IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v20y2009i3p462-477.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Commentary ---Weighing the Benefits and Costs of Flexibility in Making Software: Toward a Contingency Theory of the Determinants of Development Process Design

Author

Listed:
  • Robert D. Austin

    (Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark, and Harvard Business School)

  • Lee Devin

    (Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania 19081)

Abstract

In recent years, flexibility has emerged as a divisive issue in discussions about the appropriate design of processes for making software. Partisans in both research and practice argue for and against plan-based (allegedly inflexible) and agile (allegedly too flexible) approaches. The stakes in this debate are high; questions raised about plan-based approaches undermine longstanding claims that those approaches, when realized, represent maturity of practice. In this commentary, we call for research programs that will move beyond partisan disagreement to a more nuanced discussion, one that takes into account both benefits and costs of flexibility. Key to such programs will be the development of a robust contingency framework for deciding when (in what conditions) plan-based and agile methods should be used. We develop a basic contingency framework in this paper, one that models the benefit/cost economics described in narratives about the transition from craft to industrial production of physical products. We use this framework to demonstrate the power of even a simple model to help us accomplish three objectives: (1) to refocus discussions about the appropriate design of software development processes, concentrating on when to use particular approaches and how they might be usefully combined; (2) to suggest and guide a trajectory of research that can support and enrich this discussion; and (3) to suggest a technology-based explanation for the emergence of agile development at this point in history. Although we are not the first to argue in favor of a contingency perspective, we show that there remain many opportunities for information systems (IS) research to have a major impact on practice in this area.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert D. Austin & Lee Devin, 2009. "Research Commentary ---Weighing the Benefits and Costs of Flexibility in Making Software: Toward a Contingency Theory of the Determinants of Development Process Design," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 462-477, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:20:y:2009:i:3:p:462-477
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.1090.0242
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0242
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.1090.0242?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Franke, Nikolaus & Hippel, Eric von, 2003. "Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: the case of Apache security software," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1199-1215, July.
    2. Alan MacCormack & Roberto Verganti & Marco Iansiti, 2001. "Developing Products on "Internet Time": The Anatomy of a Flexible Development Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 133-150, January.
    3. Rajiv D. Banker & Sandra A. Slaughter, 1997. "A Field Study of Scale Economies in Software Maintenance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(12), pages 1709-1725, December.
    4. Michael L. Harris & Rosann Webb Collins & Alan R. Hevner, 2009. "Control of Flexible Software Development Under Uncertainty," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 400-419, September.
    5. Wallace J. Hopp & Mark L. Spearman, 2004. "To Pull or Not to Pull: What Is the Question?," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 6(2), pages 133-148, August.
    6. John Paul Macduffie, 1995. "Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: Organizational Logic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 48(2), pages 197-221, January.
    7. Kieran Conboy, 2009. "Agility from First Principles: Reconstructing the Concept of Agility in Information Systems Development," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 329-354, September.
    8. David, Paul A, 1990. "The Dynamo and the Computer: An Historical Perspective on the Modern Productivity Paradox," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 355-361, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alan Hevner & Onkar Malgonde, 2019. "Effectual application development on digital platforms," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(3), pages 407-421, September.
    2. Alexander Benlian, 2022. "Sprint Zeal or Sprint Fatigue? The Benefits and Burdens of Agile ISD Practices Use for Developer Well-Being," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(2), pages 557-578, June.
    3. Mohammadnazar, Hojat & Pulkkinen, Mirja & Ghanbari, Hadi, 2019. "A root cause analysis method for preventing erratic behavior in software development: PEBA," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Narayan Ramasubbu & Chris F. Kemerer, 2016. "Technical Debt and the Reliability of Enterprise Software Systems: A Competing Risks Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(5), pages 1487-1510, May.
    2. Evelyn J. Barry & Chris F. Kemerer & Sandra A. Slaughter, 2006. "Environmental Volatility, Development Decisions, and Software Volatility: A Longitudinal Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 448-464, March.
    3. Thomas Kude & Sunil Mithas & Christoph T. Schmidt & Armin Heinzl, 2019. "How Pair Programming Influences Team Performance: The Role of Backup Behavior, Shared Mental Models, and Task Novelty," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 1145-1163, December.
    4. Di Stefano, Giada & Gambardella, Alfonso & Verona, Gianmario, 2012. "Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1283-1295.
    5. Lars Bo Jeppesen & Lars Frederiksen, 2006. "Why Do Users Contribute to Firm-Hosted User Communities? The Case of Computer-Controlled Music Instruments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 45-63, February.
    6. Likoebe M. Maruping & Viswanath Venkatesh & Ritu Agarwal, 2009. "A Control Theory Perspective on Agile Methodology Use and Changing User Requirements," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 377-399, September.
    7. Bianchi, Mattia & Marzi, Giacomo & Guerini, Massimiliano, 2020. "Agile, Stage-Gate and their combination: Exploring how they relate to performance in software development," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 538-553.
    8. Alex Estevam & Denis Dennehy & Kieran Conboy, 2022. "Using Flow Tools to Enact Control in Software Development Projects: A Cross-case Analysis," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 287-304, February.
    9. Saonee Sarker & Suprateek Sarker, 2009. "Exploring Agility in Distributed Information Systems Development Teams: An Interpretive Study in an Offshoring Context," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 440-461, September.
    10. Yixin Qiu & Anandasivam Gopal & Il-Horn Hann, 2017. "Logic Pluralism in Mobile Platform Ecosystems: A Study of Indie App Developers on the iOS App Store," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 225-249, June.
    11. Raouf Boucekkine & Fernando Del Río & Omar Licandro, 2003. "Embodied Technological Change, Learning‐by‐doing and the Productivity Slowdown," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 105(1), pages 87-98, March.
    12. Antonin BERGEAUD & Gilbert Cette & Rémy Lecat, 2017. "What role did education, equipment age and technology play in 20th century productivity growth?," Rue de la Banque, Banque de France, issue 43, may..
    13. Ahn, Sanghoon, 2003. "Technology Upgrading with Learning Cost," CEI Working Paper Series 2003-21, Center for Economic Institutions, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    14. Baldwin, Carliss Y. & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Kapoor, Rahul & West, Joel, 2024. "Focusing the ecosystem lens on innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    15. Tobias Knabke & Sebastian Olbrich, 2018. "Building novel capabilities to enable business intelligence agility: results from a quantitative study," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 493-546, August.
    16. Bitzer, Jürgen & Geishecker, Ingo, 2010. "Who contributes voluntarily to OSS? An investigation among German IT employees," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 165-172, February.
    17. van Riel, A.C.R. & Lievens, A., 2003. "New service development in high tech sectors: a decision making perspective," Research Memorandum 013, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    18. Bussolo Maurizio & de Hoyos Rafael E. & Medvedev Denis & van der Mensbrugghe Dominique, 2012. "Global Growth and Distribution: China, India, and the Emergence of a Global Middle Class," Journal of Globalization and Development, De Gruyter, vol. 2(2), pages 1-29, January.
    19. Scherrer-Rathje, Maike & Boyle, Todd A. & Deflorin, Patricia, 2009. "Lean, take two! Reflections from the second attempt at lean implementation," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 79-88.
    20. Ariel C. Avgar & Niti Pandey & Kiwook Kwon, 2012. "Discretion in Context: A Moderated Mediation Model of the Relationship between Discretion and Turnover Intentions," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 106-128, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:20:y:2009:i:3:p:462-477. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.