Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collaborative process tailoring in evolutionary software development: a teamwork-quality perspective

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study highlighted the importance of software process tailoring (SPT) in modern software projects characterized by dynamic and evolutionary development. SPT is a collaborative practice, and the existing literature has focused on team-based knowledge aspects in performing SPT, whereas the quality of team interactions has rarely been discussed to address its conflictual nature. This study examined the teamwork quality (TWQ) framework with two team behavioral factors, namely team reflexivity and member autonomy, and developed a research model to explore how TWQ fits in the SPT’s conflicting context and how autonomy and reflexivity affect TWQ to promote SPT. The results showed that TWQ is essential for dealing with challenging tasks in SPT. The results also supported the evidence that reflexivity positively affects TWQ while member autonomy harms TWQ. When examining the mediating effect to see how TWQ operationalizes as an intermediate in the relationship between the two factors and SPT performance, this study found that reflexivity directly and indirectly boosts SPT performance. Member autonomy and SPT performance are independent when TWQ is the mediator. However, without TWQ, member autonomy negatively impacts SPT effectiveness and efficiency.

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

Data availability

Data are available on request due to privacy or other restrictions.

References

  • Akbar, R. (2019). Tailoring agile-based software development processes. IEEE Access, 7, 139852–139869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alegría, J. A., Bastarrica, M. C., Quispe, A., & Ochoa, S. F. (2014). MDE-based process tailoring strategy. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 26(4), 386–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andres, H. P., & Zmud, R. W. (2002). A contingency approach to software project coordination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 41–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basirati, M. R., Otasevic, M., Rajavi, K., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2020). Understanding the relationship of conflict and success in software development projects. Information and Software Technology, 126, 106331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benitez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A., & Schuberth, F. (2020). How to perform and report an impactful analysis using partial least squares: Guidelines for confirmatory and explanatory IS research. Information & Management, 57(2), 103168.

  • Boothe, A., Frasier, N., Weaver, C., & White-Kiehle, J. (2018). Resolving conflict: What does the Giraffe say? Nurse Leader, 16(2), 121–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanelli, A. S., Camilo, R. D., & Parreiras, F. S. (2018). The impact of tailoring criteria on agile practices adoption: A survey with novice agile practitioners in Brazil. Journal of Systems and Software, 137, 366–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanelli, A. S., & Parreiras, F. S. (2015). Agile methods tailoring: A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 110, 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrión, G. C., Nitzl, C., & Roldán, J. L. (2017). Mediation analyses in partial least squares structural equation modeling: Guidelines and empirical examples. In Partial least squares path modeling (pp.173–195). Springer, Cham.

  • Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. (2008). When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal effect in task-related ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4), 655–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cenfetelli, R. T., & Bassellier, G. (2009). Interpretation of formative measurement in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 33(4), 689–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. Y., & Lee, J. C. (2021) Exploring teams’ temporal factors for determining process tailoring that promotes the evolution of agile-based software development. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems. (in press)

  • Clarke, P., O’Connor, R. V., Leavy, B., & Yilmaz, M. (2015). Exploring the relationship between software process adaptive capability and organizational performance. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 41(12), 1169–1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. S., Carter, M. Z., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Leader-team congruence in power distance values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of procedural justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 962–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dayan, M., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of teamwork quality in new product development projects. European Journal of Innovation Management, 12(1), 129–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 628–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Oliveira, E. A., Pimenta, M. L., Hilletofth, P., & Eriksson, D. (2016). Integration through cross-functional teams in a service company. European Business Review.

  • Dooley, R. S., & Fryxell, G. E. (1999). Attaining decision quality and commitment from dissent: The moderating effects of loyalty and competence in strategic decision-making teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 389–402.

  • Easley, R. F., Devaraj, S., & Crant, J. M. (2003). Relating collaborative technology use to teamwork quality and performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 247–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, S., & Davidi, I. (2005). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful and failed experiences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 857–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, S., Ganzach, Y., Castle, E., & Sekely, G. (2010). The effect of filmed versus personal after-event reviews on task performance: The mediating and moderating role of self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 122–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fay, M. J., & Kline, S. L. (2011). Coworker relationships and informal communication in high-intensity telecommuting. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 39(2), 144–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N. L., & O’Kane, T. (2003). Software development method tailoring at Motorola. Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 64–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallina, B. (2020). Quantitative evaluation of tailoring within SPICE-compliant security-informed safety-oriented process lines. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 32(3), e2212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gemünden, H. G., Salomo, S., & Krieger, A. (2005). The influence of project autonomy on project success. International Journal of Project Management, 23(5), 366–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, M.P., & Quinn, L.H. (1995). Process tailoring and software capability maturity model. Technical Report CMU/SEI-94-TR-024. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.

