The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Control Theory Perspective on Agile Methodology Use and Changing User Requirements
Abstract
In this paper, we draw on control theory to understand the conditions under which the use of agile practices is most effective in improving software project quality. Although agile development methodologies offer the potential of improving software development outcomes, limited research has examined how project managers can structure the software development environment to maximize the benefits of agile methodology use during a project. As a result, project managers have little guidance on how to manage teams who are using agile methodologies. Arguing that the most effective control modes are those that provide teams with autonomy in determining the methods for achieving project objectives, we propose hypotheses related to the interaction between control modes, agile methodology use, and requirements change. We test the model in a field study of 862 software developers in 110 teams. The model explains substantial variance in four objective measures of project quality—bug severity, component complexity, coordinative complexity, and dynamic complexity. Results largely support our hypotheses, highlighting the interplay between project control, agile methodology use, and requirements change. The findings contribute to extant literature by integrating control theory into the growing literature on agile methodology use and by identifying specific contingencies affecting the efficacy of different control modes. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our results.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 · Cited by 4,774
What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639702300303 · Cited by 3,526
Levels issues in theory development, data collection and analysis
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258703 · Cited by 1,607
Cited by
Lu, Y., & Ramamurthy, K. (. (2011) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41409967 · Cited by 1,309
Technostress creators and job outcomes: theorising the moderating influence of personality traits
Srivastava, S. C., Chandra, S., & Shirish, A. (2015) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12067 · Cited by 456
User acceptance of agile information systems: a model and empirical test
Hong, W., Thong, J. Y. L., Chasalow, L. C., & Dhillon, G. (2011) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222280108 · Cited by 212
The impact of legitimacy-based motives on IS adoption success: An institutional theory perspective
Krell, K., Matook, S., & Rohde, F. (2016) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.02.006 · Cited by 102
Designing e‐government services: Key service attributes and citizens’ preference structures
Venkatesh, V., Chan, F. K. Y., & Thong, J. Y. L. (2012) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2011.10.001 · Cited by 33
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., & Agarwal, R.
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 377-399
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W2170483619
- Cited by
- 377
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 45.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.