Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 397–409 | Cite as

Pair programming teams and high-quality knowledge sharing: A comparative study of coopetitive reward structures

Article

Abstract

There has been a growing research interest in understanding knowledge sharing in agile development. Yet, empirical research that sheds light on its underlying practices, such as pair programming, is evolving. This study uses insights from coopetition and software literature to focus inquiry on the relation between coopetitive rewards and high-quality knowledge sharing in pair programming teams. Theoretical hypotheses are developed and validated, suggesting that: ‘coopetitive rewards influence high-quality knowledge sharing both directly and over time through their impact on the level of knowledge sharing satisfaction’, and, ‘the impact of coopetitive rewards on high-quality knowledge sharing is dependent upon task complexity and the history of working under similar reward structure’. This study generates new understanding related to the use of rewards in pair programming teams, and offers a rigorous and replicable seven-step experimental process for simulating coopetitive structures and investigating their role in pair programming and in similar collaborative contexts.

Keywords

Pair programming Agile development Software team Knowledge sharing Information sharing Rewards Coopetition Competitive reward Cooperation Competition 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The first author received the experimental small project grant from the ASB experimental research laboratory in 2011. Thanks to Ben Greiner for his feedback in designing the experiments, Claude Sammut for his input in designing the tasks, and Matthew Tolhurst for his support in running the experiments. Many thanks also to the review team for their constructive comments.

References

  1. Ally, M., Darroch, F., & Toleman, M. (2005). A framework for understanding the factors influencing pair programming success, eXtreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering (pp. 1–10). UK: Sheffield.Google Scholar
  2. Balijepally, V., Mahapatra, R., Nerur, S., & Price, K. H. (2009). Are two heads better than one for software development? The productivity paradox of pair programming. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 91–118.Google Scholar
  3. Beath, C. M., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1994). The contradictory structure of systems development methodologies: deconstructing the IS-user relationship in information engineering. Information Systems Research, 5(4), 350–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphery, S. E., Moon, H., Conlon, D. E., & Ilgen, D. R. (2003). Cooperation, competition, and team Performance: toward a contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 572–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beersma, B., Hollenback, J. R., Conlon, D. E., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., & Ilgen, D. R. (2009). Cutthroat cooperation: the effects of team role decisions on adaptation to alternative reward structures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellini, E., Canfora, G., García, F., Piattini, M., & Visaggio, C. A. (2005). Pair designing as practice for enforcing and diffusing design knowledge. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, 17(6), 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biron, M., & Bamberger, P. (2010). The impact of structural empowerment on individual well-being and performance: taking agent preferences, self-efficacy and operational constraints into account. Human Relations, 63(2), 163–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-Opetition: a revolutionary mindset that combines competition and co-operation. New York: Bantam Dell Pub Group.Google Scholar
  9. Byström, K., & Järvelin, K. (1995). Task complexity affects information seeking and use. Information Processing and Management, 31(2), 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, D. J. (1988). Task complexity: a review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 40–52.Google Scholar
  11. Canfora, G., Cimitile, A., Garcia, F., Piattini, M., & Visaggio, C. A. (2007). Evaluating performances of pair designing in industry. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(8), 1317–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan, F. K. Y., & Thong, J. Y. L. (2009). Acceptance of agile methodologies: a critical review and conceptual framework. Decision Support Systems, 46(4), 803–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chau, T., & Maurer, F. (2004). Knowledge sharing in agile software teams. In L. Wolfgang (Ed.), Logic versus approximation (pp. 173–183). United States: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cockburn, A. (2006). Agile software development: the cooperative game (agile software development series). Boston, United States: Addison-Wesley Professional.Google Scholar
  15. Cockburn, A., & Highsmith, J. (2001). Agile software development: the people factor. Computer, 34(11), 131–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conboy, K., Coyle, S., Wang, X., & Pikkarainen, M. (2010). People over process: key people challenges in agile development. IEEE Software, 99(1), 47–57.Google Scholar
  17. Crozier, M., & Friedberg, E. (2009). The bureaucratic phenomenon. London: Transaction Pub.Google Scholar
  18. Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2(2), 129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V. G., & Moe, N. B. (2012). A decade of agile methodologies: towards explaining agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1213–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Esterhuizen, D., Schutte, C. S. L., & Du Toit, A. S. A. (2012). Knowledge creation processes as critical enablers for innovation. International Journal of Information Management, 32(4), 354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferrin, D. L., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The use of rewards to increase and decrease trust: mediating processes and differential effects. Organization Science, 14(1), 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fu, F.-L., Wu, Y.-L., & Ho, H.-C. (2009). An investigation of coopetitive pedagogic design for knowledge creation in Web-based learning. Computers & Education, 53(3), 550–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garvey, C. (2002). Steer teams with the right pay. HR Magazine, 47(1), 71–78.Google Scholar
  24. Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghobadi, S. (2014). What drives knowledge sharing in software team: a review and classification framework. Information Management, 52(1), 82–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ghobadi, S., & D’ambra, J. (2011a). Coopetitive relationships in cross-functional software development teams: how to model and measure? Journal of Systems and Software, 85(5), 1096–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ghobadi, S., & D’ambra, J. (2011b). Coopetitive knowledge sharing: an analytical review of literature. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 307–317.Google Scholar
  28. Ghobadi, S., & D’ambra, J. (2012). Knowledge sharing in cross-functional teams: a coopetitive model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(2), 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ghobadi, S., & D’ambra, J. (2013). Modeling high-quality knowledge sharing in cross-functional software development teams. Information Processing and Management, 49(1), 138–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ghobadi, S., & Mathiassen, L. (2014). Perceived barriers to effective knowledge sharing in Agile software teams. Information Systems Journal. doi: 10.1111/isj.12053.Google Scholar
  31. Gordon, F. M., Welch, K. R., Offringa, G., & Katz, N. (2000). The complexity of social outcomes from cooperative, competitive, and individualistic reward systems. Social Justice Research, 13(3), 237–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gupta, N. & Bajwa, J. K. (2012) Analysis of knowledge sharing practices in distributed agile environment. International Journal of Computer and Communication Technology, 3(6), 6–11.Google Scholar
  33. Hanks, B. (2008). Empirical evaluation of distributed pair programming. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(7), 530–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Highsmith, J., & Cockburn, A. (2001). Agile software development: the business of innovation. Computer, 34(9), 120–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hulkko, H. & Abrahamsson, P. (2005). A multiple case study on the impact of pair programming on product quality, Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering: ACM, 495–504, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.Google Scholar
  37. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: theory and research. MN, US: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
  38. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory. Social Psychological Applications to Social Issues, 4, 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2006). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131(4), 285–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Ilgen, D. R., Jundt, D., & Meyer, C. J. (2006). Cutthroat cooperation: asymmetrical adaptation to changes in team reward structures. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Li, C., & Hsieh, C. (2009). The impact of knowledge stickiness on knowledge transfer implementation, internalization, and satisfaction for multinational corporations. International Journal of Information Management, 29(6), 425–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lin, T. C., & Huang, C. C. (2010). Withholding effort in knowledge contribution: the role of social exchange and social cognitive on project teams. Information Management, 47(1), 188–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lin, C., Tan, B., & Chang, S. (2008). An exploratory model of knowledge flow barriers within healthcare organizations. Information Management, 45(5), 331–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lin, S. P., Wang, Y. C., Yuan-Hui, T., & Hsu, Y. F. (2010). Perceived job effectiveness in coopetition: a survey of virtual teams within business organizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 1598–1606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Loebbecke, C., Van Fenema, P. C., & Powell, P. (1999). Co-Opetition and knowledge transfer. The Database for Advances in Information Systems, 30(2), 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lucker, G. W., Rosenfield, D., Sikes, J., & Aronson, E. (1976). Performance in the interdependent classroom: a field study. American Educational Research Journal, 13(2), 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mcgrath, J. E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). The study of groups: past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Müller, M. M. (2005). Two controlled experiments concerning the comparison of pair programming to peer review. Journal of Systems and Software, 78(2), 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Müller, M. M. (2007). Do programmer pairs make different mistakes than solo programmers? Journal of Systems and Software, 80(9), 1460–1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R. K., & Mangalaraj, G. (2005). Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 48(5), 72–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pais, L., & dos Santos, N. R. (2015). Knowledge-sharing, cooperation and personal development. In K. Kraiger, J. Passmore, N. R. dos Santos & Sigmar Malvezzi (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Training, Development, and Performance Improvement (pp. 278-302). UK, Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  52. Pee, L. G., Kankanhalli, A., & Kim, H. W. (2010). Knowledge sharing in information systems development: a social interdependence perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(10), 550–575.Google Scholar
  53. Ramesh, B., Mohan, K., & Cao, L. (2012). Ambidexterity in agile distributed development: an empirical investigation. Information System Research, 23(2), 323–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ryan, S., & O’connor, R. V. (2009). Development of a team measure for tacit knowledge in software development teams. Journal of Systems and Software, 82(2), 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Serrano, J. M., & Pons, R. M. (2007). Cooperative learning: we can also do it without task structure. Intercultural Education, 18(3), 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sharp, H., & Robinson, H. (2008). Collaboration and co-ordination in mature eXtreme programming teams. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(7), 506–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shih, H.-P., & Huang, E. (2014). Influences of Web interactivity and social identity and bonds on the quality of online discussion in a virtual community. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(4), 627–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shih, M.-H., Tsai, H.-T., & Wu, C.-C. (2006). A holistic knowledge sharing framework in high-tech firms: game and co-opetition perspectives. International Journal of Technology Management, 36(4), 354–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sjøberg, D. I., Hannay, J. E., Hansen, O., Kampenes, V. B., Karahasanovic, A., Liborg, N.-K., & Rekdal, A. C. (2005). A survey of controlled experiments in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(9), 733–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Slavin, R. E. (1977). Classroom reward structure: an analytical and practical review. Review of Educational Research, 47(4), 633–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Speier, C., Vessey, I., & Valacich, J. S. (2003). The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and information presentation on computer-supported decision-making performance. Decision Sciences, 34(4), 771–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tan, K. H., Wong, W. & Chung, L. (2015). Information and knowledge leakage in supply chain. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–18. doi: 10.1007/s10796-015-9553-6.
  63. Taylor, E. Z. (2006). The effect of incentives on knowledge sharing in computer-mediated communication: an experimental investigation. Journal of Information Systems, 20(1), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wageman, R., & Baker, G. (1997). Incentives and cooperation: the joint effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2), 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wang, G. A., Liu, X., Wang, J., Zhang, M., & Fan, W. (2015). Examining micro-level knowledge sharing discussions in online communities. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–12. doi: 10.1007/s10796-015-9566-1.
  66. Willem, A., & Buelens, M. (2009). Knowledge sharing in inter-unit cooperative episodes: the impact of organizational structure dimensions. International Journal of Information Management, 29(2), 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Williams, L., Kessler, R. R., Cunningham, W., & Jeffries, R. (2000). Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Software, 17(4), 19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(1), 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wray, S. (2010). How pair programming really works. IEEE Software, 27(1), 50–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zacharis, N. Z. (2011). Measuring the effects of virtual pair programming in an introductory programming java course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(1), 168–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manchester Business SchoolThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.Faculty of Business, Government and LawUniversity of CanberraCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.School of ManagementUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations