View
217
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
3
University of Wollongong2003
Software teams
• Most professional software developed in teams
• Large teams may be split into groups to work on sub-systems
• Preferable for groups < 10 members• Reduces communication problems
• Therefore effectively managing groups is a critical task
4
University of Wollongong2003
Group Management
• Composition• Balance of skills, experience,personalities
• Cohesiveness• Is it a team or individuals working together?
• Communications• Effective?
• Organisation• Does everyone feel valued and satisfied with their role?
5
University of Wollongong2003
Selecting Personnel
• Constraints• budgetary
• availability of suitable staff
• learning curves
• An ideal mix?• 40% designers
• 20% coders
• 40% testers
6
University of Wollongong2003
Selecting Staff
• Application domain experience• Platform experience• Programming language experience• Educational background• Communications skills• Adaptability• Attitude• Personality
7
University of Wollongong2003
Group cohesiveness
• Easier/better management• Members think the group more important than the individuals• Team structure supports delegation of authority
• More effective exchange of info/ideas• familiarity with team members tasks• continuity if one member leaves
• A group quality standard can be developed• established by consensus• more palatable than imposed external standard
• “Egoless” programming• programs are team property
8
University of Wollongong2003
Factors in Group Communications
• Size• n*(n-1) communication channels
• Structure• Informal groups communicate more than strictly hierarchical
structures
• Composition• Personality clashes• Mixed gender groups
• Physical environment• Does it facilitate communication?• Caves & common layout
9
University of Wollongong2003
Organising Groups
• Democratic teams• all members involved in decision making• administrative team leader• XP variation
• Chief Programmer teams• experienced senior programmer leads technically and
administratively• Expert teams
• established to resolve special problems• disbanded after problem resolution
10
University of Wollongong2003
Keeping Staff
• Motivation• Maslow’s hierarchy of
needs
physiological
safety
social
esteem
Selfactualisation
11
University of Wollongong2003
Job characteristics
• Skill variety
• Task identity
• Task significance
• Autonomy
• Feedback
12
University of Wollongong2003
stages in becoming a team
forming
storming
norming
performing
adjourning
team-building exercisescan help the process of becoming a team
13
University of Wollongong2003
getting the right mix
• Meredith Belbin studied teams working together on management games
• found that the academically brightest teams often did badly e.g.• Arguments• Implementation of plans neglected etc.
• gave psychometric tests to participants to identify best mix of team members
14
University of Wollongong2003
Belbin’s management team types
• The chair/co-ordinator• Not necessarily a strong leader but must be good at
controlling meetings: calm, strong, but tolerant
• The plant• Good at generating ideas
• The monitor-evaluator• Good at evaluating ideas and helping to select the best
one
15
University of Wollongong2003
Belbin’s management team types
• The shaper• rather a worrier, helps direct the team’s
attention to important issues; a driver
• The team worker/implementer• good at creating a good team environment and
getting people to do things
• The resource investigator• good at finding resources and information
16
University of Wollongong2003
Belbin’s management team types
• The completer-finisher• focussed in getting task completed
• The company worker• a good team player who is willing to undertake less
attractive tasks if they are needed for team success
• The specialist• the ‘techie’ interested in knowledge for its own sake
17
University of Wollongong2003
Typical problems
• More than one shaper and no strong chair - arguments over direction
• Several plants and specialists, but no shapers or completer-finishers - interesting discussions but nothing gets implemented
18
University of Wollongong2003
General Advice
• Time your interventions, don’t overwhelm the others in the team
• Be flexible
• Be restrained
• Keep the common goals of the team in mind all the time
20
University of Wollongong2003
Types of Group Work
• Should you divide work up between you or should you do it as a group?• Additive tasks
• Compensatory tasks
• Disjunctive tasks
• Conjunctive tasks
21
University of Wollongong2003
Types of Tasks
• Additive• Effort of individuals added together to get end result
• People are interchangeable
• e.g. shovelling snow, interviewing people in the street
• Compensatory• Judgments of individuals are pooled
• Errors by some can be corrected by others
• e.g. estimating costs, effort
22
University of Wollongong2003
Types of Tasks
• Disjunctive• Only one correct answer
• Getting answer depends on:• Someone getting the right answer
• Others recognizing it as being correct!
• Conjunctive • Progress depends on the progress of the slowest
performer
• Software projects often like this
23
University of Wollongong2003
‘social loafing’
• Team members who are parasites• Particular problem with student groups, but also in
work environments• Can be alleviated by:
• Making work of individuals identifiable• Consciously involving group member in the project
outcomes• Rewarding individuals for team contribution cf. ‘club
player of the year’ in sports teams
25
University of Wollongong2003
Types of Power: Position power
• Coercive power - threatening punishment
• Connection power
• Legitimate power
• Reward power
26
University of Wollongong2003
Types of power: Personal Power
• Expert power
• Information power
• Referent power (based on personal attractiveness/ charisma)
27
University of Wollongong2003
Leadership stylesdecision-making
directive permissive
implementation autocrat
democrat
Makes decisions alone, close supervision of implementation
Makes decisions alone, gives subordinates some discretionary power in implementation
Makes decisions participatively, close supervision of implementation
Makes decisions participatively, gives subordinates some discretionary power in implementation