Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Towards understanding the relationship between team climate and software quality—a quasi-experimental study

  • Published:
Empirical Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes an empirical study that examined the work climate within software development teams. The question was whether the team climate in software developer teams has any relation to software product quality. We define team climate as the shared perceptions of the team’s work procedures and practices. The team climate factors examined were West and Anderson’s participative safety, support for innovation, team vision and task orientation. These four factors were measured before the project using the Team Selection Inventory (TSI) test to establish subject climate preferences, as well as during and after the project using the Team Climate Inventory (TCI) test, which establishes the subject’s perceptions of the climate. In this quasi-experimental study, data were collected from a sample of 35 three-member developer teams in an academic setting. These teams were formed at random and their members were blind to the quasi-experimental conditions and hypotheses. All teams used an adaptation of extreme programming (XP) to the students’ environment to develop the same software system. We found that high team vision preferences and high participative safety perceptions of the team were significantly related to better software. Additionally, the results show that there is a positive relationship between the categorization of better than preferred, as preferred and worse than preferred climate and software quality for two of the teamwork climate factors: participative safety and team vision. So it seems important to track team climate in an organization and team as one (of many) indicators of the quality of the software to be delivered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acuña ST, Juristo N (2004) Assigning people to roles in software projects. Softw Pract Exp 34:675–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson N, Burch GJ (2003) The team selection inventory. ASE, NFER-Nelson, Slough

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson N, West M (1994) The team climate inventory. ASE, NFER-Nelson, Windsor

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson N, West M (1998) Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. J Organ Behav 19:235–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson N, West M (1999) The team climate inventory: user’s guide, 2nd edn. ASE, NFER-Nelson, Windsor

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry B, Stewart GL (1997) Composition, process and performance in self-managed groups: the role of personality. J Appl Psychol 82:62–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck K (1999) Extreme programming explained: embrace change. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck K, Cunningham W (1989) A laboratory for teaching object-oriented thinking. Proc. of Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages and Applications 1989 (OOPSLA ‘89). SIGPLAN Not 24(10):1–6

  • Beck K, Beedle M, Cockburn A, Cunnimgham W, Fowler M et al. (2001) Agile Manifesto [http://agilemanifesto.org/]

  • Bentley J (2000) Programming pearls, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm BW, Abts C, Brown WA, Chulani S, Clark BK, Horowitz E, Madachy R, Reifer DJ, Steece B (2000) Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom RP, Kaiser KM (1981) Personality differences within systems project teams: implications for designing solving centers. Proc. 18th Ann. ACM SIGCPR Conf. 248–285

  • Brown S, Leigh TW (1996) A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. J Appl Psychol 81:358–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burch GJ, Anderson N (2004) Measuring person–team fit: development and validation of the team selection inventory. J Manage Psychol 19(4):406–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Burdett G, Li R-Y (1995) A quantitative approach to the formation of workgroups. Proc. 32nd Ann. ACM SIGCPR Conf. 202–212

  • Chan D (1998) Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: a typology of composition models. J Appl Psychol 83:234–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook TD, Campbell DT (1979) Quasi-experimentation design and analysis issues for the field settings. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Curral LA, Forrester RH, Dawson JF, West MA (2001) It’s what you do and the way that you do it: team task, team size, and innovation-related group. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 10(2):187–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis B, Hefley WE, Miller SA (2001) People capability model (P-CMM), Version 2.0, tech. report CMU/SEI-2001-MM-001, Software Eng. Inst., Carnegie Mellon University

  • DeMarco T, Lister T (1999) Peopleware: productive projects and teams, 2nd edn. Dorset House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Detienne F (2002) Software design—cognitive aspects. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Faraj S, Sproull L (2000) Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Manage Sci 46(12):1554–1568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fay D, Lührmann H, Kohl C (2004) Proactive climate in a post-reorganization setting: when staff compensate managers’ weakness. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 13(2):241–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman JR, Oldham GR (1987) Work redesign. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardiman LT (1997) Personality types and software engineers. Computer 301(10):10–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoc J-M, Green TRG, Samurcay R, Gilmore DJ (eds) (1990) Psychology of programming. Academic, London

  • Humphrey WS (1998) Managing technical people: innovation, teamwork and the software process. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey WS, Konrad MD (2005) Motivation and process improvement. In: Acuña ST, Juristo N (eds) Software process modeling. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • IEEE (2004) Guide to the software engineering body of knowledge—SWEBOK version 2004. IEEE Computer Society, California

    Google Scholar 

  • James LR, Jones AP (1980) Perceived job characteristics and job satisfaction: an examination of reciprocal causation. Pers Psychol 33:97–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James LR, Tetrick LE (1986) Confirmatory analytic tests of three causal models relating job perceptions to job satisfaction. J Appl Psychol 71:77–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa SL, Leidner DE (1999) Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organ Sci 10(6):791–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jedlitschka A, Pfahl D (2005) Reporting guidelines for controlled experiments in software engineering [www.iese.fraunhofer.de/network/ISERN/pub/technical_reports/isern-05-01.pdf]

  • Jehn KA (1997) A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Adm Sci Q 42:530–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juristo N, Moreno AM (2001) Basics of software engineering experimentation. Kluwer, Boston

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Katzenbach J, Smith D (2001) The discipline of teams: a mindbook–workbook for delivering small group performance. John Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellner MI, Madachy RJ, Raffo DM (1999) Software process simulation modelling: why? what? how? J Sys Software 46:91–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny DA, La Voie L (1985) Separating individual and group effects. J Pers Soc Psychol 48:339–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawler EE, Hall DT, Oldham GR (1974) Organizational climate: Relationship to organizational structure, process and performance. Organ Behav Human Perform 11:139–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litwin GH, Stringer RA (1968) Motivation and organizational climate. Harvard University Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Mañas MA, González-Romá V, Peiro JM (1999) Work-group climate. Determinants and consequences. Universidad de Almería, Instituto de Estudios Almerienses, Almeria, Spain

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin RC (2000) Extreme programming development through dialog. IEEE Software, July–August, 12–13

  • Mathieu JE, Hoffman DA, Farr JL (1993) Job perceptions–job satisfaction relations: an empirical comparison of three competing theories. Organ Behav Hum 56:370–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell C, Werner L, Bullock H, Fernald J (2006) Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Commun ACM 49(8):90–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molleman E, Nauta A, Jehn KA (2004) Person–job fit applied to teamwork: a multi-level approach. Small Gr Res 35(5):515–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore E (1991) Personality characteristics of information systems professionals. Proc. 28th Ann. ACM SIGCPR Conf. 140–155

  • Patterson MG, Warr PB, West MA (2004) Organizational climate and company performance: the role of employee affect and employee level. J Occup Organ Psychol 77:193–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfleeger SL (2001) Software engineering: theory and practice, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard RD, Karasick BW (1973) The effects of organizational climate on managerial job performance and satisfaction. Organ Behav Human Perform 9:126–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichers AE, Schneider B (1990) Climate and culture: an evolution of constructs. In: Schneider B (ed) Organizational climate and culture. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutherfoord RH (2001) Using personality inventories to help form teams for software engineering class projects. SIGCSE Bull 33(3):76–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider B, White SS, Paul MC (1998) Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: tests of a causal model. J Appl Psychol 83:150–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw ME, Harkey B (1976) Some effects of congruency of members characteristics and group structure upon group behaviour. J Pers Soc Psychol 34:412–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teague J (1998) Personality type, career preference and implications for computer science recruitment and teaching. Proc. 3rd Australas. Conf. Comput. Sc. Educ. 155–63

  • Tuckman B (1965) Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull 63:384–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turley R, Bieman J (1995) Competencies of exceptional and nonexceptional software engineers. J Syst Softw 28(1):19–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umphress DA, Hendrix TD, Cross JH (2002) Software process in the classroom: the capstone project experience. IEEE Software, September–October, 78–85

  • West MA (1990) The social psychology of innovation in groups. In: West MA, Farr JL (eds) Innovation and creativity work. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • West MA, Anderson N (1996) Innovation in top management teams. J Appl Psychol 81:680–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White K, Leifer R (1986) Information systems development success: perspectives from project team participants. MIS Quart 10(3):215–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynekoop J, Walz D (2000) Investigating traits of top performing software developers. Inform Technol People 13(3):186–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang H-L, Tang J-H (2004) Team structure and team performance in IS development: a social network perspective. Inform Manage 41:335–349

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Zakarian A, Kusiak A (1999) Forming teams: an analytical approach. IIE Trans Des Manuf 31(1):85–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Zander A (1993) Making groups effective, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuser W, Grechening T (2003) Reflecting skills and personality internally as means for team performance improvement. Proc. 6th Conf. Software Eng. Educ. Train., IEEE Computer Society. 234–241

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Calle Tomás y Valiente 11, 28049, Madrid, Spain

    Silvia T. Acuña

  2. Universidad San Pablo—CEU, Campus de Monteprincipe, 28668 Boadilla del Monte, Madrid, Spain

    Marta Gómez

  3. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Campus de Montegancedo, 28660 Boadilla del Monte, Madrid, Spain

    Natalia Juristo

Authors
  1. Silvia T. Acuña
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marta Gómez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Natalia Juristo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia T. Acuña.

Additional information

Editor: Murray Wood

Appendices

Appendix 1. Team Selection Inventory (TSI; Burch and Anderson 2004)

Scale:

Not at all

Not a lot/Not very

Somewhat

A lot/Very

Completely

①

②

③

④

⑤

Participative Safety

We would have to share information generally in the team rather than keeping it to ourselves

People would have to keep each other informed about work-related issues in the team

There would have to be real attempts to share information throughout the team

People would have to feel understood and accepted by each other

We would have to have a “we are in it together” attitude

Everyone’s view would have to be listened to, even if it were in a minority

There would have to be a lot of give and take

We would have to keep in regular contact with each other

We would have to interact frequently

We would have to keep in touch with each other as a team

Members of the team would have to meet frequently to talk both formally and informally

Support for Innovation

Assistance in developing new ideas would have to be readily available

The team would have to be open and responsive to change

People in the team would have to be always searching for fresh, new ways of looking at problems

This team would have to be always moving towards the development of new answers

In the team we would have to take the time needed to develop new ideas

People in the team would have to co-operate in order to help develop and apply new ideas

Members of the team would have to provide and share resources to help in the application of new ideas

Team members would have to provide practical support for new ideas and their application

Team Vision

How clear would you need to be about what your team objectives are?

To what extent would you need to think they are useful and appropriate objectives?

How far would you need to be in agreement with these objectives?

To what extent would you need to think other team members agreed with these objectives?

To what extent would you need to think your team’s objectives are clearly understood by other members of the team?

To what extent would you need to think your team’s objectives can actually be achieved?

How worthwhile would you need to think these objectives are to you?

How worthwhile would you need to think these objectives are to the organization?

How worthwhile would you need to think these objectives are to the wider society?

To what extent would you need to think these objectives are realistic and can be attained?

To what extent would you need to think members of your team are committed to these objectives?

Task Orientation

Would you and your colleagues need to monitor each other so as to maintain a higher standard of work?

Would team members need to be prepared to question the basis of what the team is doing?

Would the team need to critically appraise potential weaknesses in what it is doing in order to achieve the best possible outcome?

Would the members of the team need to build on each other’s ideas in order to achieve the best possible outcome?

Would there need to be a real concern among team members that the team should achieve the highest standards of performance?

Would the team need to have clear criteria which members try to meet in order to achieve excellence as a team?

Social Desirability

People in the team would never have to feel tense

Being part of this team would have to be the most important thing at work for team members

There would have to be consistently harmonious relationships between people in the team

The team would have to always function to the best of its capacity

The team would have to be significantly better than any other in its field

The team would have to consistently achieve the highest target with ease

Appendix 2. Team Climate Inventory (TCI; Anderson and West 1994)

Scale:

Not at all

Not a lot/Not very

Somewhat

A lot/very

Completely

①

②

③

④

⑤

Participative Safety

We share information generally in the team rather than keeping it to ourselves

People keep each other informed about work-related issues in the team

There are real attempts to share information throughout the team

People feel understood and accepted by each other

We have a “we are in it together” attitude

Everyone’s view is listened to, even if it is in a minority

There is a lot of give and take

We keep in regular contact with each other

We interact frequently

We keep in touch with each other as a team

Members of the team meet frequently to talk both formally and informally

Support for Innovation

Assistance in developing new ideas is readily available

The team is open and responsive to change

People in the team are always searching for fresh, new ways of looking at problems

This team is always moving towards the development of new answers

In this team we take the time needed to develop new ideas

People in the team co-operate in order to help develop and apply new ideas

Members of the team provide and share resources to help in the application of new ideas

Team members provide practical support for new ideas and their application

Team Vision

How clear are you about what your team objectives are?

To what extent do you think they are useful and appropriate objectives?

How far are you in agreement with these objectives?

To what extent do you think other team members agreed with these objectives?

To what extent do you think your team’s objectives are clearly understood by other members of the team?

To what extent do you think your team’s objectives can actually be achieved?

How worthwhile do you think these objectives are to you?

How worthwhile do you think these objectives are to the organization?

How worthwhile do you think these objectives are to the wider society?

To what extent do you think these objectives are realistic and can be attained?

To what extent do you think members of your team are committed to these objectives?

Task Orientation

Do you and your colleagues monitor each other so as to maintain a higher standard of work?

Are team members prepared to question the basis of what the team is doing?

Does the team critically appraise potential weaknesses in what it is doing in order to achieve the best possible outcome?

Do members of the team build on each other’s ideas in order to achieve the best possible outcome?

Is there a real concern among team members that the team should achieve the highest standards of performance?

Does the team have clear criteria which members try to meet in order to achieve excellence as a team?

Social Desirability

People in the team never feel tense

Being part of this team is the most important thing at work for team members

There are consistently harmonious relationships between people in the team

The team always functions to the best of its capacity

The team is significantly better than any other in its field

The team consistently achieves the highest target with ease

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Acuña, S.T., Gómez, M. & Juristo, N. Towards understanding the relationship between team climate and software quality—a quasi-experimental study. Empir Software Eng 13, 401–434 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-008-9074-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-008-9074-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation