1 / 6

A comparison of face-to-face and virtual software development teams

A comparison of face-to-face and virtual software development teams. Hayward P. Andres.

latham
Download Presentation

A comparison of face-to-face and virtual software development teams

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A comparison of face-to-face and virtual software development teams Hayward P. Andres

  2. Social presence and media richness associated with a communication medium used to support geographically dispersed software development teams, will have a significant impact on team productivity, perceived interaction quality, and group satisfaction. Face-to-Face (FtF) Videoconferencing (VC) General Hypothesis Communication Mediums

  3. Hypotheses • H1. Team productivity: FtF > VC • H2. Perceived interaction quality: FtF > VC • H3. Group process satisfaction: FtF > VC

  4. Andres’ Theoretical Framework • Software Project Success • Task Outcomes • Team Productivity • Psychosocial Outcomes • Interaction Quality • Process Satisfaction • Group Process • Info exchange • Clarification of efforts • Negotiation • Participation • Communication Medium • Face-to-face • videoconferencing

  5. Communication Medium Videoconference Face to Face Social Presence Media Richness • Social Context & Backchannel Cues • Effective turn-taking, smooth info exchange, clarification of task assignments/efforts, immediate feedback • Rich Communication • Better able to facilitate highly interpersonal task execution activities • Better team coordination, optimal productivity • Increased satisfaction w/ interactions & process satisfaction • Role ambiguity reduction, team consensus, negotiation of a final alternative Uncertainty Reduction Equivocality Reduction Socio-Emotional Communication • Dependent Measures • Task Outcome • Completeness of Design Documentation • Completeness of file design • Specification of function prototypes • Pseudocode for each function • Psychosocial Outcomes • Interaction Quality • Survey • Negative opinions made by and received by individuals • Degree of frustration with other individuals • Process Satisfaction • Survey • Fairness • Understandability • Satisfaction associated w/ method in which task execution was conducted

  6. Conclusions • H1. Team productivity: FtF > VC • H2. Perceived interaction quality: FtF > VC • H3. Group process satisfaction: FtF > VC

More Related