Rayfran Lima
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Organizational changes and development interventions are being used as adaptive mechanisms for answering to the market and internal demands to remain flexible, and adaptable without losing productivity and quality. However, applying appropriate transitions involving team restructuring and project reorganization is still a challenge for most software industry companies. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to carry out a case study to identify the motivations and actions that supported an episodic organizational change (EOC) in a software industry company that end up in an adoption of a new model of team structure and project organization, called Model B. In addition, we intend to identify the main impacts and lessons learned perceived by the stakeholders during the transition process and the use of Model B for 2 years. RESULTS: The 5 identified motivations for this EOC were answered by an intervention composed of 3 main actions. The efficacy of the intervention was evaluated by comparing the motivations and achieved results. In addition, we present the dynamic of the definition and implementation of Model B, as well as new improvements applied over the 2 years of its use. The lessons learned are composed of 3 factors that can boost and 8 factors that can hinder the transition from the prior model to Model B, followed by some extra suggestions to improve the company’s EOC process. CONCLUSION: Our findings show evidence that not adopting change management knowledge can make implementing EOC in the software industry more challenging and prone to inefficiency or failure. On the other hand, applying risk management considering known critical factors can help in generating a plan that is more efficient and able to take advantage of critical success factors and avoid or mitigate the disadvantages arising from critical failure factors.
- Steven H Appelbaum, Sally Habashy, Jean-Luc Malo, and Hisham Shafiq. 2012. Back to the future: revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change model. Journal of Management development 31, 8 (2012), 764–782.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Michael Beer and Anna Elise Walton. 1987. Organization change and development. Annual review of psychology 38, 1 (1987), 339–367.Google Scholar
- Bernard Burnes and Philip Jackson. 2011. Success and failure in org. change: An exploration of the role of values. Journal of change manag. 11, 2 (2011), 133–162.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jacob Cohen. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological measurement 20, 1 (1960), 37–46.Google Scholar
- Mike Cohn and Doris Ford. 2003. Introducing an agile process to an organization [software development]. Computer 36, 6 (2003), 74–78.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Maria Goreti Simão Cruz 2002. Reestruturação organizacional direcionada para a formação de equipes: bases teórico-empíricas. . ., . (2002), .Google Scholar
- Daniela S Cruzes and Tore Dyba. 2011. Recommended steps for thematic synthesis in software engineering. In 2011 international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement. IEEE, IEEE, USA, 275–284.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stephen Cummings, Todd Bridgman, and Kenneth G Brown. 2016. Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Human relations 69, 1 (2016), 33–60.Google Scholar
- Kenneth P De Meuse and S Jay Liebowitz. 1981. An empirical analysis of team-building research. Group & Organization Studies 6, 3 (1981), 357–378.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kim Dikert, Maria Paasivaara, and Casper Lassenius. 2016. Challenges and success factors for large-scale agile transformations: A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software 119 (2016), 87–108.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Line Dubé and Guy Paré. 2003. Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current practices & recommendations. MIS quarterly . (2003), 597–636.Google Scholar
- Jan Dul and Tony Hak. 2007. Case study methodology in business research. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
- Shiva Ebneyamini and Mohammad Reza Sadeghi Moghadam. 2018. Toward developing a framework for conducting case study research. International journal of qualitative methods 17, 1 (2018), 1609406918817954.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Taghi Javdani Gandomani, Hazura Zulzalil, AA Ghani, Abu Bakar Md Sultan, and Khaironi Yatim Sharif. 2014. How human aspects impress Agile software development transition and adoption. International Journal of Software Engineering and its Applications 8, 1 (2014), 129–148.Google Scholar
- Vahid Garousi, Markus Borg, and Markku Oivo. 2020. Practical relevance of software engineering research: synthesizing the community’s voice. Empirical Software Engineering 25 (2020), 1687–1754.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ming Huo, June Verner, Liming Zhu, and Muhammad Ali Babar. 2004. Software quality and agile methods. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference, 2004. COMPSAC 2004. IEEE, IEEE, Hong Kong, 520–525.Google Scholar
- Martin Ivarsson and Tony Gorschek. 2011. A method for evaluating rigor and industrial relevance of technology evaluations. Empirical Software Engineering 16 (2011), 365–395.Google ScholarDigital Library
- David A Kolb and Alan L Frohman. 1970. An organization development approach to consulting. Sloan Management Review (pre-1986) 12, 1 (1970), 51.Google Scholar
- John P Kotter. 2012. Leading change. Harvard business press, USA.Google Scholar
- John P Kotter and Dan S Cohen. 2012. The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change their organizations. Harvard Business Press, USA.Google Scholar
- Maarit Laanti, Outi Salo, and Pekka Abrahamsson. 2011. Agile methods rapidly replacing traditional methods at Nokia: A survey of opinions on agile transformation. Information and Software Technology 53, 3 (2011), 276–290.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Per Lenberg, Lars Göran Wallgren Tengberg, and Robert Feldt. 2017. An initial analysis of software engineers’ attitudes towards organizational change. Empirical Software Engineering 22 (2017), 2179–2205.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kurt Lewin. 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human relations 1, 2 (1947), 143–153.Google Scholar
