Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Enhancing development team flexibility in IS projects

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Information system development projects face tremendous challenges because of business changes and technology changes. Research has shown that software team flexibility has a positive effect on project outcomes, but specific requirements for enhancing flexibility are lacking. Drawing from the input-mediator-outcome (IMO) team effectiveness framework, this research investigates the contextual inputs and team processes that lead to development team flexibility and how well team flexibility improves project outcomes. A survey was developed to consider a model derived from the IMO framework. One hundred fourteen members of information systems development project teams in China responded to the survey. Partial least squares analysis was used served to analyze the data. Results indicate that a participatory culture and cooperative norms are an effective foundation for improving required processes that include project coordination of the project and knowledge sharing activities. In turn, the improved process performance extends responses to changes in technology and the business climate. The improved flexibility in meeting change is predictive of outcomes related to project performance and quality of the final product.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Han J, Hovav A (2013) To bridge or to bond? Diverse social connections in an IS project team. Int J Project Manag 31(3):378–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee G, Xia W (2010) Toward agile: an integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data. MIS Q 34(1):87–114

    Google Scholar 

  3. Maruping LM, Venkatesh V, Agarwal R (2009) A control theory perspective on agile methodology use and changing user requirements. Inf Syst Res 20(3):377–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee G, Xia W (2005) The ability of information systems development project teams to respond to business and technology changes: a study of flexibility measures. Eur J Inf Syst 14(1):75–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Li Y, Chang K-C, Chen H-G, Jiang JJ (2010) Software development team flexibility antecedents. J Syst Softw 83(10):1726–1734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Feldman MS, Pentland BT (2003) Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Adm Sci Q 48(1):94–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Byrd TA, Turner DE (2000) Measuring the flexibility of information technology infrastructure: exploratory analysis of a construct. J Manag Inf Syst 17(1):167–208

    Google Scholar 

  8. McGrath JE (1964) Social psychology: a brief introduction. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mathieu J, Maynard MT, Rapp T, Gilson L (2008) Team effectiveness 1997–2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. J Manag 34(3):410–476

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cohen SG, Bailey DE (1997) What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. J Manag 23:239–290

    Google Scholar 

  11. Boehm B, Turner R (2003) Balancing agility and discipline: a guide for the perplexed. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chatman JA, Flynn FJ (2001) The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Acad Manag J 44(5):956–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hulsheger UR, Anderson N, Salgado JF (2009) Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. J Appl Psychol 94(5):1128–1145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Akgun AE, Byrne JC, Keskin H, Lynn GS (2006) Transactive memory system in new product development teams. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 53(1):95–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kumar RL, Stylianou AC (2014) A process model for analyzing and managing flexibility in information systems. Eur J Inf Syst 23(2):151–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR, Johnson M, Jundt D (2005) Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annu Rev Psychol 56:517–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Henderson JC, Venkatraman N (1993) Strategic alignment: leveraging information technology for transforming organizations. IBM syst J 32(1):4–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nelson K, Ghods M (1998) Measuring technology flexibility. Eur J Inf Syst 7(4):232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nidumolu S (1995) The effect of coordination and uncertainty on software project performance: residual performance risk as an intervening variable. Inf Syst Res 6(3):191–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Grant RM (1996) Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organ Sci 7(4):375–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ives B, Margrethe HO (1984) User involvement and mis success: a review of research. Manag Sci 30(5):586–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Barki H, Jon H (1989) Rethinking the concept of user involvement. MIS Q 13(1):53–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Barki H, Jon H (1994) Measuring user participation, user involvement, and user attitude. MIS Q 18(1):59–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Baroudi JJ, Olson MH, Ives B (1986) An empirical study of the impact of user involvement on system usage and information satisfaction. Commun ACM 29(3):232–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Burke CS, Stagl KC, Salas E, Pierce L, Kendall D (2006) Understanding team adaptation: a conceptual analysis and model. J Appl Psychol 91(6):1189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kan SH (2002) Metrics and models in software quality engineering. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  28. Van Vliet H, Van Vliet JC (1993) Software engineering: principles and practice, vol 3. Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dromey RG (1995) A model for software product quality. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 21(2):146–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jung H-W, Kim S-G, Chung C-S (2004) Measuring software product quality: a survey of ISO/IEC 9126. IEEE Softw 21(5):88–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ortega M, Pérez M, Rojas T (2003) Construction of a systemic quality model for evaluating a software product. Softw Qual J 11(3):219–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kraut RE, Streeter LA (1995) Coordination in software development. Commun ACM 38(3):69–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ledford GE Jr, Lawler EE III (1994) Research on employee participation: beating a dead horse? Acad Manag Rev 19(4):633–636

