Strategy and Innovation

Moran, Alan

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16262-1_2

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, they need to be managed differently. In particular, in project management, a distinction is often made between waterfall and agile project management approaches (Moran 2015). Whereas waterfall approaches tend to perform well when requirements can be reasonably defined upfront and resources can be dedicated to specific tasks, agile approaches tend to work well for managing unstructured knowledge-intensive projects (Moran 2015).…”

Section: Knowledge-intensive Project Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative Work Dynamics in Projects with Co‐Production

Rahmani

Roels

Karmarkar

2017

Production and Operations Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many knowledge‐intensive projects such as new product and software design, research, and high technology development have flexible scope and involve co‐production between a client and a vendor. In such projects, it is often challenging to estimate how much progress can be achieved within a certain time window or how much time may be needed to achieve a certain degree of progress, especially because the client and vendor often adjust their efforts as a function of the project's progress, the time until the deadline, and the incentives in place. Effective contracts should therefore be flexible in scope and foster collaboration. In this study, we characterize the collaborative work dynamics of a client and a vendor who are engaged in a multi‐state, multi‐period stochastic project with a finite deadline. We show that when the client can verify the vendor's effort, it is optimal that they both exert high effort in one of two situations: when either not enough progress has been made and the deadline is close (deadline effect), or conversely, when so much progress has been made that the project state is close to a completion state set by the client (milestone effect). Hence, in this case, progress will typically be faster when the project is about to be stopped, due to either reaching the deadline or reaching the client's desired completion state. However, when the client cannot verify the vendor's effort, the vendor is prone to free‐riding. Considering a time‐based contract that pays the vendor a per‐period fee and a fixed completion bonus, we show that the equilibrium completion state is decreasing in the per‐period fee and increasing in the bonus, justifying the use of both incentive mechanisms in practice. Moreover, we show that, under such contracts, some form of milestone effect arises in equilibrium, but the deadline effect does not. Hence, in those cases, early progress will typically lead to early project conclusion at a high state; whereas, slow progress will typically make the project drag until the deadline while still at a low state.

show abstract

Section: Knowledge-intensive Project Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative Work Dynamics in Projects with Co‐Production

Rahmani

Roels

Karmarkar

2017

Production and Operations Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The software development process is complex [17] and requires a deep understanding of the various factors that can impact a project's success [18]. Qualitative research is well suited for exploring such complex phenomena and understanding the perspectives of those involved [19].…”

Section: Research Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Causes and Mitigation Practices of Requirement Volatility in Agile Software Development

Mohammad,

Kollamana

2024

Informatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the main obstacles in software development projects is requirement volatility (RV), which is defined as uncertainty or changes in software requirements during the development process. Therefore, this research tries to understand the underlying factors behind the RV and the best practices to reduce it. The methodology used for this research is based upon qualitative research using interviews with 12 participants with experience in agile software development projects. The participants hailed from Austria, Nigeria, the USA, the Philippines, Armenia, Sri Lanka, Germany, Egypt, Canada, and Turkey and held roles such as project managers, software developers, Scrum Masters, testers, business analysts, and product owners. Our findings based on our empirical data revealed six primary factors that cause RV and three main agile practices that help to mitigate it. Theoretically, this study contributes to the body of knowledge relating to RV management. Practically, this research is expected to aid software development teams in comprehending the reasons behind RV and the best practices to effectively minimize it.

show abstract

“…Hallitsemattomuuden merkitystä johtajuusviestinnälle ei tähänastisessa tutkimuskirjallisuudessa ole tarkemmin pohdittu, vaikka esimerkiksi organisaatioviestinnän tutkimuksessa ketteryys on käsitteenä yleistymässä (Moran, 2015;Ragas & Ragas, 2021;van Ruler, 2015van Ruler, , 2019. Johtajuutta koskevassa tutkimuskirjallisuudessa esitetyt viestinnän näkökulmat ovat usein suoraviivaisia ja melko ylimalkaisia.…”

Section: Navigoiva Johtajuusviestintäunclassified

Navigoiva johtajuusviestintä

Juholin¹,

Rydenfelt²

2023

prlg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tutkimme tässä artikkelissa johtajuusviestinnän määrittelyjä ja muutossuuntia viime vuosikymmenten tutkimuskirjallisuuden valossa. Tavoitteemme on hahmottaa johtajuuden ja viestinnän tutkimuksen kautta erilaisia johtajuusviestinnän paradigmoja ja tarkastella niitä suhteessa toimintaympäristön ja viestintäolosuhteiden muutoksiin sekä niiden hallitsemattomuuden haasteeseen. Vastauksena näihin olosuhteisiin kehitämme navigoivan johtajuusviestinnän viitekehyksen, joka mahdollistaa johtajuusviestinnän paradigmojen tarkastelun suhteessa erilaisiin johtamisen konteksteihin ja tilanteisiin. Viitekehys auttaa ymmärtämään johtajuusviestinnän moniulotteisuutta ja tarjoaa myös käytännön mahdollisuuden reflektiiviseen valintaan eri viestintäkäytäntöjen välillä erilaisissa tilanteissa ja johtamistyön vaiheissa.

show abstract

Strategy and Innovation

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Collaborative Work Dynamics in Projects with Co‐Production

Collaborative Work Dynamics in Projects with Co‐Production

Causes and Mitigation Practices of Requirement Volatility in Agile Software Development

Navigoiva johtajuusviestintä

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About