Case of three Scrum teams: Agile software development methods at Nokia - The people perspective Organization and Management Master's thesis Minna Räisänen 2012 Department of Management and International Business Aalto University School of Economics Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Case of three Scrum teams: Agile software devel- opment methods at Nokia – The people perspective Master’s program in Management Master’s Thesis Minna Räisänen 2012 Department of Management and International Business Aalto University School of Economics CASE OF THREE SCRUM TEAMS: AGILE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT METHODS AT NOKIA – THE PEOPLE PERSPECTIVE Master´s Thesis Minna Räisänen 14th of May, 2012 Organizations and Management Approved by the head of the Department of Management and International Business __.__.20__ and awarded the grade ________________________________________ AALTO UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS ABSTRACT Organizations and Management Master’s Thesis 14th of May, 2012 Minna Räisänen CASE OF THREE SCRUM TEAMS: AGILE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT METHODS AT NOKIA – THE PEOPLE PERSPECTIVE Objective of the study The main objective of the study is to find out how the practitioners of agile software development methods at Nokia experience and account for the new mode of operation. The research on the agile software development is scarce, since it has become a popular practice in organizations only within the last few years. In addition, even though agile methodologies claim to be more people centric compared to plan-driven, traditional methods, little research exists whether the practitioners of agile actually experience them being that. The aim of this study is to address this particular gap in research, by gaining a holistic and thorough understanding on people’s perceptions on the given is- sue. Research methodology This research takes a qualitative case study approach to addressing the research question. Semi-structured, thematic interviews were conducted within three Scrum teams across Nokia. Findings The main finding of this study is that people are generally very satisfied with working according to agile software development mode and perceive that adopting agile methods into use has been the right strategic decision at Nokia. Another finding was that people perceive the impacts and effects of agile development methods (transparency, sustaina- ble pace, teamwork, etc.) in differing ways. However, a majority of people think the effects are for the most part, positive. Keywords Agile software development, Scrum, employee perceptions AALTO YLIOPISTON KAUPPAKORKEAKOULU TIIVISTELMÄ Johtaminen ja Organisaatiot Pro Gradu –tutkielma 14.05.2012 Minna Räisänen CASE OF THREE SCRUM TEAMS: AGILE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT METHODS AT NOKIA – THE PEOPLE PERSPECTIVE Tutkimuksen tavoitteet Tutkimuksen päätavoitteena on selvittää, minkälaisia kokemuksia ja näkemyksiä kette- rien ohjelmistokehitysmenetelmien harjoittajilla on uudesta toimintatavasta. Aikaisempi tutkimus liittyen ketteriin ohjelmistonkehitysmenetelmiin on vähäistä, sillä käytännöt ovat yleistyneet organisaatioissa vasta viime vuosina. Vaikka ketterien ohjelmistonkehi- tysmenetelmien väitetään olevan ihmiskeskeisempiä kuin perinteisten menetelmien, asiaa on tutkittu vain vähän itse harjoittajan näkökulmasta. Tutkimuksen tavoitteena on lisätä tietoa kyseisellä tutkimusalueella ja saavuttaa kokonaisvaltainen näkökulma ih- misten kokemuksista ketteriin menetelmiin liittyen. Metodologia Tutkimuksen lähestymistapa on kvalitatiivinen tapaustutkimus. Aineisto on kerätty haastattelemalla ihmisiä kolmesta eri Scrumtiimistä Nokian sisällä. Haastattelut to- teutettiin teemahaastattelun muodossa, puolistrukturoiduilla kysymyksillä. Tutkimuksen tulokset Tutkimuksen tulokset viittaavat siihen, että yleisesti ottaen ihmiset ovat hyvin tyytyväi- siä ketterään ohjelmistonkehitystapaan ja pitävät niiden tarkoituksenmukaista käyttöön- ottamista Nokialla muutoksena parempaan suuntaan. Tutkimuksen toinen löydös oli, että ihmisten kokemukset ketterien kehitysmenetelmien vaikutuksista (läpinäkyvyys, tasainen tahti työnteossa, tiimityöskentely, jne.) ovat eriäviä. Suurin osa kokee ne kui- tenkin positiivisiksi. Avainsanat Ketterä ohjelmistonkehitys, Scrum, työntekijöiden kokemukset TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background on agile development ....................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of the study and research questions ......................................................... 3 1.3 Introduction of the case company - Nokia ............................................................ 4 1.4 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 7 1.5 Structure of the study ........................................................................................... 7 2 Software development methodologies ........................................................................ 9 2.1 Plan-driven, traditional methodologies ................................................................. 9 2.1.1 Waterfall model .......................................................................................... 10 2.2 Agile Methodologies ......................................................................................... 12 2.2.3 Overview of agile models ............................................................................ 14 2.2.4 Scrum.......................................................................................................... 16 2.2.5 Scaling agile practices ................................................................................. 20 2.2.6 Plan-driven versus agile software development ........................................... 24 2.2.7 Motivation for adopting agile methodologies ............................................... 27 3 Previous research on agility ...................................................................................... 32 3.1. Introducing agile into large organizations and teams ......................................... 33 3.2 Wellbeing and contentment................................................................................ 35 3.3 Productivity and performance ............................................................................ 39 3.4 Product quality .................................................................................................. 41 3.5 Team dynamics and collaboration ...................................................................... 43 3.6 Customer satisfaction......................................................................................... 45 3.7 Summary of research – benefits and shortcomings of agile development ........... 47 4 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 50 4.1 Case study approach .......................................................................................... 50 4.2 Thematic interviews........................................................................................... 52 4.3 Sample .............................................................................................................. 54 4.4 Validity and credibility ...................................................................................... 57 5 Findings ................................................................................................................... 59 5.1 Baseline situation............................................................................................... 59 5.2 Early experiences and changing attitudes ........................................................... 61 5.3 Productivity, performance and product quality ................................................... 64 5.4 Team dynamics and collaboration ...................................................................... 66 5.5 Workload and stress level .................................................................................. 70 5.6 Empowerment ................................................................................................... 73 5.7 Wellbeing and contentment................................................................................ 77 5.7.1 Main benefits of agile methodologies .......................................................... 80 5.7.2 Shortcomings of agile methodologies .......................................................... 81 5.8 Summary of findings ......................................................................................... 84 6 Results ..................................................................................................................... 86 7 Implications ............................................................................................................. 92 References .................................................................................................................. 96 Websites ................................................................................................................ 100 Personal communication ........................................................................................ 101 Appendices ............................................................................................................... 102 Appendix A: The value statements of the Agile Manifesto..................................... 102 Appendix B: The principles of the Agile Manifesto ............................................... 103 Appendix C: Interview questions ........................................................................... 104 1 Introduction “In the field of software development, nothing is a stable, except for change. So why haven’t we always developed software in an agile way?” The previous quote is from one of the interviews I conducted at Nokia, stated by a team members working in an agile development team. I think it sums up in one sentence, why in the recent years organizations have started to adopt agile methods into use in growing numbers, especially in the instable technology and IT industries. The mobile device market where Nokia is operating, continues to undergo significant changes. Recently, the most notable shift has been the broad convergence of the mobile telecommunications, computing, consumer electronics and Internet industries (Nokia annual report, 2011). Agile methodologies in software development aim at providing solutions to swiftly react to the turbulent market environment. 1.1 Background on agile development In the field of software development, new methods are introduced quite often, but only a few of them have survived to the mainstream use in organizations (Abrahamsson et al., 2002). As the software industry started advancing quickly since its inception in the 1950s and 1960s, there was a need to better predict and control software projects that grew bigger and more complex. This need lead to the creation of the first software de- velopment methodologies, more commonly known as traditional, plan-driven or pro- cess-oriented methodologies (Leffingwell, 2011). The most well-known and most ex- tensively adapted of the traditional plan-driven methods in software development histo- ry is the Waterfall model created by Winston Royce in 1970. It is also commonly used as a representative of traditional software development models, when the topic is dis- cussed in literature. In the Waterfall model, software development occurs in a series of sequential stages that follow each other in a particular order. In other words, software 1 development starts with agreeing on requirements and design, and the final stages are coding and testing (Leffingwell, 2011). Even though Royce (1970) suggested that there should be iterations of stages, in practice the Waterfall model is often applied so that the next stage doesn’t begin until the previous one is completed (Leffingwell, 2011). The traditional process-oriented software development models have been lately under serious criticism for being too rigid to react to today’s turbulent organizational envi- ronment. As the requirements in the Waterfall model and other plan-driven models are decided on upfront, it doesn’t really give developers a chance to make late changes in the specifications (McCauley 2001, cited in Abrahamsson et al., 2002). According to Boehm (2002, p. 64): “Traditionalists advocate using extensive planning, codified pro- cesses, and rigorous reuse to make development an efficient and predictable activity that gradually matures toward perfection”. Nandhakumar and Avison (1999, p. 176) argue that traditional software development models are too mechanistic to be used in detail and that they are “treated primarily as a necessary fiction to present an image of control or to provide a symbolic status”. There has been a paradigm shift in the field of software engineering during the past two decades in organizations and in literature towards lighter-weight i.e. agile software de- velopment methods (Leffingwell, 2011) which are claimed to be more adaptive and more people-oriented than traditional methodologies (e.g. Nerur et al., 2006). Adaptive approaches are also said to be a better fit for organizations when the requirements un- certain and volatile (Syed-Abdullah et al., 2006). Nowadays, it seems like agile philos- ophy in software development has reached mainstream in organizations. According to an extensive study conducted by Forrester Research Inc. (2010), based on three surveys conducted in 2009 inside 30 large IT companies, 35% of respondents stated that agile methods most closely reflect their software development process, while only 13% were still applying the Waterfall model (West & Grant, 2010). A universal definition of agile software development does not exist in literature, which indicates that the concept is complex and multidimensional. In spite of a variety of defi- nitions, usually all of them involve the concepts of speed and flexibility in order to re- spond to changes in the dynamic market environment (Kettunen & Laanti, 2008). Abra- 2 hamsson et al. (2002) argue that there are four characteristics which make a software development method an agile one. This is the case when software development is: 1) Incremental (small releases, with rapid cycles) 2) Cooperative (customer and developers working constantly together with close communication), 3) Straightforward (the method itself is easy to learn and modify, well documented) 4) Adaptive (ability to make last moment changes) (Abrahamsson et al., 2002, p. 17) 1.2 Purpose of the study and research questions The research related to the new paradigm of agile software development is still scarce, and therefore there is a backlog of research problems to be solved (Rajlich 2006, cited in Dybå & Dingsøyr, 2008). Even though agile methods are claimed to have a human- centered approach to software development (Ceschi et al., 2005) and therefore the con- clusion could be drawn that they would enhance employee wellbeing, little research exists to support the claim (Laanti 2012). The previous research on agile methods has indeed reported to bring business value to users, but little research exists on how the people in agile projects feel about the new ways of working, and how agile methods might affect wellbeing at work (Laanti 2012). Nokia’s motivation to research this particular topic is to gain an insight on how the em- ployees that are part of the agile process perceive and experience the new work mode. It is important to study this subject, because research suggests that job design is one of the most significant factors that affect the wellbeing at work (Frenkel et al., 1998; Knight and McCabe, 1998, cited in Syed-Abdullah et al., 2006). The people’s perceptions on agile software development methods and their impacts on wellbeing have been re- searched in the company previously by extensive surveys on people’s opinions on agile development (e.g. Laanti, 2012; Laanti et al., 2011). These studies have produced quan- titative data and therefore are able to give a general level understanding on people’s 3