View
600
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This is the presentation of the paper "The impact of Multi-site Software Governance on Knowledge Management" from ICGSE2011 (Helsinki)
Citation preview
THE IMPACT OF MULTI-‐SITE SOFTWARE GOVERNANCE ON KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Chris&na Manteli, Bart van den Hooff, Antony Tang, Hans van Vliet VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM
MULTI-‐SITE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT GOVERNANCE
• SoHware development governance ensures that processes meet the requirements.
• A governance model should have1
– A structural perspec7ve: “what governance looks like” – A func7onal perspec7ve: “what governance does”
• Challenges to define a SoHware Governance Model increase when development ac&vi&es are distributed among remote loca&ons.
• Challenges on KM increase when development goes global
1. P.L. Bannerman, “SoHware development governance: A meta-‐management perspec&ve”, in Proceedings of the 2009 ICSE Workshop on SoHware Development Governance, ser. SDG’09. IEEE Computer Society, 2009, pp. 3-‐8
RESEARCH APPROACH
How do the different mul7-‐site governance structures influence the knowledge management challenges?
Multi-site SGM KM Challenges?
• A structural approach to a Mul&-‐site SoHware Governance Model (SGM)
• Main Knowledge Management (KM) Challenges in Global SoHware Development.
MULTI-‐SITE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT GOVERNANCE
• Business Strategy: the outsourcing strategy with the remote partners, including the legal implica&ons.
• Team Structure & composiGon: team size, role descrip&ons and role distribu&ons.
• Task AllocaGon: how work is distributed across sites.
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
• CommunicaGon: communica&on speed and frequency.
• Knowledge creaGon & storage: capture informa&on, record it in a medium, transform it and encode it as knowledge.
• Knowledge transfer: knowledge s7ckiness, transac&ve memory systems (TMS)
CASE STUDY OVERVIEW
• Océ is a mul&na&onal company in prin&ng systems (Canon Group).
• Qualita&ve data analysis – 20 interviews
• SoHware Engineers, Testers, Architects, Project Managers.
– 3 loca&ons – 1 project Site NLSite B
Site A
CASE STUDY OVERVIEW
• Different governance structures iden&fied:
Independent development of distributed components: Loosely coupled activities
Site NL-Site B
• Site NL flat organization; Site B hierarchically structured• Role descriptions differ between sites• Unequal team sizes
Same Company: No legal barriers between sites
Site NL-Site ADifferent Companies: Legal barriers between sites
Co-development of distributed components: Tightly coupled activites
• Site NL flat organization; Site A hierarchically structured• Role descriptions differ between sites• Unequal team sizes
Task Allocation
Team Structure
& Composition
Business Strategy
THE IMPACT OF BUSINESS STRATEGY ON KM
• Knowledge is not freely shared between site NL-‐ site A – Site A relies only on the available knowledge – Site A lacks “system-‐generic” knowledge
• Knowledge shared from site NL to site A needs to be filtered – More &me and effort spent to share knowledge
THE IMPACT OF TEAM STRUCTURE & COMPOSITION ON KM
• Hierarchical structures create boSlenecks in knowledge sharing.
• Too much focus on agility stresses tacit communica&on. Documenta&on remains outdated.
• Different role descrip&ons make knowledge difficult to locate.
• Knowledge tends to s7ck where the majority of the teams are, or where the larger teams are located.
THE IMPACT OF TASK ALLOCATION ON KM
• Site NL-‐Site A: Co-‐development – Higher communica&on frequency. – Increased need for knowledge sharing. – Increased need for codified knowledge.
• Site NL-‐Site B: Independent development – Communica&on frequency depends more on the development phase.
– Knowledge s&cks the more ‘independent’ teams.
COMMUNICATION FREQUENCY & TASK ALLOCATION
Requirements Architecture Design Coding Testing Integration Maintenance
Com
mun
icat
ion
Freq
uenc
y
High
Low
medium
Site NL - Site A
Site NL - Site B
SUMMARY
Multi-site SGM KM Challenges• Business Strategy
• Team Structure & Composition
• Task Allocation
• Communication
• Knowledge creation & storage
• Knowledge transfer
LESSONS LEARNED • The impact of mul&-‐site governance structures on knowledge management: – Legal barriers increase the effort and &me spent on managing the crea&on, storage and transfer of knowledge
– Unbalanced team structure & composi&on impedes smooth flow of knowledge.
– Tightly-‐coupled ac&vi&es among remote teams increases communica&on frequency as well as the need and effort spent for knowledge sharing.
FUTURE RESEARCH
• Expand and improve the 3 structural aspects of the mul&-‐site soHware governance model.
• Create a mul&-‐site soHware governance framework: – How organiza&on and development ac&vi&es should be structured to best align business and development goals.
THANK YOU.
Chris&na Manteli, Bart van den Hooff, Antony Tang, Hans van Vliet VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM
Business Strategy
Multi-site Software Governance
Task Allocation
Team Structure & Composition
Site NL-Site A:• They are different companies and information barriers exist between the remote sites
Site NL-Site B:• They are the same company and no information barriers exist between the remote sites
Knowledge Management Challenges
• No direct documentation due to information barriers.• Information sent from Site NL to Site A needs to be filtered.• Communication frequency is higher.
Site NL-Site A:• Site NL is a flat organization, while Site A is hierarchically structured.• Role descriptions differ between sites.• Unbalanced team sizes.
Site NL-Site B:• Site NL is a flat organization, while Site B is hierarchically structured.• Role descriptions differ between sites.• Unbalanced team sizes.
• Hierarchical structures create bottlenecks in knowledge sharing.• Too much focus on agility stresses tacit communication and documentation remains outdated.• Different role descriptions makes knowledge difficult to locate.• Knowledge tends to stick where the majority of teams, or where the larger teams are located.
Site NL-Site A:• They co-develop a function and their activities are tightly coupled.
Site NL-Site B:• They develop independently and their activities are loosely coupled.
• Tightly coupled activities increase the need for knowledge sharing.• Co-development creates a greater need for codified knowledge.• Communication frequency is high.
• Knowledge tends to stick to the independent development teams.• Communication frequency depends on the release phase.