4.6 Article

Software Development Process Ambidexterity and Project Performance: A Coordination Cost-Effectiveness View

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
Volume 47, Issue 4, Pages 836-849

Publisher

IEEE COMPUTER SOC
DOI: 10.1109/TSE.2019.2904571

Keywords

Software; Organizations; Technological innovation; Information systems; Sensors; Software engineering; Ambidexterity; coordination; coordination cost; cost-effectiveness; project performance; software development

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Software development process ambidexterity (SDPA) is the ability to demonstrate both process alignment and process adaptability simultaneously, and the effects of SDPA on project performance are mediated by coordination costs and coordination effectiveness in software development projects.
Software development process ambidexterity (SDPA) is the ability to demonstrate both process alignment and process adaptability simultaneously. Realizing process ambidexterity has recently been suggested as an effective approach to improving the performance of software development (SD) projects. To understand the mechanisms underlying the effects of ambidexterity, we focus in this study on the mediating effects of coordination, one of the most important activity in SD projects. Specifically, we hypothesize a mediating effect of coordination costs and coordination effectiveness on the relationship between SDPA and project performance. We conducted a quantitative study involving 104 SD projects across 10 firms to test the model. The results strongly suggest that the positive relationship between SDPA and project performance is negatively mediated by coordination costs and positively mediated by coordination effectiveness. We validate our research model with a case study in an organization employing several hundred IT professionals and derive several practical implications on this basis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available