THE  IMPACT  OF    MULTI-­‐SITE  SOFTWARE  GOVERNANCE    ON  KNOWLEDGE  MANAGEMENT  

Chris&na  Manteli,  Bart  van  den  Hooff,  Antony  Tang,  Hans  van  Vliet  VU  UNIVERSITY  AMSTERDAM  

MULTI-­‐SITE  SOFTWARE  DEVELOPMENT  GOVERNANCE  

•  SoHware  development  governance  ensures  that  processes  meet  the  requirements.  

•  A  governance  model  should  have1  

–  A  structural  perspec7ve:  “what  governance  looks  like”  –  A  func7onal  perspec7ve:  “what  governance  does”  

•  Challenges  to  define  a  SoHware  Governance  Model  increase  when  development  ac&vi&es  are  distributed  among  remote  loca&ons.  

•  Challenges  on  KM  increase  when  development  goes  global  

 1.  P.L.  Bannerman,  “SoHware  development  governance:  A  meta-­‐management  perspec&ve”,  in  Proceedings  of  the  2009  ICSE  Workshop  on  SoHware  Development  Governance,  ser.  SDG’09.  IEEE  Computer  Society,  2009,  pp.  3-­‐8  

RESEARCH  APPROACH  

How    do  the  different  mul7-­‐site  governance  structures  influence  the  knowledge  management  challenges?  

Multi-site SGM KM Challenges?

•  A  structural  approach  to  a  Mul&-­‐site  SoHware  Governance  Model  (SGM)  

•  Main  Knowledge  Management  (KM)  Challenges  in  Global  SoHware  Development.  

 

MULTI-­‐SITE  SOFTWARE  DEVELOPMENT  GOVERNANCE  

•  Business  Strategy:  the  outsourcing  strategy  with  the  remote  partners,  including  the  legal  implica&ons.  

•  Team  Structure  &  composiGon:  team  size,  role  descrip&ons  and  role  distribu&ons.  

•  Task  AllocaGon:  how  work  is  distributed  across  sites.    

KNOWLEDGE  MANAGEMENT  CHALLENGES  

•  CommunicaGon:  communica&on  speed  and  frequency.  

•  Knowledge  creaGon  &  storage:  capture  informa&on,  record  it  in  a  medium,  transform  it  and  encode  it  as  knowledge.    

•  Knowledge  transfer:  knowledge  s7ckiness,  transac&ve  memory  systems  (TMS)  

CASE  STUDY  OVERVIEW  

•  Océ  is  a  mul&na&onal  company  in  prin&ng  systems  (Canon  Group).  

•  Qualita&ve  data  analysis  – 20  interviews    

•  SoHware  Engineers,  Testers,    Architects,  Project  Managers.  

– 3  loca&ons  – 1  project   Site NLSite B

Site A

CASE  STUDY  OVERVIEW  

•  Different  governance  structures  iden&fied:  

Independent development of distributed components: Loosely coupled activities

Site NL-Site B

• Site NL flat organization; Site B hierarchically structured• Role descriptions differ between sites• Unequal team sizes

Same Company: No legal barriers between sites

Site NL-Site ADifferent Companies: Legal barriers between sites

Co-development of distributed components: Tightly coupled activites

• Site NL flat organization; Site A hierarchically structured• Role descriptions differ between sites• Unequal team sizes

Task Allocation

Team Structure

& Composition

Business Strategy

THE  IMPACT  OF  BUSINESS  STRATEGY  ON  KM  

•  Knowledge  is  not  freely  shared  between  site  NL-­‐  site  A  – Site  A  relies  only  on  the  available  knowledge  – Site  A  lacks  “system-­‐generic”  knowledge  

•  Knowledge  shared  from  site  NL  to  site  A  needs  to  be  filtered  – More  &me  and  effort  spent  to  share  knowledge  

THE  IMPACT  OF  TEAM  STRUCTURE  &  COMPOSITION  ON  KM  

•  Hierarchical  structures  create  boSlenecks  in  knowledge  sharing.  

•  Too  much  focus  on  agility  stresses  tacit  communica&on.  Documenta&on  remains  outdated.  

•  Different  role  descrip&ons  make  knowledge  difficult  to  locate.  

•  Knowledge  tends  to  s7ck  where  the  majority  of  the  teams  are,  or  where  the  larger  teams  are  located.  

THE  IMPACT  OF  TASK  ALLOCATION  ON  KM  

•  Site  NL-­‐Site  A:  Co-­‐development  – Higher  communica&on  frequency.  –  Increased  need  for  knowledge  sharing.  –  Increased  need  for  codified  knowledge.  

•  Site  NL-­‐Site  B:  Independent  development  – Communica&on  frequency  depends  more  on  the  development  phase.  

– Knowledge  s&cks  the  more  ‘independent’  teams.  

COMMUNICATION  FREQUENCY  &  TASK  ALLOCATION  

Requirements Architecture Design Coding Testing Integration Maintenance

Com

mun

icat

ion

Freq

uenc

y

High

Low

medium

Site NL - Site A

Site NL - Site B

SUMMARY  

Multi-site SGM KM Challenges• Business Strategy

• Team Structure & Composition

• Task Allocation

• Communication

• Knowledge creation & storage

• Knowledge transfer

LESSONS  LEARNED    •  The  impact  of  mul&-­‐site  governance  structures  on  knowledge  management:  – Legal  barriers  increase  the  effort  and  &me  spent  on  managing  the  crea&on,  storage  and  transfer  of  knowledge  

– Unbalanced  team  structure  &  composi&on  impedes  smooth  flow  of  knowledge.    

– Tightly-­‐coupled  ac&vi&es  among  remote  teams  increases  communica&on  frequency  as  well  as  the  need  and  effort  spent  for  knowledge  sharing.  

FUTURE  RESEARCH    

•  Expand  and  improve  the  3  structural  aspects  of  the  mul&-­‐site  soHware  governance  model.  

•  Create  a  mul&-­‐site  soHware  governance  framework:  – How  organiza&on  and  development  ac&vi&es  should  be  structured  to  best  align  business  and  development  goals.  

THANK  YOU.  

Chris&na  Manteli,  Bart  van  den  Hooff,  Antony  Tang,  Hans  van  Vliet  VU  UNIVERSITY  AMSTERDAM  

Business Strategy

Multi-site Software Governance

Task Allocation

Team Structure & Composition

Site NL-Site A:• They are different companies and information barriers exist between the remote sites

Site NL-Site B:• They are the same company and no information barriers exist between the remote sites

Knowledge Management Challenges

• No direct documentation due to information barriers.• Information sent from Site NL to Site A needs to be filtered.• Communication frequency is higher.

Site NL-Site A:• Site NL is a flat organization, while Site A is hierarchically structured.• Role descriptions differ between sites.• Unbalanced team sizes.

Site NL-Site B:• Site NL is a flat organization, while Site B is hierarchically structured.• Role descriptions differ between sites.• Unbalanced team sizes.

• Hierarchical structures create bottlenecks in knowledge sharing.• Too much focus on agility stresses tacit communication and documentation remains outdated.• Different role descriptions makes knowledge difficult to locate.• Knowledge tends to stick where the majority of teams, or where the larger teams are located.

Site NL-Site A:• They co-develop a function and their activities are tightly coupled.

Site NL-Site B:• They develop independently and their activities are loosely coupled.

• Tightly coupled activities increase the need for knowledge sharing.• Co-development creates a greater need for codified knowledge.• Communication frequency is high.

• Knowledge tends to stick to the independent development teams.• Communication frequency depends on the release phase.