POLITECNICO DI MILANO

School of Industrial and Information Engineering

Master of Science in Management Engineering

DOES SCRUM METHODOLOGY IMPACT TEAM’S SUBCULTURE?

A multiple case study exploration

Supervisor: Prof. Filomena CANTERINO

Co-supervisor: Prof. Andrea PATRUCCO and

Elena PELLIZZONI

MSc thesis by:

Luca MANZONI 899731

Gaetano Giuseppe PATERNITI 898832

Academic Year 2018-2019

Acknowledgments

i

Acknowledgments

First of all, we would like to thank Professor Elena Pellizzoni and Professor Andrea

Patrucco for the opportunity and the advices provided throughout this thesis. A special

thanks to Filomena Canterino for the support and the aid in defining the framework and

during the drafting.

We would also like to thank our families and our beloved ones for the unfailing support

and the countless opportunities provided throughout these years.

Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to all our friends that have helped us during

this unforgettable journey.

This milestone would have not been reachable without all of you.

Luca and Gaetano

Abstract

ii

Abstract

For several years, annual reports on the status of the Agile methodology emphasize how

the cultural component is among the main factors of success in the employment of the

aforementioned methodology. It has led various scholars to conduct researches in order

to investigate the entity of the possible correlation between the Agile methodology and

the organizational culture, though not focusing on the most used methodology, i.e. the

Scrum one. Moreover, their approach was quantitative, and the points of view considered

not homogeneous within the company organisation.

In order to overcome this blank, we have therefore conducted an exploratory research

considering five cases, for a total of seven Scrum Masters interviewed, to investigate the

leading cultural analogies and the possible correlation between them and the typical

values of the Scrum methodology. In particular, our cases come from medium to large size

companies in the Italian context which operate in a tech-intensive market and which have

been adopting the Scrum methodology for at least two years.

Considering the fundamental variables both of culture and Scrum, it was therefore

possible to study the practical use of the methodology, outline the predominant culture

of each team (applying the procedure of the competing values framework) and analyse

how each case translates Scrum values.

It has been possible to identify the cultural recurring similarities within our sample by

outlining the subculture mix peculiar of each case. Furthermore, our research shows how

Scrum methodology is characterised by the coexistence of predominant subcultures

positioned in opposite quadrants of the cultural model considered. The ability to

assimilate cultural values – apparently incompatible – has been identified by framework

theorists as a manifestation of organizational efficiency.

Another important result regards risk taking from the part of the Agile practitioners, who

are encouraged to ceaselessly improve their product, through experimentation, and place

the client in the spotlight.

It also emerged how the Scrum methodology is dysfunctional to the development of a

rule-respect-oriented subculture and strict standards. Moreover, it appears how the team

Abstract

iii

dominant culture depends on their maturity level in the use of this methodology. Thus,

our research provides Agile practitioners with guidelines and possible behaviours to adopt

for a more efficient use of the Scrum methodology.

Key words: Scrum methodology; Competing values framework; culture values; scrum

values; scrum pillars; scrum maturity; scrum master; competing paradox; cross functional

teams; exploratory multiple case study.

Abstract

iv

Abstract – Italian version

I report annuali sullo stato della metodologia agile mettono in risalto, da diversi anni,

come la componente culturale sia tra i principali fattori di successo nell’utilizzo di tale

metodologia. Ciò ha portato diversi studiosi a condurre delle ricerche per investigare

l’entità della possibile correlazione tra metodologia agile e cultura organizzativa, non

focalizzandosi però sulla metodologia più utilizzata, cioè quella Scrum. Inoltre, il loro

approccio è stato di tipo quantitativo e i punti di vista considerati non omogenei

all’interno dell’organizzazione aziendale.

Per colmare questa lacuna, abbiamo quindi condotto una ricerca esplorativa, prendendo

in esame cinque casi, per un totale di sette Scrum master intervistati, per investigare le

principali analogie culturali e la possibile correlazione tra queste ultime e i valori tipici

della metodologia Scrum. In particolare, i casi provengono da aziende di medio-grandi

dimensioni nel contesto italiano che operano in un mercato tech-intensive e che hanno

superato la fase biennale di sperimentazione dell’utilizzo della metodologia Scrum.

È stato quindi possibile, prendendo in considerazione variabili fondamentali sia di cultura

che di Scrum, studiare l’utilizzo pratico della metodologia, profilare la cultura

predominante di ciascun team (applicando la procedura del competing values framework)

e analizzare come ciascun caso declini i valori di Scrum.

Profilando il mix di sub-culture presenti in ciascun caso, è stato possibile individuare le

similitudini culturali ricorrenti all’interno del nostro campione. Inoltre, la ricerca mostra

come la metodologia Scrum sia caratterizzata dalla coesistenza di sub-culture

predominanti posizionate in quadranti opposti nel modello culturale. Questa capacità di

integrare valori culturali apparentemente incompatibili è stata identificata dai teorici del

framework come sintomo di efficienza organizzativa.

Un altro risultato importante concerne la propensione al rischio da parte degli agile

practitioners, spronati a migliorare continuamente il prodotto e a porre il cliente al centro

dell’attenzione. È emerso anche come la metodologia Scrum sia disfunzionale allo

sviluppo di una subcultura orientata al rispetto di regole e standard stringenti. Inoltre, si

evince come la cultura dominante dei team dipenda dal loro livello di maturità nell’utilizzo

di tale metodologia. La nostra ricerca fornisce quindi agli agile practitioners linee guida e

Abstract

v

possibili comportamenti da adottare per un utilizzo più efficiente della metodologia

Scrum.

Parole chiave: metodologia Scrum; Competing values framework; valori culturali; valori

scrum; scrum master; paradosso degli opposti; team cross funzionali; ricerca esplorativa.

Contents

vi

Table of contents

1 Executive summary ............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Literature review .......................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 7

1.4 Results ........................................................................................................................... 8

1.5 Conclusion: limitations, future research and implications .................................13

2 Literature review................................................................................................................15

2.1 Agile .............................................................................................................................15

2.1.1 Scrum methodology ..........................................................................................21

2.1.2 Scaling Agile .......................................................................................................31

2.2 Organizational culture ..............................................................................................35

2.2.1 Organizational culture as a set of layers ........................................................36

2.2.2 Competing Values Framework .......................................................................37

2.3 Agile and culture........................................................................................................43

2.4 Gap analysis and research questions ......................................................................48

2.5 Research framework .................................................................................................50

3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................53

3.1 Methods and process ................................................................................................53

3.1.1 Preliminary exploration ....................................................................................55

3.2 Empirical setting........................................................................................................57

3.2.1 Cases ....................................................................................................................58

3.2.2 Embedded approach cases ..............................................................................60

3.2.3 Holistic approach cases ....................................................................................61

3.3 Data Gathering ..........................................................................................................63

Contents

vii

3.4 Data analysis .............................................................................................................. 66

4 Results ................................................................................................................................. 69

4.1 Within findings: T&D case ..................................................................................... 70

4.1.1 Scrum execution description ........................................................................... 70

4.1.2 T&D Senior case ............................................................................................... 71

4.1.3 T&D Junior case ............................................................................................... 76

4.2 Within findings: T&I case ....................................................................................... 81

4.2.1 Scrum execution description ........................................................................... 81

4.2.2 T&I Senior case ................................................................................................. 82

4.2.3 T&I Junior case ................................................................................................. 87

4.3 Within findings: Energy case .................................................................................. 92

4.3.1 Scrum execution description ........................................................................... 92

4.3.2 Cultural profile: Energy case ........................................................................... 94

4.3.3 Scrum values profile: Energy case ................................................................. 96

4.4 Within findings: E-commerce ................................................................................ 98

4.4.1 Scrum execution description ........................................................................... 98

4.4.2 Cultural profile: E-commerce ......................................................................... 99

4.4.3 Scrum values profile. E-commerce .............................................................. 102

4.5 Within findings: Pharmaceutical case .................................................................. 104

4.5.1 Scrum execution description ......................................................................... 104

4.5.2 Cultural profile: Pharmaceutical ................................................................... 105

4.5.3 Scrum values profile: Pharmaceutical .......................................................... 107

4.6 Overall view ............................................................................................................. 109

4.6.1 Use of Scrum methodology .......................................................................... 109

4.6.2 Cultural profile ................................................................................................ 112

Contents

viii

4.7 Cross case findings ................................................................................................. 114

4.7.1 Co-existence of competing values cultures ............................................... 115

4.7.2 Management of employees encourages risk taking to drive innovation

116

4.7.3 Hierarchical rates depend on teams’ structure .......................................... 117

4.7.5 Seniority leads to results orientation ........................................................... 119

5 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 121

6 Conclusion....................................................................................................................... 124

6.1 Implications ............................................................................................................. 124

6.2 Limitations and future research ........................................................................... 126

Appendix ................................................................................................................................. 129

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 148

Contents

ix

List of tables

Table 1: Research framework ................................................................................................... 6

Table 2: Cases within the sample ............................................................................................. 7

Table 3: Scrum team: characteristics ....................................................................................... 8

Table 4: Scrum ceremonies ....................................................................................................... 9

Table 5: Overall cultural profile ............................................................................................. 10

Table 6: Scrum profile ............................................................................................................. 11

Table 7: Cross-case findings description and discussion................................................... 13

Table 8: Limitations and future research .............................................................................. 13

Table 9: Agile methods ............................................................................................................ 20

Table 10: Clan culture characteristics.................................................................................... 40

Table 11: Adhocracy culture characteristics ........................................................................ 40

Table 12: Hierarchical culture characteristics ...................................................................... 41

Table 13: Market culture characteristics ............................................................................... 41

Table 14: Cultural variables .................................................................................................... 50

Table 15: Scrum variables ....................................................................................................... 51

Table 16: Cases included in the sample ................................................................................ 58

Table 17: Informants characteristics ..................................................................................... 59

Table 18: Data inventory ......................................................................................................... 65

Table 19: Subcultures coding tree structure ........................................................................ 67

Table 20: Scrum values coding tree structure ...................................................................... 68

Table 21: Cultural coding tree: T&D Senior ....................................................................... 73

Table 22: Scrum coding tree: T&D Senior .......................................................................... 75

Table 23: Cultural coding tree: T&D Junior ........................................................................ 78

Table 24: Scrum coding tree: T&D Junior........................................................................... 80

Contents

x

Table 25: Cultural coding tree: T&I Senior ..........................................................................84

Table 26: Scrum coding tree: T&I Senior ............................................................................86

Table 27: Cultural coding tree: T&I Junior ..........................................................................89

Table 28: Scrum coding tree: T&I Junior .............................................................................91

Table 29: Cultural coding tree: Energy .................................................................................95

Table 30: Scrum coding tree: Energy ....................................................................................97

Table 31: Cultural coding tree: E-commerce .................................................................... 101

Table 32: Scrum coding tree: E-commerce ....................................................................... 103

Table 33: Cultural coding tree: Pharmaceutical ................................................................ 106

Table 34: Scrum coding tree: Pharmaceutical ................................................................... 108

Table 35: Scrum team characteristics ................................................................................. 109

Table 36: Scrum ceremonies execution ............................................................................. 110

Table 37: Scrum team execution ......................................................................................... 111

Table 38: Cases cultural profiles .......................................................................................... 112

Table 39: Recurrent cultural patterns ................................................................................. 112

Table 40: Scrum profile ........................................................................................................ 113

Contents

xi

List of figures

Figure 1: The Scrum process model ....................................................................................... 3

Figure 2: OCAI space ................................................................................................................ 5

Figure 3: OCAI spaces overall sample.................................................................................. 10

Figure 4: The Scrum process model (adapted from Boehm and Turner 2005) ............ 22

Figure 5: Competing values Space ......................................................................................... 37

Figure 6: OCAI space .............................................................................................................. 39

Figure 7: Research framework ............................................................................................... 52

Figure 8: Research schema ...................................................................................................... 54

Figure 9: OCAI space T&D senior ....................................................................................... 71

Figure 10: OCAI space T&D junior ..................................................................................... 76

Figure 11: OCAI space T&I Senior ...................................................................................... 82

Figure 12: OCAI space T&I Junior....................................................................................... 87

Figure 13: OCAI space Energy case ..................................................................................... 94

Figure 14: OCAI space e-commerce case ............................................................................ 99

Figure 15: OCAI space Pharmaceutical case ..................................................................... 105

Figure 16: OCAI space juniors ............................................................................................ 119

Figure 17: OCAI space seniors ............................................................................................ 120

Executive summary

1

1 Executive summary

1.1 Introduction

“Being agile means to have a continuous interaction with the user, being able not to have

a perfect solution from the first glance, but to incrementally create it together. Therefore,

it means to reduce the Time to Market in the short run and the cost curve in the long run”

(Giulio I., Scrum Professional Consultant and Agile Coach, E-commerce case).

The term “agility” was first observed in the area of manufacturing (Nagel and Dove, 1991),

where it was disseminated as a concept called “agile manufacturing”, characterized as

“the ability to change the configuration of a system in response to unforeseen changes

and unexpected market conditions (E.C. Conforto et al., 2016); in the upcoming years, the

agile methodologies were created as a reaction to plan-based or traditional methods of

developing software and as a response to the “need for an alternative to documentation

driven, heavyweight software development processes” (D. Cohen et al., 2004; T. Dyba, T.

Dingsøyr, 2008).

After the establishment of the methodology, Agile project management has continuously

attracted attention and investments from many digital-driven companies (VersionOne,

2018) because of their willingness to enhance software product quality, increase

productivity, and reduce the cycle time for product development (Huang et al. 2010),

giving to agile project management the status of one of the most impacting digital trends

of these decades (Dingsøyr et al., 2012; VersionOne, 2012).

However, different factors are considered as fundamental in order to successfully

implement and execute the agile methodology: among them, Culture has been suggested

as a critical factor affecting the adoption of the agile practices (Fruhling & Tarrell, 2008;

Nerur & Balijepally, 2007). This is also confirmed by VersionOne, the largest and longest-

running survey about the agile world, which has stated for different years that

“organizational culture stands out as a critical factor in the success of adopting and scaling

agile”.

Executive summary

2

The increasing trend of scaling agile methodologies in large organization and our interest

in better understanding the reasons of its success, lead our willingness to discover the

possible correlation between the agile methodologies, in particular Scrum, which is the

most widely used method (VersionOne, 2018) and cultural values. In doing so, we used

the Competing Values Framework, ranked by the Financial times between the forty most

important frameworks in business history and resulting one of the most-cited cultural

frameworks from scholars.

By performing a multiple case exploration, our study aims to discover recurrent cultural

patterns inside Scrum teams, and how this methodology enables them; in section 2, we

describe the theoretical background which constituted the basis of our study. Section 3

illustrates the methodology we relied on to carry out the data collection and analysis. The

results of the data analysis, the within and cross case findings that answer to the research

questions are shown in section 4. While in section 5, we discuss confirmations and

possible additions to the theoretical background previously considered. Finally, in section

6, we draw the conclusions and depict practical implications that our study provides to

agile practitioners.

Executive summary

3

1.2 Literature review

“A software development method is said to be an agile software development method

when it is people focused, communications-oriented, flexible (ready to adapt to expected

or unexpected change at any time), speedy (encourages rapid and iterative development

of the product in small releases), lean (focuses on shortening timeframe and cost and on

improved quality), responsive (reacts appropriately to expected and unexpected

changes), and learning (focuses on improvement during and after product development)”

(E.C. Conforto et al., 2016, A. Qumer et al., 2008).

The most widely used method is Scrum (Schwaber & Beedle, 2002; VersionOne, 2018) and

it is defined as a “framework within which people can address complex adaptive

problems, while productively and creatively delivering products of the highest possible

value”. At the core of agile practices there is the idea of self-organizing and cross-

functional teams, whose members are not only collocated but also work at a pace that

sustains their creativity and productivity. Self-organizing teams choose how to best

accomplish their work, rather than being directed by others outside the team. People

work in cross-functional teams, developing products or projects in an iterative,

incremental manner. The Scrum methodology structures development in cycles of work

called Sprints, and it includes three repetitive stages: product backlog development, main

sprint, and daily sprints (D. Cohen et al, 2004).

The successful use of Scrum depends on people becoming more proficient in living the

five scrum values: commitment, courage, focus, openness and respect. If these values are

embodied and lived by the Scrum Team, the Scrum pillars of transparency, inspection, and

Figure 1: The Scrum process model

Executive summary

4

adaptation come to life and build trust for everyone. Scrum Team members learn and

explore those values as they work with the Scrum roles, events, and artefacts (Ken

Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, 2017; Deemer et al., 2012). The Scrum Team consists of a

Product Owner, the Development Team, and a Scrum Master. All events are time-boxed

events, such that every event has a maximum duration. Other than the Sprint itself, which

is a container for all other events, each event in Scrum (Sprint planning, daily stand up,

Sprint review and Sprint retrospective) is a formal opportunity to inspect and adapt

something. These events are specifically designed to enable critical transparency and

inspection. Scrum’s artefacts (Product backlog and Sprint backlog) represent work or

value to provide transparency and opportunities for inspection and adaptation: they are

specifically designed to maximize transparency of key information so that everybody has

the same understanding of the artefact.

The 12th state of agile report (2017) highlights that: “organizational culture stands out as

a critical factor in the success of adopting and scaling agile. The three most significant

challenges to agile adoption and scaling are reported as organizational culture at odds

with agile values (53%), General organizational resistance to change (46%), and

Inadequate management support and sponsorship (42%). Internal agile coaches (53%),

consistent practices and processes across teams (43%), and the implementation of a

common tool across teams (41%) are the top three factors reported to have been most

helpful in scaling agile. These underscore the importance of a culture of excellence and

alignment.”

In the last decade researchers put their efforts into investigating this relationship and

proposing the ideal agile culture thanks to different cultural frameworks. However, since

the majority of the studies were conducted focusing on the XP methodology and

considering answers from heterogeneous organizational levels, two different research

questions arise:

• Considering cross functional teams using Scrum methodology, are there any

recurrent cultural values enabled?

• How does Scrum methodology enable those specific set of cultural values?

Executive summary

5

Then, our research framework requires two phases. First, in order to find recurrent

cultural patterns, we decided to use the Competing values framework of Cameron and

Quinn (2011) since it is the most appropriate for the

internal point of view of the team. In particular, the

variables investigated are six and their translation is

different according to four different subcultures (in

order: clan, adhocracy, hierarchical and market).

Our investigation considers the mix of the four

different definitions for each of the six variables by

leveraging on the OCAI framework (figure aside)

and on a set of defined questions provided by

Quinn, in appendix B.

Then in the second phase, in order to understand how the scrum methodology enables

those specific set of cultural values (so to answer to the second research question), two

steps are needed:

The first step is a further investigation on how agile practitioners portray all the scrum

values. It is performed by exploiting the following table of scrum values, scrum pillars,

scrum maturity (all taken from the Scrum guide of Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland,

2017) and three key lean principles (i.e.: Waste reduction (Dahlgaard et al.,2006);

Customer centricity (Evans et al., 2005); Continuous improvement (P. Brunet et al.,

2003).);

The second step, instead, consists in finding possible correlations between the scrum

table (6) and the cultural one (5). So, our aim is to find how scrum values shape the six

dimensions, which consequently lead to the mix of subcultures.

Hereafter, in table 1, the representation of the research framework is shown, with the

definition of the variables investigated to answer to the two research questions.

Figure 2: OCAI space

Executive summary

6

Cultural variables Definition

Dominant characteristic

The overall organization mindset:

• Like an extended family;

• Entrepreneurial;

• Formal;

• Result oriented.

Organizational leadership

The leadership style:

• Exemplify mentoring and facilitating;

• Exemplify innovation;

• Exemplify coordinating;

• Exemplify aggressive results-oriented focus.

Management of employees

How employees are treated in the organization:

• Fostering teamwork and consensus;

• Encouraged in taking risks;

• Maintaining stability of relationships;

• Inflaming competitiveness.

Organizational glue

The bonding mechanisms between employees:

• Loyalty to the organization & mutual trust;

• Being on the cutting edge;

• Formal rules and policies;

• Achievement and goal accomplishment.

Strategic emphasis

The areas that drive strategic goals:

• Human development and participation;

• Prospecting new opportunities;

• Permanence and control;

• Win the marketplace.

Success factor What is rewarded within the organization:

• Human and team growth;

• Having the newest and unique product;

• Efficiency;

• Outpace competition.

Subcultures

Clan culture

Adhocracy

culture

Hierarchical

culture

Market

culture

Scrum Variables Definition

Commitment People personally commit to achieving the goals of the Scrum Team.

Focus Everyone focuses on the work of the Sprint and the goals of the Scrum Team.

Courage Scrum Team members have courage to do the right thing and work on tough problems.

Openness The Scrum Team and its stakeholders agree to be open about all the work and the challenges with performing the work.

Respect Scrum Team members respect each other to be capable, independent people.

Transparency Significant aspects of the process must be visible to those responsible for the outcome. Observers should share a common understanding of what is being seen.

Adaptation If a process deviates outside acceptable limits, the process or the material being processed must be adjusted as soon as possible to minimize further deviation.

Self-organization Self-organizing teams choose how best to accomplish their work, rather than being directed by others outside the team.

Cross-functionality Cross-functional teams have all competencies needed to accomplish the work without depending on others that are not part of the team.

Customer centricity Identification of critical-to-quality characteristics that are vital to customer satisfaction.

Continuous improvement

Continuous improvement: pervasive and continual activities performed to identify and achieve outcomes that can contribute to the organisational goals.

Waste reduction The excess resources used compared with perfection; everything that increases cost without adding value for the customer.

Table 1: Research framework

Shape

Lead to

Executive summary

7

1.3 Methodology

Being the phenomenon relatively recent and empirical studies investigating these

circumstances scarce, we decided to carry out the research as an exploratory multiple

case-study, as suggested by Yin (1984).

However, before building the sample, we employed a preliminary exploration as a trigger

for our multiple case study by exploiting the experience of an expert, i.e. head of agile

software centre of a mature company, to check whether the research questions could

engender valuable insights via the pre-set of questions and, above all, how to extract

relevant information from the unit of analysis. In particular, we found that our informants

should have been qualified as Scrum Masters, since they represent methodology

facilitators with a direct contact with the team, its members, its objectives and dynamics;

above all, they are responsible of fostering and strengthening teams’ values.

The cases sampling technique adopted is the so called “empirical sampling” (Eisenhardt,

1989). It entails choosing targeted cases or situations, using the rationale of

representative or typical cases for the phenomenon we want to investigate. These ad-hoc

situations refer to successful cases, namely those Scrum projects that have been

conducted following properly the methodology, its events and artefacts. Hereafter the

pool of cases reached via the LinkedIn social media by engaging Scrum masters:

Consistently with the qualitative nature of case study as a research method, we opted for

face-to-face, recorded, semi-structured interviews since they involve the implementation

of a number of predetermined questions used as an organized starting point to drive the

discussion, permitting the interviewer to probe beyond the answers to our prepared

questions, thus making additional points emerge by following a positivistic approach.

Once the interviews are performed, their content is coded to interpret the results.

Case name and industry (quantity of interviews)

Employees (2018)

NI in € M

# Agile Teams

Scrum Master

Years in Agile

(T&D) Telco & digital (2) 91980 2788 46 Internal 2 (T&I) Telco & Infrastructure (2) 103083 -549 6 External 3

E-commerce (1) 123283 1419 30 External 3

Energy (1) 5372 54 6 Internal 2

Pharmaceutical (1) 354000 4559 9 External 5

Table 2: Cases within the sample

Executive summary

8

1.4 Results

Being the interview inspired by the literature and its structure threefold, within results

follow the same format, aiming to: assess whether cases are relying on a correct usage of

the Scrum methodology (tab. 3, 4); discuss their cultural profile starting from the

elaboration of the cultural coding tree (tab. 5) and portraying them, graphically, via the

OCAI representation (fig. 3); examine the Scrum profile (tab. 6), interpreting the

homonymous coding tree to know how cases define the scrum variables investigated.

Scrum team: Characteristics

T&I T&D Energy E-commerce Pharma

Total number of Agile teams

6. Some are remote

46. Majority using scrum

6 (critical mass)

30=14+7+9

9. SAFe oriented

Team clusters Each team is dedicated to one product. Teams under R&D.

6 tribes organized by product/ client. SM under HR.

Each team on the same product. Teams under R&D.

3 product areas with different objectives & backlogs.

Teams working on the same product.

Members per team. Seniority

Between 5 and 9. Mixed

Max 10. Mixed

8. Mixed Max 9. Mixed

8. High

Roles within a team (Scrum master and Product owner always included)

Developers (some remote); Domain experts (remote); user cases owner (UCO); Solution architect.

Developers; Testers; Subject matter experts; UX/UI.

Process specialist (focused on business); Dev-team; UX/UI, infrastructure architect and analysts are transversal.

Developers (back-end, front-end, mobile-app); Testers; Functional analyst (technical & architectural); Data analysts.

Dev-team with t-shaped competences, adjacent knowledge is sought (user experience, design etc.).

Team per SM. Internal/ external

1. But some SM can follow more. External

5. Priority on business/ maturity. Internal

1. Internal

4. External

1. External.

Product owner Internal, + UCO. Fully dedicated.

Internal, fully dedicated

Internal Internal Internal. Fully dedicated

Items prioritization criteria

Story mapping made by PO & UCO to give to epics business value. PO & team prioritize stories according to business value; MVP & release readiness.

Business priority. Market trends.

Fibonacci series: user story identification and definition of difficulty to develop the story (from 1 to 20) made by the team itself

Time to market optimization; Technical & economic feasibility; No open points or missing information; available MVP; UX/UI ready; Story points; ROI & BE.

Prioritization made by the PO, following market trends respecting rules and law dictated by the pharmaceutical industry. Release readiness.

Table 3: Scrum team: characteristics

Executive summary

9

Scrum ceremonies

T&I T&D Energy e-commerce Pharmaceutical

Sprint (Duration)

2 weeks but flexible_1,3,4

2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks

Sprint planning (goal definition & activities)

User story mapping; stories organized by MVP & release

Definition of OKRs, KPIs & “done”.

Initial planning and division of user stories along the product backlog

Items selection according the definition of ready.

Check list made at the project beginning, defines “done” & aligns team & stakeholders

Daily stand up (Duration, structure)

Around 10mins. Done, to be done, impediments.

15mins, shifted. Done, to be done, impediments.

15 mins. Done, to be done, impediments.

Max 15mins. Done, to be done, impediments. SM & PO do not speak.

Max 15 minutes. Done, to be done and possible impediments

Sprint review (Frequency, duration, structure)

The last sprint day. Stories feedback system & demo.

Every 2 weeks, the last sprint day. Team celebration; product feedback system.

Every 2 weeks. Feedback collection, presentation of done

Every 2 weeks, among 2 last Sprint days. SM present team’s stats. Demo to PO & stakeholders.

Every 2 weeks. Team & stakeholders involved, collect feedback from stakeholders

Sprint retrospective (Frequency, structure)

(Not always) After the review. Good, bad & to be improved or “legospective” or star or journey. AC prioritize action items as stories for next sprint.

Last sprint day. Format & theme chosen by SM & PO in order to find the best call to actions. Feedback system.

Last sprint day. One made only with PO, the next one with PO and sponsor. Presentation of what should be changed and description of next sprint’s work

Last sprint day. Flexible but generally: Good, bad & to be improved, 10mins each on post-it. Collective discussion mediated by the SM. Call to action prioritized.

Last day of sprint, after review. Discussion of what needs to be changed, important to find at least one action to perform in the next sprint as an improvement. Use of different techniques (sad, glad, mad) to avoid boredom & monotony.

Backlog refinement

Grooming. PO negotiate with stakeholders & developers.

Negotiation of stories & to be done. Explanation of “done”.

Not necessary because teams decide backlog with PO. If needed, increase sprint of one week.

If acceptance criteria not met during Sprint review. During sprint PO can add new items into bl.

Use of a buffer at the end of sprint to solve or elude technical problems, to not stop the process anytime there is a tech problem.

Peculiar ceremonies, events or artefacts.

“Personality matching” during sprint zero for team building. Spike technique.

“liberating structure” for conflict resolution. Digital sink. Quarter business review.

“One to one” formula for solving impediments after daily stand up; “Form Storm Norm Perform” technique for team definition.

“Meet after” formula for impediments resolution (face to face meeting with SM or PO after daily). Team building self-organized.

One to one session for coaching & for feedback collection. First enlarged planning for scope & milestones definition. Buffer for peculiar impediments.

Table 4: Scrum ceremonies

Executive summary

10

The objective of table 5 is to present the most relevant subculture for each of the six

dimensions, in order to find recurrent cultural patterns and so to answer to the first

research question. Moreover, with fig. 3, the representation of the subculture mix of each

case is plotted, exploiting the OCAI framework.

CULTURAL PROFILE

Dominant characteristic

Organizational leadership

Management of employees

Organizational glue

Strategic emphasis

Success factor

T&D SENIOR MARKET ADHOCRACY HIERARCHY

ADHOCRACY MARKET

ADHOCRACY MARKET

ADHOCRACY MARKET

T&D JUNIOR ADHOCRACY

MARKET ADHOCRACY

CLAN CLAN

ADHOCRACY CLAN

MARKET CLAN

MARKET HIERARCHY

T&I SENIOR MARKET

HIERARCHY HIERARCHY

ADHOCRACY CLAN

HIERARCHY MARKET

CLAN MARKET

ADHOCRACY

T&I JUNIOR ADHOCRACY

MARKET CLAN

CLAN ADHOCRACY

CLAN ADHOCRACY CLAN

MARKET

ENERGY CLAN

ADHOCRACY

CLAN HIERARCHY

HIERARCHY CLAN MARKET

MARKET MARKET

HIERARCHY

E-COMMERCE

CLAN MARKET

CLAN ADHOCRACY

MARKET CLAN CLAN

MARKET HIERARCHY

PHARMA CLAN

MARKET CLAN

ADHOCRACY HIERARCHY

CLAN MARKET

MARKET CLAN

MARKET

Table 5: Overall cultural profile

Figure 3: OCAI spaces overall sample

From upper left to right:

T&D case - Junior; Senior.

T&I case - Junior; Senior.

Energy case

E-commerce case

Pharmaceutical case

Executive summary

11

SCRUM PROFILE

T&D SENIOR T&D JUNIOR T&I SENIOR T&I JUNIOR ENERGY E-COMMERCE PHARMACEUTICAL

Commitment Be proactive in finding solutions to the problems

Learn self-organization and agile mindset

Deliver MVPs Respect the releases

Respect rules and guidelines

Respect of the normative boundaries

Respect deadlines

Working together to the objective

Focus Share the same vision Share the same

vision

Improve budget, time and quality of development

Nothing to highlight Find new business opportunities

Deliver solutions faster

Job to be done

Courage Take tasks assigned to a colleague

Spur decision making People are encouraged to propose new ideas

Nothing to highlight Share proactively impediments

Nothing to highlight

Sharing ideas to the customer

Openness Find compromises between team members

Proactively ask for support

Express thoughts and impediments

Enhance relations between members

Absence of prevarications

Embrace seniors’ expertise

Find new paths to reach the objective

Respect Colleagues’ values and time

Visibility should be left to everyone

Avoid aggressive behaviours

Respect the roles of others

Weighting proposal of adjustments

Leaving no one behind

Others’ opinions & professionality

Transparency Everyone must be able to follow others work.

Nothing to highlight Share the current state of work

Transparency of processes

Objectives and timeboxes are clear

Process to reach the objective

Everyone always informed on the new tasks

Adaptation

Adapt ceremonies in function of the objectives and the context

Adapt ceremonies, techniques and tools to the team

Ceremonies & communication to facilitate interaction with remote workers

Ceremonies and communication adapted for remote workers

Allocation of members in function of what is challenging for them

Ceremonies adapted in function of people

Adaptation of ceremonies and tools in function of people

Self-organization

Micro-management is avoided

Avoid micro-management

Autonomy limited by need of coordination

No technique is imposed

Autonomous in managing deliverables

Employees choose the team to belong

Detecting the missing internal competencies

Cross functionality

Everyone has its specific role and is expert in his field

Possibility to learn from similar roles

Nothing to highlight Cross-pollination Trainings for competences development

Seniors facilitate juniors’ work

T-shaped competences

Customer centricity

Receive feedback to adjust the direction

Understand the right direction

Create value for the customer

Nothing to highlight Nothing to highlight Continuous discussion with him

Continuously consulted for feedbacks

Continuous improvement

Share ideas & best practices externally

Experimentation to achieve greater results

Iterative thinking and customer feedbacks

Nothing to highlight Learn from failures Iterative thinking Learn from unsuccess and its causes

Waste reduction

Fast communication Costs savings

Nothing to highlight Just In Time documentation

Just In Time documentation

Increase process effectiveness

Nothing to highlight

Nothing to highlight

Table 6: Scrum profile

Executive summary

12

Connecting results from table 6, where each case defines the Scrum variables

investigated, and table 5, where cultural patterns are highlighted, it is possible to extract

relevant information to answer to the second research question.

CROSS FINDINGS

DESCRIPTION (answer to second research question)

LITERATURE CONTRIBUTION

Co-existence of competing values cultures

High concentration of Clan and Market subcultures in each case, implicit interconnection between the two competing cultures:

Need of high-skilled team members to outpace competition → technical trainings to outpace competition (Market success factor) increase human development (Clan success factor).

Creation of informal environment (Clan dominant characteristic) and increase of Loyalty (Clan organizational glue) spur motivation and so productivity → creation of an effective solution that may succeed in the market (Market strategic emphasis and success factor).

Confirm theories of Cameron and Quinn: CVF is unlikely to reflect only one subculture, rather it stresses a balance between opposite orientations: some cultural types may be more dominant than others, imposing paradoxical requirements for effective organizations (Cameron, 1986).

Dominance of the clan subculture

Courage to express feedbacks leads to a proactive interaction between colleagues (Openness) → Extended family (Dominant characteristic).

Scrum masters give to the teams the responsibility to self-organize, act only if needed (Self-organization) → Mentoring (Leadership style).

Transparency of communication enhances individual participation and avoids potential misalignments (Transparency) → Loyalty (Organizational glue).

Evidences in line with theories of Iivari and Iivari (2011) and Othman (2016).

High relevance of the market subculture

Satisfy customer’s expectations by continuously improving the solution (Customer centricity, Continuous improvement) → Win the marketplace by outpacing competitors (Strategic emphasis, Success factor).

Evidences in line with theories of Iivari and Iivari (2011) and Othman (2016).

Absence of aggressive leadership style

Aggressive leadership style leads to micro-management, teams instead need self-organization in order to be motivated to perform: use of mentoring leadership style at the expenses of the aggressive one.

Addition to extant literature: aggressive leadership style is not necessary to focalize teams towards goal achievement

Management of employees encourages risk taking to drive innovation

Employees encouraged in taking risks, focus on experimentation and learn the fail fast approach (Courage, Waste reduction) → risk taking orientation (Management of employees).

Confirms cultural theory: unlikely to find only one subculture. Adds to agile: to establish iterative thinking, support people in experimenting.

Executive summary

13

CROSS FINDINGS

DESCRIPTION (answer to second research question)

LITERATURE CONTRIBUTION

Hierarchical rates depend on teams’ structure

Adaptation scrum pillar in contraposition with everything that can be considered as extremely standardized and formalized: generally low hierarchical cultures, except for particular cases (presence of remote workers, transversal roles not dedicated to a single team).

Confirms agile theory of Gupta (2019): hierarchical subculture dysfunctional & incompatible with Scrum. Appends: coordination increases in case of remote workers or transversal roles.

Seniority leads to results orientation

Less mature teams need to learn the agile mindset: Scrum master adapts ceremonies in function of people in order to facilitate meetings execution (Adaptation) → Scrum master as facilitator (Clan leadership style) to obtain results easier (Market subculture).

Mature teams are continuously monitored, individuals must be proactive in finding solutions; production of JIT documentation (Commitment, Waste reduction) → obtain efficiently the results requested (Market subculture).

Indirect confirmation (Huang et al., 2010) of the finding: the more a team is mature, the less it will follow a clan culture; consequently: to decreases of clan rates corresponds growth on market values.

Table 7: Cross-case findings description and discussion

1.5 Conclusion: limitations, future research and implications

Table 8: Limitations and future research

Limitations Future research

Neglection of the evolution of values investigated Repeat the interview after a discrete amount of time, with the same interviewee.

The “convenience sampling” technique is not necessary representative of the population and it is potentially biased (Sample selection bias and self-selection bias)

Perform a wider research in the whole Italian territory

Leverage not only on the LinkedIn social media to reach informants

Non-generalizability to non-Italian cases Extend the research to other countries, considering Hofstede’s studies

The focus in this study is intended to investigate how the scrum methodology, in particular its social side, enables recurrent cultural patterns of team subculture.

Embed in the whole research process also the impact of technical agile practices.

Absence of interconnections between teams managed by different scrum masters

Multiple unit of analysis from the same company

Absence of a great number of multiple sources of evidence. A quantitative and omni comprehensive database is missing

Repetition of experiments in time

Multiple point of view for the same industry

Executive summary

14

In conclusion, this section presents practical implications to be proposed to Scrum

masters:

• The coexistence of the clan subculture and the market one implicitly demonstrates

the importance of technical trainings and horizontal learning to increase loyalty

and commitment of individuals, which is translated in being more competitive on

the market with a product that effectively satisfies customer needs. Therefore, we

suggest to incentivize team members in doing trainings of different nature: in

general, the result obtained will be beneficial for both individuals and the

company, as human growth and efficiency will be enhanced;

• Generally, every case studied shows a strong willingness of the Product owner and

Scrum master to listen to new ideas coming from team members. We advise Scrum

masters to give more space to idea propositions, during the Sprint Retrospective

or in the middle of the Sprint, to discuss about potential innovations to process or

product, in order to give the possibility to implement eventual changes during the

current Sprint;

• Even if general guidelines for internal communication are helpful, charging teams

with harsh rules to comply with, hampers the realization of the adaptation pillar.

Being constrained obstructs the possibility to shape ceremonies and tools in

function of people and, in some cases, to lose responsiveness to market changes.

This is why we suggest to limit the use of rules and laws to let the teams self-

organize;

• We advise Scrum masters to use a customized approach with teams, in function of

their ability in mastering the Scrum principles.

The more a team is new in working with agile methodologies, the more it will be

needed a mentoring approach; when a team is already mature, the Scrum master

can shift his behaviors towards a competitive approach.

Literature review

15

2 Literature review

In this section the analysis of extant literature is performed through a presentation of

Agile methodologies, the definition of organizational culture and the different approaches

that scholars have been in studying the relationship among the two. Consequently, a gap

analysis emerged, where some open points have been selected as trigger for this research

and the research question have been formulated; to conclude, a research framework has

been developed in order to go through them.

2.1 Agile

Agile Methods started to be conceptualized in the mid-1990s, as a reaction to plan-based

or traditional methods of developing software and acknowledge the “need for an

alternative to documentation driven, heavyweight software development processes” (D.

Cohen et al., 2004; T. Dyba, T. Dingsøyr, 2008). The term “agility” was first observed in the

area of manufacturing (Nagel and Dove, 1991), where it was disseminated as a concept

called “agile manufacturing,” even before the term was popularized in the area of agile

project management (or agile methods). The term "agile manufacturing" was treated as

a new paradigm, characterized as “an ability to change the configuration of a system in

response to unforeseen changes and unexpected market conditions (E.C. Conforto et al.,

2016).

The traditional model (i.e. Waterfall), which emphasize ‘‘a rationalized, engineering-based

approach”, was supposed to fix the problem of changing requirements once and for all by

freezing requirements and not allowing any change: The ‘‘traditionalists” are said to

advocate extensive planning, codified processes, and rigorous reuse to make

development an efficient and predictable activity, but practitioners found that

requirements just could not be pinned down in one fell swoop as they anticipated

(D.Cohen et al., 2004; T. Dyba, T. Dingsøyr, 2008).

The need to find new methods was driven by the uncertainties coming from the industry,

the velocity of technological transformation, the requirements that “change at rates that

swamp traditional methods”, and customers that have become increasingly unable to

definitively state their needs up front while, at the same time, expecting more from their

Literature review

16

software (D.Cohen et al., 2004). As a result, several consultants have independently

developed methods and practices to respond to the inevitable change they were

experiencing, addressing the challenge of an unpredictable world by relying on ‘‘people

and their creativity rather than on processes” (D.Cohen et al., 2004; T. Dyba, T. Dingsøyr,

2008).

As with any nascent discipline, the early years of agile development were marked by

exuberance of a few and by skepticism among many: although these new methods had

been developed in the late 90s, they were formally introduced to the software industry

by gathering under the Agile umbrella when the Agile manifesto was created in 2001 (T.

Dingsøyr et al., 2012; Beck et al.,2001). In fact, in February 2001, something remarkable

happened: rather than focus on their differences and the “competitive advantage” of their

own methodologies, 17 creators of the lightweight methodologies met to discuss their

common interests and philosophies, coining the term “agile software development” to

describe their methodologies. (L. Williams, 2012). What emerged was the Agile “Software

Development” manifesto, an answer to the need for an alternative to documentation

driven, heavyweight software development processes convened”. They summarized their

viewpoint, saying that “the Agile movement is not anti-methodology, in fact, many of us

want to restore credibility to the word methodology. We want to restore a balance. We

embrace modeling, but not in order to file some diagram in a dusty corporate repository.

We embrace documentation, but not hundreds of pages of never maintained and rarely

used tomes. We plan, but [we] recognize the limits of planning in a turbulent

environment” (Cohen et al., 2004). We are uncovering better ways of developing software

by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work we have come to value:

• Individuals and interactions over processes and tools;

• Working software over comprehensive documentation;

• Customer collaboration over contract negotiation;

• Responding to change over following a plan.

Literature review

17

That is, while there is a value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left

more. (Agile Manifesto, 2001). Robert L. Glass amalgamates the best of the Agile and

traditional approaches by analyzing the Agile manifesto and comparing it with traditional

values:

• On individuals and interaction over process and tools: “Traditional software

engineering has gotten too caught up in its emphasis on process”. At the same time

“most practitioners already know that people matter more than process”.

• On working software over comprehensive documentation: “It is important to

remember that the ultimate result of building software is product. Documentation

matters . . . but over the years, the traditionalists made a fetish of documentation. It

became the prime goal of the document-driven lifecycle”.

• On customer collaboration over contract negotiation: Glass sympathizes with both

sides regarding this statement: “I deeply believe in customer collaboration, and […]

without it nothing is going to go well. I also believe in contracts, and I would not

undertake any significant collaborative effort without it”.

• On responding to change over following a plan: Both sides are right regarding this

statement, according to Glass: “Over the years, we have learned two contradictory

lessons: Customers and users do not always know what they want at the outset of a

software project, and we must be open to change during project execution” and

requirement change was one of the most common causes of software project failure”

(D. Cohen et al., 2004; R.L. Glass, 2001).

The agile Manifesto is based on the twelve principles (Beck et al., 2001):

• Our highest priority is to satisfy the customer through the early and continuous

delivery of valuable software.

• Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness

change for the customer's competitive advantage.

• Deliver working software frequently, from a couple of weeks to a couple of months,

with a preference to the shorter timescale.

• Businesspeople and developers must work together daily throughout the project.

Literature review

18

• Build projects around motivated individuals. Give them the environment and support

they need and trust them to get the job done.

• The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a

development team is a face-to-face conversation.

• Working software is the primary measure of progress.

• Agile processes promote sustainable development. The sponsors, developers, and

users should be able to maintain a constant pace indefinitely.

• Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design enhances agility.

• Simplicity, the art of maximizing the amount of work not done, is essential.

• The best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams.

• At regular intervals, the team reflects on how to become more effective, then tunes

and adjusts its behavior accordingly.

The problem identified with this literature, especially related to agile project management

and project management as a broad theory is the lack of precision in defining and

understanding the meaning of “agility”, causing different interpretations: Based on a

survey and assessment of the various contemporary definitions, Qumer and Henderson-

Sellers offer the following definition for the agility of any entity: “Agility is a persistent

behavior or ability of a sensitive entity that exhibits flexibility to accommodate expected

or unexpected changes rapidly, follows the shortest time span, uses economical, simple

and quality instruments in a dynamic environment and applies updated prior knowledge

and experience to learn from the internal and external environment.” (E.C. Conforto et

al., 2016, A. Qumer et al., 2008). In order to benefit from this definition, these authors

developed a four-dimensional framework (4-DAT) to crystallize the key attributes of

agility: flexibility, speed, leanness, learning and responsiveness. Flexibility is the ability to

respond to change and leanness accentuates lower cost, reduced timeframe and quality

production. Consequently, by applying the above definition of agility to the notion of a

software development methodology, we derive the definition of an “agile method” as: “A

software development method is said to be an agile software development method when

Literature review

19

a method is people focused, communications-oriented, flexible (ready to adapt to

expected or unexpected change at any time), speedy (encourages rapid and iterative

development of the product in small releases), lean (focuses on shortening timeframe and

cost and on improved quality), responsive (reacts appropriately to expected and

unexpected changes), and learning (focuses on improvement during and after product

development)” (E.C. Conforto et al., 2016, A. Qumer et al., 2008).

At the core of agile practices is the idea of self-organizing and cross-functional teams

whose members are not only collocated but also work at a pace that sustains their

creativity and productivity. Self-organizing teams choose how best to accomplish their

work, rather than being directed by others outside the team. Cross-functional teams have

all competencies needed to accomplish the work without depending on others not part

of the team. The team model in Scrum is designed to optimize flexibility, creativity, and

productivity (Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, 2017). Team's agility, defined as a

performance indicator, would be related at least with two factors: the capacity to change

the project plan and the active involvement of customer in the development process, that

are directly dependent on the use of “agile methods” and are supposed to be industry-

agnostic. Furthermore, customers are actively involved in the development process,

facilitating feedback and reflection that can lead to more satisfying outcomes (E.C.

Conforto et al., 2016, T. Dingsøyr et al., 2012).

As defined previously, there are different agile methodologies that practitioners follow.

Dybå and Dingsøyr (2008), listed the main agile development methods as follow: Scrum

(Schwaber et al., 2001), Crystal methodologies (Cockburn, 2005), Dynamic software

development method (DSDM) (Stapleton & DSDM Consortium., 2003), Feature-driven

development (Palmer & Felsing, 2002), Lean software development (Poppendieck &

Poppendieck, 2003), Extreme Programming (XP; XP2) (Beck, 2000; Beck & Andres, 2005)

and the most widely used method Scrum (Schwaber & Beedle, 2002). Hereafter, their

description:

Literature review

20

Agile method Description

Crystal Clear A family of methods for co-located teams of different sizes and

criticality: Clear, Yellow, Orange, Red, Blue. The most agile method,

Crystal Clear, focuses on communication in small teams developing

software that is not life critical. Clear development has seven

characteristics: frequent delivery, reflective improvement, osmotic

communication, personal safety, focus, easy access to expert users, and

requirements for the technical environment

Dynamic software

development

method (DSDM)

Divides projects into three phases: pre-project, project life cycle, and

post project. Nine principles underlie DSDM: user involvement,

empowering the project team, frequent delivery, addressing current

business needs, iterative and incremental development, allow for

reversing changes, the high-level scope being fixed before project

starts, testing throughout the lifecycle, and efficient and effective

communication

Feature-driven

development

Combines model-driven and agile development with emphasis on the

initial object model, a division of work in features, and iterative design

for each feature. Claims to be suitable for the development of critical

systems. An iteration of a feature consists of two phases: design and

development

Lean software

development

An adaptation of principles from lean production and, in particular, the

Toyota production system to software development. Consists of seven

principles: eliminate waste, amplify learning, decide as late as possible,

deliver as fast as possible, empower the team, build integrity, and

optimize the whole (customer centricity and continuous improvement).

Extreme

programming

(XP; XP2)

Focuses on best practice for development. Consists of twelve practices:

the planning game, small releases, metaphor, simple design, testing,

refactoring, pair programming, collective ownership, continuous

integration, 40-h week, on-site customers, and coding standards. The

revised ‘‘XP2" consists of the following ‘‘primary practices": sit together,

the whole team, informative workspace, energized work, pair

programming, stories, weekly cycle, quarterly cycle, slack, 10-minute

build, continuous integration, test-first programming, and incremental

design. There are also eleven ‘‘corollary practices".

Table 9: Agile methods

Literature review

21

In the following section a particular focus will be given to the Scrum method, as currently

it is the most adopted (VersionOne, 2018).

2.1.1 Scrum methodology

Scrum is a process framework that has been used to manage work on complex products

since the early 1990s. Ken Schwaber first described Scrum in 1996 as a process that

“accepts that the development process is unpredictable,” formalizing the “do what it

takes” mentality, and has found success with numerous independent software vendors.

The term is borrowed from Rugby: “Scrum occurs when players from each team huddle

closely together in an attempt to advance down the playing field” (Ken Schwaber and Jeff

Sutherland, 2017; D. Cohen et al, 2004).

It is defined as a “framework within which people can address complex adaptive

problems, while productively and creatively delivering products of the highest possible

value”. Scrum methodology can be described as:

• Lightweight;

• Simple to understand;

• Difficult to master.

It is a framework within which you can employ various processes and techniques. Scrum

makes clear the relative efficacy of your product management and work techniques so

that you can continuously improve the product, the team, and the working environment;

the framework itself consists of Scrum Teams and their associated roles, events, artifacts,

and rules. Each component within the framework serves a specific purpose and is essential

to Scrum’s success and usage (Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, 2017).

Scrum proved to be especially effective in iterative and incremental knowledge transfer.

Scrum is now widely used for products, services, and the management of the parent

organization. As technology, market, and environmental complexities and their

interactions have rapidly increased, Scrum’s utility in dealing with complexity is proven

daily. The essence of Scrum is a small team of people. The individual team is highly flexible

and adaptive. The rules of Scrum bind together the roles, events, and artifacts, governing

Literature review

22

the relationships and interaction between them (Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland,

2017).

People work in cross-functional teams, developing products or projects in an iterative,

incremental manner. It structures development in cycles of work called Sprints. The Scrum

model includes three repetitive stages: product backlog development, main sprint, and

daily sprints (explained later in this section) (D. Cohen et al, 2004).

At the beginning of each Sprint, cross-functional Teams select items (customer

requirements) from a prioritized list. The Team agrees on a collective target of what they

believe they can deliver by the end of the Sprint, something that is tangible and will be

truly “done”. During the Sprint, no new items may be added; Scrum embraces change for

the next Sprint, but the current short Sprint is meant to focus on a small, clear, relatively

stable goal (Deemer et al., 2012).

The key principles of Scrum are the following:

• Small working teams that maximize communication, minimize overhead, and

maximize sharing of tacit, informal knowledge;

• Adaptability to technical or marketplace (user/customer) changes to ensure the

best possible product is produced;

• Frequent “builds”, or construction of executables, that can be inspected, adjusted,

tested, documented, and built on;

Figure 4: The Scrum process model (adapted from Boehm and Turner 2005)

Literature review

23

• Partitioning of work and team assignments into clean, low coupling partitions, or

packets;

• Constant testing and documentation of a product as it is built;

• Ability to declare a product ‘done’ whenever required.

The scrum teams should be composed by maximum seven people, and a complete team

should at least include a developer, quality assurance engineer, and a documenter (D.

Cohen et al, 2004).

2.1.1.1 Scrum Pillars and Values

Three pillars uphold every implementation of empirical (i.e. knowledge coming from

experience and making decisions based on what is known) process control: transparency,

inspection, and adaptation. (Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, 2017).

• Transparency: Significant aspects of the process must be visible to those

responsible for the outcome. Transparency requires those aspects be defined by a

common standard, so observers share a common understanding of what is being

seen;

• Inspection: Scrum users must frequently inspect Scrum artifacts and progress

toward a Sprint Goal to detect undesirable variances. Their inspection should not

be so frequent that inspection gets in the way of the work. Inspections are most

beneficial when diligently performed by skilled inspectors at the point of work;

• Adaptation: If an inspector determines that one or more aspects of a process

deviate outside acceptable limits, and that the resulting product will be

unacceptable, the process or the material being processed must be adjusted. An

adjustment must be made as soon as possible to minimize further deviation.

Scrum prescribes four formal events for inspection and adaptation, which will be studied

later:

• Sprint Planning;

• Daily Scrum;

• Sprint Review;

• Sprint Retrospective.

Literature review

24

The successful use of Scrum depends on people becoming more proficient in living these

five values: commitment, courage, focus, openness and respect. If these values are

embodied and lived by the Scrum Team, the Scrum pillars of transparency, inspection, and

adaptation come to life and build trust for everyone. The Scrum Team members learn and

explore those values as they work with the Scrum roles, events, and artifacts (Ken

Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, 2017; Deemer et al., 2012).

2.1.1.2 Scrum Team

The Scrum Team consists of a Product Owner, the Development Team, and a Scrum

Master.

• Product owner: The Product Owner (PO) is responsible for maximizing the value of

the product resulting from work of the Development Team, so for maximizing

return on investment (ROI) by identifying product features, translating these into

a prioritized list, deciding which should be at the top of the list for the next Sprint,

and continually re-prioritizing and refining the list. The Product Owner is not a

traditional Product Manager, because he actively and regularly interacts with the

Team, prioritize by working with all of the stakeholders and reviewing the results

each Sprint, rather than delegating development decisions to a project manager.

The Product Owner is the sole person responsible for managing the Product

Backlog (see Figure 1). It may represent the desires of a committee in the Product

Backlog, but those wanting to change a Product Backlog item’s priority must

address the Product Owner. For the Product Owner to succeed, the entire

organization must respect his or her decisions. The Product Owner’s decisions are

visible in the content and ordering of the Product Backlog (Deemer et al., 2012;

Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, 2017);

• Development team: The Development Team consists of professionals who do the

work of delivering a potentially releasable Increment of “Done” product at the end

of each Sprint. The Team in Scrum is “cross-functional” – it includes all the

expertise necessary to deliver the potentially shippable product each Sprint – and

it is “self-organizing”, so it is structured and empowered by the organization to

Literature review

25

organize and manage their own work. The resulting synergy optimizes the

Development Team’s overall efficiency and effectiveness.

Development Teams have the following characteristics:

o They are self-organizing: No one (not even the Scrum Master) tells the

Development Team how to turn Product Backlog into Increments of

potentially releasable functionality;

o Development Teams are cross-functional, with all the skills as a team

necessary to create a product Increment;

o Scrum recognizes no titles for Development Team members, regardless of

the work being performed by the person;

o Scrum recognizes no sub-teams in the Development Team, regardless of

domains that need to be addressed like testing, architecture, operations,

or business analysis;

o Individual Development Team members may have specialized skills and

areas of focus, but accountability belongs to the Development Team as a

whole.

Optimal Development Team size is small enough to remain nimble and large

enough to complete significant work within a Sprint. Fewer than three

Development Team members decrease interaction and results in smaller

productivity gains. Smaller Development Teams may encounter skill constraints

during the Sprint, causing the Development Team to be unable to deliver a

potentially releasable Increment. Having more than nine members requires too

much coordination. Large Development Teams generate too much complexity for

an empirical process to be useful. The Product Owner and Scrum Master roles are

not included in this count unless they are also executing the work of the Sprint

backlog (Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, 2017; Deemer et al., 2012);

• Scrum Master: The Scrum Master helps the product group to learn and apply

Scrum to achieve business value, by helping everyone understand Scrum theory,

practices, rules, and values: he is responsible for promoting and supporting Scrum

as defined in the Scrum Guide. He is considered to be a facilitator of the Scrum

process, enabling the team to work in a self-organized and cross-functional way;

furthermore, the Scrum Master protects the team from external disruptions

Literature review

26

(Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, 2017; Deemer et al., 2012; S. V. Spiegler et al.,

2019).

The Scrum Master is a servant-leader for the Scrum Team: he is not the manager

of the Team members, nor is He a project manager, or team representative. The

Scrum Master serves the Team, by helping to remove impediments, protecting the

Team from outside interference, and helping the Team to adopt modern

development practices. He educates, coaches and guides the Product Owner,

Team and the rest of the organization in the skillful use of Scrum.

Unlike a traditional manager, the Scrum Master does not tell people what to do or

assign tasks – they facilitate the process, supporting the Team as it organizes and

manages itself (Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, 2017; Deemer et al., 2012).

2.1.1.3 Scrum events

Prescribed events are used in Scrum to create regularity and to minimize the need for

meetings not defined in Scrum. All events are time-boxed events, such that every event

has a maximum duration. Other than the Sprint itself, which is a container for all other

events, each event in Scrum is a formal opportunity to inspect and adapt something.

These events are specifically designed to enable critical transparency and inspection

(Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, 2017).

• Sprint: The heart of Scrum is a Sprint, a time-box of one month or less during which

a “Done”, useable, and potentially releasable product Increment is created. Sprints

have consistent durations throughout a development effort. A new Sprint starts

immediately after the conclusion of the previous Sprint. Sprints contain and

consist of the Sprint Planning, Daily Scrums, the development work, the Sprint

Review, and the Sprint Retrospective.

During the Sprint:

o No changes are made that would endanger the Sprint Goal;

o Quality goals do not decrease;

o Scope may be clarified and re-negotiated between the Product Owner and

Development Team as more is learned.

Literature review

27

Each Sprint may be considered a project with no more than a one-month horizon:

it has the goal of what is to be built, a design and flexible plan that will guide

building it, the work, and the resultant product increment. They are limited to one

calendar month in order to limit risks to only one calendar month of cost. When a

Sprint’s horizon is too long the definition of what is being built may change,

complexity may rise, and risk may increase. Moreover, Sprints enable

predictability by ensuring inspection and adaptation of progress toward a Sprint

Goal at least every calendar month (Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, 2017).

• Sprint planning: The work to be performed in the Sprint is planned at the Sprint

Planning. This plan is created by the collaborative work of the entire Scrum Team.

The Scrum Master ensures that the event takes place and that attendants

understand its purpose. Sprint Planning is necessary in order to understand what

can be delivered as the incrementing result in the upcoming sprint and how to

achieve this result (Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, 2017).

• Daily scrum: The Daily Scrum is a 15-minute time-boxed event for the

Development Team, held every day of the Sprint, to share information that is

supposed to be relevant to the teams’ progress, in order to synchronize their work

and report to each other on obstacles (Deemer et al., 2012; Schwaber and Jeff

Sutherland, 2017; V. Stray et al., 2016).

In the Daily Scrum, one by one, each member of the Team reports three things to

the other members of the Team:

o What has been accomplished since the last meeting?

o What will be done before the next meeting?

o What obstacles are in the way?

it is a time for a self-organizing Team to share with each other what is going on, to

help them coordinate to the accomplishment of the Sprint Goal and create the

anticipated Increment by the end of the Sprint (Deemer et al., 2012; Schwaber and

Jeff Sutherland, 2017). Its main purpose is to enable team members to obtain an

overview of what other team members are doing. This phenomenon is called team

awareness, which is explained as “an understanding of the activities of others,

which provides a context for your own activities”.

Literature review

28

To summarize, V. Stray defines daily stand up meetings as: “a brief communicative

event that involves two or more people in a team; it is regularly scheduled with a

pre-arranged time and place; the participants stand; it is organized and managed

by the team; and its primary purpose is to increase team awareness” (V. Stray et

al., 2016).

Daily Scrums improve communications, eliminate other meetings, identify

impediments to development for removal, highlight and promote quick decision-

making, and improve the Development Team’s level of knowledge. This is a key

inspect and adapt meeting (Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, 2017).

• Sprint review: It is held at the end of the Sprint to inspect the Increment and adapt

the Product Backlog if needed. During the Sprint Review, the Scrum Team and

stakeholders collaborate about what was done in the Sprint. Based on that and

any changes to the Product Backlog during the Sprint, attendees collaborate on

the next things that could be done to optimize value. The Sprint Review is an

inspect and adapt activity for the product. It is a time for the Product Owner to

learn what is going on with the product and with the Team (that is, a review of the

Sprint); and for the Team to learn what is going on with the Product Owner and

the market. Consequently, a critical element of the Review is an in-depth

conversation between the Team and Product Owner to learn the situation, elicit

feedback and foster collaboration. The result of the Sprint Review is a revised

Product Backlog that defines the probable Product Backlog items for the next

Sprint. The Product Backlog may also be adjusted overall to meet new

opportunities (Deemer et al., 2012; Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, 2017).

• Sprint retrospective: The Sprint Retrospective, which occurs after the Sprint

Review, is an opportunity for the Scrum Team to inspect itself and create a plan

for improvements to be enacted during the next Sprint; moreover, it’s an

opportunity for the Team to discuss what’s working and what’s not working, and

agree on changes to try.

Literature review

29

The purpose of the Sprint Retrospective is to:

o Inspect how the last Sprint went with regards to people, relationships,

process, and tools;

o Identify and order the major items that went well and potential

improvements;

o Create a plan for implementing improvements to the way the Scrum Team

does its work.

By the end of the Sprint Retrospective, the Scrum Team should have identified

improvements that it will implement in the next Sprint. Implementing these

improvements in the next Sprint is the adaptation to the inspection of the Scrum

Team itself. Although improvements may be implemented at any time, the Sprint

Retrospective provides a formal opportunity to focus on inspection and adaptation

(Deemer et al., 2012; Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, 2017).

2.1.1.4 Scrum Artifacts

Scrum’s artifacts represent work or value to provide transparency and opportunities for

inspection and adaptation: they are specifically designed to maximize transparency of key

information so that everybody has the same understanding of the artifact.

• Product backlog: The Product Backlog is an ordered list of everything that is known to

be needed in the product. The Product Backlog lists all features, functions,

requirements, enhancements, and fixes that constitute the changes to be made to the

product in future releases: it is the single, definitive view of “everything that could be

done by the Team ever, in order of priority”. Product Backlog is a living artifact, as

changes in business requirements, market conditions, or technology may cause

changes in the Product Backlog (Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, 2017; Deemer et al.,

2012).

A good Product Backlog should be:

o Detailed appropriately: the top priority items are more fine-grained and

detailed than the lower priority items, since the former will be worked on

sooner than the latter;

Literature review

30

o Estimated: the items for the current release need to have estimates, and

furthermore, should be considered for re-estimation each Sprint as everyone

learns and new information arises;

o Emergent: in response to learning and variability, the Product Backlog is

regularly refined. Each Sprint, items may be added, removed, modified, split,

and changed in priority. Thus, the Product Backlog is continuously updated by

the Product Owner to reflect changes in the needs of the customer, new ideas

or insights, moves by the competition, technical hurdles that appear etc.;

o Prioritized. The items at the top of the Product Backlog are prioritized or

ordered in a 1-N order;

The items in the Product Backlog can vary significantly in size or effort. Larger ones are

broken into smaller items during the Product Backlog Refinement workshop or the

Sprint Planning Meeting, and smaller ones may be consolidated. The Product Backlog

items for the upcoming next several Sprints should be small and fine-grained enough

that they are understood by the Team, enabling forecasts made in the Sprint Planning

meeting to be meaningful (Deemer et al., 2012).

The product backlog doesn’t contain user stories, instead it is a boundary object that

bridges the gap between generating and implementing user stories: a boundary object

is an artifact that different people can use and interpret in different ways. Boundary

objects not only facilitate knowledge sharing and coordination but also help groups

cooperate without consensus. Conceptualizing the product backlog as a boundary

object assumes that it mediates communication between different groups or roles: in

other words, it facilitates communication between professionals with different

backgrounds: product designers, product managers, and engineers (T. Sedano et al.,

2019).

• Sprint backlog: The Sprint Backlog is the set of Product Backlog items selected for the

Sprint, plus a plan for delivering the product Increment and realizing the Sprint Goal.

The Sprint Backlog is a forecast by the Development Team about what functionality

will be in the next Increment and the work needed to deliver that functionality into a

“Done” Increment. The Sprint Backlog makes visible all the work that the Development

Team identifies as necessary to meet the Sprint Goal. To ensure continuous

Literature review

31

improvement, it includes at least one high priority process improvement identified in

the previous Retrospective meeting. As new work is required, the Development Team

adds it to the Sprint Backlog. As work is performed or completed, the estimated

remaining work is updated. Only the Development Team can change its Sprint Backlog

during a Sprint. The Sprint Backlog is a highly visible, real-time picture of the work that

the Development Team plans to accomplish during the Sprint, and it belongs solely to

the Development Team (Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, 2017).

2.1.2 Scaling Agile

In the past years, much has been published to address the question of whether agile

methods are suitable for large-scale distributed projects. Increasingly more evidence

through case study research has been provided to suggest that the fundamental

assumptions of agile development methods are challenged when applying the methods

to large-scale distributed context. Scaling agile software development in large

organizations is complex and poses several challenges. Large projects require appropriate

coordination and communication between teams, dependencies between teams need to

be managed, other non-agile units need to be involved and the right people need to be

part of the process. Recent research reports that most of the goals and practices for

scaling agile are domain independent, listing as key factors challenges in coordinating

multiple teams, difficulties with managing requirements, problems in adaptation with the

organizational structure, and issues in understanding agile concepts along the value chain.

Additionally, customer involvement, software architectural concerns, and inter-team

coordination were also reported, together with challenges in coordinating the work of

several teams (M. Kalenda et al., 2018; W. Alsaqaf et al., 2019).

Authors define large-scale agile development as agile development efforts that involve a

large number of actors, a large number of systems and interdependencies (Rolland et al.

2016), which have more than two teams, and very large-scale as "agile development

efforts with more than ten teams" (T. Dingsøyr et al. 2014).

The fundamental assumption behind traditional methods, generally used from large

companies, is that information systems are fully specifiable and built through meticulous

and extensive planning. Agile methods, on the other hand, assume that information

systems can be built through continuous design, improvement, and testing based on rapid

Literature review

32

feedback and change. Adapting the method to the context will involve balance in a

number of areas, as very largescale projects involve great risk and management attention.

Boehm and Turner (2003) argued that traditional and agile methods should be balanced

when facing risk such as increases in program size. A study conducted by Petersen and

Wohlin (2010), focusing on the transition from traditional plan-driven development to a

more agile method, found that many of the issues raised in traditional development were

not raised after the transition to agile development. This suggests that agile methods can

also work well in large-scale product development (T. Dingsøyr et al., 2018).

2.1.2.1 From software development to large companies

In order to successfully perform the transition from traditional to agile methodology,

different practices, challenges and success factors have been identified:

• Practices: different practices have been identified in order to facilitate the transition,

but the most important one is the “Scaled planning”, revolved around so-called

Milestones. A Milestone defines vision, goals, business, and technical initiatives the

company wants to achieve in the next release (M. Kalenda et al., 2018);

• Challenges: During the transformation process, several challenges have been

identified:

o Resistance to change: The resistance usually occurs at all levels of

organizations, including development teams, middle and upper management.

Moreover, in large organizations, the resistance to change on higher levels,

such as middle and upper management, is a more significant problem;

o Quality assurance: problems with quality assurance and a loss of quality in

code shortly after the transition to scaled agile processes have been reported:

the quality loss was caused mainly by additional responsibilities, pressure on

teams, or bad definition of the concept of “done;

o Integration with non-agile parts of the organization: Misalignment of

organizational structures can create issues, but these issues can be solved by

including waterfall parts of the organization in the planning process and

involving non-agile teams early in planning process. Also, improvement of

Literature review

33

continuous integration and test automation systems helps, as it allows faster

and better integration;

o Requirements management hierarchy: In large projects, requirements are not

manageable by a single person (product owner); hence, there is a need to

divide the responsibility of their management, and this division can be in many

cases a significant challenge, so it should be done carefully and properly;

o Measuring progress: When an organization is changing, the development

process, measuring the changing trend, is important. However, it is challenging

to find the right and most meaningful metrics for large-scale agile

development (M. Kalenda et al., 2018);

o Lack of knowledge: The lack of knowledge is one of the most important

challenges, which may lead to an erroneous implementation of agile practices.

• Success: finally, during the transformation process, several challenges have been

identified:

o Acquire knowledge: As the lack of knowledge is one of the most relevant

challenge, it is no surprise that the most common success factor is to try to

increase the level of knowledge and expertise on agile practices: this becomes

a success factor thanks to deep, systematic knowledge acquisition and sharing.

The most recommended way to acquire knowledge and expertise is to hire an

external expert with broad and deep familiarity with agile development, which

shares his knowledge with several internal employees, who then spread it

across the organization;

o United view on values and practices: For a successful agile transition, it is

necessary to define a common view on the change, in particular on values,

definitions, way of working and understanding beneficial. There is a need to

define roles, their responsibilities, and common definitions properly. Also,

Schnitter and Mackert stated that it was beneficial to use a common language

between teams, architects and product owners, such as established agile

definitions, the unified modeling language or fundamental modeling concepts;

o Tools and infrastructure: Organizations have to be prepared to provide

sufficient resources to teams while transforming to agile development.

Literature review

34

Common tools and infrastructure are particularly beneficial in a distributed

environment, where teams need all the help to reduce their communication

impediments;

o Teamwork support: Close connections and constant communication between

teams and team members are necessary for successful agile development. The

organization should establish a transparent environment for openness in the

team without fear of discussing problems to improve teamwork. Also, it is

better to keep teams small (M. Kalenda et al., 2018).

To conclude, culture has been suggested as a critical factor affecting the adoption of agile

software development practices (Fruhling and Tarrell, 2008; Nerur and Balijepally, 2007):

“to be Agile is a cultural matter. If the culture is not right, then the organization cannot be

Agile” (D. Cohen et al., 2004).

Literature review

35

2.2 Organizational culture

Many researchers, in the last decades, attributed to the concept of culture different

definitions, according to their aim and its level of aggregation. It is employed differently

in anthropology (ethnographic), in political science and sociology (nations), in

management (organizations).

It is a complex concept that find different definitions even in anthropology, the science

field from which this notion originates (Kroeber et al. 1952). For example, many

anthropologists, (C. Geertz, 1973, J. Lett, 1987; R. Keesing, A. Strathern, 1998) view culture

as an inescapable context in which life (in communities, organizations) takes place.

According to them, it is a symbolic system consisting of learned, shared, patterned sets of

meanings guiding the actions of cultural members.

From a sociological point of view, it is defined as: "the collective programming of the mind

that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from others", so it is

a collective phenomenon in which individuals behave according to their societal or

country context (Hofstede et al., 2010). Societal cultures reside in (often unconscious)

values, in the sense of broad tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs over others

(Hofstede, 2001).

Hofstede’s conceptualization of national culture is one of the most popular (Huang et al.

2010) approaches used to study the impact of organizational values over culture, thanks

to its well-known taxonomy of the six cultural dimensions (power distance, uncertainty

avoidance, individualism, masculinity, Confucian dynamism and indulgence). Through his

model it is possible to highlight the relative position, according to the six cultural

dimensions, of a society in comparison with others, allowing national-level analyses and

country or regional comparisons.

In economics, Boyd and Richerson (1985, 2005) define culture as “decision-making

heuristics or rules of thumb that have evolved to serve our need to make decisions in

complex and uncertain environments”. By relying on general beliefs, values, or social

norms about the right thing to do in different situations, people may not always behave

optimally, but they do save on the costs of obtaining information they need to always

behave optimally (Alesina et al., 2015).

Literature review

36

However, the definition to which we tend is that of respected anthropologist (like

Hofstede et al., 2010 and Besley and Persson, 2017) who describe culture as the deepest

underlying values shared by the members of an organization. Indeed, in our study the

focus is on organizational culture, defined as the set of shared values and ideas valuable

to reach the common mission and objectives, which plays a key role for the company

success.

2.2.1 Organizational culture as a set of layers

Hofstede (2001) depicts culture as a set of layers with values at its core that are carried

out by collective activities called rituals which are embodied by cultural leaders called

heroes and promoted in characteristics such as words, objects or conditions summarized

as symbols. The rituals, heroes and symbols visible to outsiders are collectively called

practices. According to Hofstede, people correspond to different levels of culture on a

national, professional and organisational level. He regarded organizational culture as the

collection of values, beliefs and norms shared by its members and reflected in its practices

and goals.

Organizational culture has been analysed from numerous viewpoints (Smircich, 1983).

Organizational culture can be construed (livari and Huisman 2007; J. livari and N. livari

2011) to cover almost everything in an organization: basic assumptions and beliefs, values,

models of behaviour, rituals, practices, symbols, heroes, artefacts, and technology

(Gagliardi 1986; Hofstede et al. 1991; Schein 1985). Therefore, it is understandable that it

has several interpretations (Allaire and Firsiroru 1984; Czarniawska-Joerges 1992; Leidner

and Kayworth 2006; Smircich 1983). Although those differences, it seems that important

researchers (Hofstede et al. 1991; Schein 1985) agree that organizational culture includes

several levels with a varying degree of awareness on the part of the culture-bearers.

In particular, organizational culture (Schein, 1985) has three main levels. The deepest level

concerns what people give for granted, without being aware of them, i.e. patterns of basic

assumptions. The middle level is related to values and beliefs, concerning what “ought”

to be done. While the surface level covers the visible and audible patterns of the culture.

The Competing Values Model (Quinn and Rohrbaugh 1983; Denison and Spreitzer 1991;

Quinn et al., 2011), presented in the next paragraph, specifically focuses on the

Literature review

37

organizational values, which represent the intermediate level of the organizational culture

(Schein, 1985).

2.2.2 Competing Values Framework

The competing values Framework, named also as Quinn and Rohrbaugh model, thanks to

its main developers, was born in the 80’s in order to predict if an organization performs

effectively. Its robustness enabled a wide usage of the framework to understand and

classify a plethora of organizational phenomena, from the individual level to the company

level, passing through teams and department layers. Its adoption affected, obviously, the

understanding of organizational effectiveness but also of organizational culture or how to

tend to a different organizational culture so of organizational design, of leadership roles

and competencies, of stages of life cycle development, etc.

Their empirical studies and statistical analysis

showed two major dimensions around which is

possible to classify organizational culture. One

axis differentiates flexibility, versatility and

dynamism from stability, control and steadiness;

while the second dimension puts at odds an

internal focus to the organization, so on values

like collaboration and harmonious relationships,

and an external focus to the organization, so on

values like competition and differentiation.

As it shown in figure 5 above, the intersection between the axis forms four quadrants,

each one representing a different subculture, with its related competing opposite

(Cameron and Quinn, 2011):

• Clan or group culture is characterized by internal focus and flexibility. The primary

focus of a group culture is on the wellbeing of its employees and on human

relations, rather than on the measures of financial performance (Quinn and

Rohrbaugh, 1983) so that employees can see the organization as an extended

family. The environment is managed through team cooperation and employee

empowerment and customers are considered as partners. It fosters trust between

Figure 5: Competing values Space

Literature review

38

employees leveraging on participation, collaboration and individual commitment.

Top management, celebrating teams’ success, makes employees proud and loyal

to the organization;

• Adhocracy or developmental culture lies at the intersection of external focus and

a flexible organizational structure. It enables organizations to operate in hyper-

turbulent market conditions (Cameron & Quinn, 2011), hence the focus is on

enabling entrepreneurship and experimentation, in viewing failures as learning

opportunities, so on creativity, autonomy and risk taking. But in order to survive

to a fast-changing market, this culture manifests adaptability and responsiveness

in finding new growth opportunities by acquiring new resources or by exploiting

customer feedbacks in order to improve current products or to elicit new ideas;

• Hierarchic culture comes from stable organizational structure and internal focus.

It enforces rules and deals with productivity and achievement of well-defined

objectives. It is characterized by standardized procedures to increase “the

regularity and consistency of outcomes” (Cameron & Quinn, 2011), putting high

value on economy and obedience to laws in order to settle overall stability. The

general aim is to establish uniformity across the internal affairs of the organization

formalizing relationships, emphasizing on the task rather than on the individual. It

fit with stable environments where it is possible to control and coordinate

products and services but also workers and their job. Indeed, the focus is also on

specialization, meritocracy, separate ownership and accountability;

• Market or rational culture is the product of the intersection between external

focus and stability. Great emphasis is put on controlling the proper fulfilment of

defined objectives. Here, strategies and actions address coordination,

productivity, internal efficiency, adherence to rules after having inspected the

external market in which the organization operates in order to maximise profits.

Being customers interested only on the value, the organization try to improve it

by leveraging on very results oriented, perfectionists, aggressive and competitive

employees.

Literature review

39

2.2.2.1 OCAI

Cameron and Quinn (2011), starting from this framework, created a tool called

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI). It can be employed for several

ends, like the assessment or mapping of the current subculture within the organization

under scrutiny, to identify the discrepancy with the subculture to which the organization

is willing to tend or to label leader’s role, strategy quality, level of effectiveness needed.

Hence, its results can be a key starting point for organizational cultural transformation.

Those valuations are made around the concepts of organizational adhesives, patterns of

interaction with employees and organization purposes through six fundamental

dimensions for defining organizational culture:

1. Dominant characteristic;

2. Organizational leadership;

3. Management of employees;

4. Organizational glue;

5. Strategic emphasis;

6. Criteria of success.

Informants are called to distribute 100

points among four options presented

for each of the six sections, in function

of the extent to which the alternative is

similar to the organization. Then, OCAI

scores are averaged: for each of the

four choices, points are summarized

and then divided by 6 in order to be

plotted in the OCAI space, figure 6

aside.

The following tables (10-13), adapted from Cameron and Quinn (2011), presents the

explanation of the statements/options associated to the previous six dimensions for each

of the four subcultures:

Figure 6: OCAI space

Literature review

40

CLAN CULTURE

Dominant

characteristic

The organization is a very personal place. It is like an extended family. People

seem to share a lot of themselves.

Organizational

leadership

The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify

mentoring, facilitating, or nurturing.

Management

of employees

The management style in the organization is characterized by teamwork,

consensus, and participation.

Organizational

glue

The glue that holds the organization together is loyalty and mutual trust.

Commitment to this organization runs high.

Strategic

emphasis

The organization emphasizes human development. High trust, openness and

participation persist.

Criteria of

success

The organization defines success on the basis of the development of human

resources, teamwork, employee commitment, and concern for people.

Table 10: Clan culture characteristics

ADHOCRACY CULTURE

Dominant

characteristic

The organization is a very dynamic and entrepreneurial place. People are

willing to stick their necks out and take risks.

Organizational

leadership

The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify

entrepreneurship, innovating, or risk taking.

Management

of employees.

The management style in the organization is characterized by individual risk-

taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness.

Organizational

glue

The glue that holds the organization together is commitment to innovation

and development. There is an emphasis on being on the cutting edge.

Strategic

emphasis

The organization emphasizes acquiring new resources and creating new

challenges. Trying new things and prospecting for opportunities are valued.

Criteria of

success

The organization defines success on the basis of having the most unique or

newest products. It is a product leader and innovator.

Table 11: Adhocracy culture characteristics

Literature review

41

HIERARCHICAL CULTURE

Dominant

characteristic

The organization is a very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures

generally govern what people do.

Organizational

leadership

The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify

coordinating, organizing, or smooth-running efficiency.

Management

of employees

The management style in the organization is characterized by security of

employment, conformity, predictability, and stability in relationships.

Organizational

glue

The glue that holds the organization together is formal rules and policies.

Maintaining a smooth-running organization is important.

Strategic

emphasis

The organization emphasizes permanence and stability. Efficiency, control,

and smooth operations are important.

Criteria of

success

The organization defines success on efficiency. Dependable delivery, smooth

scheduling, and controlling costs are critical.

Table 12: Hierarchical culture characteristics

MARKET CULTURE

Dominant

characteristic

The organization is a very result oriented. A major concern is with getting the

job done. People are very competitive and achievement oriented.

Organizational

leadership

The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify a no-

nonsense, aggressive, results-oriented focus.

Management

of employees

The management style in the organization is characterized by hard-driving

competitiveness, high demands, and achievement.

Organizational

glue

The glue that holds the organization together is the emphasis on

achievement and goal accomplishment. Aggressiveness and winning are

common themes.

Strategic

emphasis

The organization emphasizes competitive actions and achievement. Hitting

stretch targets and winning in the marketplace are dominant.

Criteria of

success

The organization defines success on the basis of winning in the marketplace

and outpacing the competition. Competitive market leadership is the key.

Table 13: Market culture characteristics

Literature review

42

Despite the Framework differentiates four different subcultures with very different

peculiarities, it is not possible to find an organization that is depicted by only one value

system. Therefore, the expected output is likely a combination of the four, marked by a

dominance of one over the others (Quinn et al., 2011).

Moreover, as suggested by the framework name “competing”, it is likely to find

contradictory, mutually exclusive elements that are present and operate equally at the

same time, so paradoxes (Cameron, 1986). So, the model helps analysts think of criteria

as competing rather than as compatible and congruent. The attribute is characterized as

follows: “Organizational effectiveness is inherently paradoxical. To be effective, an

organization must possess attributes that are simultaneously contradictory, even

mutually exclusive” (Cameron, 1986).

Literature review

43

2.3 Agile and culture

Every year, VersionOne, publish a report, called “annual state of agile report” giving to

agilists results about their Agile survey, providing deep insight into agile trends, best

practices and lessons learned to help them succeed. This annually published report gained

great attention because it is the largest and longest-running survey about the agile world.

The 12th state of agile report highlights the following interesting trend among its surveys

across the globe: “organizational culture stands out as a critical factor in the success of

adopting and scaling agile. The three most significant challenges to agile adoption and

scaling are reported as organizational culture at odds with agile values (53%), General

organizational resistance to change (46%), and Inadequate management support and

sponsorship (42%). Internal agile coaches (53%), consistent practices and processes across

teams (43%), and the implementation of a common tool across teams (41%) are the top

three factors reported to have been most helpful in scaling agile. These underscore the

importance of a culture of excellence and alignment.”

Likewise, the 13th annual state of agile report confirm that organizational culture still

matters: “the survey responses indicate that organization cultural issues remain the

leading impediments to adopting and scaling agile. General resistance to change,

inadequate management support and sponsorship, and organizational culture that is at

odds with agile values rank as the top three challenges.”

As it is shown in the previous paragraph, organizational culture is a peculiar concept

because of its multiplicity of definitions and interpretations whose scope can cover

everything from a basic set of values to all components of an organization (Schein, 1985;

Hofstede et al., 1990; Keesing and Stratherns, 1998). For this reason, it is as well

complicated to find in literature a shared understanding of what agile culture is. As a

consequence, researchers put their efforts on proposing the ideal agile culture, which

tends to be people-centered and collaborative (Cockburn and Highsmith, 2001; Nerur et

al., 2005), democratic (Siakas and Siakas, 2007), less formalized and non-hierarchical

(Strode et al., 2009), and has an appropriate reward system (Derby, 2006).

Some of them tried to conceptualize the agile culture by investigating the characteristics

of organizational culture using agile methods (Wendorff, 2002; Robinson and Sharp, 2005;

Literature review

44

Siakas and Siakas, 2007; Strode et al., 2009; Tolfo et al., 2011; Iivari, 2011; Othman et al.,

2016). The most popular research methods adopted in order to define agile

methodologies culture are Schein’s (1985) model, Hofstede’s (1991) culture dimensions

and the Competing Values Model (Quinn et al. 2011, Denison and Spreitzer, 1991).

However, the majority of them focused only on the Extreme Programming methodology.

In particular, Schein (1985), identifies three distinct levels in organizational culture: visible

artefacts, espoused values, and basic underlying assumptions. Moreover, he defines

organizational culture as “a pattern of shared basic assumptions that a group learned by

solving its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and which has

worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, worth of being taught to new

members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel about those problems”. Tolfo et

al. (2011) visualized the organizational culture through the three levels proposed by

Schein showing that the perception of cultural levels can make the cultural analysis more

effective while adopting an agile method since it is an important complement to a more

critical approach. So, they identify a number of favorable and unfavorable aspects in

relation to XP adoption. Thanks to this he affirms that an agile culture is founded on a set

of basic presuppositions similar to the agile principles. Those presuppositions are the

foundation for shared values that allow the establishment of the agile philosophy, and

because of that, the practices and technology used by each agile method represent only

manifestations of the agile culture, or the top of the iceberg, that is, its visible artifacts

(Tolfo et al., 2011).

Recalling the Anthony’s pyramid (1965) of information system structure it is worth noting

that organizational culture includes the strategic context, and not only the tactical and

operational ones. At the strategic level there may be stakeholders (like managers, board

of directors, investors, and even the company’s customers) who may have their own

principles and values, which create obstacles for the adoption of an agile method. So, it is

likely that upper and lower levels share different values and principles, because, for

instance, motivations of a company sponsor, client or director may be different from the

ones of a developer or a Scrum master (Tolfo et al., 2011). From this research, two key

remarks for our study emerge: agile values and principles must be widespread in all the

levels, and not present only in the tactical and operational level of the company;

Literature review

45

motivations and values of upper and lower levels may be different, so it is important to

take information only from one organization level.

Instead, Siakas and Siakas (2007) exploited two dimensions of the Hofstede’s model,

uncertainty avoidance and power distance and built four culture types labelled as clan,

democratic, hierarchical and disciplined in order to understand which quadrant(s) better

advocate agile culture related to the Extreme Programming methodology. Their findings

assessed that a low degree of the two dimensions best promotes an “agile professional

culture” due to a horizontal hierarchy and an emphasis on flexibility and spontaneity

bringing the democratic culture type as the most suitable one.

Many researchers used the Competing Values Model introduced by Quinn and Rorbaugh

(1983) and later adopted by Denison and Spreitzler (1991) trying to distinguish the four

organizational culture types affecting the unit of analysis under investigation: group

culture, developmental culture, hierarchical culture and rational culture.

In his multi-case study based on nine projects, Strode et al. (2009) found a statistically

significant correlation between twenty-four organizational culture factors (adapted from

the Competing Values Model) and the weighted sum of XP technique usage. The

spearman correlations coefficients show most consistently significant associations with

the group culture and more weakly with the developmental culture of the organization.

Indeed, those are the findings: the organization values feedback and learning; social

interaction in the organization is trustful, collaborative, and competent; the project

manager acts as a facilitator; the management style is that of leadership and

collaboration; the organization values that teamwork is flexible, participative and

encourages social interaction; the organization enables empowerment of people; the

organization is results oriented; leadership in the organization is entrepreneurial,

innovative, and risk-taker; and the organization is based on loyalty, mutual trust and

commitment (Strode et al., 2009).

Relying on the same framework as a theoretical model of organizational culture and

identifying a number of hypotheses connected to the relationship between organizational

culture and agile method deployment, Iivari and Iivari (2011), following Iivari and Huisman

(2007), assert that is not possible to allocate agile methods (Scrum and XP) only to one

Literature review

46

cultural type, instead they are reflected as a reasonable balance between the opposite

polarities. They point out that the CVF have been applied in their work as a quantitative,

nomothetic research into organizational culture, while the majority of organizational

culture studies are qualitative and idiographic (Iivari and Iivari, 2011). For example, some

implications found after having tested their thirteen hypotheses: agile methods are most

incompatible with the hierarchical culture orientation; there may be a paradox between

the hierarchical culture and the developmental culture, if the goal is faithful enactment of

methods; when compared with ad hoc development, each culture orientation favors agile

methods but only up to some point in the case of rational, group, and development

culture orientations; the more formalized an agile method becomes, the sooner it will be

considered dysfunctional in organizations with strong developmental culture.

More recently, Othman (2016) analyzed five cases against the implications of the CVM

and supported the Iivari and Iivari (2011) findings by suggesting that the group culture,

the culture of development and rational culture promote the acceptance of the agile

methodology, while the hierarchical culture hinders the acceptance.

The most recent paper using the CVF, written by Gupta et. al (2019), is positioned in a

different wave of analysis methodology. Because he used a stream of literature as a

theoretical basis that categorize agile methodologies into social and technical practices

(Corvera et al., 2013; Ozcan-Top et al., 2013; Hummel et al.2015; Diegmann et al., 2016;)

that now has achieved consensus among the scholars. The social practices are related to

the interaction between team members, so the focus is on social behaviours,

collaboration, participation, free flow of information and direct communication. Examples

of those practices are daily stand ups and retrospective meetings, since they enable

employees at different levels and in different roles to voice their concerns and suggest

improvements in the development cycle. instead, the technical practices refer to the

coding/testing-oriented software engineering practices, like “unit-testing, “Pair-

programming”, “Refactoring” (Beck, 2000; Gupta et al., 2019).

In the Gupta et al. (2019) respondents were called to classify nine practices into social or

technical. Then, they were asked to answer to a questionnaire (179 valid answers) based

on a Likert scale. Results have been obtained through well-established measures from the

extant literature. The four CVM cultural constructs were measured using the scales

Literature review

47

proposed by Iivari and Huisman (2007). IT department’s usage of technical agile practices

were measured with scales proposed by Maruping et al. (2009), while social agile practices

construct was measured using the scales suggested by So and Scholl (2009). Then they

have been evaluated exploiting two statistical tools. The findings are the following:

hierarchical culture will have a negative impact on social agile practices usage. Hierarchical

culture will have a negative impact on technical agile practices usage. Rational culture will

have a positive impact on social agile practices usage. Rational culture will have a negative

impact on technical agile practices usage. Group culture will have a positive impact on

social agile practices usage. Group culture will have a positive impact on technical agile

practices usage. Developmental culture will have a positive impact on social agile practices

usage. Developmental culture will have a positive impact on technical agile practices

usage.

Literature review

48

2.4 Gap analysis and research questions

Being the concepts of agile and organizational culture rich in meanings and usages: As it

is shown in the previous paragraph “agile and culture”, important considerations have

been made regarding the relation between these two concepts, but there is still room for

different kind of studies around the correlation between them.

Important gaps have been found in the literature, which will help us to increase the

importance of both the research made and the results found.

The first gap regards the agile methodology taken into consideration: researches from

literature study the correlation between culture and Extreme Programming methodology.

For example, Gupta et al. (2019) demand “How does IT department culture affect the use

of social and technical agile practices?” and from their literature analysis emerge that a

number of other studies (e.g., Iivari & Iivari, 2011; Nerur et al., 2005; Robinson & Sharp,

2005a; Siakas & Siakas, 2007; Strode et al., 2009; Tolfo & Wazlawick, 2008) have also

proposed the influence of culture on the usage of agile software development practices.

Our research, instead, focuses on Scrum methodology: even if the agile principles may be

the same, social and technical agile practices may differ. For this reason, our research will

be allocated in stream of literature that differentiates social from technical agile practices:

in particular, the focus will be exclusive to the social agile practices.

Another important gap is related to the different subject of the study: Researches from

literature build their question giving for granted that it is the culture of the entire

department that affects the usage of agile methodologies. Our research instead would

like to find evidences that is the agile methodology to have an impact over the teams’

culture.

A consideration should be also made on the unit of the analysis: the researches we

highlighted in literature have a macro-view on the entire IT department culture and not

on the specific part of the department that uses agile methodologies.

Moreover, the interviewee has an important role in this: quantitative researches used in

literature don’t create a distinction between the responses of employees (with an internal

Point of View of the team) and managers (with an external Point of view of the team). We

Literature review

49

believe, as affirmed by Tolfo et al., (2011), that alongside the Anthony’s pyramid (1965)

values, objectives and motivation differ and may be in conflict. Studying the IT department

in its entirety can give, from one side, a weighted gross view of the common sense of the

organizational unit, but, on the other side, can give results susceptible to interference

because of the different values that affect people playing different roles at different

hierarchical level. So, our research would like to focus only on the “agile part” of the firm,

using the internal point of view of the team.

The last gap found regards the geographical context: researches from literature are

performed on limited geographical contexts; there aren’t researches that conduct this

kind of study in the Italian one.

Thanks to these relevant gaps between literature and our research, we have been able to

formulate two research questions for this study:

• Considering cross functional teams using Scrum methodology, are there any

recurrent cultural values enabled?

• How does Scrum methodology enable those specific set of cultural values?

Literature review

50

2.5 Research framework

In order to find recurrent cultural patterns (answer to the first research question), we

defined the following set of cultural variables to be investigated; all of them have been

taken from Cameron and Quinn (2011). In particular, the variables are six and their

translation is different according to the four different subcultures (in order: clan,

adhocracy, hierarchical and market). Our investigation considers the mix of the four

different definitions for each of the six variables.

Cultural variables investigated

Definition

Dominant characteristic The overall organization mindset:

• Like an extended family;

• Entrepreneurial;

• Formal;

• Result oriented.

Organizational leadership

The leadership style:

• Exemplify mentoring and facilitating;

• Exemplify innovation;

• Exemplify coordinating;

• Exemplify aggressive results-oriented focus.

Management of employees

How employees are treated in the organization:

• Fostering teamwork and consensus;

• Encouraged to take risks;

• Maintaining stability of relationships;

• Inflaming competitiveness.

Organizational glue The bonding mechanisms between employees:

• Loyalty to the organization and mutual trust;

• Being on the cutting edge;

• Formal rules and policies;

• achievement and goal accomplishment.

Strategic emphasis The areas that drive strategic goals:

• Human development and participation;

• Prospecting new opportunities;

• Permanence and control;

• Win the marketplace.

Success factor What is rewarded within the organization:

• Human and team growth;

• Having the newest and unique product;

• Efficiency;

• Outpace competition.

Table 14: Cultural variables

Literature review

51

Then, in order to understand how the scrum methodology enables those specific set of

cultural value (so to answer to the second research question), two steps are needed:

The first step is a further investigation on how agile practitioners portray all the scrum

values. It is performed by exploiting the following table of scrum values, scrum pillars,

scrum maturity (all taken from the Scrum guide of Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland,

2017) and three key lean principles (i.e.: Waste reduction (Dahlgaard et al.,2006);

Customer centricity (Evans et al., 2005); Continuous improvement (P. Brunet et al.,

2003).);

Scrum variables investigated

Definition

Commitment People personally commit to achieving the goals of the Scrum

Team.

Focus Everyone focuses on the work of the Sprint and the goals of the

Scrum Team.

Courage Scrum Team members have courage to do the right thing and

work on tough problems.

Openness The Scrum Team and its stakeholders agree to be open about

all the work and the challenges with performing the work.

Respect Scrum Team members respect each other to be capable,

independent people.

Transparency Significant aspects of the process must be visible to those

responsible for the outcome. Observers should share a

common understanding of what is being seen.

Adaptation If a process deviates outside acceptable limits, the process or

the material being processed must be adjusted as soon as

possible to minimize further deviation.

Self-organization Self-organizing teams choose how best to accomplish their

work, rather than being directed by others outside the team.

Cross-functionality Cross-functional teams have all competencies needed to

accomplish the work without depending on others that are not

part of the team.

Customer centricity Identification of critical-to-quality (CTQ) characteristics that are

vital to customer satisfaction.

Continuous improvement Continuous improvement: pervasive and continual activities

performed to identify and achieve outcomes that can

contribute to the organisational goals.

Waste reduction The excess resources used compared with perfection;

everything that increases cost without adding value for the

customer.

Table 15: Scrum variables

Literature review

52

The second step, instead, consists in finding possible correlations between the Scrum

table and the cultural one. So, our aim is to find how scrum values shape the six

dimensions, which consequently lead to the mix of subcultures.

Scrum Values

Commitment

Focus

Courage

Openness

Respect

Transparency

Adaptation

Self-organization

Cross-functionality

Customer centricity

Continuous improvement

Waste reduction Subcultures

Clan culture

Adhocracy culture

Hierarchical culture

Market culture

Dimensions

Dominant characteristic

Organizational leadership

Management of employees

Organizational glue

Strategic emphasis

Success factor

Shape

Lead to

Figure 7: Research framework

Methodology

53

3 Methodology

It is important to examine all the literature in the most neutral way in order to avoid

ignoring possible future conflicting findings, as confidence in the findings would be

reduced. For example, readers may assume that the results are incorrect (a challenge to

internal validity), or if correct, are idiosyncratic to the specific cases of the study (a

challenge to generalizability) (Eisenhardt, 1989).

As emerged from the previous section, agile project management is continuously

acquiring attention and investments from many digital-driven companies (VersionOne,

2018) because of their willingness to enhance software product quality, increase

productivity, and reduce the cycle time for product development (Huang et al. 2010). This

gave to agile project management the status of one of the most impacting digital trends

of those decades (Dingsøyr et al., 2012; VersionOne, 2012). However, Fruhling and Tarrell

(2008) state that organizational culture and team members mindset are among the most

important aspects affecting success of agile projects. So, as explained by the gap analysis

and being the phenomenon relatively recent, empirical studies investigating this

circumstance are scarce.

3.1 Methods and process

Consequently, as suggested by Yin (1984, p.23), we decided to carry out the research as

an exploratory multiple case-study, where multiple sources of evidence are used.

Because, still according to Yin (2017), a case study is an “empirical inquiry that investigates

a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between

phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of

evidence are used”. In particular, an exploratory case study can be applied any time to a

given phenomenon observable in the field that is new and mostly unknown, and when

there is a lack of theories to formulate hypotheses ex ante the investigation. Therefore, a

case where the phenomenon of interest can be observed is selected, and field work and

data collection are undertaken prior to the final definition of study questions and

hypotheses, since the major features of the case are uncertain.

Methodology

54

For this reason, we decided to provide a robust structure to our research design, that can

be summarized in the following schema:

Figure 8: Research schema

Methodology

55

Even though exploratory cases should start with little or no theory under consideration

and no hypotheses to test, as Kathleen Eisenhardt wrote in her 1989 piece on building

theories from case study research, it is virtually impossible to begin researching with a

fully “clear theoretical slate”. Indeed, we started having in mind what agile methodologies

are and whether organizational culture might be a success driver, as well as possible

approaches to go through them. So, we selected the theoretical lenses of the Competing

Values Framework and the agile development philosophy as a starting point, but such

theory solely served to define a sufficiently broad research question, a sketched

questionnaire and some sample characteristics (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt and

Graebner, 2007).

3.1.1 Preliminary exploration

However, before building the sample, we needed to check whether the research question

could engender valuable insights via the pre-set of questions and, above all, how to

extract relevant information from the unit of analysis.

So, we established to benefit of a preliminary exploration, not as a case study of its own,

but as a trigger for our multiple case study by exploiting the experience and the role of a

very subject expert, i.e. head of agile software centre, of an innovative and mature

company in mastering the methodology. Through this informant we have been able, first,

to test the clarity and validity of the questions but, above all, our decisions concerning the

case design. Even though we understood that there was room for deeper investigation

and discussion, we realized that the point of view of a top manager has a direct lack over

team’s dynamics. As a support to this, following Kunda (1992) and Tolfo et al., (2011), it

would be better not mixing outcomes of people covering roles at the strategic and the

operational level, because of their different perception of goals and their different beliefs

and values; in particular, it would be better to avoid the association of the current culture

with the managers' view of the desirable culture to be imposed on the department. This

ideology may differ radically from the organizational culture perceived by others (Kunda

1992).

Methodology

56

Therefore, two main takeovers came from this interview:

1. the SCRUM methodology is the agile practice to be investigated because it is the

most widely adopted, as it is also confirmed by scholars (Dingsøyr et al., 2012;

VersionOne, 2012);

2. the informants must be qualified as Scrum Masters, since they are those

methodology facilitators with a constant and direct contact with the teams, its

members, its objectives and its dynamics, but above all they are those figures

intended to foster and strengthen teams’ values. Thereby, its point of view will

allow us not to mix point of views from strategic and operational level.

Thus, this permitted to sharpen the research questions and to define the unit of analysis.

Indeed, our study aims at researching recurrent sets of cultural patterns, according to the

Competing Values Framework, of cross-functional teams in medium-large technology

intensive companies that deploy properly the Scrum methodology. Furthermore, it aims

at understanding how the Scrum methodology enables those specific sets of recurrent

cultural values.

As it is clear from the above research questions, cross-functional teams are identified as

the main object under scrutiny, i.e. the unit of analysis, located in medium-large

companies proficient in following the Scrum methodology, i.e. the context.

Cross-functional teams have all competencies needed to accomplish the work

autonomously, without the need of external competences to the team. The team model

in Scrum is designed to optimize flexibility, creativity, and productivity (Ken Schwaber and

Jeff Sutherland, 2017) if the methodology is correctly followed. Moreover, including more

than one context to be analysed and compared, i.e. the companies, our research can be

classified as a multiple-case study, despite that all the firms come from the technology

intensive context.

Thus, after the preliminary exploration, we defined that the focus had to be on teams by

inspecting Scrum masters’ standpoints via the usage of the Competing Values Model as

framework, to analyse internal dynamics and enabled values by a reasonable use of the

Scrum methodology.

Methodology

57

Further than this, the application of theories and standards, such as the Competing Values

Model (Quinn et al., 2011) and The Scrum Guide (Schwaber et al., 2017), to support the

definition of coding variables to be studied and interpreted, have enriched the study also

with a descriptive setup.

Once the unit of analysis and the methodological approaches are defined, another major

methodological point has arisen, regarding how cases have been selected.

3.2 Empirical setting

The cases sampling technique adopted is the so called “empirical sampling” (Eisenhardt,

1989). It entails choosing targeted cases or situations, using the rationale of

representative or typical cases for the phenomenon we want to investigate. These ad-hoc

situations refer to successful cases, namely those Scrum projects that have been

conducted following properly the methodology, its events and artefacts. Moreover,

considerations should be made also on the timeframe that elapses between the beginning

of its adoption and the instant in which the interview has been performed. In particular,

it is important to select medium to large companies because, as also stated by Smirchic

and Gregory (1983), “large organizations tend to develop a number of subcultures”. Being

interested in understanding how the Scrum methodology empowers sets of cultural

values, peculiar to the subcultures defined in the Competing Values Framework, it is

important to “filter” companies according to a certain degree of expertise in using this

methodology. Therefore, for our research, we looked for medium to large companies with

a discreet level of Scrum maturity.

Successful cases have been found, above all, in medium-large organizations established

in the technology intensive context in the Milan metropolitan area: this specific

geographical area has been selected as representative of the Italian agile context, because

most of the companies that respect our selection criteria are located in this region.

Exploratory researches, generally, use a sampling class, called “non-probability sampling”

that can be distinguished in “judgement sampling”, “convenience sampling” or “quota

sampling” (Strauss and Corbin, 1997) because of the complexity in reaching the selected

segment of population (Henry, 1990). In particular, we implemented the “convenience

sampling” technique, since we developed our selection process according the criteria of

Methodology

58

time, cost and easiness of reach. The potential pool of participants has been identified

exploiting, most of all, the LinkedIn social media, looking for workers that are currently

employed as Scrum masters, dedicated to cross functional teams and available to perform

the interview, in the Milan metropolitan area.

3.2.1 Cases

Some researchers and reviewers, like Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (1984), consider a

multiple case study as providing more robust results and compelling arguments. This is

due to the fact that such approach possibly reinforces the generalization of results, while

enabling a comparative analysis of findings, due to the potential presence of emblematic,

patterned, polar types, or niche situations within the sample. In order to select cases for

our multiple case study, we opted for the heterogeneity procedure: following this

approach, we aim at including a variety of cases, since we would like to identify and

compare different cultural mindsets related to the same phenomenon. So, the industry

diversity does not impact on the results, as all the cases are taken from technology

intensive context, rather it is the enabler for a deeper cross-case discussion.

Hereunder, table 16 presents a screenshot of the companies included in our sample: in

particular, the alias associated to the belonging industry as a practical way to label them

since we were not allowed to use all their names; number of employees and net income

to testify the medium-large size of the companies; the number of years spent using the

agile methodology, instead, disprove the novelty of implementation of the agile

methodology inside the firms.

Table 16: Cases included in the sample

Case name and industry

Number of employees (2018)

NI in €M (2018)

Number Agile Teams

Scrum Master

Scrum Master dedicated

Years in Agile

(T&D) Telco & digital

91980 2788 46 Internal Partially 2

(T&I) Telco & Infrastructure

103083 -549 6 External Generally, fully

3

E-commerce 123283 1419 30 External Partially 3

Energy 5372 54 6 Internal Fully 2

Pharmaceutical 354000 4559 9 External Fully 5

Methodology

59

Table 17 instead supports the informant’s validation: the role demonstrates that each

informant can be classified as “Scrum master”; years spent using the Scrum methodology

shows that each informant had enough time to develop and interiorize the values

connected to the Scrum methodology.

Case name Role Years in Scrum

T&D junior Scrum master 2

T&D senior Scrum master 3

T&I junior Agile coach and Scrum master 4

T&I senior Agile leader and Senior Scrum Master 9

E-commerce Professional Scrum Master 2

Energy Scrum master and Digital demand manager 3

Pharmaceutical Chief Scrum Master 4

Table 17: Informants characteristics

To reinforce the robustness of our research, we included both the embedded and the

holistic approaches: in particular, we firstly implemented the embedded one, focusing on

multiple units of analysis at the same time inside one company (Yin, 2017), in order to

understand if different Scrum masters enable different cultural values inside the same

organization. As described in table 17, four interviews have been made using this

approach, focusing on two firms that work in adjacent industries (i.e.

Telecommunication).

Then, the holistic approach has been exploited: considering a single unit of analysis for

each context analysed (Yin, 2017), each one working in a different industry. This method

enabled a broader view, independently from the industry, which gave the possibility to

focus on the peculiarities of the scrum masters and how these peculiarities can affect the

different subcultures of the agile team.

Methodology

60

In the next section, a brief description of the companies taken into consideration for our

researches will be performed.

3.2.2 Embedded approach cases

3.2.2.1 T&D case

The T&D case is a British multinational telecommunications conglomerate with

headquarters in London, leader in technology communications through mobile, fixed,

broadband and TV, with an extensive experience in connectivity, convergence and the

Internet of Things, as well as championing mobile financial services and digital

transformation in emerging markets. Launched in 1985, the company has grown into an

international business and one of the most valuable brands in the world. It predominantly

operates services in the regions of Asia, Africa, Europe, and Oceania: in particular, it has

mobile operations in 24 countries, with approximately 640 million mobile customers, 21

million fixed broadband customers and 14 million TV customers. In November 2017, the

organization began a process of transformation, moving from a traditional functional-

structured company to an agile organization, formed by six tribes, that incorporates all

the necessary functions for a high level of customer-centricity, and a total of 45 agile

teams.

3.2.2.2 T&I case

The T&I case represents a European telecommunication company, born in 1865, famous

for the rapid success in the mobile phone sector that allowed it to become by 1998 the

best-selling mobile phone brand in the world. The 2015 acquisition of a Franco-American

telecommunications equipment provider greatly broadened the scope of the portfolio

and customer base. Additional acquisitions have positioned the firm to be an industry

leader in the transition to 5G wireless technology by offering the only end-to-end 5G

network portfolio available on a global basis.

Company’s scope is to develop and deliver the industry's only end-to-end portfolio of

network equipment, software, services and licensing that is available globally. Its

customers include service providers whose combined networks support 6.1 billion

Methodology

61

subscriptions, as well as enterprises in the private and public sector that use its network

portfolio to increase productivity and enrich lives.

Competing in a highly competitive industry, the company saw the possibility to offer a full-

taylorization of their products as a competitive advantage: this is why in 2016 the R&D

department started the agile transformation. This new structure gave to the organization

the opportunity to involve more the customer in the development process and fully satisfy

customer’s requests regarding the product customization.

3.2.3 Holistic approach cases

3.2.3.1 E-commerce case

E-commerce case represents a European multinational clothing-retail company, born in

1947 and known for its fast-fashion clothing for men, women, teenagers and children. The

company and its associated companies operate in 62 countries, with over 4,500 stores.

The organization always pays attention to create a convenient and inspiring experience

for its customers, as the brand engages with customers in stores and online as well as in

social media and other creative places. Therefore, it is heavily investing to enrich the

shopping experience, both physical and digital. In particular, the agile transformation,

started at the beginning of 2017, has been necessary not only to promote continuous

improvements in the digital shopping experience, but also to answer with flexibility to

customers’ requests during particular periods of the year (black Friday, Christmas etc.).

3.2.3.2 Energy case

Established in 1884, it is the leading energy operator in Italy, as the biggest plants in the

country that use waterpower belong to this company. During its centenary history, the

firm contributed to Italy’s electrification and development. Today, it operates in Italy,

Europe and in the Mediterranean basin, employing 5,000 people. It is a leading player in

Italy and Europe in the procurement, production and sale of electricity, in the provision of

energy and environmental services. Its mission is to supply electricity, gas and energy and

environmental services to families and businesses through intelligent, competitive and

sustainable solutions.

Methodology

62

Two years ago, the IT department has been transformed in an agile structure, and six agile

teams have been created. The peculiarity of this case is that the agile part of the

organization is not involved in the core business of the company, but instead has as

“customer” the front-end departments of the organization. As a result, the agile

methodologies have been useful to show the continuous improvements in the work done

and deliver faster the digital infrastructure requested by the front-end departments of the

organization.

3.2.3.3 Pharmaceutical case

This case represents an American holding company that owns a number of

pharmaceutical manufacturing, wholesale, and distribution companies. The company was

formed on December 31, 2014, after different acquisitions of European pharmaceutical

companies. Nowadays, it is the largest retail pharmacy, health and daily living destination

across the U.S. and Europe, a global leader in retail and wholesale pharmacy.

The company is present in more than 25 countries and has one of the largest global

pharmaceutical wholesale and distribution networks, with more than 400 distribution

centres delivering to more than 240,000 pharmacies, doctors, health centres and

hospitals.

Company’s purpose is to help people across the world lead healthier and happier lives.

The agile transformation process began in 2014, starting from the IT department. After

one year of implementation, the company moved from one department to a full “agile

business”: scaling agility to the organization-level has been seen as company’s secret to

keep its position as one of the leaders in the market.

Methodology

63

3.3 Data Gathering

Assuming that people in organizations are “knowledgeable agents” (Gioia et al., 2013),

we tried not to create bias, influence or contaminate the informer’s voice by imposing

any preordained knowledge. So, our contribution focused into a transcription of the

informant’s experience. Moreover, with those intentions we developed and built our data

gathering and analysis process.

Consistently with the qualitative nature of case study as a research method, which broadly

aims at describing and interpreting human-related phenomena as well as in our study, the

main way to gather data and information is by means of interviews. We opted for face-

to-face, recorded, semi-structured interviews since they involve the implementation of a

number of predetermined questions used as an organized starting point to drive the

discussion, permitting the interviewer to probe beyond the answers to our prepared

questions, thus making additional points emerge.

Additionally, we followed a positivistic and functional research approach where we, as

interviewers, re-direct if needed the interviewee towards the study’s research questions

and propositions. In this way, we let results better adhere to our original research aim,

avoiding the risk to have misalignments in the topics discussed during the different

interviews.

More in depth, the interview is inspired by the literature and its structure is threefold:

• Scrum assessment: The Scrum Guide (Schwaber et al., 2017) gave us pivotal points

to test at different levels. Asking about the usage made and the timeframe of the

events (daily stand-ups, reviews, retrospectives), passing through the

interiorization of Agile pillars (individuals and interactions over processes and

tools; working software over comprehensive documentation; customer

collaboration over contract negotiation; responding to change over following a

plan) and Scrum pillars (transparency, adaptation, inspection) is aimed at assessing

whether the organization under scrutiny - Scrum master and its (their) team(s) -

follow a proper usage of the framework;

• Cultural discussion: then, starting from an already developed structured

questionnaire of the Competing Values Model (Quinn et al., 2011), especially used

Methodology

64

for quantitative purposes, we tried to restate it into qualitative questions. So, we

kept its six dimensions (dominant characteristics, organizational leadership,

management of employees, organizational glue, strategic emphasis, criteria of

success) and developed open questions clearly inspired by the quantitative ones,

without neglecting the main key words, such as risk taking, goal orientation,

human development, control. The main purpose of this part is to receive open and

qualitative answers, full of valuable insights, about the subculture(s) affecting the

team under scrutiny (hierarchical, clan, market or adhocracy culture);

• Scrum as enabler of the team culture: in the last part of the interview, our efforts

were addressed to understand how and if there is a relationship among the

previous two parts. Hence, we try to challenge the informants in order to find, if

they exist, connections between what affirmed in the second part and those

SCRUM values (commitment, focus, courage, openness and respect) that mostly

mark the team under investigation.

However, at the end of each interview we asked to fill the OCAI structured questionnaire

(Quinn 2011) in order to define analytically the cultural mix, by adapting his introductory

statement: “The following questionnaire consists in six sections. Each section has four

alternatives. Divide 100 points (for each section) among these four alternatives depending

on the extent to which this alternative is similar to your organization.” With organization

we mean the unit of analysis under investigation, i.e. the set of teams working with Scrum

in your company.

For the whole questionnaire see appendix A.

Before or during the interview, no preordained relationships with other theories or

approaches were exposed to the informant. The informants were only informed about

our general aim, we did not directly mention any approach or methodology neither before

nor during the interviews. Our aim was to leave them unaware of the actual purpose of

the study as any cue can lead to a bias in behaviour. In fact, the goal was to “generalize”

and not “particularize” the analysis, making it exploratory in nature. (Yin, 1984).

The use of multiple source of evidence is essential to make sure we provide evidence for

our statements stemming from a qualitative research process, the called “data

Methodology

65

triangulation” (Eisenhardt, 1989). Beyond interviews, i.e. our primary source of

information, there are two other data collection methods we intended to use for data

triangulation: our observation and secondary sources.

The first, consists in understanding the social context, how it influences individual

behaviours. Observation has been carried out through site visits as an outside observer,

paying attention most of all to dashboards and their use.

The latter refers to the use of archival data, such as pre-existing documents, photographs,

emails, audios, videos or other artefacts possibly embedding insightful information.

The following table, adapted from Clark, Gioia et al. (2010), shows the summary of our

data inventory:

DATA TYPE QUANTITY ORIGINAL

DATA

SOURCE

ORIGINAL

(INTENDED) DATA

AUDIENCE

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION:

SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW ON SITE

1 Sky - 1h:36m:49s Informants Analysis for this study

CASES:

SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS ON SITE

5 - 5hours, 46 minutes and 29 seconds

Pharmaceutical – 48m:24s; E-commerce - 1h:09m:17s; Energy – 1h:33m:18s; 2 T&I – 2h:15m:30s;

Informants Analysis for this study

CASES:

SEMI-STRUCTURED TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS

2 T&D – 2h:0m:30s

Senior – 39m:26s Junior – 1h:11m:4s

Informants Analysis for this study

STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE

7 OCAI questionnaires Informants Analysis for this study

ARCHIVAL RECORDS 40 (Informal E-mails, LinkedIn chat and MeetUp chat)

Informants and practitioners

Analysis for this study

EXTERNAL DOCUMENTS AND SOURCES

1 Agile business day video – T&D 1 blog, whoisagile MeetUp discussions

Informants, journalists, practitioners

Public

UNSTRUCTURED INTERVIEWS:

OFF OF RECORDS

13 private conversations Informants Analysis for this study

EVENTS 1 workshop – Scrum gamification Coaching agency

Agile practitioners

Table 18: Data inventory

Methodology

66

3.4 Data analysis

“Analysing data is the heart of building theory from case studies, but it is both the most

difficult and the least codified part of the process” (Yin, 1984).

The responses from the interviewees were recorded and fully transcribed. If any

information was still unclear and/or more data were needed, the informants were later

contacted to ask for clarification, via phone call, mail or LinkedIn chat.

Once the interviews have been transcribed, we started analysing their texts. The text

analysis process consists in the content analysis, which we performed according to the

aforementioned threefold structure of the questionnaire.

The assessment about the correct usage of the Scrum methodology has been performed

by classifying in tables the main characteristics of ceremonies, how teams are organized

and how they execute their routines.

The second part exploits the OCAI framework provided by Quinn (2011), in which we

asked to our informants to distribute 100 points, or to provide a priority order, among the

four possible answers associated to each of the six dimensions of the Competing values

model. In this way, we have obtained the subculture mix within a team and, if it exists,

the dominant culture.

The analysis of the last part, instead, has been performed through the so-called coding

and coding tree building, in order to create a visual instrument to understand patterns

and relations about how scrum values steer teams towards their dominant subculture.

Concerning coding, Strauss and Corbin (1997) define it as the analytic process of

examining data line by line or paragraph by paragraph for significant events, experiences,

feelings and so on, that are then denoted as concepts. A code is a label, a concept, a word

that signifies “what is going on in this piece of data” (Strauss et al., 1997).

In particular, we followed an inductive approach for each case study and its coding. The

starting points of this procedure are the research questions and the theory-based

elements of the study; theory hence serves to define the categories and codes to be used

Methodology

67

for data coding, so that the interpretation of the results will be made in the light of the

theory inductively selected. Such approach also influences the sequence found in the

coding tree, where the theory-derived variables and categories are supported by

empirical evidences (the codes) (Strauss and Corbin, 1997).

In practice, starting from our research questions – Considering cross functional teams

using scrum methodology, are there any recurrent cultural values enabled? How does

scrum methodology enable those specific set of cultural values? – and from the

theoretical basis of the Competing Values Model (Quinn et al., 2011) and of The Scrum

Guide (Schwaber et al., 2017) we have been able to define two coding trees as basis for a

first identification of the recurrent cultural patterns and consequently the possible Scrum

enablers. Hence, the first one includes cultural codes, while the second one is exclusive to

codes regarding the Scrum methodology.

The Cultural coding tree has been built following the coming steps:

1. The first level is filled with the

specific codes that strictly regards

culture: they have been built and

constructed by us with the aim of

generating valuable insights or,

whether they already stand for,

they are the “in vivo codes” (called

this way in Glaser and Strauss’

1967 work on Grounded Theory),

meaning the very words, i.e. the

quotes, used by participants during

the interviews;

2. The second level is composed by the six dimensions of the Competing Values

Framework, accompanied by a particular label provided by the OCAI framework in

order to create a distinction base on the four different subcultures;

3. The last order represents the four different subcultures defined by the Competing

Values literature: clan, market, adhocracy and hierarchical.

Codes from text or insight

CVF 6 dimensions

CVF subculture

1st order 2nd order 3rd order

Dominant characteristic

Leadership style

culture

Management of employees

Organizational glue

Strategic emphasis

Success factor

Table 19: Subcultures coding tree structure

Methodology

68

The Scrum Coding tree instead, has been structured as follows:

1. The first level is filled with the

codes that strictly regards the Scrum

values, Scrum pillars and particular

key principles of Lean management:

they follow the same structure

expressed in the cultural coding tree;

2. The second level is fulfilled

with the variables (i.e. focus,

commitment, etc.) defined as Scrum

values, Scrum pillars and Lean

principles;

3. The last order contains the

macro-groups mentioned before:

Scrum Values, Scrum pillars, Scrum

maturity and Lean principles.

For the all filled coding trees, see Appendix B.

Codes or insights

Values Overarching

1st order 2nd order 3rd order

Commitment

Scrum values

Courage

Openness

Focus

Respect

Adaptation

Scrum pillars

Transparency

Self-organization

Scrum maturity

Cross-functionality

Customer centricity

Lean principles

Continuous improvement

Waste reduction

Table 20: Scrum values coding tree structure

Results

69

4 Results

After coding the content of each case study, results have to be analysed and interpreted.

According to the methodology definition presented in section 3, both the questionnaire

and the data analysis process are characterized by a threefold structure. Consequently,

within results reflect this format for each case, indeed hereafter we present:

• A description of the case, focusing on team’s way of doing Scrum. Here, the

objective is to assess whether cases are relying on a correct usage of the Scrum

methodology. This evaluation is made considering how Scrum ceremonies are

carried out, how they are defined, their objective and structure; team’s main

characteristics, its way of working and executing routines;

• A discussion about the case cultural profile, starting from the OCAI representation

and passing through the cultural coding tree and informant’s quotes (labelled in

italic) - full coding trees in appendix B. -, we delineate its main characteristics,

considering the relevant subcultures associated for each of the six CVF dimension;

• The examination of the Scrum profile, exploiting the homonymous coding tree and

informant’s citations (labelled in italic), in order to gather insightful data regarding

the set of enabled scrum values.

To conclude the within cases results, we present a general overview about these inward

findings to start the last part, the cross-case discussion. In particular, there are:

• three key tables useful for assessing whether cases are relying on a correct usage

of the scrum methodology;

• Exploiting the OCAI framework provided by Quinn (2011):

o a table of the subculture mix of all the cases; it will be helpful for answering

to the first research question “Are there any recurrent cultural pattern?”;

o a representation of the dominant recurrent cultural pattern, so the answer

to the first research question.

• A summarization of the Scrum profile.

Then, at the end, we provide cross-case considerations, outlining the main findings found

about recurrent cultural patterns and their relations with the Scrum values taken into

consideration.

Results

70

4.1 Within findings: T&D case

4.1.1 Scrum execution description

The agile structure of the organization comprehends 46 agile teams, divided in six tribes,

and each tribe has its own product or client. In fact, they use a peculiar terminology: they

talk about products and not projects. Each team is composed up to ten employees, with

a very wide range of competences: developers, testers, experts with a high degree of

knowledge of the subject (the so called subject matter experts), UI/UX designers. The

Scrum master is internal and follows up to five teams, while instead the Product owner is

fully dedicated to the single agile squad. Scrum masters are under the Human Resource

function in order to sustain and guide the agile transformation, started in September

2017, in terms of way of working and mindset, so, with a focus on people.

Before each sprint, the sprint planning is performed, where the product owner defines

the Objective and Key results (OKRs), the KPIs to monitor and the meaning of “done”.

During the sprint, which lasts two weeks, all the ceremonies of SCRUM are respected: the

daily stand ups last 15 minutes, and every member of the team has to explain what he has

done the day before, what he is going to do that day and the possible impediments

encountered during his work, which will be eventually discussed later with the Scrum

master and the Product owner. The Sprint review occurs every two weeks, at the end of

each sprint: it is the moment where teams receive feedbacks from stakeholders and

celebrate for the work done. Right after the review, the Sprint retrospective gives the

opportunity to teams to discuss about the feedbacks received, what has been performed

properly and what can be improved. It is important to highlight that the scrum masters

always put efforts in adapting the ceremonies in order to facilitate the interaction

between team members.

The standard tool used in the organization is Jira, but each team has the opportunity to

use the tool that mostly suits their way of working: from our observation, we had the

opportunity to remark how, even if each team knows how to use Jira, they are free to use

other ways to work in team, from a structured dashboard to notes written on a

blackboard.

Results

71

Finally, due to the fact that Scrum masters are not fully dedicated to one team, there are

two different ways to prioritize their work:

• Business priority;

• Maturity of the teams in using the SCRUM methodology.

This distinction gave us the opportunity to analyse two different cases, according to the

different maturity of the teams. The first case (i.e. senior case) regards a team mature in

using the methodology, and so being fully self-organized on the ceremonies and on the

way of working, it has as success criteria the continuous improvement of efficiency, so

cost reduction, as well the monitoring of specific KPIs, like the Net Promoter Score or the

Click-through Rate; the other one (i.e. junior case), being less mature in the use of the

methodology, the scrum master must assure a sufficient level of self-organization of the

team, the continuous monitoring of the customer satisfaction and that the work made by

the team during each sprint satisfies the “done” criteria.

4.1.2 T&D Senior case

4.1.2.1 Cultural profile: T&D Senior

The T&D senior case

represents a dominance in the

market culture, with also

interesting findings of

adhocracy culture to be

pointed out.

In fact, there is the presence of

codes that demonstrates the

result orientation as the

dominant characteristic of the

company: the team is

composed by brilliant, young

and full of ideas employees,

which creates a very result-Figure 9: OCAI space T&D senior

Results

72

oriented and competitive working environment. The working environment can also be

seen as an entrepreneurial place, where everyone can be entrepreneur of his own product,

and the sharing of new ideas leads also to reasoning outside the box.

The leadership style tends to exemplify innovation, as the members are encouraged in

propositions and everyone is able to follow the work done by their colleagues. There are

also some peculiar traits of coordination in the leadership style, as team members are

charged with feasible tasks and they are coordinated by the use of tools.

Each member of the team must be proactive in presenting and solving issues encountered,

otherwise it may happen that someone else takes the task assigned to him: this creates a

sort of healthy competition between employees, used as management of people.

The glue that holds together the members is the goal accomplishment, as they are

stimulated by challenging but feasible objectives; in addition, the entrepreneurial mindset

of individuals pushes them to be experts in their specific roles and fields.

All members share the same vision, the final objective is to win the marketplace, and so it

doesn’t matter how the team will reach the goal, well trained people need to impose their

own ideas in order to success faster; moreover, emphasis is also put on the research for

new opportunities, so it is important to perform skilling and re-skilling to find them, and

to be able to meet new potential needs.

Finally, the project is defined as successful if it is able to outpace the competition, so

employees must be trained to be better than competitors.

Results

73

Codes from text CVF 6 dimensions subculture

Ambience is friendly DC: Extended family

Empathy Clan culture

Listening LS: Mentoring

Continuous dialogue

Regard to other values and time ME: Teamwork

Explain the problem and the solution OG: Loyalty

Share ideas SE: Participation

Open innovation DC: Entrepreneurial place

Sharing new ideas let you reason outside the box

Interest in bringing innovation

Adhocracy culture

Entrepreneur of the own product

People are encouraged in proposition LS: exemplify innovation

Everyone is able to follow other work

But fail fast ME: risk taking orientation

Proactivity in presenting and solving issues

Taking others’ tasks

Learn From the unsuccess

Each one has his role and is expert in his field OG: cutting edge

To meet new potential needs

SE: prospecting new opportunities

Skilling and re-skilling

Share ideas and best practices with external companies and partners

Line up with external digital players

Tools are key for coordination LS: coordination Hierarchical culture Look for compromises ME: stability of

relationship Punctuality

Continuous track SE: control

Cost savings SF: efficiency

Brilliant, young and full of ideas employees are result oriented DC: result

orientation Market culture

Scrum motivates result orientation

Risk but fail fast ME: competitive

Taking others’ tasks

Proactivity in presenting and solving issues

Negotiation of stories charge OG: goal accomplishment

Challenging objectives but feasible

Enabled by tools

Well trained people need to impose own ideas SE: win the marketplace

Share same vision

Train employees to be better than competitors SF: outpace competition

Table 21: Cultural coding tree: T&D Senior

Results

74

4.1.2.2 Scrum Values profile: T&D Senior

As employees are committed to perform challenging but feasible objectives, share the

same vision and be proactive in finding solutions to the problems encountered, they must

have the courage to share the impediments encountered and, if needed, to exit from their

comfort zone and take tasks assigned to other colleagues. individuals have to respect

others’ values and time, so they must be open to find compromises between team

members to efficiently reach the goal.

About adaptation, the Scrum master adapts the ceremonies in function of the objectives

and the context, and teams are charged with different weights of stories, in function of

their velocity; a high degree of transparency has to be respected, as everyone must be

able to follow others work.

Thanks to the high level of Scrum maturity demonstrated, teams have the possibility to

self-organize, and so micro-management is avoided; moreover, everyone has its specific

role and is expert in his field, representing a high degree of cross-functionality in each

team.

Teams continuously try to improve their solutions, so they are always looking for the best

idea: that’s why practitioners share ideas & best practices with external companies &

partners, lining up with digital external players.

The customer centricity has also its key role: teams must understand the value of the

community and be near to its needs and continuously collaborate with it, in order to

receive feedbacks, which help to understand if the project has taken the right direction.

Last but not least, teams always invest efforts in waste reduction: they strive to increase

their velocity through fast communications and efficiency by saving costs.

Results

75

Table 22: Scrum coding tree: T&D Senior

Codes from text Values Overarching

Challenging objectives but feasible Commitment

Scrum motivates result orientation

Scrum values Proactivity in presenting and solving issues

Taking others’ tasks Courage

To share impediments

Everyone is able to follow other work Openness

Explain the problem and the solution

Find compromises

Share same roadmap Focus

Share same vision

Regard to other values and time Respect

Punctuality

Negotiation of stories charge in relation to team velocity Adaptation

Resilience of actions and frameworks

Scrum pillars Ceremonies and tools are adapted in function of objectives and context

Continuous monitoring via burn down, burn up and velocity charts

Transparency

Same communication standard between developers and SMEs generates cues of business

Explain the problem and the solution

In big companies you can’t expect that everyone sees each dashboard

No micromanagement Self-organization

Trainings in function of context Cross-functionality

Scrum maturity

Each one has his role and is expert in his field

Only customer collaboration Customer centricity

Near to his needs

Lean principles Feedback to understand if the direction is right

Value of the community

Share ideas and best practices with external companies and partners Continuous improvement

Line up with external digital players

Looking for compromises Waste reduction

“liberating structure” for conflict resolution

Cost savings

Fast communication

Results

76

4.1.3 T&D Junior case

4.1.3.1 Cultural profile: T&D Junior

The T&D junior case doesn’t have a clear dominant culture, it is a combination of the clan

culture and the adhocracy one.

Starting from dominant characteristics, the working environment is seen as an

entrepreneurial place: stimulation of pioneering spirit is enhanced, decision making is

stimulated and everyone feels as the entrepreneur of his own product. The attention is

also brought on the result orientation, as there is a constant research in exploring new

paths in order to reach greater goals.

From the clan culture, the leadership style promoted is the mentoring/facilitating one:

members are proactive in asking for support, and the leader inspires the right mindset.

The leadership pushes members also to exemplify innovation, as the employees are

incentivized to experiment, because it helps in achieving greater results in the short run,

especially in this dynamic context, and creates learning opportunities from market and

client’s feedbacks. As a result of this, also the management of employees follows a risk-

taking orientation, because in case of failure, the team has the possibility to learn from

failed experiments. In order to reach this “innovation-seeking” mindset, teamwork has a

Figure 10: OCAI space T&D junior

Results

77

key role to manage people: in fact, it is important that everyone feels unique in terms of

competences, and all the team members know they are rowing in the same direction.

The friendly relationship between the colleagues and the fact that everyone feels unique

in terms of competences strengthens loyalty, which can be defined as the organizational

glue of this case. On the other hand, goal accomplishment motivates members to do their

best, as another variable of organization glue: they share the same vision, the same

roadmap and should be motivated to reach the business objective. Moreover, emphasis

is put on participation: all team members should have their own task, everyone has

visibility regarding other’s work, and it is the team to propose how participation in

ceremonies should be performed.

To conclude, the success factor of the team is to become product leader, by outpacing the

competition and keeping high levels of efficiency: the company should train employees to

be better than competitors, in order to increase effectiveness, but they should also focus

on efficiency, making sure that all the “done” is reached and that a continuous adaptation

of techniques and ceremonies is implemented in order to increase velocity.

Results

78

Codes from text CVF dimensions subculture

improve way of working DC: Extended family

Create a positive mood Clan culture ask for support (proactivity)

LS: Mentoring Inspire the right mindset

Everyone feels unique in terms of competences ME: Teamwork

Rowing in the same direction

Stakeholders feedbacks helps in adjusting orientation and hold organization since you know you are not wasting efforts

OG: Loyalty

All team members must be collocated SE: Participation

Teams propose how to

Leave visibility to everyone

Support horizontal learning SF: Human development

Open people mind to new ideas

Enhancing cross-contamination

Skilling and reskilling

Stimulation of pioneering spirit DC: Entrepreneurial place

Spur decision making

Entrepreneur of the own product Adhocracy culture Ownership of initiatives LS: innovation

Experimentation creates learning opportunities from market and client’s feedbacks ME: risk taking

orientation

Learn From failed experiments

High impact factor of skills OG:cutting edge

Experimentation is pushed SE: prospecting new opportunities

Unsuccess is awarded

Learning from unsuccess as opportunity for the next sprint

Responsiveness and velocity SF: being product leader

satisfy new customer needs

Strategic management push towards to be tech leader

Numerical approach SE: control Hierarchical culture All the “done” is reached SF: efficiency

Exploring new paths in dynamic context leads to grater goals DC: result orient

Market culture

Introduction of procedures and tools only if strictly needed ME: competitive

Trainings in function of context

See that there is always something to do OG: goal accomplishment Share same vision

To reach the business objective SE: win the marketplace

Responsiveness thanks to cross skills

Train employees to be better than competitors SF: beat compet

Table 23: Cultural coding tree: T&D Junior

Results

79

4.1.3.2 Scrum values profile: T&D Junior

Being an environment not fully mature in using Scrum, teams are committed to learn self-

organization and the agile mindset: this lack of the agile mindset has made necessary a

smart use of the customer feedback system, which is useful to understand the right

direction, assuring that the team is not working for nothing. A lot of effort is invested in

making the employees feel like a team: in fact, they must be focused on sharing the same

vision and always rowing together in the same direction; everyone should respect

colleagues, and so visibility should be left to everyone; openness means to ask, with

proactivity, for support to colleagues; risk is not take from the individual, but at team level:

the whole team should have the courage to spur decision making.

The lack of maturity has a great impact on the level of adaptation implemented: in fact,

the Scrum master adapts every ceremony, technique and tool to the team, in order to

foster collaboration and increase the familiarity of the teams with the tools.

The incremental level of self-organization that teams have allows the Scrum master to

avoid micro-management and to empower decision making of teams. Moreover, the

competence heterogeneity inside teams enhances cross-functionality: not only

responsiveness is increased thanks to cross skills, but individuals have the possibility to

learn from similar roles and grow thanks to horizontal learning.

To conclude, teams have freedom for experimentation, because it helps in achieving

greater results in the short run, especially in this specific dynamic context: in this way,

teams have the possibility to continuously improve their solutions.

Results

80

Codes from text Values Overarching

Capability of being self-organized and agile in mindset

Commitment

Train working harder and test the full working capacity

Scrum values Feedback system allows to understand the right direction, you’re not working for nothing

All the “done” is reached

At team level, not individual. Only in the short run Courage

Spur decision making

Ask for support (proactivity)

Openness

Support sharing of information and motivation (related to decisions and development directions)

Rowing in the same direction

Focus

Share same vision

Label actions as “done”

See that there is always something to do

Leave visibility to everyone Respect

Feedback system adoption

Adaptation

Ceremonies and tools are adapted in function of objectives and context

Scrum pillars

Resilience of actions and frameworks to external and dynamic context

Learning opportunity for the next sprints

Continuous adaptation of techniques and ceremonies

Post it on dashboard visible to everyone Transparency

Share same roadmap

Avoid micromanagement Self-organization

Empower decision making Scrum maturity

Team propose how to organize participation

Support horizontal learning

Cross-functionality

Learn from similar roles

Responsiveness thanks to cross skills

Open people mind to new ideas

Only cross skills

Feedbacks To correct the direction of actions Customer centricity

Customer and PO satisfied, constantly and rapidly Continuous improvement

Lean philosophy

Experimentation Helps in achieving greater results in the short run especially in dynamic context

Stakeholders feedbacks helps in adjusting orientation and hold together organization because you understand you are not wasting efforts Waste reduction

Introduction of procedures and tools only if strictly needed

Table 24: Scrum coding tree: T&D Junior

Results

81

4.2 Within findings: T&I case

4.2.1 Scrum execution description

The teams working with agile methodologies in this specific case are six, all belonging to

the R&D department. In particular, each squad has its own product and comprehends

from five to nine members: developers, domain experts, user case owners (who responds

directly to the product owner of the outcome of the project) and solution architects are

the figures needed in order to run the team. All the members of the team possess a T-

shape set of competences: they not only have a core competence, but also basic

knowledge of the other ones, in order to learn from their colleagues and help each other

if needed. The Scrum master can be internal or external, while the Product owner is

internal: they are both fully dedicated to one team.

At the beginning of a project, a sprint zero is performed: teams are built following a

“personality matching” methodology, in order to potentially avoid conflicts between

members; moreover, spikes are performed: they represent activities such as research,

design, investigation, exploration, and prototyping. Their purpose is to acquire the

knowledge necessary to reduce the risk of a technical approach, better understand a

requirement, or increase the reliability of a story estimated.

Sprints usually last two weeks, but they can vary if needed: they can last from one to

maximum four weeks. Before each sprint, the product owner and the user case owner

perform the sprint planning: during this ceremony, they build the user story mapping, a

collection of stories organized according to the Minimum Viable Product and the different

releases scheduled.

The daily stand ups have an average duration of ten minutes: each member explains what

he did the day before, what he is going to do in the current day and the possible

impediments on the path. The sprint review occurs the last day of the sprint, and all the

stakeholders of the project participate: in this occasion, feedback are collected, and the

team has the opportunity to show a demo of the work done to the stakeholders. During

the sprint retrospective instead, usually done after the review, the Scrum master

discusses with the team about what has been performed in the proper way, what instead

has been not and what needs to be improved in the next sprint. After the end of a sprint,

Results

82

the Product owner and the user case owner refine the sprint backlog, according to the

business value of the stories present in the story mapping.

Regarding the techniques used, test-driven development and peer programming are the

most common; moreover, there are no communication standards to use.

The most peculiar detail of this case is the team itself: it may happen that the teams are

not composed by colleagues of the same country, but coming from different continents,

sometimes even freelance developers are included in the project. this leads to two

significant problems to solve: the difficult coordination of the team, due to the fact that

some workers will always work remotely, and the teamwork itself, threatened by the

competitiveness of freelance workers against the internal ones; this is why coordination

plays a key role in this case.

Competing in the telecommunication industry, innovation is a variable of success for the

company: teams must be able to always to create the most innovate product, in order to

have a unique product in the market and at the same time increase the customer value.

4.2.2 T&I Senior case

4.2.2.1 Cultural profile: T&I Senior

From a cultural mix point of view,

The T&I senior case represents a

quite balanced case, with the

market culture that anyway slightly

dominates the other cultures.

Regarding the dominant

characteristic, teams are very result

oriented (market culture): the goals

must be always clear and

achievable, and it is important that

the customer always has the feeling

that something useful is being done.

Coordination is also fundamental:

the working environment is seen as

Figure 11: OCAI space T&I Senior

Results

83

a formal place (hierarchical culture) where members are committed to follow rules,

because some members are in remote, and this need of coordination limits the autonomy

of teams; the hierarchical culture is clearly visible also in the leadership style used,

combined with specific traits of the adhocracy culture: there is a continuous need of

updates in order to overcome the organizational inertia due to remote working, and so

continuous settlements for remote workers are made to avoid misalignments. In addition,

people are encouraged to propose new ideas, the best idea wins: it doesn’t matter where

the idea came from. About the management of employees, it is clear that teamwork is

fundamental: being also a matter of not constantly being in the same room during the

development of the project, it is important that every employee constantly share the

current state of the work. Regarding the organization glue, even though goal

accomplishment is a key variable, respecting the common rules is the main driver: in fact,

team members are usually not located in the same room, and this creates a sort of

alienation between the team members; getting the job done, respecting the common

guidelines, is the only way to keep them unite. In particular, teams use “Spike” techniques

to better understand how to reach the objective. The strategic emphasis, instead, tends

to be the participation of people (clan culture): they can speak without any dominance or

bias, they are encouraged to expose impediments, everyone is called to speak and

constant collaboration is always enhanced. To conclude, success is reached if the product

outpaces the competition (market culture) because the company becomes a product

leader (adhocracy culture): top managers push to the market assault, so it is fundamental

to constantly create value for the customer and be able to quickly respond to change.

Results

84

Codes from text CVF 6 dimensions CVF subculture

People can speak without any dominance or bias DC: Extended family

Autonomy is limited by need of coordination LS: Mentoring Clan culture

Encourage straightforwardness

Share current state of work ME: Teamwork

Not to be aggressive and having understanding of others

OG: Loyalty

Express thoughts, impediments SE: Participation

Constant collaboration

Everyone is called to speak

People are encouraged to expose impediments

Cross-pollination SF: Human development

Mandatory technical trainings (workshop and online tests)

People are encouraged to propose new ideas, the best idea win LS: exemplify

innovation

Doesn’t matter from where the idea came from Adhocracy culture Design thinking

SE: prospecting new opportunities

Be aware of the continuous changing trends

Elasticity in structure

Create value for the customer SF: being product leader

Ability to respond to change

Committed to follow rules, as some members are in remote

DC: formal place

No misalignments, continuous settlement for remote workers LS: exemplify

coordination

Hierarchical culture

Continuous needs of updates

Need to overcome inertia

Common guidelines OG: rules

Monitor that things are getting done SE: control

Budget, time and quality of development must improve

SF: efficiency

Goals must be clear and achievable DC: result orientation

Customer must communicate that something useful is done

Acquisition of analytical mindset SE: win the marketplace

Market culture

Capability to associate the right value of features in function of the moment and the context

Always improve responsiveness

Enabling iterative thinking SF: outpace competition

Top managers push to market assault

Table 25: Cultural coding tree: T&I Senior

Results

85

4.2.2.2 Scrum values profile: T&I Senior

The Scrum profile of this case has the peculiar trait of having remote workers inside the

agile teams: this impacts the self-organization of teams, because they are forced to

respect rules and continuously update the remote workers, so autonomy is limited by

need of coordination.

The presence of remote workers implies also efforts on adaptation, as ceremonies and,

above all, communication must be adapted to facilitate interaction with remote workers;

regarding transparency, every member is called to share the current state of work:

Continuous settlement for remote workers are made, in order to avoid misalignments

within team members.

Moreover, this case is rich of codes belonging to the Lean philosophy: in fact, teams pay

most of their attention to customer centricity, as they aim to create value for the customer

and continuously communicate with them to understand if something useful is done;

iterative thinking and customer feedbacks help teams to create continuous improvements

to their solutions; moreover, waste reduction is sought, especially in terms of efficiency,

as straightforwardness is encouraged, documentation is produced with Just In Time

mindset and feedbacks are expressed to avoid conflicts.

In order to enable this last code, individuals must have respect towards their colleagues,

so people can speak without any dominance or bias, without being aggressive and having

understanding of others. Teams are constantly committed to deliver MVPs and to respect

the releases: this is why they focus on improving budget, time and quality of development

and on improving responsiveness. Openness is also incentivized: members can expose to

others their own issues, express thoughts and impediments, and people are encouraged

to propose new ideas, as the best idea wins.

Results

86

Codes from text Values Overarching

Deliver MVPs Commitment

Respecting releases Scrum values

“Spike” technique to better understand how to reach the objective

Acquisition of analytical mindset Courage

People are encouraged to propose new ideas, the best idea win

Express thoughts, impediments Openness

Expose own issues

Everyone is called to speak

Budget, time and quality of development must improve Focus

Always improve responsiveness

Not to be aggressive and having understanding of others

Respect

People can speak without any dominance or bias

Starting from feedbacks, the right techniques are chosen

Adaptation

Adapt ceremonies and communication Above all for remote workers Scrum pillars Elasticity in structure

Share current state of work

Transparency

No misalignments, Continuous settlement for remote workers

Autonomy is limited by need of coordination Self-organization

Cross-pollination Cross-functionality

Create value for the customer

Customer centricity

Increase value to the customer

Customer must communicate that something useful is done

Lean principles

Customer feedbacks for continuous improvements Continuous improvement

Enabling iterative thinking

Express feedbacks to avoid conflicts Waste reduction

Encourage straightforwardness

Documentation Just in time

No too much room for mentoring

Table 26: Scrum coding tree: T&I Senior

Results

87

4.2.3 T&I Junior case

4.2.3.1 Cultural profile: T&I Junior

The T&I junior case has two

dominant cultures, the clan and

the adhocracy, with also some

interesting insights coming from

the market one. In fact, the

competitive working context

makes the dominant

characteristic very result-

oriented, as the objective must

be always clear and achievable;

on the other hand, there is also a

sort of entrepreneurial mindset,

which adds also a bit of

adhocracy culture to the

dominant characteristics.

The fact that everyone has the possibility to share his current state of work, in addition to

a purposeful listening approach, promotes a mentoring/facilitating leadership style; the

leadership style tends also to exemplify innovation: the “fail fast” approach is accepted,

members work in group in order to find new paths and iteration is supported to deliver a

unique product.

Regarding instead the management of employees, teamwork (clan culture) and risk-taking

orientation (adhocracy culture) are both important, because teamwork is boosted to

exploit synergies coming from different competencies, and “fail fast” mindset is

accepted.

Interesting evidences are highlighted regarding the organizational glue: loyalty (clan

culture) of employees is the key variable, thanks to the continuous relations and the

mutual trust of team members; on the other hand, it is important to note that from the

point of view of the scrum master interviewed, rules and laws can never be organizational

glues, as they would limit team’s motivation to perform and do their best.

Figure 12: OCAI space T&I Junior

Results

88

Moreover, the strategic emphasis that is highlighted is the one of the adhocracy culture,

as there is a continuous research for new opportunities thanks to design thinking, being

aware of the continuous changing trends of the market and finding new paths working in

group.

Finally, there are different success factors, coming from the market and clan cultures. First

of all, there is a constant willingness to outpace the competition, enabling iterative

thinking and delivering innovative products; on the other hand, human development is

important for the company, and this is why they make sessions of mindset coaching in

groups and mandatory technical trainings, that can be workshops or online tests.

Results

89

Codes from text CVF 6 dimensions CVF subculture

Informal workplace DC: Extended family

Listening LS: Mentoring Clan culture

Mindset coaching made in groups and available also on-line.

Boosting teamworking to exploit synergies ME: Teamwork

Continuous relations OG: Loyalty

Mutual trust of team members

Foster human interactions SE: Participation

Constant collaboration

Cross-pollination

SF: Human development

Mandatory technical trainings (workshop and online tests)

Presence of entrepreneurial mindset DC: Entrepreneurial place

Fail fast ME: risk taking orientation

Adhocracy culture

Support iteration to deliver a unique product OG: being on the cutting edge

Everyone does his best in his role

Find new paths working in group SE: prospecting new opportunities

Design thinking

Be aware of the continuous changing trends

Strive in order to create a unique and innovative product SF: being product leader

Deliver unique product

Risks may be compromising for the team ME: stability of relationship Hierarchical

culture Formal rules NEVER are organizational glues OG: rules

Coordination of teams with remote workers SE: control

Budget, time and quality of development must improve

SF: efficiency

Goals must be clear and achievable DC: result orientation

Acquisition of analytical mindset

SE: win the marketplace

Market culture

Capability to associate the right value of features in function of the moment and the context

Enabling iterative thinking SF: outpace competition

Deliver innovative products

Top managers push to market assault

Table 27: Cultural coding tree: T&I Junior

Results

90

4.2.3.2 Scrum values profile: T&I Junior

The Scrum profile is strongly concentrated on Adaptation, due to the presence of remote

workers, so ceremonies and communication are adapted for remote workers, and on

transparency of processes thanks to the ceremonies adapted.

Moreover, having a lower maturity of Scrum, the Scrum master works in order to increase

the self-organization of teams: in fact, no technique is imposed, they choose what they

prefer, and at the beginning of a project the “Personality matching” technique is used for

members allocation. The cross-functionality of teams helps human growth, as the cross-

pollination leads to learning new competences from colleagues.

Another critical point is waste reduction, especially in terms of internal efficiency:

feedbacks are used during the retrospective in order to avoid conflicts, and if they happen

they are solved with one-to-one discussion; moreover, documentation is created only if

needed, with a Just in time mindset.

Regarding the Scrum values, the respect inside teams is important, since everyone

understand and respect the roles of others and develop the ability to listen the opinion of

colleagues. Another important value is openness, because everyone must share the

current state of work in order to give visibility especially to remote workers, and enhance

continuous relations between members in order to always keep contacts with remote

workers.

Results

91

Codes from text Values Overarching

Strive in order to create a unique and innovative product

Commitment

Acquisition of analytical mindset Courage Scrum values

Share current state of work Openness

Continuous relations

Goals must be clear and achievable Focus

Listening Respect

Everyone does his best in his role

Adapt ceremonies and communication Above all for remote workers

Adaptation

Starting from feedbacks, the right techniques are chosen

Scrum pillars

Transparency of processes thanks to ceremonies

Transparency

No technique is imposed, they choose what they prefer

Self-organization

“Personality matching” technique for members allocation

Scrum maturity

Cross-pollination Cross-functionality

Enabling iterative thinking Continuous improvement

Feedbacks In order to avoid conflicts Waste reduction

Lean principles

Solve conflicts with one-to-one discussion

Absence of misalignments is fundamental for remote workers

Documentation Just in time

Table 28: Scrum coding tree: T&I Junior

Results

92

4.3 Within findings: Energy case

4.3.1 Scrum execution description

The agile structure of the organization reaches the critical mass of six teams working on

different projects, but instead of creating a new product to offer to the final customers,

they create systems used by other departments of the organization. Each team is

composed by eight people maximum, but the peculiarity of the teams is the fluidity that

characterizes them: in fact, each team has its own process specialist, that is focused on

the business of its specific project, and then there is a development team in which

members split their weekly agenda on different projects. Moreover, there is a unique user

experience designer, which guarantees a proper user experience in using the product, that

offers his competences to the teams when needed. Finally, both Scrum masters and

Product owners are internal and fully dedicated to a single team. The teams are under the

R&D department, and at the end of the project an MVP is developed.

At the beginning of the project, the teams must be created: the Scrum master uses the

“Form Storm Norm Perform” technique. Thanks to this method, a sample of the team is

created and a simple task is assigned, in order to analyse if members are able to work

together; if conflicts occur, they are resolved in “one-to-one” discussions with the Scrum

master. After a short period of assessment, the teams should be able to exploit synergies

from the variety of competences. Then, the team previously created, together with the

Product owner, creates the product backlog. After the definition of all the user stories, it

is the team to create a prioritization of the backlog: using the Fibonacci series, each

member assigns a “difficulty score”, from one to twenty, according to its personal

thoughts on the difficulty to complete the specific user story. Thanks to this process, the

product owner is able to order all the stories in the different sprint backlogs and organize

the workforces.

At the beginning of each sprint, the Objectives and Key results, KPIs and “done” are

defined. The sprints generally last two weeks, but if needed it can be stretched to

maximum three weeks. The daily stand ups have a maximum duration of fifteen minutes,

and each member explain the work done, the work to be done and potential

impediments, that in case will be solved with the Scrum master or the Product owner after

the end of the ceremony. The scrum master gives the freedom to the team to choose how

Results

93

to do the different ceremonies: in particular, the sprint review, done at the end of each

sprint, is a moment of feedback collection and presentation of the work done. On the

other hand, the sprint retrospective happens right after the review: the Product owner

participates to every retrospective, instead the other stakeholders participate to one

retrospective every two sprints. In this occasion, the team presents what should be

changed in the work done and what is going to be done in the next sprints. Anyway, the

backlog is rarely refined, because it is the team that has originally prioritized all the user

stories and so it is aware of the work and time needed to complete each sprint backlog:

as said previously, instead of refining it, a week is added to the sprint in order to complete

the backlog originally defined.

The standard tool used by teams is the Trello board, but it is mostly used to create a

common language between all the teams; in fact, for the internal operations, each team

can use the tool it prefers. The same happens for the communication: there is a

communication standard, which is Trello, but other than that the teams can use informal

chats to communicate (WhatsApp, Hangout etc.).

The scrum master focuses a lot of attention on time boxing: this variable has become a

concrete mindset inside the organization, as every employee pays attention to the timing

of ceremonies, meetings and to respect deadlines.

Finally, due to the particular “internal” customer of this case, teams define as success the

delivery of a product that respects all the criteria requested by the customer, with a high

degree of efficiency, in terms of both velocity and cost saving.

Results

94

4.3.2 Cultural profile: Energy case

The energy situation is quite

balanced among the clan, the

hierarchical and the market

cultures. The dominant

characteristics of the working

place are to keep it informal to

facilitate the expression of any

kind of issues at any time (Clan

culture) and to make it

challenging in finding new

opportunities (Adhocracy

culture). For this reason, the

leadership style is to exemplify

coordination, mostly concerning team composition (Hierarchical culture) because of the

presence of transversal roles, to exemplify team-working through one-to-one coaching

sessions on the way of operating and by putting people at their ease leaving them free to

use the tools they need (Clan culture). This leads to a management of employees oriented

to grant an overall stability of relationships (Hierarchical culture) by explaining everything

clearly at the beginning and by respecting others’ time and work. This, conjointly with the

familiar place, creates a sense of mutual trust (Clan culture) between members without

any kind of prevarications and shows deep sensibility for others’ propositions keeping

them together; consequently, decisions are kept together achieving general agreement in

what to do, demonstrating a common commitment for the team success (Market culture).

Therefore, the strategic emphasis devolves upon competitive actions designed to win the

market-place, like following its constant evolutions, providing high value trainings (Market

culture) in order to consolidate competitive advantages, continuously improving products

and generating economic return (Market culture). On the other hand, success is measured

with internal improvement of procedures aimed to increase velocity and decrease of the

cost curve (Hierarchical).

Figure 13: OCAI space Energy case

Results

95

Codes from text CVF dimensions subculture

Informal place DC: extended family

Facilitation of expressing issues of any kind, at any moment

Freedom to use the tools that teams prefer LS: exemplify mentoring

Clan culture One to one sessions of coaching

Teams are put at their ease

Use of “common sense” ME: teamwork and facilitation

Continuous transition of competencies

Deep sensibility for others’ propositions OG: mutual trust

Prevarications do not exist

Individuals are motivated to share impediments always SE: participation

Members allocated in function of whats challenging for them DC: entreprene. place

Commitment to find new opportunities Adhocracy culture People encouraged to be proactive (not much indulgence) ME: individual

risk taking Take ownership of initiatives

Exploit customer feedbacks SE: prospecting new opportunities

Explore new business opportunities

Boost forecast process after failures

Commitment in respecting rules DC: Controlled and structured place.

Production of compliance documentation

Transversal figures control the overall view over the teams

Normative assessment

“Form Storm Norm Perform” technique for team building and execution

LS: exemplify coordination

Hierarchical culture

Everything is clear ME: stability of relationship

Punctuality

Clear use of standard references OG: rules

Defined timebox

Roles and tasks are clearly assigned

Velocity SF: efficiency

Cost savings

Procedures improvements

Respect timelines DC: result orientation

Members do their best and know that others do the same

Objectives are clear and they know how to reach them

General agreement in what to do OG: goal accomplishment

Market culture Focus on delivering MVPs before the release

Follow constantly regulation evolutions SE: win the marketplace

Individuals are incentivized to propose skilling trainings

Effective products granting economic return SF: outpace competition

Consolidate competitive vantage

Product continuously improved

Table 29: Cultural coding tree: Energy

Results

96

4.3.3 Scrum values profile: Energy case

Concerning its scrum profile, what deserves to be noted is that the commitment value is

addressed to both goal achievement without being assertive and to the respect of the

normative boundaries imposed by the context. The commitment to goal achievement is

enabled by the transparency of communication, since objectives and timeboxes are clear

and everyone knows how to reach them, by the pervasive adaptation spirit showed in

allocating members in teams in function of what is challenging for them and in reaching

general consensus over what to do. Agreement that is achievable thanks to the courage in

sharing proactively impediments, to the openness and sensibility for other’s propositions

(absence of prevarications) and to the respect constantly demonstrated towards

colleagues’ work by weighting proposal of adjustments of their output.

In an optical of continuous improvement, employees are invited to propose ideas for

increasing velocity and quality of sprint activities and learn from their failures, channelling

their focus in being effective (so in reducing waste) and in finding new business

opportunities by leveraging on the constant regulation evolutions.

Regarding teams’ maturity and the degree of self-organization, they are autonomous in

managing deliverables and in choosing intra-team communication tools. Moreover, the

degree of cross-functionality is assured thanks to the “Form Storm Norm Perform”

technique, which allows to assign all the needed role for each team, and thanks to several

trainings for competences development. However, even though internal transition of

competencies is guaranteed, cross functionality is reached only by taking into account also

all the transversal figures (architect, analyst and designers).

Results

97

Codes from text Values Overarching

Hire people with the right mindset Commitment

To respect normative context Scrum values To goal achievement without being assertive

Objectives are clear and members know how to reach them

Individuals are motivated to share impediments at any moment Courage

Proactivity in making proposals, with not much indulgence

Informal place Openness

Deep sensibility for others’ propositions

Effectiveness Focus

In finding new business opportunities

In producing the compliance documentation

By weighting proposal of adjustments Respect

Prevarications do not exist

Punctuality

No mandatory communication standards

Adaptation

Members are allocated in function of what is challenging for them

Scrum pillars

Follow constantly regulation evolutions

General agreement in what to do

Every team has its own way of communication, so it is internal transparency Transparency

It is key for alignments

Standard reference documentation to mandatory follow for the most important deliverables

Roles and tasks are clearly assigned

In particular internal communication and tools

Self-organization

Individuals are incentivized to propose trainings to develop competences

Scrum maturity

Autonomy in managing deliverables

Ownership of initiatives

“Form Storm Norm Perform” technique Cross-functionality

Internal transition of competencies

Different roles are clearly assigned

A transversal architect connects and aggregates the work

Feedbacks exploitation Customer centricity

It is internal Lean principles Members are invited in proposing ideas for increasing

velocity and quality of sprint activities Continuous improvement

Exploit failures for fostering procedures

Iterative and incremental thinking

Respect timelines and timebox Waste reduction

Increase velocity and cost savings

Table 30: Scrum coding tree: Energy

Results

98

4.4 Within findings: E-commerce

4.4.1 Scrum execution description

The agile structure is divided in 3 product areas, which have different business objectives

and backlogs. Thirty teams in total are operative, in particular fourteen for the first

business area, seven for the second one and nine for the third one. The business area in

discussion has to develop the E-commerce platform of a multinational clothing brand. The

squads of this particular business area are composed by nine members, with different

competences: developers, that are divided by front-end developers, back-end developers

and mobile application developers; testers of the solution; functional analysts and data

analysts. The scrum masters are external, and each scrum master monitors four agile

squads; the Product owners instead are internal and they are fully dedicated to a single

team.

When a product area is created, the different teams are built through a process of self-

organization, moderated by the different scrum masters. After this process, the Product

owner creates the product backlog and elaborates the definition of “done”. The sprints

have a standard duration of two weeks, and during this timeframe the Scrum master can,

if needed, add items inside the current sprint backlog. The daily stand ups last fifteen

minutes, and each member explains to the team the work done, what has to be done and

future potential impediments; these impediments will be then tackled and solved at the

end of the daily stand up with the Scrum master or the Product owner. The sprint review

is performed the last two days of the sprint, and the scrum master presents to the team

results regarding their productivity and relevant KPIs; moreover, the team presents a

demo of the add-ons of the platform to the Product owner and stakeholders. The sprint

retrospective instead is performed the last day of the sprint, and in time frames of ten

minutes each it is discussed what has been performed well, what has gone wrong and

what needs to be improved. The discussion is mediated by the scrum master, and the “call

to action” is enhanced in order to motivate the team to always improve. Moreover, during

the retrospective the backlog can be refined if some items don’t respect the acceptance

criteria. It is important to highlight that the teams choose how to do the ceremonies.

The prioritization of the items in the product backlog is made, according to technical and

economic feasibility, in order to optimize the Time To Market and satisfy the ROI and

Results

99

Break Even requested. Moreover, in order to create a Minimum Viable Product from the

first sprint and incrementally add features, the different operations inside teams are

performed in sequence: the first step of each sprint is to create or improve the user

interface and the user experience. Once these aspects are defined, the rest of the items

can be tackled by the team.

All the teams of the product area use Jira and Qmetry Confluence, an add-on of Atlassian,

as standard tools, in order to have a common language and enable interaction between

teams. Jira is also used as the common tool to communicate inside and between teams.

The teams reach a successful result when two objectives are attained: a certain degree of

efficiency, in terms of velocity and cost saving, and an increase of market shares thanks

to the solution created.

4.4.2 Cultural profile: E-commerce

The E-commerce case fluctuates

mainly between the clan and the

market culture.

Indeed, codes regarding extended

family (Dominant characteristic),

exemplification of mentoring and

team facilitation (Leadership

style), loyalty (Organization glue)

and participation (Strategic

emphasis) lead to the dominant

culture of clan. Instead, regarding

the market culture, what mostly

stands out are the clear result

orientation of the organization

(Dominant characteristic) and the willingness to outpace the competition (Success factor).

However, team members are managed following a risk orientation approach

(Management of employees) to stimulate innovation (Adhocracy culture).

Figure 14: OCAI space e-commerce case

Results

100

The working place can be considered as a familiar environment, since people

communicate continuously, exchanging cues (feedbacks) to strengthen themselves;

moreover, they are all considered equals. On the other side, being peers allows a fair

evaluation among them over their results. In order to improve performances, the pursued

leadership style aims to invest in coaching the proper way of working and in order to do

more at their best, employees are not micromanaged and are left free to follow their own

attitudes; for this reason they are incentivized to take risks, in order to bring innovation

and to learn from eventual failures. Generally, the leadership style enters into team

dynamics to facilitate its building and sequence of events.

Therefore, transparency of communication, respect of rules and in particular punctuality,

commit the team towards goal achievement for the organization success.

As it is clear, great emphasis is put on member participation and personal growth (also by

providing demanded tools and trainings) to basically have an organization in which

everyone cooperate and is committed to the company success on the market, so by being

always ready and faster to gain market share.

Results

101

Codes from text CVF 6 dimensions subculture

Everyone is equal DC: Extended family

Expressing feedbacks is a way of respecting others

Continuous dialogue

Clan culture No micro-management

LS: exemplify mentoring and facilitating

People are guided when they are called to build teams

People are left free to follow own attitudes

Coaching on way of working

No one can be left behind ME: teamwork and facilitation

Face to face clarifications

Mutual respect OG: mutual trust and team commitment

Punctuality

Transparency

Creating a stimulating environment

SE: participation

Providing tools for personal growth

Everyone is called to speak

Take ownership of initiatives LS: exemplify innovation and entrepreneurship

Via team building Adhocracy culture Courage in making and finalizing propositions ME: individual risk

taking Don’t worry if unsuccess occur

Teams must have valuable cross-competencies SE: prospecting new opportunities

Provide common guidelines LS: coordination

Team’s settled rules

OG: rules

Hierarchical culture Punctuality

All teams have the same protocol in writing stories

Cost reduction

SF: efficiency

Boost ROI and BE

Increase productivity

Evaluation on results DC: result orientation

Continuous evaluation Market culture Stimulation in doing more

ME: competitive Continuous performance evaluation

People are trained in working in optimal condition

Be faster with propositions, reduce TTM

SF: outpace competition

Be always ready near consumerism events

People are encouraged to do what they are best in

Perform technical trainings

Increase market share

Table 31: Cultural coding tree: E-commerce

Results

102

4.4.3 Scrum values profile. E-commerce

The adaptation pillar is deeply interiorized, since teams’ objectives are settled according

internal attitudes, teams customize ceremonies in function of people and it is perfectly

integrated with the self-organization freedom teams have. Indeed, micromanagement

does not exist, team members can discover own attitudes and most of all, by respecting

maturity guidelines, they can choose the team to belong. Concerning these team building

rules, Scrum masters care a lot in mixing members of both technical and methodological

different expertise and in ensuring that each team has all the competencies for developing

end-to-end features. This entails openness of juniors in embracing seniors’ wisdom and

expertise, and increase the team cross-functionality, because seniors are called to

facilitate juniors’ work by teaching technicalities, not necessarily from the same domain.

At the heart of this there is respect of others, so by leaving no one behind, and

transparency of communication. In particular, what must be visible to everyone is the

process followed to reach the objective, where the “done” and the “to be done” are

labelled. Generally, this process has its roots in customer centricity and in continuous

improvement, indeed the continuous discussion with the customer allows to develop

iterative thinking and to structure releases on MVPs. Consequently, the focus is on

delivering solutions faster and almost perfect from the design point of view, and the

commitment in respecting deadlines, especially in correspondence of consumerism

events.

Results

103

Codes from text Values Overarching

To team growth by putting together seniors and juniors (technically and methodologically) Commitment

In enabling the iterative thinking Scrum values In respecting deadlines

In finding own attitudes

Responsibility of own actions Courage

Of ownership and to accomplish of initiatives

Embrace seniors’ wisdom and expertise Openness

To new challenges

To embrace others’ feedback

In delivering faster, reducing the time to market Focus

In reducing inefficiencies

In delivering MVPs

Transparency Respect

Punctuality

No one can be left behind

Teams’ objectives are settled according internal attitudes Adaptation

Teams adapt ceremonies in function of people

Scrum pillars

To common guidelines concerning way of conducting ceremonies, writing stories and backlog, definition of defects acceptance criteria

Everyone should be able to understand other teams’ work by looking in their dashboard Transparency

Clearly describe the done and the what to be done

Share process of reaching the objective

In team building (objectives and composition) Self-organization

When and how ceremonies should be Scrum maturity No micromanagement

Discover own attitudes

Seniors are called to facilitate juniors’ work Cross-functionality

Juniors learn technicalities from seniors, not necessary from the same domain

Each team must have all the competencies for developing end-to-end features

Once MVP and design are ready, collect his feedback Customer centricity

Continuous discussion

Consumerism events are pivotal Lean principles Enhance personal expertise Continuous

improvement Incremental developing

Prioritization of enhancement actions

“meet after” formula for solving impediments Waste (Time) reduction

Strengthen synthesis skill

Cost curve improved sprint after sprint

Identify and solve impediments

Table 32: Scrum coding tree: E-commerce

Results

104

4.5 Within findings: Pharmaceutical case

4.5.1 Scrum execution description

In the pharmaceutical case, the agile structure is divided in nine agile teams, all working

on the same product. There are nine people per team, members of the development team

with T-shape competences: they have their core competencies and also other knowledge

on the competences of their colleagues. The scrum master is external to the company,

while instead the Product owner is internal; they are both fully dedicated to a single team.

At the beginning of each project, a first planning moment is set to define scope and

milestones of the project; a checklist is made, the definition of “done” is created and

teams and stakeholders are aligned. Moreover, some buffers are placed between

different sprints, in order to solve or elude technical problems without stopping the

process anytime there is a problem. Prioritization is made exclusively by the dedicated

PO, following market trends and respecting rules and laws dictated by the pharmaceutical

industry. The sprints last two weeks, without considering the above-mentioned buffer.

The daily stand up last fifteen minutes, and each member communicates to their

colleagues the work done, the work to be done and possible impediments. The sprint

review is performed every two weeks, and it is used by the team to collect the feedback

of the stakeholders. The sprint retrospective instead, made the last day of the sprint, is a

discussion of what needs to be changed, and it is important to find at least one action to

perform in the next sprint, as an improvement. In order to avoid boredom & monotony,

the Scrum master always tries to use different ways to perform this ceremony.

Jira and physical dashboards are the standard tool for working and communicating; after

a certain degree of maturity, the teams have the possibility to use their own way of

working and communicating. One peculiarity of this case is that, in case of need, Self-

organized teams can look for the missing competence in other teams, and so individuals

may spend time also on other teams’ projects. The success factors are a good degree of

efficiency (especially in terms of velocity), customer satisfaction and the achievement of

the predefined milestones.

Results

105

4.5.2 Cultural profile: Pharmaceutical

The most relevant subcultures of this case

are the clan subculture and the market one.

Members show a great sense of belonging

to the organization, trusting their peers and

without creating any problem concerning

the share of issues (Clan culture), because

they are truly committed in doing the job

assigned, no matter the impediments and

how the goal can be achieved, always

following the advancements posted in the

dashboards (Market culture). Transparency

of actions and of accomplishments (so of communication) is a key driver for motivating

employees, since they understand that they are continuously monitored (Market culture),

trying always to avoid inter-team and intra-team competition (Hierarchical culture) thanks

to the one-to-one coaching sessions on the way of working (Clan culture). Another

motivational point arises from the constant willingness to keep high harmony, interest

and excitement around the work to be done (Clan culture), encouraging them to make

propositions (Adhocracy culture) and facilitating the work by providing standardized

dashboards (Clan culture). This familiar place is held together by the mutual trust nestled

in the employees’ relationships; indeed, from a professional point of view, they deeply

support mutual aid (Clan culture), work compactly to the goal (Market culture) and, from

a personal point of view, they consider each other truly as equals, as peers (Clan culture).

Actually, the organization rely a lot on people direct participation by trying to involve

everyone in the decision-making process, in making propositions and on indirect

participation, by keeping attention and listening to others’ propositions (Clan culture).

Moreover, emphasis is also put on their skills improvements, pushing them to make

motions for technical trainings and to stay in line with the market evolution and trends,

(Market culture) in order to be able to eventually adapt to them. All of this is finally due

to the constant willingness to satisfy the customer by achieving the goals at planned

timing (Market culture).

Figure 15: OCAI space Pharmaceutical case

Results

106

Codes from text CVF 6 dimensions subculture

Sense of belonging DC: extended family

Share of problems

One to one coaching session LS: exemplify mentoring and facilitating

Clan culture

Choose right tools in function of people

Keep employees committed and not bored

Find a matching person for conflict resolution ME: teamwork and facilitation

Harmony

Standardized dashboards

Professional trust OG: mutual trust and team commitment

Everyone is equal

Mutual aid

Transparency of communication

People ask for specific training SE: participation

Listen others’ propositions

Everyone is involved

Stimulate iterative thinking LS: exemplify innovation

Experiment best working practices Adhocracy culture Circumvent issues and postpone their resolution ME: individual risk

taking Everyone is called in making propositions

Learn from unsuccess SE: prospecting new opportunities

Understand causes of unsuccess

Exploit customer’s feedbacks

Larger preliminary meetings LS: exemplify coordination

No misalignments Hierarchical culture No inter and intra team competition ME: stability of

relationship No vertical movements

Respect milestones SF: efficiency

Find always improvement actions

The job must be done DC: result orientation

Achievements are always visible Market culture No matter how is achieved the goal

ME: competitive Each one has its own goal, constantly monitored

Team work compactly to OG: goal accomplishment

Actions and achievements are always visible

Clear milestones and detailed plan

Technical trainings SE: win the marketplace

Adapt to its dynamicity

Stay in line with its trends

Customer and sponsors satisfaction SF: outpace competition

Intra team union to stupefy stakeholders

By improving internal performances

Table 33: Cultural coding tree: Pharmaceutical

Results

107

4.5.3 Scrum values profile: Pharmaceutical

Its scrum profile is grounded into the two scrum pillars considered, transparency and

adaptation. Indeed, people are committed to work together compactly to the objective,

to reach the scope at each step because the continuous communication generates

motivation, and everyone is always informed on the new tasks; actions, stories,

achievements and feedbacks are continuously monitored, which drives the focus on the

job to be done and on following the metrics evolution. Parallelly, the adaptation pillar

enables the focus value of being flexible, so to work on prioritized items and in thinking

iteratively, hence it impacts also the continuous improvement principle, according to

which is pivotal to find an action in the retrospective as improvement for the team and to

learn from failures. This is supposed to open the team mindset to find new paths to reach

the objective, to encourage them to share impediments and to directly share ideas to the

customer, which is a central figure for the process since it is continuously and directly

consulted for feedbacks, lately exploited to adjust backlog and directions.

Teams are self-organized in choosing the timing and the means to interact with the

customer, and in detecting the missing internal competencies in order to achieve the

status of cross-functional teams, where competences are T-shaped, everyone has own

goal and most of all mutual aid is achieved. At the heart of this there is respect for others’

professionality and opinions.

Results

108

Codes from text Values Overarching

Ask for personal skilling Commitment

To accomplish the scope at each step Scrum values

In working together compactly toward the objective

To directly share ideas to the customer Courage

Share impediments

Switching point of view Openness

To find new paths to reach the objective

On iterative thinking Focus

On prioritized items

Following metrics evolution

On the job to be done

Each opinion has the same value Respect

Professional

The detailed plan

Standardized dashboards Adaptation

Of ceremonies and tools in function of people Scrum pillars

To the business context

Experiment procedures till optimal working way is found

A matching person is called to favour conflict resolution

Actions, stories, achievements and feedbacks continuous monitoring Transparency

Of communication generate motivation

Business part always kept informed dev team on new tasks

Detect internal missing competences Self-organization

Talk directly with the customer Scrum maturity

Mutual aid Cross-functionality

Each one has own goal

T-shaped competences

Continuous and direct communication

Customer centricity

Exploit his feedbacks to adjust backlog and directions

Lean principles

Constant demand for feedbacks

Continuous improvement

Always find an action in the retrospective as improvement for the team

Learn from unsuccess and its causes

Provide the asked trainings and courses

Find the optimal working conditions Waste reduction

Respect milestones

Table 34: Scrum coding tree: Pharmaceutical

Results

109

4.6 Overall view

Within results were reviewed and confirmed by the interviewees, to potentially correct

any error or bias and ultimately enhance the correctness of our interpretations.

4.6.1 Use of Scrum methodology

Scrum team: Characteristics

T&I T&D Energy E-commerce Pharmaceutical

Team clusters Each team is dedicated to on one product.

6 tribes organized by product or by client.

Solutions developed usually used by other functions in Edison.

3 product areas with different business objectives & backlogs.

Teams working on the same product.

Total number of Agile teams

6. Some members are remote

46. Majority using scrum

6 (critical mass)

30=14+7+9

9. SAFe oriented.

Members per team. Seniority

Variable, between 5 and 9. Mixed.

Max 10. Mixed.

8. Mixed. Max 9. Mixed.

8. high.

Roles within a team (Scrum master and Product owner always included)

Developers (some remote); Domain experts (remote); user cases owner (UCO); Solution architect; T-shaped competences.

Developers; Testers; Subject matter experts; UX/UI.

Process specialist (focused on business); Dev-team; UX/UI designer, infrastructure architect and analysts are transversal.

Developers (back-end, front-end, mobile-app); Testers; Functional analyst (technical & architectural); Data analysts.

Dev-team with t-shaped competences, everyone has his core competence but also some knowledge on adjacent ones (user experience, design etc.).

Team per SM. Internal/ external

1. But some SM can follow more. External

5. Dedication on business priority or team maturity. Internal

1. Internal

4. External

1. External.

Product owner Internal, plus UCO. Fully dedicated.

Internal, fully dedicated

Internal Internal Internal. Fully dedicated

Table 35: Scrum team characteristics

Results

110

Scrum ceremonies T&I T&D Energy e-commerce Pharmaceutical

Sprint (Duration)

2 weeks but flexible_1,3,4

2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks 2 weeks

Sprint planning (goal definition & activities)

User story mapping; stories organized by MVP & release

Definition of OKRs, KPIs & “done”.

Initial planning and division of user stories along the product backlog

Items selection according the definition of ready.

Check list made at the project beginning, defines “done” & aligns team & stakeholders

Daily stand up (Duration, structure, comments)

Around 10mins. Done, to be done, impediments.

15mins, shifted. Done, to be done, impediments.

15 mins. Done, to be done, impediments.

Max 15mins. Done, to be done, impediments. SM & PO do not speak.

Max 15 minutes. Done, to be done and possible impediments

Sprint review (Frequency, duration, structure)

The last sprint day. Stories feedback system & demo.

Every 2 weeks, the last sprint day. Team celebration; product feedback system.

Every 2 weeks. Feedback collection, presentation of done

Every 2 weeks, among 2 last Sprint days. SM present team’s stats. Demo to PO & stakeholders.

Every 2 weeks. Team & stakeholders involved, collect feedback from stakeholders

Sprint retrospective (Frequency, structure)

(Not always) After the review. Good, bad & to be improved or legospective or star or journey. AC prioritize action items as stories for next sprint.

Last sprint day. Format & theme chosen by SM & PO in order to find the best call to actions. Feedback system.

Last sprint day. One made only with PO, the next one with PO and sponsor. Presentation of what should be changed and description of next sprint’s work

Last sprint day. Flexible but generally: Good, bad & to be improved, 10mins each on post-it. Collective discussion mediated by the SM. Call to action prioritized.

Last day of sprint, after review. Discussion of what needs to be changed, important to find at least one action to perform in the next sprint as an improvement. Use of different techniques (sad, glad, mad) to avoid boredom & monotony.

Backlog refinement

Grooming. PO negotiate with stakeholders & developers.

Negotiation of stories & to be done. Explanation of “done”.

Not necessary because teams decide backlog with PO. If needed, increase sprint of one week.

If acceptance criteria not met during Sprint review. During sprint PO can add new items into bl.

Use of a buffer at the end of sprint to solve or elude technical problems, to not stop the process anytime there is a tech problem.

Peculiar ceremonies, events or artefacts.

“Personality matching” during sprint zero for team building. Spike technique.

“liberating structure” for conflict resolution. Digital sink. Quarter business review.

“One to one” formula for solving impediments after daily stand up; “Form Storm Norm Perform” technique for team definition.

“Meet after” formula for impediments resolution (face to face meeting with SM or PO after daily). Team building self-organized.

One to one session for coaching & for feedback collection. First enlarged planning for scope & milestones definition. Buffer for peculiar impediments.

Table 36: Scrum ceremonies execution

Results

111

Scrum team: Execution

T&I T&D Energy e-commerce Pharmaceutical

Tools or techniques used

test driven development. Peer programming

Jira, charts (burn down & up, velocity)

Trello, inside teams-communication no mandatory tool

Jira, QMetry Confluence (“add on” of Atlassian).

Jira, physical dashboard

Communication Standard

No, security issues. Jira Usually Trello, but not mandatory. Informal Chats are also accepted.

Jira and less Trello. Same for each team.

Jira. Standard dashboard at the beginning, after maturity possibility to personalize it.

Ceremonies adaptation

SM&AC choose, starting from feedbacks, the right technique. Ceremonies of less mature teams can lasts more to solve individual problems.

SM & AC adapt them. Teams choose how to do the ceremonies.

Teams choose when and how ceremonies should be. But common guidelines (for the 14 teams).

In function of the situation & following a continuous improvement approach in particular for the retrospective.

Items prioritization criteria

Story mapping is made by PO & UCO to give to epics business value. Then PO & team develop stories & prioritize them according the business value. MVP & release readiness.

Business priority. Market trends.

Fibonacci series: user story identification and definition of difficulty to develop the story (from 1 to 20) made by the team itself

Time to market optimization; Technical & economic feasibility; No open points or missing information; available MVP; UX/UI ready; Story points; ROI & BE.

Prioritization made exclusively by the dedicated PO, following market trends with the total respect of rules and law dictated by the pharmaceutical industry. Release readiness.

Additional elements

Teams under R&D. Security assessment & documentation JIT, at the end. User case owner (UCO) is antipattern.

SM under HR. Not projects but products. Several self- organized teams (pauses, tools, activities).

Teams under R&D. Time boxing is key, everyone committed to respect predefined timing, MVP production at the end.

Teams choose when and how ceremonies should be.

Self-organized teams look for the missing competence in other teams, individuals may spend time also for other teams’ projects.

Success metrics Senior: Increase customer value. POs: employee committed to edge products. Working software. As R&D of AI & big data, innovative products are key: budget, time & quality of dev.

Senior: NPS, CTR, cost acquisition reduction, cost saving. Junior: Team able to be self-organized. Customer & PO satisfaction. All the “done” is reached. Responsiveness & velocity.

Product that works well, efficiency (velocity & cost saving).

Efficiency (velocity & cost savings). Market share increase.

Efficiency (velocity). