• Không có kết quả nào được tìm thấy

OER000001408.pdf

N/A
N/A
Nguyễn Gia Hào

Academic year: 2023

Chia sẻ "OER000001408.pdf"

Copied!
162
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Văn bản

Unlocking Agility”[1], Bjarte Bogsnes writes: “The agile mindset is now finding its way into the C-suite and is beginning to fundamentally change the way organizations are run and managed. Agile methods (e.g., Scrum) replaced these with new formal roles (e.g., Scrum master and product owner) that represent a cross-functional collection of older traditional ones (e.g., developers and testers ), while also increasingly including other previously formal roles beyond the core technical team boundary (e.g. business analysts, user interface designers and, more recently, artificial intelligence and machine learning experts ). Spiegler, S.V., Heinecke, C., Wagner, S.: The impact of culture and structure on autonomous teams in established companies.

Fig. 1. Roles of participants at the workshops who completed the survey.
Fig. 1. Roles of participants at the workshops who completed the survey.

Effectiveness in Cross-Functional Autonomous Squads

1 Introduction

It was launched for a very large project with hundreds of developers in more than 40 teams in 4 cities [4]. In this paper, we aim to find out how Spotify's practices are adapted to promote the efficiency of cross-functional autonomous units in a critical project with a B2B model. This efficiency is represented in Spotify's ability to coordinate teams, which in turn allows for team autonomy.

2 Spotify Model

In our previous work [8], we determined the factors influencing the tuning of Spotify squads in a large-scale project. We conduct a longitudinal embedded case study in a very large-scale organization with a large-scale offshore outsourced mission-critical software project. To the best of our knowledge, these practices and processes have not been previously identified in terms of the Spotify model.

3 Research Design and Methodology

Shared understanding of business goals ≈Yes Yes Emphasis on joint decision-making ≈Yes Yes Utilization of knowledge-based decision-making Unknown Yes Inter-team. Innovation-based missions include Lean Startup ≈Yes Yes PL-based missions include standardization No Yes. Decoupled releases via decoupled architecture Yes Yes Unfinished works are not released as hidden No Yes.

Table 1. Spotify Tailoring for promoting effectiveness
Table 1. Spotify Tailoring for promoting effectiveness

4 Findings

Knowledge Sharing

Mission Based Planning

Release Strategy

The organization uses configuration-driven development to control the behavior of the software application, modules or functions at the time of execution through configuration files. The organization in question "uses DevOps to automate the release delivery process" - P4, Agile Coach and Architect. Also, the organization uses DevOps to enable on-demand releases in case a team misses a release train.

5 Discussion and Conclusion

Therefore, the organization provides backward compatible releases to prevent the behavior of the software service from deviating from the intended behavior in the old releases and to strengthen squad autonomy. “We always make sure that old functions, components and integrated APIs also because their old configuration files work as expected. This is to meet customer needs and avoid potential conflicts of interest between the squads” – P4, Senior Developer. This effectiveness is reflected in the ability to strike the right balance between squad autonomy and alignment.

They also explained that data scientist terminology can be difficult to understand. That's important, she said, because it's one of the best ways to be a data scientist. Confusion about the role, as seen by the group interview, can lead to sub-optimal use of the data scientist.

Table 1. Data sources.
Table 1. Data sources.

Thus, we can assume that teams striving for efficiency have difficulty working in an agile way if the necessary prerequisites at the organizational level are aimed at supporting efficiency. Teams operating in highly bureaucratic environments have difficulty working in an agile manner due to barriers at the organizational level without the legitimate power to change their environment. In order to properly support agile teams, management needs to know how organizational factors influence team behavior.

Our research question is therefore: How do organizational culture and structure influence autonomy of teams. This study reports on the challenges with a specific focus on how the predominantly bureaucratic environment at the organizational level affects the agile way of working at the team level. Data revealed that a strong hierarchy, a specialist culture and functional departmental structures reduced agile team characteristics such as psychological safety or team learning and consequently team autonomy.

We suggest agile fit theory, which implies a mandatory fit between the pervasive organizational context and the desired agile team features to enable teams to act autonomously.

2 Background

We investigated the influence of external autonomy on team autonomy by primarily interviewing team members. Our results suggest Agile Matching Theory, which implies that team autonomy depends on the match between the prevailing external autonomy at the organizational level and desired agile team functions. If the organizational context does not match the required agile functions at the team level, team autonomy is most likely to be low (Table 1).

Since contextual factors are mainly determined by management [9,15] our results help managers to be aware of the boundary conditions that teams must obtain to be able to act autonomously.

3 Study Design

Research Context

Data Collection and Analysis Procedure

Thus, low external autonomy resulted in low levels of self-control, psychological safety, and team strength. But you don't necessarily get decisions, you don't get information if you go there and say: hey, I'm a team member of an agile team. If you go there as a normal team member, you only get information if you are at the appropriate hierarchical level, only if you talk to a person at the same hierarchical level.

Therefore, other team members did not feel responsible or were not allowed to learn specific knowledge. Interviewees also mentioned a lack of willingness to learn things unrelated to their personal area of ​​expertise, or a lack of discipline not to delve too deeply into a professional topic. And then people wait and have nothing to do, even though there is actually quite a bit to be done.

Because there are territories that you are not allowed to enter and that one does not work together. (SM). While some team members appeared to possess high individual task-related autonomy, they had low team autonomy. Thus, a specialized culture resulted in poor team learning, shared mental models and team orientation and consequently led to low team autonomy.

In addition, geographic spread limits knowledge sharing, progress synchronization, visualization, critical topic discussions, and decision-making.

5 Implication for Research and Practice

Through an empirical case study of the agile program, we find that the production structure (i.e. the distribution of operational tasks) and the control structure (i.e. the management of activities related to the operational task) influence agile team autonomy. Dependencies exist between agile teams, and from agile teams to the rest of the organization [7]. Emerging from a tradition that focuses on how organizations are structured, MST places emphasis on how structural complexity (e.g., the degree of team dependence vis-à-vis other teams and functional units) in organizations affects team autonomy and production [12].

Maneuvering the stakeholder map in that way is demanding.” The low external regulatory potential is indicated by the fact that the POs themselves have no control over the allocation of resources from the IT side, priorities from the business side, and resources in core and business systems. A PO illustrates the lack of control over the allocation of resources from the IT side: “The only thing I can't control is the team members and how many percent they are allocated to the team. In a sense, that is beyond my control.” Another PO describes how this takes time: “The project took a lot of time last year before we made progress because we were wrongly staffed.” An added dimension to the team challenge with shared resources is that the employees are highly autonomous in their work prioritization, as one IT analyst confirms when asked who decides where the work should be done: “Nothing is given at all.

I decide for myself.” The above illustrates how POs should treat both IT managers and resources in the PA's dependence on IT units. The required release and deployment authorizations depend on the team level as follows. At the time of the interviews, 70 teams had "earned their wings." The objective was to distribute to around 300 teams.

Cordery, J.L., et al.: The impact of autonomy and task uncertainty on team performance: A longitudinal field study.

Fig. 1. Overall assessment of the team autonomy
Fig. 1. Overall assessment of the team autonomy

A Summary of the 7 th International Workshop on Large-Scale Agile

Development

This workshop explored research challenges in large-scale agile development and identified topics such as cross-team coordination, organization of large projects, release planning and architecture, and practices for scaling agile methods.

2 IEEE Software Special

3 Workshop Contributions

Keynote

Research Papers

Future Research Trends

4 Programme Committee

Without the valuable support of these program committee members, the workshop would not have been possible. Thanks also to Rashina Hoda, the Workshop Chair for XP 2019, who made the workshop possible within the XP conference framework.

5 Conclusions

Moe, NB, Dingsøyr, T.: Emerging research topics and updated research agenda for large-scale agile development: a summary of the 5th international workshop at XP 2017. Moe, N., Dingsøyr, T.: Emerging research topics and updated research agenda for large-scale agile development : a summary of the 5th international workshop at XP2017. Moe, NB, Dingsøyr, T.: Emerging research topics and updated research agenda for large-scale agile development: a summary of the 5th international workshop at XP2017.

Nyrud and Stray [11] identified 11 coordination mechanisms in a large-scale agile project and concluded that retrospective meetings are important for continuous improvement of coordination mechanisms between teams. The ultimate goals of the project include defining success criteria for coordination in large-scale agile software development projects. The main goal of the project includes identifying success criteria for coordination, such as how to handle interdependencies, enable good communication and better autonomous team work processes in large-scale agile software development projects.

She also serves as Director of the Agile Experience Reports initiative for the Agile Alliance. All of the panelists had examples of Agile's impact on software engineering education. One of the biggest challenges in teaching the practices and values ​​embodied in the Agile Manifesto is how to teach students the agile mindset.

Although many of the agile principles are similar, business agility is very different from agile software development. All panelists noted that business agility is not directly related to the Agile Manifesto or Scrum. Ken Power: "As for the next 20 years - I have no idea... I'm optimistic that we're going to see a lot of interesting things in the next 20 years."

Figure 2 presents the SAFe practices the respondents use. Not all respondents responded to this free text question.
Figure 2 presents the SAFe practices the respondents use. Not all respondents responded to this free text question.

Hình ảnh

Fig. 1. Roles of participants at the workshops who completed the survey.
Table 2. Ranked challenges in Agile Transformations, challenges taken from [4].
Fig. 1. Barriers for autonomous teams.
Table 1. Real world problems to be solved.
+7

Tài liệu tham khảo

Tài liệu liên quan

However, we do not find support on these data for the hypothesis that decomposing overall income inequality into a component associated with inequality of opportunity and a