Self-Organizing Roles on Agile Software Development Teams
Abstract
Self-organizing teams have been recognized and studied in various forms-as autonomous groups in socio-technical systems, enablers of organizational theories, agents of knowledge management, and as examples of complex-adaptive systems. Over the last decade, self-organizing teams have taken center stage in software engineering when they were incorporated as a hallmark of Agile methods. Despite the long and rich history of self-organizing teams and their recent popularity with Agile methods, there has been little research on the topic within software wngineering. Particularly, there is a dearth of research on how Agile teams organize themselves in practice. Through a Grounded Theory research involving 58 Agile practitioners from 23 software organizations in New Zealand and India over a period of four years, we identified informal, implicit, transient, and spontaneous roles that make Agile teams self-organizing. These roles-Mentor, Coordinator, Translator, Champion, Promoter, and Terminator-are focused toward providing initial guidance and encouraging continued adherence to Agile methods, effectively managing customer expectations and coordinating customer collaboration, securing and sustaining senior management support, and identifying and removing team members threatening the self-organizing ability of the team. Understanding these roles will help software development teams and their managers better comprehend and execute their roles and responsibilities as a self-organizing te…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A coherent set of findings can be considered a theory.
“Therefore, we argue such a coherent set of findings can be considered a theory.”
From Grounded theory in software engineering research: a critical review and guidelines (2016) · cites this paper as [47]
Sixteen articles provide a comprehensive presentation of their research method, of which five articles present extensive documentation about the GT research process.
“Sixteen articles (Boxes 2.3.1, 2.3.2) provide a comprehensive presentation of their research method, of which five articles present extensive documentation about the GT research process [2, 18, 45, 47, 49].”
From Grounded theory in software engineering research: a critical review and guidelines (2016) · cites this paper as [47]
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789 · see citing works
A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation
Nonaka, I. (1994) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14 · Cited by 17,809 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Self-organizing teams were seen as an important agent of knowledge creation and management in an organization [61].”
BackgroundEmpirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review
Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006 · Cited by 2,668 · cited 3× · see citing works
“In contrast, research on Scrum is scarce, despite Scrum being arguably the most popular Agile method used in the industry [32], [51].”
Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004) · Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research · doi:10.17169/fqs-5.2.607 · Cited by 783 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Differences between the two originators of Grounded Theory led to the emergence of two versions of the Grounded Theory method: Glaser's version of GT, often referred to as the Glasserian method or " classic " GT and Strauss' version, called Straussian GT [81], [82].”
Method
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Grounded theory in software engineering research: a critical review and guidelines
Stol, K.-J., Ralph, P., & Fitzgerald, B. (2016) · Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2884781.2884833 · Cited by 470 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hoda, R., Noble, J., & Marshall, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Auckland (NZ)
- Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2013-03
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 422-444
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-3520
- OpenAlex
- W2094462028
- Cited by
- 330
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 54.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (publishedVersion)
- ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
- Keywords
- self-organizing teams, agile software development, team roles, mentor role, customer collaboration, management support, team coordination
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review