Elam, Joyce J.

English

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

Association for Information SystemsAIS Electronic Library (AISeL)ICIS 1987 Proceedings International Conference on Information Systems(ICIS)1987PANEL 3 STUDYING DESIGN TEAMS --COMITRASTONG APPROACHESJoyce J. ElamUniversity of Texas, Austin and Harvard Business SchoolFollow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis1987This material is brought to you by the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been acceptedfor inclusion in ICIS 1987 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contactelibrary@aisnet.org.Recommended CitationElam, Joyce J., "PANEL 3 STUDYING DESIGN TEAMS -- COMITRASTONG APPROACHES" (1987). ICIS 1987 Proceedings. 15.http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis1987/15PAMELSTUDYING DESIGN TEAMS -- COMITRASTONG APPROACHESChair: Joyce J. ElamUniversity of Texas, Austin andHarvard Business SchoolPanelists: Patricia J. Guinan, Boston UniversityJohn C. Henderson, MIT, Sloan School of ManagementMore than half the cost of producing large, complex software systems is related to "upstream" designactivities. While formal design methodologies, development strategies, and requirements analysis techniquesoffer some direction for the management of this aspect of software development, studies indicate that theiruse does not necessarily result in proper problem definitions or adequate solutions to the users' needs.Ultimately, the answer to improved software productivity and quality must find its basis in research whichattempts to understand the processes underlying the design and construction of large software systems.Because such systems are generally designed by a group of cooperating experts, a study of design processesmust include both group and individual dimensions. Experimental studies of small group behavior are quitenumerous in the social science literature and would appear to be relevant to understanding the behavior ofdesign teams. Typically, however, the tasks studied differ from the software development task withrespect to several (interrelated) factors: the complexity of the project, the duration of the project, thestructure of the decision problem, and the motivations of the team members. Because these factors can bereasonable determinants of group behavior and/or performance, it is difficult to generalize the findings ofthis literature to the group design of software systems.Another area of research which is relevant to the study of design teams is software psychology. Softwarepsychology emphasizes the development of models and theories of behavior that specifically describe humaninteraction with software. From the research in software psychology on individual software design, acommon picture emerges. Individuals formulate mental models of the design problem, which lead them tobe able to formulate initial mental models of their design. In general, these models are refined andexpanded and they proceed from abstract toward more concrete levels of representation. Individuals tendto decompose problems into more manageable subproblems. They evaluate and explore solution models bymental simulation. Breakdowns in the individual design process occur as a result of cognitive limitationsand/or lack of knowledge. It is precisely because of these breakdowns that the analysis and design of acomplex software system is often assigned to a team.An analysis of the processes involved in designing large-scale software systems can draw upon the researchon small group behavior and individual software design by recognizing the diversity of team members'underlying conceptualizations, emphasizing the transformation of abstract goals into concrete systems, anddistinguishing between those breakdowns in the design process which are a part of the individual designfunction and those which are the results of the group process itself. While there is a rich intellectualbase to drawn upon in performing these analyses, no formal theories exist to explain the process of groupdesign. Research in this area must be by necessity "theory-building."This panel is composed of a group of researchers who are currently engaged in empirical studies ofsoftware design teams. Each study, however, is very different in terms of the research questions beingaddressed, the reference discipline upon which the research is based, and the research approach employed.The purpose of the panel discussion is to highlight the differences and similarities between the studies andprovide some insights into the central issues being addressed by research in this area.463The research questions being addressed by the various studies are representative of the diverse set ofbehavioral, technical, and managerial issues that arise in studying design teams. Guinan's researchaddresses primarily behavioral issues. She points out that, even after years of experience and research,the IS profession is still criticized for building systems over budget, over deadline, and under theexpectations of the user. Hence, our attention as IS researchers needs to focus on performance-based/pragmatic questions such as: "What characteristics and behaviors of developers help them to excelin developing effective systems?" and "Given user goals, what behaviors do excellent developers exhibit tomeet those goals?" Elam's research addresses both behavioral and technical issues. Her research questionsfocus on identifying breakdowns that occur in the group design process and determining the requirementsof computer-based tools that can be used to alleviate these breakdowns. Henderson's research addressesmanagerial issues. He is interested in understanding how different levels of involvement by team membersaffect design team performance and how such an understanding can be used to manage the design processmore effectively.Given the diversity of the research questions being asked by each study, it is not surprising that eachstudy utilizes a different research approach. Elam adapted a well-known interaction analysis codingscheme from the group dynamics literature to use in validating a process model of group design activities.Video-tapes of design team meetings over a seven month period provided the base data for the study.Guinan also used a process tracing method to analyze simulated interactions between an individual whoplayed the role of a user and an actual designer. Henderson developed a questionnaire that was used tocollect data from a large number of design teams and utilized sophisticated statistical techniques toexamine the link between involvement and performance.With continued research and replication of studies such as those described by this panel, we can begin tounderstand how processes that occur during the design of large-scale software systems affect the overallquality of software systems. Such an understanding is the first step in developing new and improved tools,techniques, and project management procedures that will consistently improve the design and constructionof software systems.464

PANEL 3 STUDYING DESIGN TEAMS -- COMITRASTONG APPROACHES

https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&amp;context=icis1987

PANEL 3 STUDYING DESIGN TEAMS -- COMITRASTONG APPROACHES

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)