Organizing for Software Product Development: The Effects of Team Structure, Product Complexity, and Cross-Team Coordination

References

• Ågren SM, Heldal R, Knauss E, Pelliccione P (2022) Agile beyond teams and feedback beyond software in automotive systems. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management 69(6):3459–3475.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alexander C (1964) Notes on the Synthesis of Form (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Apel S, Kästner C (2009) An overview of feature-oriented software development. J. Object Tech. 8(4):1–36.Google Scholar
• Avritzer A, Paulish D, Cai Y, Sethi K (2010) Coordination implications of software architecture in a global software development project. J. Systems Software 83(10):1881–1895.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design Rules: The Power of Modularity (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baumann O, Schmidt J, Stieglitz N (2018) Effective search in rugged performance landscapes: A review and outlook. J. Management 45(1):285–318.Google Scholar
• Bick S, Spohrer K, Hoda R, Scheerer A, Heinzl A (2017) Coordination challenges in large-scale software development: A case study of planning misalignment in hybrid settings. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. 44(10):932–950.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bjarnason E, Gislason Bern B, Svedberg L (2022) Inter-team communication in large-scale co-located software engineering: A case study. Empirical Software Engrg. 27(2):1–43.Google Scholar
• Bosch J (2000) Design and Use of Software Architectures: Adopting and Evolving a Product-Line Approach (Addison-Wesley, Boston).Google Scholar
• Brooks FP Jr (1987) No silver bullet: Essence and accidents of software engineering. Computer 20(4):10–19.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brooks FP Jr (1995) The Mythical Man-Month (Addison-Wesley, Boston).Google Scholar
• Burton N, Galvin P (2018) When do product architectures mirror organisational architectures? The combined role of product complexity and the rate of technological change. Tech. Anal. Strategic Management 30(9):1057–1069.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burton RM, Obel B (1995) The validity of computational models in organization science: From model realism to purpose of the model. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 1(1):57–71.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cataldo M, Herbsleb JD (2013) Coordination breakdowns and their impact on development productivity and software failures. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. 39(3):343–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cerveny RP, Garrity EJ, Sanders GL (1990) A problem-solving perspective on systems development. J. Management Inform. Systems 6(4):103–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cockburn A (2007) Agile Software Development: The Cooperative Game (Addison-Wesley, Boston).Google Scholar
• Colfer LJ, Baldwin CY (2016) The mirroring hypothesis: Theory, evidence, and exceptions. Indust. Corporate Change 25(5):709–738.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crowston K, Chudoba K, Watson-Manheim MB, Rahmati P (2016) Inter-team coordination in large-scale agile development: A test of organizational discontinuity theory. XP ‘16 Workshops Proc. Sci. Workshop Proc. XP2016 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 1–5.Google Scholar
• Cusumano MA (2010) The Business of Software: What Every Manager, Programmer, and Entrepreneur Must Know to Thrive and Survive in Good Times and Bad (Simon and Schuster, New York).Google Scholar
• Cusumano MA, Selby RW (1997) How Microsoft builds software. Comm. ACM 40(6):53–61.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cusumano MA, Selby RW (1998) Microsoft Secrets: How the World’s Most Powerful Software Company Creates Technology, Shapes Markets and Manages People (Simon and Schuster, New York).Google Scholar
• Czarnecki K, Eisenecker U (2000) Generative Programming: Methods, Tools, and Applications (Addison-Wesley, Boston).Google Scholar
• da Silva FQ, Costa C, França ACC, Prikladinicki R (2010) Challenges and solutions in distributed software development project management: A systematic literature review. 2010 5th IEEE Internat. Conf. Global Software Engrg. (IEEE, New York), 87–96.Google Scholar
• Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM, Bingham CB (2007) Developing theory through simulation methods. Acad. Management Rev. 32(2):480–499.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dikert K, Paasivaara M, Lassenius C (2016) Challenges and success factors for large-scale agile transformations: A systematic literature review. J. Systems Software 119:87–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dingsøyr T, Moe NB, Fægri TE, Seim EA (2018) Exploring software development at the very large-scale: A revelatory case study and research agenda for agile method adaptation. Empirical Software Engrg. 23(1):490–520.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Espinosa JA, DeLone W, Lee G (2006) Global boundaries, task processes and IS project success: A field study. Inform. Tech. People 19(4):345–370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Espinosa JA, Slaughter SA, Kraut RE, Herbsleb JD (2007a) Familiarity, complexity, and team performance in geographically distributed software development. Organ. Sci. 18(4):613–630.Link, Google Scholar
• Espinosa JA, Slaughter SA, Kraut RE, Herbsleb JD (2007b) Team knowledge and coordination in geographically distributed software development. J. Management Inform. Systems 24(1):135–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK, Levinthal DA (2004) Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Sci. 50(2):159–173.Link, Google Scholar
• Fuller RC, Kruchten P (2021) Blurring boundaries: Toward the collective empathic understanding of product requirements. Inform. Software Tech. 140:1–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Furlan A, Cabigiosu A, Camuffo A (2014) When the mirror gets misted up: Modularity and technological change. Strategic Management J. 35(6):789–807.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Galbraith JR (1973) Designing Complex Organizations (Addison-Wesley Longman, Boston).Google Scholar
• Ganco M, Agarwal R (2009) Performance differentials between diversifying entrants and entrepreneurial start-ups: A complexity approach. Acad. Management Rev. 34(2):228–252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hahn J, Lee G (2021) The complex effects of cross-domain knowledge on IS development: A simulation-based theory development. MIS Quart. 45(4):2023–2054.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kang K, Hahn J, De P (2017) Learning effects of domain, technology, and customer knowledge in information systems development: An empirical study. Inform. Systems Res. 28(4):797–811.Link, Google Scholar
• Kasauli R, Knauss E, Horkoff J, Liebel G, de Oliveira Neto FG (2021) Requirements engineering challenges and practices in large-scale agile system development. J. Systems Software 172:1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kauffman SA (1993) The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khatri V, Vessey I, Ramesh V, Clay P, Park SJ (2006) Understanding conceptual schemas: Exploring the role of application and is domain knowledge. Inform. Systems Res. 17(1):81–99.Link, Google Scholar
• Kiani ZUR, Smite D, Riaz A (2013) Measuring awareness in cross-team collaborations–Distance matters. 2013 IEEE 8th Internat. Conf. Global Software Engrg. (IEEE, New York), 71–79.Google Scholar
• Kim J, Lerch FJ (1997) Why is programming (sometimes) so difficult? Programming as scientific discovery in multiple problem spaces. Inform. Systems Res. 8(1):25–50.Link, Google Scholar
• Knauss E (2019) The missing requirements perspective in large-scale agile system development. IEEE Software 36(3):9–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kniberg H, Ivarsson A (2012) Scaling agile @Spotify with tribes, squads, chapters & guilds. White paper, https://blog.crisp.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/SpotifyScaling.pdf.Google Scholar
• Knudsen T, Srikanth K (2014) Coordinated exploration: Organizing joint search by multiple specialists to overcome mutual confusion and joint myopia. Admin. Sci. Quart. 59(3):409–441.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Large-Scale Scrum (LeSS) Framework. “Feature Teams.” Accessed March 23, 2026, https://less.works/less/structure/feature-teams.Google Scholar
• Larman C, Basili VR (2003) Iterative and incremental development: A brief history. Computer 36(6):47–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larman C, Vodde B (2008) Scaling Lean & Agile Development: Thinking and Organizational Tools for Large-Scale Scrum (Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston).Google Scholar
• Larman C, Vodde B (2016) Large-Scale Scrum: More with LeSS (Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston).Google Scholar
• Lee G, Xia W (2010) Toward agile: An integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. MIS Quart. 34(1):87–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee G, Espinosa JA, DeLone WH (2013) Task environment complexity, global team dispersion, process capabilities, and coordination in software development. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. 39(12):1753–1771.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leffingwell D (2010) Agile Software Requirements: Lean Requirements Practices for Teams, Programs, and the Enterprise (Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston).Google Scholar
• Leite L, Pinto G, Kon F, Meirelles P (2021) The organization of software teams in the quest for continuous delivery: A grounded theory approach. Inform. Software Tech. 139:1–14.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacCormack A (2001) Product-development practices that work: How internet companies build software. Sloan Management Rev. 42(2):75–84.Google Scholar
• MacCormack A, Baldwin C, Rusnak J (2012) Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures: A test of the “mirroring” hypothesis. Res. Policy 41(8):1309–1324.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacCormack A, Rusnak J, Baldwin CY (2006) Exploring the structure of complex software designs: An empirical study of open source and proprietary code. Management Sci. 52(7):1015–1030.Link, Google Scholar
• Malone TW, Crowston K (1994) The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Comput. Surveys 26(1):87–119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Masood Z, Hoda R, Blincoe K (2020) Real world scrum a grounded theory of variations in practice. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. 48(5):1579–1591.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meyer B (2003) The grand challenge of trusted components. Proc. 25th Internat. Conf. Software Engrg. (IEEE, Portland, OR), 660–667.Google Scholar
• Parnas DL (1972) On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Comm. ACM 15(12):1053–1058.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pimmler TU, Eppinger SD (1994) Integration analysis of product decompositions. Proc. 6th Internat. Conf. Design Theory Methodology (Minneapolis), 343–351.Google Scholar
• Querbes A, Frenken K (2018) Grounding the “mirroring hypothesis”: Towards a general theory of organization design in new product development. J. Engrg. Tech. Management 47:81–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rahy S, Bass J (2019) Information flows at inter-team boundaries in agile information systems development. Themistocleous M, Rupino da Cunha P, eds. Inform. Systems 15th Eur. Mediterranean Middle Eastern Conf. EMCIS 2018, Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 341 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland), 489–502.Google Scholar
• Rivard S (2014) Editor’s comments: The ions of theory construction. MIS Quart. 38(2):iii–xiii.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2007) Patterned interactions in complex systems: Implications for exploration. Management Sci. 53(7):1068–1085.Link, Google Scholar
• Šāblis A, Šmite D, Moe N (2021) Team-external coordination in large-scale software development projects. J. Software Evolution Process 33(3):1–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sanchez R, Mahoney JT (1996) Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management J. 17(S2):63–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schofield J (2008) How many people make Windows 7? The Guardian (August 8), https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2008/aug/19/howmanypeoplemakewindows7.Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1981) The Sciences of the Artificial (Bradford/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Skelton M, Pais M (2019) Team Topologies: Organizing Business and Technology Teams for Fast Flow (IT Revolution, Portland, OR).Google Scholar
• Šmite D, Moe NB, Levinta G, Floryan M (2019) Spotify guilds: How to succeed with knowledge sharing in large-scale agile organizations. IEEE Software 36(2):51–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Šmite D, Moe NB, Šāblis A, Wohlin C (2017) Software teams and their knowledge networks in large-scale software development. Inform. Software Tech. 86:71–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sosa ME, Eppinger SD, Rowles CM (2004) The misalignment of product architecture and organizational structure in complex product development. Management Sci. 50(12):1674–1689.Link, Google Scholar
• Sosa ME, Eppinger SD, Rowles CM (2007) Are your engineers talking to one another when they should? Harvard Bus. Rev. 85(11):133–142.Google Scholar
• Standish Group (2001) Extreme CHAOS (Standish Group International, West Yarmouth, MA).Google Scholar
• Strode D, Dingsøyr T, Lindsjorn Y (2022) A teamwork effectiveness model for agile software development. Empirical Software Engrg. 27(2):1–50.Google Scholar
• Subramanyam R, Ramasubbu N, Krishnan MS (2011) In search of efficient flexibility: Effects of software component granularity on development effort, defects, and customization effort. Inform. Systems Res. 23(3-part-1):787–803.Link, Google Scholar
• Szyperski C (2011) Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming, 2nd ed. (Addison-Wesley, Boston).Google Scholar
• Taber CS, Timpone RJ (1996) Computational Modeling (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tee R (2019) Benefiting from modularity within and across firm boundaries. Indust. Corporate Change 28(5):1011–1028.Google Scholar
• Xia W, Lee G (2004) Grasping the complexity of IS development projects. Comm. ACM 47(5):68–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xia W, Lee G (2005) Complexity of information systems development projects: Conceptualization and measurement development. J. Management Inform. Systems 22(1):45–83.Crossref, Google Scholar