  • Gonzalez, R. V. D., & de Melo, T. M. (2019). How do autonomy, cohesion, and integration of teamwork impact the dynamic capability? Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 1–17.

  • Gustavsson, T., Berntzen, M., & Stray, V. (2022). Changes to team autonomy in large-scale software development: A multiple case study of Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) implementations. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 10(1), 29–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. ( 1974). The Job Diagnostic Survey: An instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology (Ms. No. 810) 4, 148.

  • Hackman, J. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1987). Handbook of organizational behavior. Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 315–342.

  • Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European business review.

  • Hair J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review.

  • Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. SAGE Publications.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hedman, E., & Valo, M. (2015). Communication challenges facing management teams. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(8), 1012–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrickson Parker, S., Schmutz, J. B., & Manser, T. (2018). Training needs for adaptive coordination: Utilizing task analysis to identify coordination requirements in three different clinical settings. Group & Organization Management, 43(3), 504–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 280–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoda, R., Noble, J., & Marshall, S. (2012). Developing a grounded theory to explain the practices of self-organizing Agile teams. Empirical Software Engineering, 17(6), 609–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoda, R., Noble, J., & Marshall, S. (2013). Self-organizing roles on agile software development teams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 39(3), 422–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoda, R., & Murugesan, L. K. (2016). Multi-level agile project management challenges: A self-organizing team perspective. Journal of Systems and Software, 117, 245–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, P. (2006). Autonomy and teamwork in innovative projects. Human Resource Management: THe University of Michigan, 45(1), 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoegl, M., Parboteeah, K. P., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2003). When teamwork matters: Task innovativeness as a moderator of the teamwork–performance relationship in software development projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(4), 281–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, J., Erdogan, B., Jiang, K., Bauer, T. N., & Liu, S. (2018). Leader humility and team creativity: The role of team information sharing, psychological safety, and power distance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(3), 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hummel, M., Rosenkranz, C., & Holten, R. (2013). The role of communication in agile systems development. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 5(5), 343–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2011). Many cheers make light the work: How social support triggers process gains in teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology.

  • Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 877–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiacheng, W., Lu, L., & Francesco, C. A. (2010). A cognitive model of intra-organizational knowledge-sharing motivations in the view of cross-culture. International Journal of Information Management, 30(3), 220–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jønsson, T., & Jeppesen, H. J. (2013). Under the influence of the team? An investigation of the relationships between team autonomy, individual autonomy, and social influence within teams. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(1), 78–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kakar, A. K. (2016). Enhancing reflexivity in software development teams: Should we focus on autonomy or interdependence? J. Inf. Technol. Theory Appl., 17(3), 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakar, A. K. (2018). Engendering cohesive software development teams: Should we focus on interdependence or autonomy? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 111, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klaic, A., Burtscher, M. J., & Jonas, K. (2020). Fostering team innovation and learning using team‐centric transformational leadership: The role of teamwork quality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.

  • Kock, N., & Hadaya, P. (2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS‐SEM: The inverse square root and gamma‐exponential methods. Information Systems Journal, 28(1), 227–261.

  • Kubicek, B., Paškvan, M., & Bunner, J. (2017). The bright and dark sides of job autonomy. In Job Demands In A Changing World Of Work (pp. 45–63). Springer, Cham.

  • Kude, T., Schmidt, C., Mithas, S., & Heinzl, A. (2015). Disciplined autonomy and innovation effectiveness: The role of team efficacy and task volatility. In Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(1), 18802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfred, C. W. (2000). The paradox of self-management: Individual and group autonomy in workgroups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 563–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 385–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfred, C. W. (2007). The downside of self-management: A longitudinal study of the effects of conflict on trust, autonomy, and task interdependence in self-managing teams. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 885–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfred, C. W., & Rockmann, K. W. (2016). The push and pull of autonomy: The tension between individual autonomy and organizational control in knowledge work. Group & Organization Management, 41(5), 629–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. C., Chou, I. C., & Chen, C. Y. (2021). The effect of process tailoring on software project performance: The role of team absorptive capacity and its knowledge-based enablers. Information System Journal, 31(1), 120–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. C. & Chen, C. Y. (2021) Exploring the effects of team coordination and power distance on effective software process tailoring: A theoretical perspective. Information Technology & People (in press)

  • Lee, J. C., & Chen, C. Y. (2020). Exploring the team dynamic learning process in software process tailoring performance. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 33(3), 502–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. C., Wang, Y. T., & Chen, C. Y. (2020). The effect of transactive memory systems on process tailoring in software projects: The moderating role of task conflict and shared temporal cognitions. Journal of Systems and Software, 164, 110545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. C., & Chen, C. Y. (2019). Exploring the determinants of software process improvement success: A dynamic capability view. Information Development, 35(1), 6–20.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lee-Kelley, L., & Blackman, D. (2005). In addition to shared goals: The impact of mental models on team innovation and learning. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 2(1), 11–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehtinen, T. O., Itkonen, J., & Lassenius, C. (2017). Recurring opinions or productive improvements - What agile teams actually discuss in retrospectives. Empirical Software Engineering, 22(5), 2409–2452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levi, D. (2017). Group Dynamics for Teams. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, T. P., Jiang, J., Klein, G. S., & Liu, Y. C. (2010). Software quality as influenced by informational diversity, task conflict, and learning in project teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 57(3), 477–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsjørn, Y., Sjøberg, D. I., Dingsøyr, T., Bergersen, G. R., & Dybå, T. (2016). Teamwork quality and project success in software development: A survey of agile development teams. Journal of Systems and Software, 122, 274–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litchfield, R. C., Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z., Gumusluoglu, L., Carter, M., & Hirst, G. (2018). When team identity helps innovation and when it hurts: Team identity and its relationship to team and cross-team innovative behavior. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(3), 350–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madhavji, N. H., Fernandez-Ramil, J., & Perry, D. (Eds.). (2006). Software Evolution and Feedback: Theory and Practice. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Man, D. C., & Lam, S. S. (2003). The effects of job complexity and autonomy on cohesiveness in collectivistic and individualistic workgroups: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior: THe International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 24(8), 979–1001.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Moe, N. B. (2013). Key challenges of improving agile teamwork. In International conference on agile software development (pp. 76–90). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

  • Moe, N. B., Dingsøyr, T., & Dybå, T. (2010). A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a Scrum project. Information and Software Technology, 52(5), 480–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moe, N. B., Dingsøyr, T., & Dybå, T. (2009). Overcoming barriers to self-management in software teams. IEEE Software, 26(6), 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed, S., & Harrison, D. A. (2013). The clocks that time we are not the same: A theory of temporal diversity, task characteristics, and performance in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 244–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L., & McMinn, J. G. (2010). Group reflexivity and performance. Advances in Group Processes, 27, 63–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3), 263–280.

  • Nitzl, C., & Chin, W. W. (2017). The case of partial least squares (PLS) path modeling in managerial accounting research. Journal of Management Control, 28(2), 137–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Bae, D. H. (2013). Tailoring a large-sized software process using process slicing and case-based reasoning technique. IET Software, 7(1), 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Bae, D. H. (2011). An approach to analyzing the software process change impact using process slicing and simulation. Journal of Systems and Software, 84(4), 528–543.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., Na, H., Park, S., & Sugumaran, V. (2006). A semi-automated filtering technique for software process tailoring using neural networks. Expert Systems with Applications, 30(2), 179–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pikkarainen, M., Haikara, J., Salo, O., Abrahamsson, P., & Still, J. (2008). The impact of agile practices on communication in software development. Empirical Software Engineering, 13(3), 303–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pillat, R. M., Oliveira, T. C., Alencar, P. S., & Cowan, D. D. (2015). BPMNt: A BPMN extension for specifying software process tailoring. Information and Software Technology, 57, 95–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 885(879), 10–1037.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raes, E., Boon, A., Kyndt, E., & Dochy, F. (2015). Measuring team learning behaviours through observing verbal team interaction. Journal of Workplace Learning, 27(7), 476–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rigdon, E. E. (2016). Choosing PLS path modeling as the analytical method in European management research: A realist perspective. European Management Journal, 34(6), 598–605.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, H. L., Dijkman, R. M., Grefen, P. W., Van Weele, A. J., & de Jong, A. (2015). Measures of process harmonization. Information and Software Technology, 63, 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salameh, A., & Bass, J. M. (2019). Spotify tailoring for promoting effectiveness in cross-functional autonomous squads. In International Conference on Agile Software Development (pp. 20–28). Springer, Cham.

  • Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors: THe Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 540–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas, E., Shuffler, M. L., Thayer, A. L., Bedwell, W. L., & Lazzara, E. H. (2015). Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: A scientifically based practical guide. Human Resource Management, 54(4), 599–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, C. M., Passos, A. M., Uitdewilligen, S., & Nübold, A. (2016). Shared temporal cognitions as a substitute for temporal leadership: An analysis of their effects on temporal conflict and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 574–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., Thiele, K. O., & Gudergan, S. P. (2016). Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies! Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 3998–4010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, S. (2001). Effects of intra-group conflict on packaged software development team performance. Information Systems Journal, 11(2), 155–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schippers, M. C., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2015). Team reflexivity and innovation: The moderating role of team context. Journal of Management, 41(3), 769–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing team reflexivity. Human Relations, 61(11), 1593–1616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenherr, T., Bendoly, E., Bachrach, D. G., & Hood, A. C. (2017). Task interdependence impacts on reciprocity in IT implementation teams: Bringing out the worst in us, or driving responsibility? Production and Operations Management, 26(4), 667–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, H., & Robinson, H. (2010). Three “C”s of agile practice: Collaboration, coordination and communication. In: Agile Software Development. Current research and Future Directions, XP, Trondheim, pp. 61–85.

  • Shin, S. J., Kim, T. Y., Lee, J. Y., & Bian, L. (2012). Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross-level interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 197–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S. A., Levine, L., Ramesh, B., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2006). Aligning software processes with strategy. MIS Quarterly, 891–918.

  • Song, M., Dyer, B., & Thieme, R. J. (2006). Conflict management and innovation performance: An integrated contingency perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(3), 341–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söllner, M., Bitzer, P., Janson, A., & Leimeister, J. M. (2017). Process is king: Evaluating the performance of technology-mediated learning in vocational software training. Journal of Information Technology, 33(3), 233–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debrief enhance performance? A Meta-Analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripp, F. J., & Armstrong, D. J. (2016). Agile methodologies: Organizational adoption motives, tailoring, and performance. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 58(2), 170–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von-Bonsdorff, M.E., Janhonen, M., Zhou, Z.E., & Vanhala, S. (2015). Team autonomy, organizational commitment and company performance–a study in the retail trade. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(8), 1098–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van-Ginkel, W.P., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2009). Knowledge about the distribution of information and group decision making: When and why does it work? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 218–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vazquez-Ingelmo, A., Garcia-Penalvo, F. J., & Theron, R. (2019). Information dashboards and tailoring capabilities-a systematic literature review. IEEE Access, 7, 109673–109688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlietland, J., Van Solingen, R., & Van Vliet, H. (2016). Aligning codependent Scrum teams to enable fast business value delivery: A governance framework and set of intervention actions. Journal of Systems and Software, 113, 418–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weimar, E., Nugroho, A., Visser, J., Plaat, A., Goudbeek, M., & Schouten, A. P. (2017). The influence of teamwork quality on software team performance. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06146

  • West, M. A. (2000). Reflexivity, revolution, and innovation in work teams. In M.M. Beyerlein, D. John- son, & S.T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Product development teams 150, 1–29. Stanford, CT: JAI Press.

  • Widmer, P. S., Schippers, M. C., & West, M. A. (2009). Recent developments in reflexivity research: A review. Psychology of Everyday Activity, 2, 2–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willems, T., & van-Marrewijk, A., Kuitert, L., Volker, L., & Hermans, M. (2020). Practices of isolation: The shaping of project autonomy in innovation projects. International Journal of Project Management, 38(4), 215–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, G., Liu, C., Zhao, X., & Zuo, J. (2017). Investigating the relationship between communication-conflict interaction and project success among construction project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1466–1482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wubuli, A., Yang, J., & Aiyiti, M. (2020). Joint learning, goodwill trust, and destructive conflict on product innovativeness in competition. In Academy of Management Proceedings, 2020(1), 16438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiang, C., Lu, Y., & Gupta, S. (2013). Knowledge sharing in information system development teams: Examining the impact of the shared mental model from a social capital theory perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(10), 1024–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, P., & Ramesh, B. (2008). Using process tailoring to manage software development challenges. IT Professional, 10(4), 39–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, M., Schloemer, H., Zhu, Z., Lin, Y., Chen, W., & Dong, N. (2020). Why and when team reflexivity contributes to team performance: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, X., & Petter, S. (2014). Understanding agile software development practices using shared mental models theory. Information and Software Technology, 56(8), 911–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, F., & Zhou, J. (2015). Effects of cultural power distance on group creativity and individual group member creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(7), 990–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept of Information Management, National Central University, Zhongda Rd, No. 300, Zhongli District, Taoyuan City, 32001, Taiwan

    Chung-Yang Chen

  2. Department of Business Administration, National Central University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

    Ping-Yu Hsu & Hong-Ngoc Vu

Authors
  1. Chung-Yang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ping-Yu Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hong-Ngoc Vu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chung-Yang Chen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Questionnaire items
Full size table
Table 7 Research process
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, CY., Hsu, PY. & Vu, HN. Collaborative process tailoring in evolutionary software development: a teamwork-quality perspective. Software Qual J 31, 89–119 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-022-09597-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-022-09597-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation