Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The role of project management in ineffective decision making within Agile software development projects

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

Decision making in traditional software development lies with the project manager. In contrast, Agile software development teams are empowered to make decisions, while the role of project manager has changed from one of command and control (i.e. to make decisions and ensure they are implemented) to one of a facilitator. This article argues that decision making in software development is not characterised by a sequence of isolated or exclusive decisions; rather, decisions are inter-related, with each decision leading to further decisions, the chain of which often spans the entire duration of a project. Over this extended period, there are several potential factors that can negatively affect the efficacy of decision making by Agile teams. One of the findings of this exploratory longitudinal study is that the high level of empowerment of a cohesive software development team undertaking an Agile project may be one of these negative factors, as empowered, cohesive teams can exhibit problems such as groupthink or the Abilene Paradox. This article therefore argues that the role of project manager in Agile development initiatives needs to be reassessed, with project managers taking on the role of devil's advocate in the decision-making process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamsson P, Salo O, Ronkainen J and Warsta J (2002) Agile software development methods Review and analysis VTT Publications, Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C (1976) Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (3), 363–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C (1998) Empowerment: the emperor's new clothes. Harvard Business Review 76 (3), 98–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auer K, Meade E and Reeves G (2003) The rules of the game. In Extreme Programming and Agile Methods – Xp/Agile Universe 2003 (MAURER F and WELLS D, Eds), pp 35–42, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Augustine S (2005) Managing Agile Projects. Prentice Hall, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balthazard P, Potter R and Warren J (2004) Expertise, extraversion and group interaction styles as performance indicators in virtual teams. The Database for Advances in Information Systems 35 (1), 41–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basadur M (1997) Managing creativity: a Japanese model. In The Human Side of Managing Technological Innovation (KATZ R, Ed), pp 68–79, Oxford University Press, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beal D, Cohen R, Burge M and McLendon C (2003) Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (6), 989–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bødker K and Pedersen J (1991) Workplace cultures: looking at artifacts, symbols and practices. In Design at Work: Collaborative Design of Computer Systems (GREENBAUM J and KING M, Eds), pp 121–136, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm B and Turner R (2003) Rebalancing your organizations agility and discipline. In Extreme Programming and Agile Methods – Xp/Agile Universe 2003 (MAURER F and WELLS D, Eds), pp 1–8, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm B and Turner R (2004) Balancing Agility and Discipline. Pearson Education, MA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright D and Zander A (1968) Pressures to uniformity in groups. In Group Dynamics (CARTWRIGHT D and ZANDER A, Eds), pp 139–151, Harper & Row Publishers, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright R (2002) Mastering Team Leadership. Palgrave Macmillan, Wales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin G (2003) Agile Project Management: How to Succeed in the Face of Changing Project Requirements. AMACOM, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn M (2004) User Stories Applied for Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley, MA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosier R (1981) Dialectical inquiry is strategic planning: a case of premature acceptance? The Academy of Management Review 6 (4), 643–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EHN P (1988) Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artefacts. Arbetslivscentrum, Stockholm, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson J, Lyytinen K and Siau K (2005) Agile modelling, Agile software development, and Extreme Programming: the state of research. Journal of Database Management 16 (4), 88–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezey P (2003) Integration and its challenges in participant observation. Qualitative Research 3 (2), 191–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Euchner J, Sachs P and The Nynex Panel (1993) The benefits of internal tension. Communications of the ACM 36 (4), 53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetz J and Lecompte M (1984) Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goleman DP (1996) Vital Lies Simple Truths: The Psychology of Self-Deception. Simon and Schuster Books, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gowda R and Chand D (1993) An exploration of the impact of individual and group factors on programmer productivity. ACM conference on Computer Science 338–345, ACM Press, Indianapolis, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare A (1994) Individual versus group. In Small Group Research: A Handbook (HARE A, BLUMBERG H, DAVIES M and KENT M, Eds), pp 261–270, Ablex Publishing, NJ, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey J (1974) The Abilene paradox: the management of agreement. Organizational Dynamics 3 (1), 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey J (2001) Abilene revisited: An epilogue. Organizational Dynamics 17 (2), 35–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazzan O and Tomayko J (2003) The reflective practitioner perspective in Extreme Programming. In Extreme Programming and Agile Methods – Xp/Agile Universe 2003 (MAURER F and WELLS D, Eds), pp 51–61, Springer-Verlag Berlin, Germany.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Herbert T and Estes R (1977) Improving executive decisions by formalizing dissent: the corporate devil's advocate. The Academy of Management Review 2 (4), 662–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Highsmith J (2004) Agile Project Management. Pearson Education, MA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg M and Hains S (1998) Friendship and group identification: a new look at the role of cohesiveness in groupthink. European Journal of Social Psychology 28 (3), 323–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huczynski A and Buchanan D (1991) Organizational Behaviour. An Introductory Text 2nd edn Prentice Hall, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis I (1972) Victims of Groupthink. Houghton Mifflin Company, MA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen D (1989) Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human Studies. Sage Publications, CA, USA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter R (2001) An Abilene defense: commentary one. Organizational Dynamics 17 (2), 37–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim Y (2001) A comparative study of the ‘Abilene paradox’ and groupthink. Public Administration Quarterly 25 (2), 168–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landy F and Conte J (2004) Work in the 21st Century. McGraw-Hill, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langfred C (2004) Too much of a good thing? Negative effects of high trust and individual autonomy in self managed teams. Academy of Management Journal 47 (3), 385–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine J and Moreland R (1990) Progress in small group research. Annual Review Of Psychology 41 (1), 585–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDougall C and Baum F (1997) The devil's advocate: a strategy to avoid groupthink and stimulate discussion in focus groups. Qualitative Health Research 7 (4), 532–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manz C and Neck N (1995) Teamthink: beyond the groupthink syndrome in self-managing work teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology 10 (1), 7–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manz C and Sims H (1987) Leading workers to lead themselves: the external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 32 (1), 106–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAvoy J and Sammon D (2006) Towards the development of a simple tool to assist in agile methodology adoption decisions: Agile adoption matrix. In The Proceedings of the European Conference of Information Systems 2006 (LJUNGBERG J and ANDERSSON M, Eds) pp 2101–2110, Gothenburg, Sweden.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBreen P (2002) Questioning Extreme Programming. Pearson Education, NJ, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath J (1984) Groups, Interaction, and Performance. Prentice-Hall, NJ, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor D (1960) Theory X and theory Y. In Organization Theory (PUGH D, Ed), 3rd edn, pp 358–374, Penguin Books, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg H, Raisinghani D and Théorêt A (1976) The structure of ‘unstructured’ decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (2), 246–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neck C (1996) Letterman or leno: a groupthink analysis of successive decisions made by the national broadcasting company. Journal of Managerial Psychology 11 (8), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth C and Goncalo J (2004) Influence and persuasion in small groups. In Persuasion: Psychological Insights and Perspectives (SHAVITT S and BROCK TC, Eds), pp 171–194, Allyn and Bacon, MA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth C, Brown K and Rogers J (2001) Devil's advocacy versus authentic dissent: stimulating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology 31 (6), 707–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ottaviani M and Sorensen P (2001) Information aggregation in debate: who should speak first. Journal of Public Economics 81 (3), 393–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patching K (1999) Management and Organisational Development. Macmillian Business, London, UK.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Patton M (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage Publications Ltd, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins H and Finley M (1998) Why Teams Don’t Work. Orion Publishing, London, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robey D, Smith LA and Vijayasarathy LR (1993) Perceptions of conflict and success in information systems development projects. Journal of Management Information Systems 10 (1), 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson H and Sharp H (2005) The social side of technical practices. Proceedings of 6th Processes in Software Engineering 5th International Conference (BAUMEISTER H, ECKSTEIN J and HOLCOMBE M, Eds), pp 100–108, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roock S and Wolf H (2004) Agile project controlling. In Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering 5th International Conference (ECKSTEIN J, BAUMEISTER H and HANSEN R, Eds), pp 202–209, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Salo O, Kolehmainen K, Kyllonen P, Lothman J, Salmijarvi S and Abrahamsson P (2004) Self-adaptability of agile software processes: a case study on post-iteration workshops. In Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering 5th International Conference (ECKSTEIN J, BAUMEISTER H and HANSEN R, Eds), pp 184–193, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sambamurthy V and Poole MS (1992) The effects of variations in capabilities of GDSS designs on management of cognitive conflict groups. Information Systems Research 3 (3), 224–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuh P (2004) Integrating Agile Development in the Real World. Delmar Thomson Learning, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweiger D, Sandberg W and Rechner P (1989) Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry, devil's advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal 32 (4), 745–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwenk C (1998) Effects of devil's advocacy on escalating commitment. Human Relations 41 (10), 769–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spradley J (1980) Participant Observation. Holt, Rinehard, and Winston, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statt D (2004) Psychology and the World of Work. Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens M and Rosenberg D (2003) Extreme Programming Refactored: The Case Against XP. Springer-Verlag, Heidleberg, Germany.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thamhain H and Wilemon D (1997) Building high performance engineering project teams. In The Human Side of Managing Technological Innovation (KATZ R, Ed), pp 125–136, Oxford University Press, NY, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas F (1990) Leadership, the development cycle, maturity & power. Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM SIGUCCS Conference on User Services (SARRI S, Ed), pp 399–402, ACM Press, NY, USA.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Von Bergen C and Kirk R (1978) Groupthink: when too many heads spoil the decision. Management Review 67 (3), 44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Method. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business Information Systems, University College Cork, Ireland

    John McAvoy & Tom Butler

Authors
  1. John McAvoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tom Butler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John McAvoy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McAvoy, J., Butler, T. The role of project management in ineffective decision making within Agile software development projects. Eur J Inf Syst 18, 372–383 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2009.22

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2009.22

Keywords

Search

Navigation