IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v20y2009i3p355-376.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Coevolving Systems and the Organization of Agile Software Development

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Vidgen

    (School of Information Systems, Technology and Management, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia)

  • Xiaofeng Wang

    (Lero, The Irish Software Engineering Research Centre, Limerick, Ireland)

Abstract

Despite the popularity of agile methods in software development and increasing adoption by organizations there is debate about what agility is and how it is achieved. The debate suffers from a lack of understanding of agile concepts and how agile software development is practiced. This paper develops a framework for the organization of agile software development that identifies enablers and inhibitors of agility and the emergent capabilities of agile teams. The work is grounded in complex adaptive systems (CAS) and draws on three principles of coevolving systems: match coevolutionary change rate, maximize self-organizing, and synchronize exploitation and exploration. These principles are used to study the processes of two software development teams, one a team using eXtreme Programming (XP) and the other a team using a more traditional, waterfall-based development cycle. From the cases a framework for the organization of agile software development is developed. Time pacing, self-management with discipline and routinization of exploration are among the agile enablers found in the cases studies while event pacing, centralized management, and lack of resources allocated to exploration are found to be inhibitors to agility. Emergent capabilities of agile teams that are identified from the research include coevolution of business value, sustainable working with rhythm, sharing and team learning, and collective mindfulness.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Vidgen & Xiaofeng Wang, 2009. "Coevolving Systems and the Organization of Agile Software Development," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 355-376, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:20:y:2009:i:3:p:355-376
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.1090.0237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0237
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.1090.0237?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    2. Juhani Iivari & Rudy Hirschheim & Heinz K. Klein, 1998. "A Paradigmatic Analysis Contrasting Information Systems Development Approaches and Methodologies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 164-193, June.
    3. Philip Anderson, 1999. "Perspective: Complexity Theory and Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 216-232, June.
    4. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    5. Likoebe M. Maruping & Viswanath Venkatesh & Ritu Agarwal, 2009. "A Control Theory Perspective on Agile Methodology Use and Changing User Requirements," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 377-399, September.
    6. Kieran Conboy, 2009. "Agility from First Principles: Reconstructing the Concept of Agility in Information Systems Development," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 329-354, September.
    7. Freeman, Chris, 1994. "The Economics of Technical Change," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 18(5), pages 463-514, October.
    8. Abernathy, William J. & Clark, Kim B., 1985. "Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 3-22, February.
    9. Milind Dawande & Monica Johar & Subodha Kumar & Vijay S. Mookerjee, 2008. "A Comparison of Pair Versus Solo Programming Under Different Objectives: An Analytical Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 71-92, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hindle, Giles A. & Vidgen, Richard, 2018. "Developing a business analytics methodology: A case study in the foodbank sector," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 836-851.
    2. Christian Sillaber & Bernhard Waltl & Horst Treiblmaier & Ulrich Gallersdörfer & Michael Felderer, 2021. "Laying the foundation for smart contract development: an integrated engineering process model," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 863-882, September.
    3. Thomas Kude & Sunil Mithas & Christoph T. Schmidt & Armin Heinzl, 2019. "How Pair Programming Influences Team Performance: The Role of Backup Behavior, Shared Mental Models, and Task Novelty," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 1145-1163, December.
    4. Lill, Philipp A. & Wald, Andreas, 2021. "The agility-control-nexus: A levers of control approach on the consequences of agility in innovation projects," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    5. Alexander Benlian, 2022. "Sprint Zeal or Sprint Fatigue? The Benefits and Burdens of Agile ISD Practices Use for Developer Well-Being," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 557-578, June.
    6. Gregory Vial, 2023. "A Complex Adaptive Systems Perspective of Software Reuse in the Digital Age: An Agenda for IS Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1728-1743, December.
    7. Markus Hummel & Christoph Rosenkranz & Roland Holten, 2013. "The Role of Communication in Agile Systems Development," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 5(5), pages 343-355, October.
    8. Vidgen, Richard & Shaw, Sarah & Grant, David B., 2017. "Management challenges in creating value from business analytics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 261(2), pages 626-639.
    9. Ahn, Sang-Jin, 2020. "Three characteristics of technology competition by IoT-driven digitization," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    10. Kevin Suryaatmaja & Dermawan Wibisono & Achmad Ghazali & Rachma Fitriati, 2020. "Uncovering the failure of Agile framework implementation using SSM-based action research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-18, December.
    11. Kieran Conboy, 2009. "Agility from First Principles: Reconstructing the Concept of Agility in Information Systems Development," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 329-354, September.
    12. Shi, Yan & Zou, Bo & Guo, Jinyu & Ji, Peinan, 2022. "Time pacing of product development: The influence of goal clarity and autonomy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Justin J. P. Jansen & Gerard George & Frans A. J. Van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2008. "Senior Team Attributes and Organizational Ambidexterity: The Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(5), pages 982-1007, July.
    2. Orsatti, Gianluca & Pezzoni, Michele & Quatraro, Francesco, 2017. "Where Do Green Technologies Come From? Inventor Teams’ Recombinant Capabilities and the Creation of New Knowledge," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201711, University of Turin.
    3. Ye Jin Lee & Kwangsoo Shin & Eungdo Kim, 2019. "The Influence of a Firm’s Capability and Dyadic Relationship of the Knowledge Base on Ambidextrous Innovation in Biopharmaceutical M&As," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-17, September.
    4. Justin J. P. Jansen & Michiel P. Tempelaar & Frans A. J. van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2009. "Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 797-811, August.
    5. Jatinder S. Sidhu & Harry R. Commandeur & Henk W. Volberda, 2007. "The Multifaceted Nature of Exploration and Exploitation: Value of Supply, Demand, and Spatial Search for Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 20-38, February.
    6. Jing Zhang & Justin Tan & Poh Wong, 2015. "When does investment in political ties improve firm performance? The contingent effect of innovation activities," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 363-387, June.
    7. Gatti, Corrado & Volpe, Loredana & Vagnani, Gianluca, 2015. "Interdependence among productive activities: Implications for exploration and exploitation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 711-722.
    8. Ahammad, Mohammad Faisal & Basu, Shubhabrata & Munjal, Surender & Clegg, Jeremy & Shoham, Ofra Bazel, 2021. "Strategic agility, environmental uncertainties and international performance: The perspective of Indian firms," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 56(4).
    9. Mavroudi, Eva & Kesidou, Effie & Pandza, Krsto, 2023. "Effects of ambidextrous and specialized R&D strategies on firm performance: The contingent role of industry orientation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    10. Soetanto, Danny & Jack, Sarah, 2016. "The impact of university-based incubation support on the innovation strategy of academic spin-offs," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 50, pages 25-40.
    11. Orsatti, Gianluca & Quatraro, Francesco & Pezzoni, Michele, 2020. "The antecedents of green technologies: The role of team-level recombinant capabilities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    12. Glenn B. Voss & Zannie Giraud Voss, 2013. "Strategic Ambidexterity in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Implementing Exploration and Exploitation in Product and Market Domains," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1459-1477, October.
    13. Tobias Kollmann & Christoph Stöckmann, 2014. "Filling the Entrepreneurial Orientation–Performance Gap: The Mediating Effects of Exploratory and Exploitative Innovations," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(5), pages 1001-1026, September.
    14. Arie Y. Lewin & Henk W. Volberda, 1999. "Prolegomena on Coevolution: A Framework for Research on Strategy and New Organizational Forms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(5), pages 519-534, October.
    15. Justin J. P. Jansen & Frans A. J. Van Den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2006. "Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(11), pages 1661-1674, November.
    16. Rothaermel, Frank T., 2001. "Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent's advantage: an empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(8), pages 1235-1251, October.
    17. Svenja C. Sommer & Christoph H. Loch & Jing Dong, 2009. "Managing Complexity and Unforeseeable Uncertainty in Startup Companies: An Empirical Study," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 118-133, February.
    18. Quintana-Garci­a, Cristina & Benavides-Velasco, Carlos A., 2008. "Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 492-507, April.
    19. Guktae Kim & Moon-Goo Huh, 2015. "Exploration and organizational longevity: The moderating role of strategy and environment," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 389-414, June.
    20. Dennys Eduardo Rossetto & Roberto Carlos Bernardes & Felipe Mendes Borini & Cristiane Chaves Gattaz, 2018. "Structure and evolution of innovation research in the last 60 years: review and future trends in the field of business through the citations and co-citations analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(3), pages 1329-1363, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:20:y:2009:i:3:p:355-376. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.