- Rayfran Rocha Lima, Marcelo Santana Costa, Ana Carolina Oran, and César França. 2022. Factors that Boost and Hinder the Transition from Traditional to Self-managed Teams: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the XXI Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality. ACM, Curitiba, BR, 1–11.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rayfran Rocha Lima, Oswald Ekwoge, Bruno Bonifácio, Raquel Cunha, Hualter Barbosa, and Ana Carolina Oran Rocha. 2021. Overcoming Knowledge-Sharing Barriers that Affect Software Quality: An Experience Report. In XX Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality. ACM, NY, USA, 1–9.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ronald Lippitt. 1958. Dynamics of planned change. . ., . (1958), . pages.Google Scholar
- Michael Mankins and Eric Garton. 2017. How Spotify balances employee autonomy and accountability. Harvard business review 95, 1 (2017), 134–139.Google Scholar
- Gerald J. McCarty. 1967. Personal and Organizational Change through Group Methods: The Laboratory Approach by Edgar H. Schein and Warren G. Bennis. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 17, 1 (1967), 105–106.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sharan B Merriam and Elizabeth J Tisdell. 2015. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
- Sune Dueholm Müller, Lars Mathiassen, and Hans Henrik Balshøj. 2010. Software Process Improvement as organizational change: A metaphorical analysis of the literature. Journal of Systems and Software 83, 11 (2010), 2128–2146.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Medicine National Academies of Sciences, Engineering 2019. Reproducibility and replicability in science. National Academies Press, USA.Google Scholar
- Chris Olsen and DMM St George. 2004. Cross-sectional study design and data analysis. College entrance examination board 26, 03 (2004), 2006.Google Scholar
- Minna Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, Outi Salo, Pekka Abrahamsson, and Jari Still. 2008. The impact of agile practices on communication in software development. Empirical Software Engineering 13 (2008), 303–337.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jerry I Porras and Peter J Robertson. 1992. Organizational development: Theory, practice, and research.Consulting Psychologists Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- Per Runeson and Martin Höst. 2009. Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical software engineering 14 (2009), 131–164.Google Scholar
- Abdallah Salameh and Julian M. Bass. 2019. Spotify Tailoring for Promoting Effectiveness in Cross-Functional Autonomous Squads. In Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming – Workshops, Rashina Hoda (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 20–28.Google Scholar
- Abdallah Salameh and Julian M. Bass. 2020. Heterogeneous Tailoring Approach Using the Spotify Model. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (Trondheim, Norway) (EASE ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 293–298. https://doi.org/10.1145/3383219.3383251Google ScholarDigital Library
- Edgar H Schein. 1996. Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. Systems practice 9 (1996), 27–47.Google Scholar
- Darja Smite, Nils Brede Moe, Georgiana Levinta, and Marcin Floryan. 2019. Spotify guilds: how to succeed with knowledge sharing in large-scale agile organizations. Ieee Software 36, 2 (2019), 51–57.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Martin E Smith. 2002. Success rates for different types of organizational change. Performance Improvement 41, 1 (2002), 26–33.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dirk Stelzer and Werner Mellis. 1998. Success factors of organizational change in software process improvement. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 4, 4 (1998), 227–250.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Klaas-Jan Stol, Paul Ralph, and Brian Fitzgerald. 2016. Grounded Theory in Software Engineering Research: A Critical Review and Guidelines. In 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE/ACM, ., 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1145/2884781.2884833Google ScholarDigital Library
- Noel Tichy. 1996. Simultaneous transformation and CEO succession: Key to global competitiveness. Organizational Dynamics 25, 1 (1996), 45–59.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Karl E Weick and Robert E Quinn. 1999. Organizational change and development. Annual review of psychology 50, 1 (1999), 361–386.Google Scholar
- Claes Wohlin and Per Runeson. 2021. Guiding the selection of research methodology in industry–academia collaboration in software engineering. Information and software technology 140 (2021), 106678.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C Ohlsson, Björn Regnell, and Anders Wesslén. 2012. Experimentation in software engineering. Springer Science & Business Media, .Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robert K Yin. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. Vol. 5. sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Understanding an organizational change and development intervention applied in a Global Software Industry: A case study: A Case Study
Recommendations
Organizational Linkages for Surviving Technological Change: Complementary Assets, Middle Management, and Ambidexterity
Technological innovation sometimes requires industry incumbents to shift to a completely new core technology. To successfully navigate a technological transition, firms often face the ambidextrous challenge of “exploiting” existing complementary assets ...
Understanding software process improvement in global software development: a theoretical framework of human factors
Presently, most of the software development organizations are adopting the phenomena of Global Software Development (GSD), mainly because of the significant return on investment it produces. However, GSD is a complex phenomenon and there are many ...
Using Agile Practices to Solve Global Software Development Problems -- A Case Study
ICGSEW '14: Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineeering WorkshopsAlthough challenges in Global Software Development (GSD)are now well known, companies are still looking for workable solutions to issues relating to poor communication, lack of control, low staff morale, and ambiguous requirements, all of which are ...
Comments