Eliezer Dutra
ABSTRACT
Background: Organizational climate surveys allow the access to the opinions, preferences, or dissatisfactions of the team members of their working conditions. Understanding how different factors influence the organizational climate of agile software development teams can be challenging for organizations. TACT is an instrument to assess the organization climate of agile teams. Its initial version comprises the Communication, Collaboration, and Leadership dimensions. Objective: We present the preliminary evaluation of TACT. Method: We planned and executed a case study considering two development teams. We evaluated TACT using open-ended questions, quantitative methods, and TAM dimensions of Intention to Use, Perceived Usefulness, and Output Quality. Results: TACT allowed to classify the organizational climate of both teams as positive for the Collaboration, Communication, and Leadership dimensions. However, some items were assessed negatively or neutrally which represent attention points. TACT captured the lack of agile ceremonies, the difficulty of the product owner in planning iterations, and the distance in leadership. In addition, TACT presented high levels of reliability. Conclusions: TACT captured the organizational climate of the teams correctly. The team leaders reported intention of future use. The items that compose TACT can be used by researchers investigating the influence of human factors in agile teams, and practitioners that need to design organizational climate assessments of agile teams.
- Atif Açikgöz. 2017. The Mediating Role of Team Collaboration Between Procedural Justice Climate and New Product Development Performance. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 21, 04 (may 2017), 1750039. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919617500396Google Scholar
- Silvia T. Acuña, Marta Gómez, and Natalia Juristo. 2008. Towards understanding the relationship between team climate and software quality—a quasi-experimental study. Empir. Softw. Eng. 13, 4 (aug 2008), 401–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-008-9074-8Google ScholarDigital Library
- Atif Açıkgöz, Ayşe Günsel, Nizamettin Bayyurt, and Cemil Kuzey. 2014. Team Climate, Team Cognition, Team Intuition, and Software Quality: The Moderating Role of Project Complexity. Gr. Decis. Negot. 23, 5 (sep 2014), 1145–1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-013-9367-1Google Scholar
- Atif Açıkgöz and Özgün Ö. İlhan. 2015. Climate and Problem Solving in Software Development Teams. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 207, 20 October 2015(2015), 502–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.120Google ScholarCross Ref
- Deborah G. Ancona and David F. Caldwell. 1992. Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 37, 4 (dec 1992), 634. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393475Google ScholarCross Ref
- Neil R. Anderson and Michael A. West. 1998. Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. J. Organ. Behav. 19(1998), 235-258. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3<235::AID-JOB837>3.0.CO;2-CGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Albert Bandura. 2006. Summary for Policymakers. In Clim. Chang. 2013 - Phys. Sci. Basis, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004arxiv:arXiv:1011.1669v3Google Scholar
- Aline Chagas. 2015. (In Portuguese) O impacto dos fatores humanos nos métodos ágeis. , 133 pages. https://repositorio.ufpe.br/handle/123456789/17240Google Scholar
- Aline Chagas, Melquizedequi Santos, Celio Santana, and Alexandre Vasconcelos. 2015. The Impact of Human Factors on Agile Projects. In 2015 Agil. Conf.IEEE, National Harbor, MD, USA, 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1109/Agile.2015.11Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bill Curtis, William E. Hefley, and Sally A Miller. 2009. People Capability Maturity Model (P-CMM) Version 2.0, Second Edition. Technical Report. Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
- Kermit G. Davis, Susan E. Kotowski, Denise Daniel, Thomas Gerding, Jennifer Naylor, and Megan Syck. 2020. The Home Office: Ergonomic Lessons From the “New Normal”. Ergon. Des. Q. Hum. Factors Appl. 28, 4 (oct 2020), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804620937907Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alexandra L. Dima. 2018. Scale validation in applied health research: tutorial for a 6-step R-based psychometrics protocol. Heal. Psychol. Behav. Med. 6, 1 (jan 2018), 136–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2018.1472602Google Scholar
- Joel S. Dutra, André L. Fischer, Lina E. Nakata, Julio C. R. Pereira, and Elza F. R. Veloso. 2012. The use categories as indicator of organizational climate in Brazilian companies. Rev. Carreiras e Pessoas 2 (2012), 145–176. https://doi.org/10.20503/recape.v2i1.9346Google Scholar
