Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Pair programming teams and high-quality knowledge sharing: A comparative study of coopetitive reward structures

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There has been a growing research interest in understanding knowledge sharing in agile development. Yet, empirical research that sheds light on its underlying practices, such as pair programming, is evolving. This study uses insights from coopetition and software literature to focus inquiry on the relation between coopetitive rewards and high-quality knowledge sharing in pair programming teams. Theoretical hypotheses are developed and validated, suggesting that: ‘coopetitive rewards influence high-quality knowledge sharing both directly and over time through their impact on the level of knowledge sharing satisfaction’, and, ‘the impact of coopetitive rewards on high-quality knowledge sharing is dependent upon task complexity and the history of working under similar reward structure’. This study generates new understanding related to the use of rewards in pair programming teams, and offers a rigorous and replicable seven-step experimental process for simulating coopetitive structures and investigating their role in pair programming and in similar collaborative contexts.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ally, M., Darroch, F., & Toleman, M. (2005). A framework for understanding the factors influencing pair programming success, eXtreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering (pp. 1–10). UK: Sheffield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balijepally, V., Mahapatra, R., Nerur, S., & Price, K. H. (2009). Are two heads better than one for software development? The productivity paradox of pair programming. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 91–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beath, C. M., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1994). The contradictory structure of systems development methodologies: deconstructing the IS-user relationship in information engineering. Information Systems Research, 5(4), 350–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphery, S. E., Moon, H., Conlon, D. E., & Ilgen, D. R. (2003). Cooperation, competition, and team Performance: toward a contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 572–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beersma, B., Hollenback, J. R., Conlon, D. E., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., & Ilgen, D. R. (2009). Cutthroat cooperation: the effects of team role decisions on adaptation to alternative reward structures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 131–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellini, E., Canfora, G., García, F., Piattini, M., & Visaggio, C. A. (2005). Pair designing as practice for enforcing and diffusing design knowledge. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice, 17(6), 401–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biron, M., & Bamberger, P. (2010). The impact of structural empowerment on individual well-being and performance: taking agent preferences, self-efficacy and operational constraints into account. Human Relations, 63(2), 163–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-Opetition: a revolutionary mindset that combines competition and co-operation. New York: Bantam Dell Pub Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byström, K., & Järvelin, K. (1995). Task complexity affects information seeking and use. Information Processing and Management, 31(2), 191–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. J. (1988). Task complexity: a review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 40–52.

  • Canfora, G., Cimitile, A., Garcia, F., Piattini, M., & Visaggio, C. A. (2007). Evaluating performances of pair designing in industry. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(8), 1317–1327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, F. K. Y., & Thong, J. Y. L. (2009). Acceptance of agile methodologies: a critical review and conceptual framework. Decision Support Systems, 46(4), 803–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chau, T., & Maurer, F. (2004). Knowledge sharing in agile software teams. In L. Wolfgang (Ed.), Logic versus approximation (pp. 173–183). United States: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, A. (2006). Agile software development: the cooperative game (agile software development series). Boston, United States: Addison-Wesley Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, A., & Highsmith, J. (2001). Agile software development: the people factor. Computer, 34(11), 131–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conboy, K., Coyle, S., Wang, X., & Pikkarainen, M. (2010). People over process: key people challenges in agile development. IEEE Software, 99(1), 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crozier, M., & Friedberg, E. (2009). The bureaucratic phenomenon. London: Transaction Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2(2), 129–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V. G., & Moe, N. B. (2012). A decade of agile methodologies: towards explaining agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1213–1221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esterhuizen, D., Schutte, C. S. L., & Du Toit, A. S. A. (2012). Knowledge creation processes as critical enablers for innovation. International Journal of Information Management, 32(4), 354–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrin, D. L., & Dirks, K. T. (2003). The use of rewards to increase and decrease trust: mediating processes and differential effects. Organization Science, 14(1), 18–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu, F.-L., Wu, Y.-L., & Ho, H.-C. (2009). An investigation of coopetitive pedagogic design for knowledge creation in Web-based learning. Computers & Education, 53(3), 550–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvey, C. (2002). Steer teams with the right pay. HR Magazine, 47(1), 71–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghobadi, S. (2014). What drives knowledge sharing in software team: a review and classification framework. Information Management, 52(1), 82–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghobadi, S., & D’ambra, J. (2011a). Coopetitive relationships in cross-functional software development teams: how to model and measure? Journal of Systems and Software, 85(5), 1096–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghobadi, S., & D’ambra, J. (2011b). Coopetitive knowledge sharing: an analytical review of literature. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 307–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghobadi, S., & D’ambra, J. (2012). Knowledge sharing in cross-functional teams: a coopetitive model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(2), 285–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghobadi, S., & D’ambra, J. (2013). Modeling high-quality knowledge sharing in cross-functional software development teams. Information Processing and Management, 49(1), 138–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghobadi, S., & Mathiassen, L. (2014). Perceived barriers to effective knowledge sharing in Agile software teams. Information Systems Journal. doi:10.1111/isj.12053.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, F. M., Welch, K. R., Offringa, G., & Katz, N. (2000). The complexity of social outcomes from cooperative, competitive, and individualistic reward systems. Social Justice Research, 13(3), 237–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, N. & Bajwa, J. K. (2012) Analysis of knowledge sharing practices in distributed agile environment. International Journal of Computer and Communication Technology, 3(6), 6–11.

  • Hanks, B. (2008). Empirical evaluation of distributed pair programming. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(7), 530–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highsmith, J., & Cockburn, A. (2001). Agile software development: the business of innovation. Computer, 34(9), 120–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulkko, H. & Abrahamsson, P. (2005). A multiple case study on the impact of pair programming on product quality, Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering: ACM, 495–504, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: theory and research. MN, US: Interaction Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory. Social Psychological Applications to Social Issues, 4, 9–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2006). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131(4), 285–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Ilgen, D. R., Jundt, D., & Meyer, C. J. (2006). Cutthroat cooperation: asymmetrical adaptation to changes in team reward structures. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 103–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, C., & Hsieh, C. (2009). The impact of knowledge stickiness on knowledge transfer implementation, internalization, and satisfaction for multinational corporations. International Journal of Information Management, 29(6), 425–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, T. C., & Huang, C. C. (2010). Withholding effort in knowledge contribution: the role of social exchange and social cognitive on project teams. Information Management, 47(1), 188–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C., Tan, B., & Chang, S. (2008). An exploratory model of knowledge flow barriers within healthcare organizations. Information Management, 45(5), 331–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S. P., Wang, Y. C., Yuan-Hui, T., & Hsu, Y. F. (2010). Perceived job effectiveness in coopetition: a survey of virtual teams within business organizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(1), 1598–1606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loebbecke, C., Van Fenema, P. C., & Powell, P. (1999). Co-Opetition and knowledge transfer. The Database for Advances in Information Systems, 30(2), 14–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucker, G. W., Rosenfield, D., Sikes, J., & Aronson, E. (1976). Performance in the interdependent classroom: a field study. American Educational Research Journal, 13(2), 115–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcgrath, J. E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. L. (2000). The study of groups: past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(1), 95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, M. M. (2005). Two controlled experiments concerning the comparison of pair programming to peer review. Journal of Systems and Software, 78(2), 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, M. M. (2007). Do programmer pairs make different mistakes than solo programmers? Journal of Systems and Software, 80(9), 1460–1471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R. K., & Mangalaraj, G. (2005). Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 48(5), 72–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pais, L., & dos Santos, N. R. (2015). Knowledge-sharing, cooperation and personal development. In K. Kraiger, J. Passmore, N. R. dos Santos & Sigmar Malvezzi (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Training, Development, and Performance Improvement (pp. 278-302). UK, Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.

  • Pee, L. G., Kankanhalli, A., & Kim, H. W. (2010). Knowledge sharing in information systems development: a social interdependence perspective. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 11(10), 550–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramesh, B., Mohan, K., & Cao, L. (2012). Ambidexterity in agile distributed development: an empirical investigation. Information System Research, 23(2), 323–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, S., & O’connor, R. V. (2009). Development of a team measure for tacit knowledge in software development teams. Journal of Systems and Software, 82(2), 229–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serrano, J. M., & Pons, R. M. (2007). Cooperative learning: we can also do it without task structure. Intercultural Education, 18(3), 215–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, H., & Robinson, H. (2008). Collaboration and co-ordination in mature eXtreme programming teams. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(7), 506–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shih, H.-P., & Huang, E. (2014). Influences of Web interactivity and social identity and bonds on the quality of online discussion in a virtual community. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(4), 627–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shih, M.-H., Tsai, H.-T., & Wu, C.-C. (2006). A holistic knowledge sharing framework in high-tech firms: game and co-opetition perspectives. International Journal of Technology Management, 36(4), 354–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjøberg, D. I., Hannay, J. E., Hansen, O., Kampenes, V. B., Karahasanovic, A., Liborg, N.-K., & Rekdal, A. C. (2005). A survey of controlled experiments in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(9), 733–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R. E. (1977). Classroom reward structure: an analytical and practical review. Review of Educational Research, 47(4), 633–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speier, C., Vessey, I., & Valacich, J. S. (2003). The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and information presentation on computer-supported decision-making performance. Decision Sciences, 34(4), 771–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, K. H., Wong, W. & Chung, L. (2015). Information and knowledge leakage in supply chain. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–18. doi:10.1007/s10796-015-9553-6.

  • Taylor, E. Z. (2006). The effect of incentives on knowledge sharing in computer-mediated communication: an experimental investigation. Journal of Information Systems, 20(1), 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wageman, R., & Baker, G. (1997). Incentives and cooperation: the joint effects of task and reward interdependence on group performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2), 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, G. A., Liu, X., Wang, J., Zhang, M., & Fan, W. (2015). Examining micro-level knowledge sharing discussions in online communities. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10796-015-9566-1.

  • Willem, A., & Buelens, M. (2009). Knowledge sharing in inter-unit cooperative episodes: the impact of organizational structure dimensions. International Journal of Information Management, 29(2), 151–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L., Kessler, R. R., Cunningham, W., & Jeffries, R. (2000). Strengthening the case for pair programming. IEEE Software, 17(4), 19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(1), 60–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wray, S. (2010). How pair programming really works. IEEE Software, 27(1), 50–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharis, N. Z. (2011). Measuring the effects of virtual pair programming in an introductory programming java course. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(1), 168–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The first author received the experimental small project grant from the ASB experimental research laboratory in 2011. Thanks to Ben Greiner for his feedback in designing the experiments, Claude Sammut for his input in designing the tasks, and Matthew Tolhurst for his support in running the experiments. Many thanks also to the review team for their constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Shahla Ghobadi

  2. Faculty of Business, Government and Law, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia

    John Campbell

  3. School of Management, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia

    Stewart Clegg

Authors
  1. Shahla Ghobadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stewart Clegg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shahla Ghobadi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ghobadi, S., Campbell, J. & Clegg, S. Pair programming teams and high-quality knowledge sharing: A comparative study of coopetitive reward structures. Inf Syst Front 19, 397–409 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-015-9603-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-015-9603-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation