World Scientific
  • Search
    Quick Search in Journals
    Access type:
    Quick Search anywhere
    Access type:
    Advanced Search
  • My Cart
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More
×
Our website is made possible by displaying certain online content using javascript.
In order to view the full content, please disable your ad blocker or whitelist our website www.worldscientific.com.

System Upgrade on Tue, Oct 25th, 2022 at 2am (EDT)

Existing users will be able to log into the site and access content. However, E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 12 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at [email protected] for any enquiries.
No Access

A COGNITIVE LOAD VIEW AND EMPIRICAL TEST OF COLLABORATION NETWORK STRUCTURE VERSUS LEARNING RATES IN NEW SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

    https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919616500146Cited by:1
    Previous
    Next

    Abstract

    This study explores whether characteristics of the collaboration structure in software development teams affect development learning rates, with a secondary goal of testing product complexity as a moderator. We develop suitable hypotheses under the theoretical lens of cognitive load theory. The empirical study uses archival data on an ordinary least squares model to find significant associations between collaboration structure, product complexity and the learning rates exhibited by 230 development teams producing open source software. Results show two distinct subgroups of projects: The first subgroup exhibits an average 78% learning rate, and the other subgroup “unlearned”, i.e., productivity deteriorated over time instead of improved. In the learning subgroup, collaboration network density negatively impacted learning, while product complexity interacted with collaboration network centralisation and boundary spanning activity. In the unlearning subgroup, only network density impacted learning rates and no moderating effects were found. Practical implications and future opportunities for research are discussed.

    References

    • Abu, G, JW Cangussu and J Turi [2005] A quantitative learning model for software test process Proc. 38th Annual Hawaii Int. Conf. System Sciences, 2005, HICSS’05, New York: IEEE. p. 786. Google Scholar
    • Ahuja, MK and KM Carley [1999] Network structure in virtual organizations. Organization Science 10 (6), 741–757. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Ahuja, MK, DF Galletta and KM Carley [2003] Individual centrality and performance in virtual R&D groups: An empirical study. Management Science 49 (1), 21–38. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Akgün, AE, JC Byrne, GS Lynn and H Keskin [2007] New product development in turbulent environments: Impact of improvisation and unlearning on new product performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 24 (3), 203–230. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Akgün, AE, GS Lynn and JC Byrne [2006] Antecedents and consequences of unlearning in new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management 23 (1), 73–88. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Allen, TJ [1970] Communications networks in R&D laboratories. R&D Management 1 (1), 14–21. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Allen, TJ and S Cohen [1969] Information flow in R&D labs. Administrative Science Quarterly 14 (1), 12–19. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Argote, L, Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge (Berlin: Springer, 2012) Google Scholar
    • Argote, L and D Epple [1990] Learning curves in manufacturing. Science 247 (4945), 920–924. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Argote, L, B McEvily and R Reagans [2003] Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science 49 (4), 571–582. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Argote, L, SL Beckman and D Epple [1990] The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings. Management Science 36 (2), 140–154. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Argote, L, CA Insko, N Yovetich and AA Romero [1995] Group learning curves: The effects of turnover and task complexity on group performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25 (6), 512–529. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Bailey, SE, SS Godbole, CD Knutson and JL Krein [2013] A decade of Conway’s law: A literature review from 2003–2012 3rd Int. Workshop on Replication in Empirical Software Engineering Research (RESER), New York: IEEE. Google Scholar
    • Balkundi, P and DA Harrison [2006a] Ties, leaders and time in teams: Strong inference about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal 49 (1), 49–68. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Balkundi, P and M Kilduff [2006b] The ties that lead: A social network approach to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 17 (4), 419–439. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Basili, V and D Hutchens [1983] An empirical study of a syntactic complexity family IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE 9 (6), 664–672. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Boh, WF, SA Slaughter and JA Espinosa [2007] Learning from experience in software development: A multilevel analysis. Management Science 53 (8), 1315–1331. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Brass, DJ, J Galaskiewicz, R Greve and W Tsai [2004] Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal 47 (6), 795–817. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Bunderson, JS and P Boumgarden [2009] Struture and learning in self-managed teams: Why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. Organization Science 21 (3), 609–624. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Burton, SH, PM Bodily, RG Morris, CD Knutson and JL Krein [2011] Design team perception of development team composition: Implications for Conway’s law 2nd Int. Workshop on Replication in Empirical Software Engineering Research (RESER), New York: IEEE. 52–60. Google Scholar
    • Carmel, E and JA Espinosa [2010] I’m Working While they’re Sleep: Time Zone Separation Challenges and Solutions. USA: Nedder Stream Press. Google Scholar
    • Chandler, P and J Sweller [1991] Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction 8 (4), 293–332. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Chang, M-H and JE Harrington Jr. [2003] Multimarket competition, consumer search, and the organizational structure of multiunit firms. Management Science 49 (4), 541–552. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Chidambaran, L and LL Tung [2005] Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Information Systems Research 16 (2), 149–168. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Clark, KB and T Fujimoto [1991] Product Development Performance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Google Scholar
    • Colazo, JA [2010] Collaboration structure and performance in new software development: Findings from the study of open source projects. International Journal of Innovation Management 14 (5), 735–758. Link, Google Scholar
    • Colazo, J [2014] Performance implications of stage-wise lead user participation in software development problem solving. Decision Support Systems 67, 100–108. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Colazo, JA and Y Fang [2009] Impact of license choice of open source software development activity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60 (5), 997–1011. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Colazo, JA and Y Fang [2010] Following the sun: Temporal dispersion and performance in open source software project teams. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 11 (11), 684–707. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Conway, ME [1968] How do committees invent. Datamation 14 (4), 28–31. Google Scholar
    • Cooper, G and J Sweller [1987] Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology 79 (4), 347. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Cooper, RG, EJ Kleinschmidt and SJ Edgett [2001] Portfolio Management for New Products. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Google Scholar
    • Crowston, K and J Howison [2003] The social structure of free and open source software development First Monday 10 (2). Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Crowston, K, Q Li, K Wei, UY Eseryei and J Howison [2007] Self-organization of teams for free/libre opensource software development. Information and Software Technology 49 (6), 564–575. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Dalle, J-M and M den Besten [2007] Different bug fixing regimes? A preliminary case for superbugs, Open Source Development, Adoption and Innovation. Berlin: Springer, pp. 247–252. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Darcy, DP, CF Kemerer, SA Slaughter and JE Tomayko [2005] The structural complexity of software: An experimental test. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31, 11. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Davern, M, T Shaft and D Te’eni [2012] Cognition matters: Enduring questions in cognitive IS research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13 (4), 273–314. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • de Santana, AM, FQ da Silva, RC de Miranda, AA Mascaro, TB Gouveia, CV Monteiro and AL Santos [2013] Relationships between communication structure and software architecture: An empirical investigation of the Conway’s law at the Federal University of Pernambuco. 23rd Int. Workshop on Replication in Empirical Software Engineering Research (RESER), 2013. New York: IEEE. Google Scholar
    • Dollinger, MJ [1984] Environmental boundary spanning and information processing effects on organizational performance. The Academy of Management Journal 27 (2), 351–368. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Dwivedi, YK, D Wastell, S Laumer, HZ Henriksen, MD Myers, D Bunker, A Elbanna, M Ravishankar and SC Srivastava [2014] Research on information systems failures and successes: Status update and future directions. Information Systems Frontiers 17, 1–15. Google Scholar
    • Espinosa, JA and E Carmel [2003] The impact of time separation on coordination in global software teams: A conceptual foundation. Software Process Improvement and Practice 8, 249–266. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Freeman, LC [1977] A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40 (1), 35–41. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Glass, RL [2005] IT failure rates: 70% or 10–15%? IEEE Software, May-June 112–114 Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Hahn, J, JY Moon and C Zhang [2008] Emergence of new project teams from open source software developer networks: Impact of prior collaboration ties. Information Systems Research 19 (3), 369–391. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Hirschmann, WB [1964] Profit from the learning-curve. Harvard Business Review 42 (1), 125–139. ISI, Google Scholar
    • Hobday, M [1998] Product complexity, innovation and industrial organisation. Research Policy 26 (6), 689–710. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Janis, IL [1972] Victims of Groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Google Scholar
    • Jones, C [1986] Programming Productivity. New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
    • Kalyuga, S, P Chandler and J Sweller [1998] Levels of expertise and instructional design. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40 (1), 1–17. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Kalyuga, S, P Ayres, P Chandler and J Sweller [2003] The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist 38 (1), 23–31. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Krackhardt, D [1992] The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. Networks and organizations: Structure, Form, and Action 216, 239. Google Scholar
    • Krishnamurthy, S [2002] Cave or community? An empirical examination of 100 mature open source projects First Monday 7 (16). Google Scholar
    • Kwan, I, M Cataldo and D Damian [2012] Conway’s law revisited: The evidence for a task-based perspective. Software, IEEE 29 (1), 90–93. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Leonard-Barton, D [1992] Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development Strategic Management Journal 13, 111–125 Special Issue: Strategy Process: Managing Corporate Self-Renewal. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Levina, N [2005] Collaborating on multiparty information systems development projects: A collective reflection-in-action view. Information Systems Research 16 (2), 109–130. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Levitt, B and JG March [1988] Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology 14 (8), 319–340. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Lyytinen, K and D Robey [1999] Learning failure in information systems development. Information Systems Journal 9 (2), 85–101. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Mallick, DN and RG Schroeder [2005] An integrated framework for measuring product development performance in high technology industries. Production and Operations Management 14 (2), 142. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • McCabe, T [1976] A software complexity measure IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE 2 (4), 308–320. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • McDermott, CM [1999] Managing radical product development in large manufacturing firms: A longitudinal study. Journal of Operations Management 17 (6), 631–644. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Menon, T and J Pfeffer [2003] Valuing internal vs. external knowledge: Explaining the preference for outsiders. Management Science 49 (4), 497–513. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Miller, GA [1953] What is information measurement? American Psychologist 8 (1), 3. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Miller, GA [1956a] Human memory and the storage of information. Information Theory, IRE Transactions on 2 (3), 129–137. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Miller, GA [1956b] The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological review 63 (2), 81. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Miller, GA and JA Selfridge [1950] Verbal context and the recall of meaningful material The American Journal of Psychology 176–185. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Mockus, A, RT Fielding and J Herbsleb [2002] Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 11 (3), 309–346. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Mohr, LB [1982] Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
    • Molm, LD [1994] Dependence and risk: Transforming and structure of social research. Social Psychology Quarterly 57 (3), 163–176. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Nadler, J, L Thompson and LV Boven [2003] Learning negotiation skills: Four models of knowledge creation and transfer. Management Science 49 (4), 529–540. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Oh, H, MH Chung and G Labianca [2004] Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal 47 (6), 860–875. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Olson, GM and JS Olson [2000] Distance matters. Human-Computer Interaction 15 (2), 139–178. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Paas, F, A Renkl and J Sweller [2004] Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional science 32 (1), 1–8. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Pendharkar, PC and GH Subramanian [2007] An empirical study of ICASE learning curves and probability bounds for software development effort. European Journal of Operational Research 183 (3), 1086–1096. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • R Development Team, The R Project for Statistical Computing: R V 3.1.1.2014. Google Scholar
    • Raccoon, L [1996] A learning curve primer for software engineers. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 21 (1), 77–86. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Reagans, R and EW Zuckerman [2001] Networks, diversity and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science 12 (4), 502–517. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Reagans, R, L Argote and D Brooks [2005] Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science 51 (6), 869–891. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Robinson, P [2001] Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics 22 (1), 27–57. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Rulke, DL and J Galaskiewicz [2000] Distribution of knowledge, group network structure, and group performance. Management Science 46 (5), 612–625. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Ruthen, R [1993] Adapting to complexity. Scientific American 268 (1), 130–140. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Sallenave, J-P [1985] The uses and abuses of experience curves. Long Range Planning 18 (1), 64–72. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Singh, PV, Y Tan and N Young [2011] A hidden Markov model of developer learning dynamics in open source software projects. Information Systems Research 22 (4), 790–807. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Song, J, P Almeida and G Wu [2003] Learning-by-hiring: When is mobility more likely to facilitate interfirm knowledge transfer? Management Science 49 (4), 351–365. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Stepanek, G [2011] Programming Secrets: Why Software Projects Fail. New York: Apress. Google Scholar
    • Sweller, J [1988] Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12 (2), 257–285. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Sweller, J [1994] Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction 4 (4), 295–312. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Sweller, J, PA Kirschner and RE Clark [2007] Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist 42 (2), 115–121. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Sweller, J, JJ Van Merrienboer and FG Paas [1998] Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10 (3), 251–296. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Teigland, R and MM Wasko [2003] Integrating knowledge through information trading: Examining the relationship between boundary spanning communication and individual performance. Decision Sciences 34 (2), 261–286. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Uzzi, B and R Lancaster [2003] Relational embeddedness and learning: The case of bank loan managers and their clients. Management Science 49 (4), 383–399. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Van Merrienboer, JJ and J Sweller [2005] Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review 17 (2), 147–177. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Wasserman, S and K Faust [1994] Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Wright, TP [1936] Factors affecting the cost of airplanes. Journal of Aeronautical Sciences 3 (4), 122–128. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Yelle, LE [1979] The learning curve: Historical review and comprehensive survey. Decision Sciences 10 (2), 302–328. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Zander, U and B Kogut [1995] Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test. Organization Science 6 (1), 76–92. Crossref, ISI, Google Scholar
    • Zorgios, Y, O Vlismas and G Venieris (2009). The SECI model and the learning curve phenomenon. In European Conference on Intellectual Capital, Academic Conferences & Publishing International Ltd., Haarlem, The Netherlands, 589–599. Google Scholar
    Remember to check out the Most Cited Articles!

    Be inspired by these New Titles in Business and Management