J Manag 19(4):915–922Ĭummins RA, Gullone E (2000) The case for subjective quality of life measurement. In: Proceedings of XP/Agile Universe, SpringerĬortina JM (1993) Interaction, nonlinearity, and multicollinearity: implications for multiple regression. Psychol Bull 85:858–866Ĭonboy K, Fitzgerald B (2004) Toward a conceptual framework of agile methods: a study of agility in different disciplines. Int J Hum Comput Stud 58(2):207–214Ĭohen J (1978) Partialled products are interactions: partialled powers are curve components. Pers Psychol 46:823–850Ĭapretz L (2003) Personality types in software engineering. Rand McNally, ChicagoĬampion MA, Medsker GJ, Higgs AC (1993) Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. In: Dunnette MD (ed) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Tavistock, LondonĬampbell JP, Pritchard RD (1976) Motivation theory in industrial and organizational psychology. Oldenbourg, München, pp 51–67īurns T, Stalker GM (1961) The management of innovation. In: Brodbeck FC, Frese M (eds) Produktivität und Qualität in Software-Projekten. In: Proceedings 26th international conference on software engineering (ICSE 2004), pp 718–719īrodbeck FC (1994) Intensive Kommunikation lohnt sich für SE-Projekte. Comput 35(1):64–69īoehm B, Turner R (2004) Balancing agility and discipline: evaluating and integrating agile and plan-driven methods. Addison-Wesley Professional, Bostonīoehm B (2002) Get ready for agile methods, with care. Knight, Londonīeck K (1999) Extreme programming explained: embrace change, 1st edn. Sage, Thousand Oaksīabbage C (1835) On the economy of machinery and manufacturing. Finally, in general, agile software development projects performed better than plan driven projects for innovative software development, while projects adopting plan-driven methods performed better than agile projects for routine software development.Īiken L, West S (1991) Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Further, agile teams demonstrated higher outcome interdependence and team reflexivity, and thereby higher effectiveness, but lower efficiency, compared to teams adopting plan-drive methods of software development. However, an opposite effect was observed for team efficiency. While high outcome interdependence magnified the positive impacts of team reflexivity on its effectiveness, an increase in team reflexivity at low outcome interdependence had a deleterious impact. An empirical study with 332 team members of 34 software projects reveals that as predicted team reflexivity and outcome interdependence have both synergistic and antagonistic impacts on team performance. The paper proposes that outcome interdependence, defined as the extent to which team members perceive that attainment of goals by their colleagues will facilitate their own goal achievement, will moderate the effect of team reflexivity on its performance. Reflexivity, the extent to which teams reflect upon and modify their functioning, is widely recognized as a key factor influencing performance of work teams.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |