Advertisement

A Study of Software Development Team Dynamics in SPI

  • Shuib Basri
  • Rory V. O’Connor
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 172)

Abstract

The software development team is a key factor in software projects, however, achieving and maintaining positive team dynamics in software development project especially when the software companies have fewer resources in term of people, money and time is a remarkable challenge. This paper explores the dynamics of software development teams (structure, process, communication, learning and sharing) and its impact on Software Process Improvement (SPI) in very small software organization, in order to understand the impact between these two variables. We undertook a series of interviews and focus groups with very small software companies and our results show that very small companies have a high level of team dynamics although their SPI initiatives are conducted on a small scale and in an informal and indirect manner. The results also indicated that this situation occurs due to the working and social relationship, willingness to share, having a good interpersonal skill and work closely each others.

Keywords

SPI VSEs Team Dynamics Grounded Theory (GT) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Rosen, C.C.H.: The Influence of Intra Team relationships on the systems Development Process: A theoretical Framework of Intra-Group Dynamics. In: 17th Workshop of the Psychology off Programming Interest Group, Sussex University (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bin Basri, S., O’ Connor, R.V.: Organizational commitment towards software process improvement an irish software VSEs case study. In: 2010 International Symposium on Information Technology (ITSim), Kuala Lumpur, June 15-17 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dyba, T.: An empirical investigation of the key factors for success in software process improvement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(5) (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    O’ Connor, R.V., Basri, S.: Exploring Managerial Commitment towards SPI in Small and Very Small Enterprises. In: Riel, A., O’Connor, R., Tichkiewitch, S., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2010. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 99, pp. 268–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basri, S., O’ Connor, R.V.: Evaluation of Knowledge Management Process in Very Small Software Companies: A Survey. In: Proceeding of 5th International (KMICe 2010) Conference on Knowledge Management, Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia, May 25-27 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beaver, J.M., Schiavone, G.A.: The effects of development team skill on software product quality. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 31(3) (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Commission, The New SME Definition: User Guide and Model Declaration (2005), http://www.europa.eu.int/comm./enterprise/enterprisepolicy/sme_definition/sme_user_guide.pdf (accessed on: February 26, 2007)
  8. 8.
    Laporte, C.Y., Alexandre, S., O’Connor, R.: A Software Engineering Lifecycle Standard for Very Small Enterprises. In: O’Connor, R.V., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of EuroSPI. CCIS, vol. 16, pp. 129–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mtigwe, B.: The entrepreneurial firm internationalization process in Southern African context: A comparative approach. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 11(5), 358–377 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sapovadia, V., Rajlal, K.: Micro Finance: The Pillars of a Tool to Socio-Economic Development. Development Gateway (2006), SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstract=955062
  11. 11.
    Valtanen, A., Sihvonen, H.M.: Employees’ Motivation for SPI: Case Study in a Small Finnish Software Company. In: Proceeding of the 15th European Conference, EuroSPI 2008. CCIS, vol. 16, pp. 152–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hall, T., Rainer, A., Baddoo, N.: Implementing Software Process Improvement: An empirical Study. Software Process, Improvement and Practice 7(1), 3–15 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Batisha, J., de Figueiredo, A.D.: SPI in a Very Small Team: A Case with CMM. Software Process Improvement and Practice 5(4), 243–255 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Komiyama, T., Sunazuka, T., Koyama, S.: Software process assessment and improvement in NEC - current status and future direction. Software Process Improvement and Practice 5(1), 31–43 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knauber, P., Muthig, D., Schmid, K., Widen, T.: Applying Product Line Concepts in SME. IEEE Software 17(5), 88–95 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stelzer, D., Mellis, W., Herzurm, G.: Software Process Improvement via ISO9000. Result of two surveys among the European software houses. Software Process Improvement and Practice 2, 197–210 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hall, T., Beecham, S., Verner, J., Wilson, D.: The Impact of Staff turnover on Software Project: The Importance of Understanding What makes Software Practitioners Tick. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGMIS CPR, pp. 30–39. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Phongpaibul, M., Boehm, B.: Improving quality through software process improvement in Thailand: initial analysis. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 30(4), 1–6 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoegl, M., Proserpio, L.: Team Member Proximity and Teamwork in Innovative Projects. Research Policy 33(8), 1153–1165 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Furumo, K., Pearson, J.M.: An Empirical Investigation of how Trust, Cohesion and Performance Vary in Virtual and Face to Face Teams. In: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, vol. 1, pp. 26c (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scarnati, J.T.: On becoming a team player. Team Performance Management 7(1/2), 5–10 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCarty, B.: Dynamics of a successful Team. What are the enablers and barriers to High Performing Successful Teams? MSc Dissertation, Dublin City University (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ayman, R.: Impact of team diversity on collaboration dynamics. In: Collaborating across Professional Boundaries (2000), http://www.stuart.iit.edu/ipro/papers/pdf/ayman.pdf (accessed on: April 25, 2007)
  24. 24.
    Singh, S.K.: Role of leadership in knowledge management: A study. Journal of Knowledge Management 12(4), 3–15 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Littlepage, G.E., Cowart, L., Kerr, B.: Relationships between Group Environment Scales and Group Performance and Cohesion. Small Group Research 20(1), 50–61 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kirkman, B.L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P.E., Gibson, C.B.: The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face Interaction. Academy of Management Journal 47(2), 175–192 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kvale, S.: Doing Interviews. The Sage Qualitative Research Kit. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li, J.Y.: Process Improvement and Risk Management in Off-the Shelf Component-Based Development, PhD Thesis, Norwegian University science and Technology (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kitzinger, J.: Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal 311, 299–302 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Patton, M.Q.: Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Elo, S., Kyngäs, H.: The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1), 107–115 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shuib Basri
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rory V. O’Connor
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Lero, the Irish Software Engineering Research CentreIreland
  2. 2.Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Sri IskandarTronohMalaysia
  3. 3.School of ComputingDublin City UniversityIreland

Personalised recommendations