skip to main content
10.1145/3613372.3613388acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbesConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Understanding an organizational change and development intervention applied in a Global Software Industry: A case study: A Case Study

Published: 25 September 2023 Publication History

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.

References

[1]
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.
[2]
Michael Beer and Anna Elise Walton. 1987. Organization change and development. Annual review of psychology 38, 1 (1987), 339–367.
[3]
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.
[4]
Jacob Cohen. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological measurement 20, 1 (1960), 37–46.
[5]
Mike Cohn and Doris Ford. 2003. Introducing an agile process to an organization [software development]. Computer 36, 6 (2003), 74–78.
[6]
Maria Goreti Simão Cruz 2002. Reestruturação organizacional direcionada para a formação de equipes: bases teórico-empíricas. . ., . (2002), .
[7]
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.
[8]
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.
[9]
Kenneth P De Meuse and S Jay Liebowitz. 1981. An empirical analysis of team-building research. Group & Organization Studies 6, 3 (1981), 357–378.
[10]
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.
[11]
Line Dubé and Guy Paré. 2003. Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current practices & recommendations. MIS quarterly . (2003), 597–636.
[12]
Jan Dul and Tony Hak. 2007. Case study methodology in business research. Routledge, London.
[13]
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.
[14]
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.
[15]
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.
[16]
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.
[17]
Martin Ivarsson and Tony Gorschek. 2011. A method for evaluating rigor and industrial relevance of technology evaluations. Empirical Software Engineering 16 (2011), 365–395.
[18]
David A Kolb and Alan L Frohman. 1970. An organization development approach to consulting. Sloan Management Review (pre-1986) 12, 1 (1970), 51.
[19]
John P Kotter. 2012. Leading change. Harvard business press, USA.
[20]
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.
[21]
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.
[22]
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.
[23]
Kurt Lewin. 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics: II. Channels of group life; social planning and action research. Human relations 1, 2 (1947), 143–153.
[24]
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.
[25]
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.
[26]
Ronald Lippitt. 1958. Dynamics of planned change. . ., . (1958), . pages.
[27]
Michael Mankins and Eric Garton. 2017. How Spotify balances employee autonomy and accountability. Harvard business review 95, 1 (2017), 134–139.
[28]
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.
[29]
Sharan B Merriam and Elizabeth J Tisdell. 2015. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA.
[30]
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.
[31]
Medicine National Academies of Sciences, Engineering 2019. Reproducibility and replicability in science. National Academies Press, USA.
[32]
Chris Olsen and DMM St George. 2004. Cross-sectional study design and data analysis. College entrance examination board 26, 03 (2004), 2006.
[33]
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.
[34]
Jerry I Porras and Peter J Robertson. 1992. Organizational development: Theory, practice, and research.Consulting Psychologists Press, Washington, DC.
[35]
Per Runeson and Martin Höst. 2009. Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical software engineering 14 (2009), 131–164.
[36]
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.
[37]
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/10.1145/3383219.3383251
[38]
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.
[39]
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.
[40]
Martin E Smith. 2002. Success rates for different types of organizational change. Performance Improvement 41, 1 (2002), 26–33.
[41]
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.
[42]
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/10.1145/2884781.2884833
[43]
Noel Tichy. 1996. Simultaneous transformation and CEO succession: Key to global competitiveness. Organizational Dynamics 25, 1 (1996), 45–59.
[44]
Karl E Weick and Robert E Quinn. 1999. Organizational change and development. Annual review of psychology 50, 1 (1999), 361–386.
[45]
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.
[46]
Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C Ohlsson, Björn Regnell, and Anders Wesslén. 2012. Experimentation in software engineering. Springer Science & Business Media, .
[47]
Robert K Yin. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. Vol. 5. sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Improving test team performance through an Episodic Organizational Change implementation: A case study replication and extensionProceedings of the XXII Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality10.1145/3629479.3629495(31-41)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2023

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
SBES '23: Proceedings of the XXXVII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering
September 2023
570 pages
ISBN:9798400707872
DOI:10.1145/3613372
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 25 September 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Conference

SBES 2023
SBES 2023: XXXVII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering
September 25 - 29, 2023
Campo Grande, Brazil

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 147 of 427 submissions, 34%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)39
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Improving test team performance through an Episodic Organizational Change implementation: A case study replication and extensionProceedings of the XXII Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality10.1145/3629479.3629495(31-41)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2023

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media