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wagner JA, Gooding RZ (1987) Shared influence and organizational behavior: a meta-analysis of situational variables expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships. Acad Manag J 30(3):524–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Daniels AL (2009) Participative culture: impact on organizational colleague commitment and productivity. Ball State University, Muncie

    Google Scholar 

  36. Guthrie JP (2001) High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: evidence from New Zealand. Acad Manag J 44(1):180–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Angermeier I, Dunford BB, Boss AD, Boss RW (2009) The impact of participative management perceptions on customer service, medical errors, burnout, and turnover intentions. J Healthc Manag 54(2):127

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hackman J (1987) The design of work teams. In: Lorsch J (ed) Handbook of organizational behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 315–342

    Google Scholar 

  39. Postmes T, Spears R, Cihangir S (2001) Quality of decision making and group norms. J Pers Soc Psychol 80(6):918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):128–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ke W, Wei KK (2008) Organizational culture and leadership in ERP implementation. Decis Support Syst 45(2):208–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Baskerville R, Pries-Heje J, Ramesh B (2007) The enduring contradictions of new software development approaches: a response to “persistent problems and practices in ISD”. Inf Syst J 17(3):241–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Beldi A, Cheffi W, Dey PK (2010) Managing customer relationship management projects: the case of a large French telecommunications company. Int J Project Manag 28(4):339–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Verganti R (1997) Leveraging on systemic learning to manage the early phases of product innovation projects. R&D Manag 27(4):377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Xu X, Zhang W, Barkhi R (2010) IT infrastructure capabilities and IT project success: a development team perspective. Inf Technol Manag 11(3):123–142. doi:10.1007/s10799-010-0072-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Verganti R (1999) Planned flexibility: linking anticipation and reaction in product development projects. J Prod Innov Manag 16(4):363–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Edmondson A (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q 44(2):350–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lam SSK, Chen X-P, Schaubroeck J (2002) Participative decision making and employee performance in different cultures: the moderating effects of allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy. Acad Manag J 45(5):905–914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Eng T-Y (2006) An investigation into the mediating role of cross-functional coordination on the linkage between organizational norms and SCM performance. Ind Mark Manag 35(6):762–773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Calantone RJ, Cavusgil ST, Zhao Y (2002) Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Ind Mark Manag 31(6):515–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lynn GS, Reilly RR, Akgun AE (2000) Knowledge management in new product teams: practices and outcomes. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 47(2):221–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Barua A, Kriebel CH, Mukhopadhyay T (1995) Information technologies and business value: an analytic and empirical investigation. Inf Syst Res 6(1):3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Liang T-P, Wu JC-H, Jiang JJ, Klein G (2012) The impact of value diversity on information system development projects. Int J Project Manag 30(6):731–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Löhmoller J (1989) Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  57. Fornell C, Bookstein FL (1982) Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. J Mark Res 19(4):440–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Polites GL, Roberts N, Thatcher J (2011) Conceptualizing models using multidimensional constructs: a review and guidelines for their use. Eur J Inf Syst 21(1):22–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Hulland J (1999) Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strateg Manag J 20(2):195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Ghiselli EE, Campbell JP, Zedeck S (1981) Measurement theory for behavioral sciences. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  61. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Hoegl M, Parboteeah KP (2006) Team reflexivity in innovative projects. R&D Manag 36(2):113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Hartwick J, Barki H (1994) Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Manag Sci 40(4):440–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. He J, King WR (2008) The role of user participation in information systems development: implications from a meta-analysis. J Manag Inf Syst 25(1):301–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Cockburn A, Highsmith J, Boehm B (2001) Agile software development: the people factor. Computer 34(11):131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Highsmith J, Cockburn A, Boehm B (2001) Agile software development: the business of innovation. (Cover story). Computer 34(9):120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Williams L, Cockburn A (2003) Agile software development: it’s about feedback and change. Computer 36(6):39

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Charlton College of Business, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, 285 Old Westport Road, Dartmouth, MA, 02747-2300, USA

    Yuzhu Li

  2. College of Business and Administration, The University of Colorado Colorado Springs, 1420 Austin Bluffs Parkway, Colorado Springs, CO, 80918, USA

    Morgan Shepherd & Gary Klein

  3. Department of Information Management, Yuan Ze University, 135 Yuan-Tung Road, Chung-Li, Taoyuan, 32003, Taiwan

    Julie Yu-Chih Liu

  4. Center for Big Data & Digital Convergence, Yuan Ze University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

    Julie Yu-Chih Liu

Authors
  1. Yuzhu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Morgan Shepherd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julie Yu-Chih Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gary Klein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Yu-Chih Liu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Y., Shepherd, M., Liu, J.YC. et al. Enhancing development team flexibility in IS projects. Inf Technol Manag 18, 83–96 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-016-0258-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-016-0258-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation