Global Agile Team Design: An Informing Science Perspective

Introduction Software development continues to be plagued with issues related to the completion of projects that fulfill user requirements on-time and within budget. Agile development, which is a set of software development methodologies based on the concepts of adaptability and iterative development, has been suggested as a way to alleviate these recurring problems (Abrahamson, Warston, Sippon, & Ronkainen, 2003). Agile development promotes collaboration between cross-functional and self-organizing teams utilizing adaptive planning and development that is responsive to change. Another concept that some organizations have embraced is developing software using global virtual teams. The benefits of drawing from a large group of talented software developers available around the world, a 24-hour work schedule, and the ability to rapidly form and deploy virtual teams is a strong lure for organizations that want to address the challenges faced in software development (Battin, Crocker, Kreidler, & Subramanian, 2001; Carmel & Agarwal, 2001; Damian & Moitra, 2006; Herbsleb & Moitra, 2001). However, there are many difficulties that need to be overcome to create a multicultural, multidisciplinary, informing environment in which teams can flourish (Battin et al., 2001). Prior research has investigated how to combine these approaches (Agerfalk & Fitzgerald, 2006; Holmstrom, Fitzgerald, Agerfalk, & Conchuir, 2006; Jalali & Wohlin, 2012; Ramesh, Cao, Mohan, & Xu, 2006; Sarker, Munson, Sarker, & Chakraborty, 2009; Sarker & Sarker, 2009). An issue that arises is the actual design of teams utilizing this combined approach. While the software development process has been studied from an Informing Science perspective (Roussev & Rousseva, 2004), this research specifically examines the design of global virtual teams employing agile software development methodologies via a case study through the lens of Informing Science (Cohen, 2009). Application of the Informing Science Framework Cohen (2009) presented an updated model of the Informing Science framework that draws upon Shannon and Weaver's (1949) communication model and Wilson's (1981) model as shown in Figure 1. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] In Figure 1, the informer is the sender (encoder) of a message, while the client is the receiver (decoder) of the message. In the global agile development arena, the informer and client can be members of the same global development team (either co-located or geographically dispersed) or the customer for whom the system is being developed. Next in the figure is the need or task. In this research, the task was the software development that must be accomplished. Agile methods adhere in varying degrees to the values, principles, and practices set forth in the Agile Manifesto. The values emphasize "individuals and interactions over processes and tools," "working software over comprehensive documentation," "customer collaboration over contract negotiation," and "responding to change over following a plan" (Fowler & Highsmith, 2001). Table 1 lists the twelve principles behind the Agile Manifesto. Specific agile practices depend on the agile methodology employed. For example, eXtreme Programming, one used agile methodology frequently, emphasizes small releases (a release every two weeks), pair programming (programmers working in pairs at the same computer where one person controls the keyboard and mouse while the other observes), continuous integration (checking in code and integrating multiple times per day), and user experience (documenting needs by writing a few words on an index card as a reminder of the discussion with the user) just to name a few (Beck & Andres, 2005; Martin, 2003). Another example of an agile methodology that emphasizes specific agile practices is Scrum. These practices include sprints (an iteration or release of software approximately once a calendar month), the daily scrum (a meeting held each day of the sprint lasting 15 minutes or less), sprint planning (used to determine which product backlog subsets are most important and should be included in the next sprint), and scrum of scrums (the coordination of multiple Scrum teams) (Rubin, 2013; Schwaber & Beedle, 2002). …