No abstract

While face‐to‐face interaction is fundamental in agile software development, distributed environments must rely extensively on mediated interactions. Practicing agile principles in distributed environments therefore poses particular control challenges related to balancing fixed vs. evolving quality requirements and people vs. process‐based collaboration. To investigate these challenges, we conducted an in‐depth case study of a successful agile distributed software project with participants from a Russian firm and a Danish firm. Applying Kirsch's elements of control framework, we offer an analysis of how control was enacted through the project context and in the participants' mediated communication. The analysis reveals that formal measurement and evaluation control were persistently enacted through mediated communication. These formal control practices were, however, predominantly carried out in conjunction with informal roles and relationships such as clan‐like control inherent in agile development. Overall, the study demonstrates that, if appropriately applied, communication technologies can significantly support distributed, agile practices by allowing concurrent enactment of both formal and informal controls. The paper discusses these findings as they relate to previous research and concludes with their implications for future research.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

S o f f a r e process mprovenzerlt (SPI) is one of the most widel}, used ap

In this study, we argue that today's changing business environment calls for agile Software Process Improvement (SPI) practices. The study combines experiences from 18 SPI projects executed from 1998 to 2002 at Ericsson in Gothenburg with insights from SPI and agility theory. We suggest that agile SPI practices are both effective and flexible; they employ adaptive governance mechanisms at the corporate level; and they combine different tactics on the project level. We identify and compare two different tactics for SPI projects. Inspired by procedural thinking, the first tactic, the supertanker, employs process‐push and aims for efficient process development and diffusion. On the basis of adaptive thinking, the second tactic, the motorboat, facilitates practice‐pull and aims for adaptive process development and diffusion. We also discuss how agile SPI practices require understanding of the different types of waters in which the two tactics navigate effectively. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract