Challenges of shared decision-making: A multiple case study of agile software development

Moe, Nils Brede; Aurum, Aybüke; Dybå, Tore

doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2011.11.006

Cited by 147 publications

(142 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

137

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Developers need to feel that the environment supports and is open to innovation before they will make a contribution [8,32]. Further, people working on the product need to share information and collaborate so they are sufficiently informed [2,28,39]. Due to specialization in teams and iteration pressure (the constant pressure of delivering what has been promised for the next iteration), the individual developer had little freedom.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fostering and Sustaining Innovation in a Fast Growing Agile Company

Moe

Barney

Aurum

et al. 2012

Product-Focused Software Process Improvement

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Sustaining innovation in a fast growing software development company is difficult. As organisations grow, peoples' focus often changes from the big picture of the product being developed to the specific role they fill. This paper presents two complementary approaches that were successfully used to support continued developer-driven innovation in a rapidly growing Australian agile software development company. The method "FedEx™ Day" gives developers one day to showcase a proof of concept they believe should be part of the product, while the method "20% Time" allows more ambitious projects to be undertaken. Given the right setting and management support, the two approaches can support and improve bottom-up innovation in organizations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fostering and Sustaining Innovation in a Fast Growing Agile Company

Moe

Barney

Aurum

et al. 2012

Product-Focused Software Process Improvement

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Flat hierarchies and the possibility to decide how to accomplish work are fundamental aspects, which give the team higher responsibility in its work life and rises again the satisfaction level [37]. The basis for self-managing teams is a shared-decision making process, which demands respect and trust within the whole team [38].…”

Section: Agile and Traditional Project Management Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subgroups in Agile and Traditional IT Project Teams

Pflügler¹,

Wiesche²,

Krcmar³

2018

Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, some developers preferred: functional requirements are more important than the safety requirements. It was found that the need for long-term quality was given a lower priority than the need for shortterm progress [29]. Moreover, the safety expert spent a relatively short time working with the team members which influences also the decision making.…”

Section: Data Analysis In Stagementioning

confidence: 99%

An Exploratory Study on Applying a Scrum Development Process for Safety-Critical Systems

Wang

Ramadani

Wagner

2017

Product-Focused Software Process Improvement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Background: Agile techniques recently have received attention from the developers of safety-critical systems. However, a lack of empirical knowledge of performing safety assurance techniques, especially safety analysis in a real agile project hampers further steps. Aims: In this article, we aim at (1) understanding and optimizing the S-Scrum development process, a Scrum extension with the integration of a systems theory based safety analysis technique, STPA (System-Theoretic Process Analysis), for safety-critical systems; (2) validating the Optimized S-Scrum development process further. Method: We conducted a two-stage exploratory case study in a student project at the University of Stuttgart, Germany. Results: The results in stage 1 showed that S-Scrum helps to ensure safety of each release but is less agile than the normal Scrum. We explored six challenges on: priority management; communication; time pressure on determining safety requirements; safety planning; time to perform upfront planning; and safety requirements' acceptance criteria. During stage 2, the safety and agility have been improved after the optimizations, including an internal and an external safety expert; pre-planning meeting; regular safety meeting; an agile safety plan; and improved safety epics and safety stories. We have also gained valuable suggestions from industry, but the generalization problem due to the specific context is still unsolved.

show abstract

Challenges of shared decision-making: A multiple case study of agile software development

Cited by 147 publications

References 30 publications

Fostering and Sustaining Innovation in a Fast Growing Agile Company

Fostering and Sustaining Innovation in a Fast Growing Agile Company

Subgroups in Agile and Traditional IT Project Teams

An Exploratory Study on Applying a Scrum Development Process for Safety-Critical Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About