Cited by 330Software Engineering Techniques and PracticesTeam Dynamics and PerformanceAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies

Self-Organizing Roles on Agile Software Development Teams

Hoda, Rashina, Noble, James, Marshall, Stuart·2013·IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

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

Crossref · 10.1109/tse.2012.30

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”
  • 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].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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