Leicester Research Archive

Leicester Research Archive >
College of Social Science >
Management, School of >
Published Articles, School of Management >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2381/27591

Title: Successful extreme programming: Fidelity to the methodology or good teamworking?
Authors: Wood, Stephen J.
Michaelides, George
Thomson, Chris
Issue Date: 22-Oct-2012
Publisher: Elsevier
Citation: Information and Software Technology, available online in advance of print 22 October 2012
Abstract: Context: Developing a theory of agile technology, in combination with empirical work, must include assessing its performance effects, and whether all or some of its key ingredients account for any performance advantage over traditional methods. Given the focus on teamwork, is the agile technology what really matters, or do general team factors, such as cohesion, primarily account for a team’s success? Perhaps the more specific software engineering team factors, for example the agile development method’s collective ownership and code management, are decisive. Objective: To assess the contribution of agile methodology, agile-specific team methods, and general team factors in the performance of software teams. Method: We studied 40 small-scale software development teams which used Extreme Programming (XP). We measured (1) the teams’ adherence to XP methods, (2) their use of XP-specific team practices, and (3) standard team attributes, as well as the quality of the project’s outcomes. We used Williams et al.’s (2004a) [33] Shodan measures of XP methods, and regression analysis. Results: All three types of variables are associated with the project’s performance. Teamworking is important but it is the XP-specific team factor (continuous integration, coding standards, and collective code ownership) that is significant. Only customer planning (release planning/planning game, customer access, short releases, and stand-up meeting) is positively related to performance. A negative relationship between foundations (automated unit tests, customer acceptance tests, test-first design, pair programming, and refactoring) is found and is moderated by craftsmanship (sustainable pace, simple design, and metaphor/system of names). Of the general team factors only cooperation is related to performance. Cooperation mediates the relationship between the XP-specific team factor and performance. Conclusion: Client and team foci of the XP method are its critical active ingredients.
DOI Link: 10.1016/j.infsof.2012.10.002
ISSN: 0950-5849
Links: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article&(...)
http://hdl.handle.net/2381/27591
Version: Post-print
Status: Peer-reviewed
Type: Journal Article
Rights: Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. Deposited with reference to the publisher's archiving policy available on the SHERPA/RoMEO website. NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Information and Software Technology. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Information and Software Technology, available online in advance of print 22 October 2012, DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2012.10.002
Appears in Collections:Published Articles, School of Management

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
XPteamProcesses 25 8 12 Revised 10 9 12.pdfPost-review (final submitted)432.77 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
View Statistics

Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

MAINTAINER