Advertisement

A Failure to Learn in a Software Development Team: The Unsuccessful Introduction of an Agile Method

  • John McAvoy
  • Tom Butler
Chapter

Abstract

This paper presents an investigation of the failures associated with the introduction of a new software development methodology in a software project team. The failure to adopt the new methodology is seen as a failure to learn by the team. This paper posits that learning is more than the cognitive process of acquiring a new skill; learning also involves changes in behaviours, attitudes and opinions. As methodology adoption involves changes to a team's activities, values and norms, this study investigates the introduction of an Agile method by a software team as a learning experience. Researchers use the concepts of single- and double-loop learning to explain how social actors learn to (a) perform tasks efficiently and (b) decide on the best task to perform. The theory of triple-loop learning explains how a learning process can be ineffective; accordingly, it is employed to examine why the introduction of a new methodology was ineffective in the team studied. The theory illustrates how power factors influence learning. This study focuses on one specific power factor – the power inherent in the desire for cohesion and conformity within a team. Ineffective decision-making and related actions occur because of the desire to conform among group members; this was shown as the cause of ineffective learning in the software team. The findings illustrate how the values inherent in the Agile methodologies, primarily the desire for cohesion within the team, ultimately led to the failure of the team to learn.

Keywords

Software Development Project Team Participant Observation Agile Method Agile Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Argyris, C. 1976 Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly. 21(3). 363–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyris, C. and Schon, S. 1978 Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C. 1994 Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review. 72(4). 77–85.Google Scholar
  4. Argyris, C. 1995 Action science and organizational learning. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 10(6). 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Argyris, C. 1997 Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review. 55(5). 115–125.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Argyris, C. 2002 Double loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of Management Learning and Education. 1(2). 206–218.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Bateson, G. 1972 Steps to an ecology of mind. Ballantine Books, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Blackman, D., Connelly, J. and Henderson, S. 2004 Does double loop learning create reliable knowledge? The Learning Organization. 11(1). 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bødker, K. and Pedersen, J. 1991. Workplace Cultures: Looking at artifacts, symbols and practices. In Greenbaum, J., King, M. (eds.) Design at work: Collaborative design of computer systems. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 121–136.Google Scholar
  10. Boehm, B. and Turner, R. 2004 Balancing agility and discipline. Pearson Education, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Bokeno, R. 2003 The work of Chris Argyris as critical organization practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 16(6). 633–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cartwright, R. 2002 Mastering team leadership. Palgrave Macmillan, Wales.Google Scholar
  13. Clegg, S., Kornberger, M. and Pitsis, T. 2005 Managing and organizations: An introduction to theory and practice. Sage, London, UK.Google Scholar
  14. Cockburn, A. and Highsmith, J. 2001 Agile software development: The people factor. IEEE Computer. 34(11). 131–133.Google Scholar
  15. Cohn, M. 2004 User stories applied for agile software development. Addison-Wesley, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Denhardt, R., Denhardt, J. and Aristigeuta, M. 2002 Managing behaviour in public and nonprofit organizations. Sage, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M. 2003 Re-reading organizational learning: Selective memory, forgetting, and adaptation. Academy of Management Executive. 17(2). 51–55.Google Scholar
  18. Euchner, J. Sachs, P. and The NYNEX Panel 1993 The benefits of internal tension. Communications of the ACM. 36(4). 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ezey, P. 2003 Integration and its challenges in participant observation. Qualitative Research. 3(2). 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Finnegan, P., Galliers, R. and Powell, P. 2003 Applying triple loop learning to planning electronic trading systems. Information Technology and People. 16(4). 461–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flood, R. and Romm, N. 1996 Diversity management: Triple loop learning. Wiley, London, UK.Google Scholar
  22. Griffin, E. 1997 A first look at communication theory. McGraw-Hill, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  23. Hazzan, O. and Tomayko, J. 2004 Human aspects of software engineering. In Proceedings of extreme programming and agile processes in software engineering. 5th International conference, Germany. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 303–311.Google Scholar
  24. Highsmith, J. 2004 Agile project management. Pearson Education, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Janis, I. 1972 Victims of groupthink. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  26. Jorgensen, D. 1989 Participant observation: A methodology for human studies. Sage, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  27. Klein, K. and Myers, M. 1999 A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly. 23(1). 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Larsen, T. 2001 The phenomenon of diffusion. In Ardis, M., Marcolin, B. (eds.) Diffusing software product and process innovations. Kluwer, MA, USA, pp. 35–50.Google Scholar
  29. Moorhead, G., Neck, C. and West, M. 1998 The tendency towards defective decision making with self-managing teams: The relevance of groupthink. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Process. 73(2/3). 327–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Patton, M. 1990 Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage, London.Google Scholar
  31. Riehle, D. 2001 A comparison of the value systems of Adaptive Software Development and Extreme Programming: How methodologies may learn from each other. In Succi, G., Marchesi, M. (eds) Extreme Programming explained. Addison-Wesley, Boston, USA, pp. 35–50.Google Scholar
  32. Robinson, H. and Sharp, H. (2003) XP Culture: Why the twelve practices both are and are not the most significant thing. InProceedings of Agile development conference,Salt Lake City. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 12–21.Google Scholar
  33. Robinson, H. and Sharp, H. 2005 The social side of technical practices. In Proceedings of 6th international conference on Extreme Programming and Agile processes in software engineering (XP2005), Sheffield, UK. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 100–108.Google Scholar
  34. Schatz, B. and Abdelshafi, I. 2005 Primavera gets Agile: A successful transition to Agile development. IEEE Software 22(3), 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schuh, P. 2004 Integrating agile development in the real world. Delmar Thomson Learning, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Sharp, H. and Robinson, H. 2004 An ethnographic study of XP practice. Empirical Software Engineering. 9(4). 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Spradley, J. 1980 Participant observation. Holt, Rinehard, and Winston, New York, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Stephens, M. and Rosenberg, D. 2003 Extreme Programming refactored: The case against XP. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.Google Scholar
  39. Wang, C. and Ahmed, C. 2003 Organizational learning: A critical review. The Learning Organisation. 10(1). 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wardhaugh, R., Shani, A. and Docherty, P. 2003 Learning by design. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  41. Wenger, E. 1999 Learning as social participation. Knowledge Management Review. 1(6). 30–33.Google Scholar
  42. Yeo, R. 2002 From individual to team learning. Team Performance Management: An International Journal. 8(7/8). 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yeomans, L. 2000 Does reflective practice have relevance for innovation in public relations? Journal of Communications Management. 5(1). 72–81.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business Information SystemsUniversity College of CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations