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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Argyris, C. 1976 Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly. 21(3). 363–375.
Argyris, C. and Schon, S. 1978 Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley, MA, USA.
Argyris, C. 1994 Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review. 72(4). 77–85.
Argyris, C. 1995 Action science and organizational learning. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 10(6). 20–26.
Argyris, C. 1997 Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review. 55(5). 115–125.
Argyris, C. 2002 Double loop learning, teaching, and research. Academy of Management Learning and Education. 1(2). 206–218.
Bateson, G. 1972 Steps to an ecology of mind. Ballantine Books, New York, USA.
Blackman, D., Connelly, J. and Henderson, S. 2004 Does double loop learning create reliable knowledge? The Learning Organization. 11(1). 11–27.
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.
Boehm, B. and Turner, R. 2004 Balancing agility and discipline. Pearson Education, MA, USA.
Bokeno, R. 2003 The work of Chris Argyris as critical organization practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 16(6). 633–649.
Cartwright, R. 2002 Mastering team leadership. Palgrave Macmillan, Wales.
Clegg, S., Kornberger, M. and Pitsis, T. 2005 Managing and organizations: An introduction to theory and practice. Sage, London, UK.
Cockburn, A. and Highsmith, J. 2001 Agile software development: The people factor. IEEE Computer. 34(11). 131–133.
Cohn, M. 2004 User stories applied for agile software development. Addison-Wesley, MA, USA.
Denhardt, R., Denhardt, J. and Aristigeuta, M. 2002 Managing behaviour in public and nonprofit organizations. Sage, CA, USA.
Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M. 2003 Re-reading organizational learning: Selective memory, forgetting, and adaptation. Academy of Management Executive. 17(2). 51–55.
Euchner, J. Sachs, P. and The NYNEX Panel 1993 The benefits of internal tension. Communications of the ACM. 36(4). 53.
Ezey, P. 2003 Integration and its challenges in participant observation. Qualitative Research. 3(2). 191–205.
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.
Flood, R. and Romm, N. 1996 Diversity management: Triple loop learning. Wiley, London, UK.
Griffin, E. 1997 A first look at communication theory. McGraw-Hill, NY, USA.
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.
Highsmith, J. 2004 Agile project management. Pearson Education, MA, USA.
Janis, I. 1972 Victims of groupthink. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, USA.
Jorgensen, D. 1989 Participant observation: A methodology for human studies. Sage, CA, USA.
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.
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.
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.
Patton, M. 1990 Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage, London.
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.
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.
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.
Schatz, B. and Abdelshafi, I. 2005 Primavera gets Agile: A successful transition to Agile development. IEEE Software 22(3), 36–42.
Schuh, P. 2004 Integrating agile development in the real world. Delmar Thomson Learning, New York, USA.
Sharp, H. and Robinson, H. 2004 An ethnographic study of XP practice. Empirical Software Engineering. 9(4). 353–375.
Spradley, J. 1980 Participant observation. Holt, Rinehard, and Winston, New York, USA.
Stephens, M. and Rosenberg, D. 2003 Extreme Programming refactored: The case against XP. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
Wang, C. and Ahmed, C. 2003 Organizational learning: A critical review. The Learning Organisation. 10(1). 8–17.
Wardhaugh, R., Shani, A. and Docherty, P. 2003 Learning by design. Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
Wenger, E. 1999 Learning as social participation. Knowledge Management Review. 1(6). 30–33.
Yeo, R. 2002 From individual to team learning. Team Performance Management: An International Journal. 8(7/8). 157–170.
Yeomans, L. 2000 Does reflective practice have relevance for innovation in public relations? Journal of Communications Management. 5(1). 72–81.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McAvoy, J., Butler, T. (2009). A Failure to Learn in a Software Development Team: The Unsuccessful Introduction of an Agile Method. In: Wojtkowski, W., Wojtkowski, G., Lang, M., Conboy, K., Barry, C. (eds) Information Systems Development. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-68772-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-68772-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-30403-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-68772-8
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)