- Tore Dybå. 2000. Instrument for measuring the key factors of success in software process improvement. Empir. Softw. Eng. 5(2000), 357–390. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009800404137Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tore Dybå and Torgeir Dingsøyr. 2008. Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 50, 9-10 (aug 2008), 833–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006Google ScholarDigital Library
- M P Ganesh and Meenakshi Gupta. 2006. Study of Virtualness, Task Interdependence, Extra-Role Performance and Team Climate in Indian Software Development Teams. Proc. 20th Aust. New Zeal. Acad. Manag. Conf. Manag. Pragmatism, Philos. Priorities, Cent. Queensl. Univ. Rockhampt. 20 (2006), 1–19.Google Scholar
- Vicente González-Romá, Lina Fortes-Ferreira, and José M. Peiró. 2009. Team climate, climate strength and team performance. A longitudinal study. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 82, 3 (sep 2009), 511–536. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317908X370025Google ScholarCross Ref
- Karolina Grobelna and Trzcieliński Stefan. 2019. The Impact of Organizational Climate on the Regularity of Work Speed of Agile Software Development Teams. Entrep. Manag. 12, 1 (2019), 229–241. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=830155Google Scholar
- DE Hinkle, W Wiersma, and SG Jurs. 2003. Applied Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences (5 ed.). Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
- Philipp Hohl, Jil Klünder, Arie van Bennekum, Ryan Lockard, James Gifford, Jürgen Münch, Michael Stupperich, and Kurt Schneider. 2018. Back to the future: origins and directions of the “Agile Manifesto” – views of the originators. J. Softw. Eng. Res. Dev. 6, 1 (dec 2018), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40411-018-0059-zGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- J. Richard Landis and Gary G. Koch. 1977. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 33, 1 (mar 1977), 159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jae-Nam Lee. 2001. The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability and partnership quality on IS outsourcing success. Inf. Manag. 38, 5 (apr 2001), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00074-4Google ScholarDigital Library
- Per Lenberg, Robert Feldt, and Lars Göran Wallgren. 2015. Behavioral software engineering: A definition and systematic literature review. J. Syst. Softw. 107, September 2015 (2015), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.04.084Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sherlock A. Licorish and Stephen G. MacDonell. 2014. Understanding the attitudes, knowledge sharing behaviors and task performance of core developers: A longitudinal study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56, 12 (dec 2014), 1578–1596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.02.004Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gloria J. Miller. 2020. Framework for Project Management in Agile Projects: A Quantitative Study. , 155–174 pages. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43353-6_9Google Scholar
- Nianfang Ji and Jie Wang. 2012. A software project management simulation model based on team climate factors analysis. In 2012 Int. Conf. Inf. Manag. Innov. Manag. Ind. Eng.IEEE, Sanya, China, 304–308. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIII.2012.6339979Google Scholar
- John Noll, Mohammad Abdur Razzak, Julian M. Bass, and Sarah Beecham. 2017. A Study of the Scrum Master’s Role. In Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics). Springer, Innsbruck, Austria, 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69926-4_22Google Scholar
- Malcolm G. Patterson, Michael A. West, Viv J. Shackleton, Jeremy F. Dawson, Rebecca Lawthom, Sally Maitlis, David L. Robinson, and Alison M. Wallace. 2005. Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. J. Organ. Behav. 26, 4 (jun 2005), 379–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.312Google ScholarCross Ref
- PMI, Project Management Institute and AgileAlliance. 2017. Agile Practice Guide(1st ed.). PMI, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
- Jan Recker. 2013. Scientific Research in Information Systems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30048-6Google Scholar
- William Revelle. 2018. How to: Use the psych package for factor analysis and data reduction. Technical Report. Northwestern University. 1–90 pages.Google Scholar
- William Revelle and Richard E. Zinbarg. 2009. Coefficients Alpha, Beta, Omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika 74, 1 (mar 2009), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-zGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Per Runeson and Martin Höst. 2009. Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empir. Softw. Eng. 14, 2 (apr 2009), 131–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-008-9102-8Google ScholarDigital Library
- Benjamin Schneider, Karen M Barbera, Benjamin Schneider, and Karen M Barbera. 2014. Summary and Conclusion. In Oxford Handb. Organ. Clim. Cult., Benjamin Schneider Barbera and Karen M. (Eds.). Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, Chapter Summary an, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199860715.013.0035Google Scholar
- Mali Senapathi and Ananth Srinivasan. 2013. Sustained agile usage. In Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Eval. Assess. Softw. Eng. - EASE ’13. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 119. https://doi.org/10.1145/2460999.2461016Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Serrador, A. Gemino, and Blaize Horner. 2018. Creating a climate for project success. J. Mod. Proj. Manag. MAY/AUGUST (2018), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.19255/JMPM01604Google Scholar
- Fakhar Shahzad, GuoYi Xiu, and Muhammad Shahbaz. 2017. Organizational culture and innovation performance in Pakistan’s software industry. Technol. Soc. 51 (nov 2017), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.08.002Google Scholar
- Arpita Sharma and Aayushi Gupta. 2012. Impact of organisational climate and demographics on project specific risks in context to Indian software industry. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30, 2 (feb 2012), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.05.003Google ScholarCross Ref
- Forrest Shull, Janice Singer, and Dag I.K. Sjøberg. 2008. Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering. Springer London, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-044-5Google ScholarDigital Library
- Arjumand Bano Soomro, Norsaremah Salleh, Emilia Mendes, John Grundy, Giles Burch, and Azlin Nordin. 2016. The effect of software engineers’ personality traits on team climate and performance: A Systematic Literature Review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 73, May 2016 (2016), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2016.01.006Google ScholarDigital Library
- Katherine J. Stewart and Sanjay Gosain. 2006. The moderating role of development stage in free/open source software project performance. Softw. Process Improv. Pract. 11, 2 (mar 2006), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1002/spip.258Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robert W. Stone and Jeffrey J. Bailey. 2007. Team Conflict Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy of Business Students. J. Educ. Bus. 82, 5 (jan 2007), 258–266. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.82.5.258-266Google ScholarCross Ref
- Viswanath Venkatesh and Hillol Bala. 2008. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decis. Sci. 39, 2 (may 2008), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Viswanath Venkatesh and Fred D. Davis. 2000. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Manage. Sci. 46, 2 (feb 2000), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926Google Scholar
- Sai Datta Vishnubhotla, Emilia Mendes, and Lars Lundberg. 2018. An Insight into the Capabilities of Professionals and Teams in Agile Software Development. In Proc. 2018 7th Int. Conf. Softw. Comput. Appl. - ICSCA 2018. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3185089.3185096Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sai Datta Vishnubhotla, Emilia Mendes, and Lars Lundberg. 2020. Investigating the relationship between personalities and agile team climate of software professionals in a telecom company. Inf. Softw. Technol. 126 (oct 2020), 106335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106335Google Scholar
- Robert K Yin. 2013. Case Study Research: Design and Methods(5 ed.). Sage Publications, Los Angeles. 312 pages.Google Scholar
Recommendations
Organizational Climate Assessment of Trust, Knowledge, Learning, and Motivation of Agile Teams - A Case Study
SBSI '22: Proceedings of the XVIII Brazilian Symposium on Information SystemsContext: Organizational climate management is challenging for organizations developing Management Information Systems (MIS). Turnover, legacy code maintenance, delivery of fixed deadlines, lack of domain knowledge influences team trust, learning, and ...
On Building an Instrument to Assess the Organizational Climate of Agile Software Development Teams
SBQS '23: Proceedings of the XXII Brazilian Symposium on Software QualityBackground: Measuring the organizational climate of agile teams is a challenge for practitioners, mainly due to the scarcity of specific instruments for the agile context. Not assessing specific human factors that contribute to the formation of agile the ...
Organisational climate assessments of Agile teams – a qualitative multiple case study
Agile methods are associated with values, principles, and practices that influence organisational climate. Organisational climate is the meaning employees attach to the policies, practices, and procedures they experience and the behaviours they observe ...
Comments