1999
DOI: 10.1177/104649649903000204
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Software Team Formation and Decay

Abstract: B. W. Tuckman’s model of small group development proposes that groups progress through four formative stages widely known under the mnemonic “forming, storming, norming, performing.” This article analyzes 10 small software development teams classified by age, size, managerial and technical skill, reporting and communication structure, and process performance as assessed under the capability maturity model. Software development teams differ from the experimental groups studied by Tuckman and others in that they… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Fourth, we assume late stage emergence is evident when commonly used managerial interventions to enhance performance cease to be both accepted by group members and continuously effective. Temporally, this “tipping point” has been measured as a relatively permanent decrease in performance after a period of time (Katz, 1982; McGrew et al, 1999). Finally, we assume that disbandment or complete member replacement may not be a reasonable option for the late stage group because of the unique capabilities or political connectedness of individual members, organizational unwillingness to expend time and resources training a “new” group, or some other reason.…”
Section: Definitions and Assumptionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Fourth, we assume late stage emergence is evident when commonly used managerial interventions to enhance performance cease to be both accepted by group members and continuously effective. Temporally, this “tipping point” has been measured as a relatively permanent decrease in performance after a period of time (Katz, 1982; McGrew et al, 1999). Finally, we assume that disbandment or complete member replacement may not be a reasonable option for the late stage group because of the unique capabilities or political connectedness of individual members, organizational unwillingness to expend time and resources training a “new” group, or some other reason.…”
Section: Definitions and Assumptionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most research simply concludes at a “happily ever after” performing stage, assuming that late stage groups operate at high performance levels in dynamics and results (Jacobs & Heracleous, 2005). This is unfortunate, as ample research has shown that late stage groups experience performance decreases and increased isolation and conflict (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003; Katz, 1982; McGrew, Bilotta, & Deeney, 1999).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other groups might find themselves encountering the storming stage multiple times over the course of their life cycle, as new task demands emerge, and roles are once again clarified. Along these lines, one study used Tuckman's model to examine software development teams and argues for group development models to expand and include stages of decay such as de-norming (McGrew, Bilotta, & Deeney, 1999).…”
Section: Figure 1 Stages Of Group Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%