controlling Information Systems Development Projects: The View from the Client, Management Science, v.48 n.4, p.484-498, April 2002 [doi>10.1287/mnsc.48.4.484.204]
	28	P. Kokol, Metamodels for system development, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, v.14 n.5, p.118-123, July 1989 [doi>10.1145/71633.71645]
	29	Kumar, N., Stern, L.W., and Anderson, J.C. 1993. Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy Manag. J. 36, 6, 1633--1651.
	30	Lawther, W.C. 1986. Content validation: Conceptual and methodological issues. Rev. Public Person. Admini 6, 3, 37--49.
	31	A. S. Lee, A scientific methodology for MIS case studies, MIS Quarterly, v.13 n.1, p.33-50, March 1989 [doi>10.2307/248698]
	32	Alan MacCormack , Roberto Verganti , Marco Iansiti, Developing Products on "Internet Time": The Anatomy of a Flexible Development Process, Management Science, v.47 n.1, p.133-150, January 2001 [doi>10.1287/mnsc.47.1.133.10663]
	33	Mcafee, A. 2003. When too much IT knowledge is a dangerous thing. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 44, 2, 83--89.
	34	Messerschmitt, D. and Szyperski, C. 2003. Software Ecosystem. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
	35	John Mingers, Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology, Information Systems Research, v.12 n.3, p.240-259, September 2001 [doi>10.1287/isre.12.3.240.9709]
	36	Vijay S. Mookerjee , I. Robert Chiang, A dynamic coordination policy for software system construction, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.28 n.7, p.684-694, July 2002 [doi>10.1109/TSE.2002.1019482]
	37	Morgan, G. and Smircich, L., Sawyer, S. 1980. The case for qualitative research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 5, 4, 491--500.
	38	Mumford, M., Costanza, D., and Connelly, M. 1996. Item generation procedures and background data scales: Implications for construct and criterion-related validity. Person. Psychol. 49, 2, 361--398.
	39	W. J. Orlikowski, Division among the ranks: the social implications of case tools for systems developers, Proceedings of the tenth international conference on Information Systems, p.199-210, December 1989, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/75034.75052]
	40	Orlikowski, W. J. 1993. Case tools as organizational change: Investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Quart. 17, 309--340.
	41	Paese, P.W. and Switzer, F.S., III. 1988. Validity generalization and hypothetical reliability distributions: A test of the schmidt-hunter procedure. J. Appl. Psychol. 73, 2, 267--274.
	42	Pedhazur, E.J. 1982. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction. Dryden Press, New York, NY.
	43	Balasubramaniam Ramesh, Factors influencing requirements traceability practice, Communications of the ACM, v.41 n.12, p.37-44, Dec. 1998 [doi>10.1145/290133.290147]
	44	Balasubramaniam Ramesh , Vasant Dhar, Supporting Systems Development by Capturing Deliberations During Requirements Engineering, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.18 n.6, p.498-510, June 1992 [doi>10.1109/32.142872]
	45	Balasubramaniam Ramesh , Matthias Jarke, Toward Reference Models for Requirements Traceability, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.27 n.1, p.58-93, January 2001 [doi>10.1109/32.895989]
	46	Pierre N. Robillard, The role of knowledge in software development, Communications of the ACM, v.42 n.1, p.87-92, Jan. 1999 [doi>10.1145/291469.291476]
	47	Rowen, R. 1990. Software project management under incomplete and ambiguous specifications. IEEE Trans. Engin. Manag. 37, 1, 10--21.
	48	Ioana Rus , Mikael Lindvall, Guest Editors' Introduction: Knowledge Management in Software Engineering, IEEE Software, v.19 n.3, p.26-38, May 2002 [doi>10.1109/MS.2002.1003450]
	49	Schmidt, F. and Hunter, J. 1989. Interrater reliability coefficients cannot be computed when only one stimulus is rated. J. Appl. Psychol. 74, 368--370.
	50	Schwab, D.P. 1980. Construct validity in organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2, 3--43.
	51	Carolyn B. Seaman , Victor R. Basili, Communication and Organization: An Empirical Study of Discussion in Inspection Meetings, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.24 n.7, p.559-572, July 1998 [doi>10.1109/32.708569]
	52	Donn M. Seeley, Coding Smart: People vs. Tools, Queue, v.1 n.6, September 2003 [doi>10.1145/945131.945135]
	53	Shore, T.H., Shore, L.M., and Thoronton, G.C., III. 1992. Construct validity of self- and peer evaluations of performance dimensions in an assessment center. J. Appl. Psychol. 77, 1, 42--54.
	54	Dimidis Spinellis, The Tools at Hand, IEEE Software, v.22 n.1, p.10-13, January 2005 [doi>10.1109/MS.2005.23]
	55	Straub, D.W. 1989. Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Quart. 13, 2, 147--166.
	56	Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury, CA.
	57	Akira Takeishi, Knowledge Partitioning in the Interfirm Division of Labor: The Case of Automotive Product Development, Organization Science, v.13 n.3, p.321-338, May 2002 [doi>10.1287/orsc.13.3.321.2779]
	58	Amrit Tiwana , Mark Keil, The one-minute risk assessment tool, Communications of the ACM, v.47 n.11, p.73-77, November 2004 [doi>10.1145/1029496.1029497]
	59	Amrit Tiwana , Ephraim R. McLean, The tightrope to e-business project success, Communications of the ACM, v.46 n.12, December 2003 [doi>10.1145/953460.953520]
	60	Amrit Tiwana , Ephraim R. Mclean, Expertise Integration and Creativity in Information Systems Development, Journal of Management Information Systems, v.22 n.1, p.13-43, Number 1/Summer 2005
	61	Todd, J.D. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Sciences Quart. 24, 4, 602--611.
	62	Diane B. Walz , Joyce J. Elam , Bill Curtis, Inside a software design team: knowledge acquisition, sharing, and integration, Communications of the ACM, v.36 n.10, p.63-77, Oct. 1993 [doi>10.1145/163430.163447]
	63	Weekley, J.A. and Gier, J.A. 1989. Ceilings in the reliability and validity of performance ratings: The case of expert raters. Acad. Manag. J. 32, 1, 213--222.
	64	Yin, R.K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Newbury, CA.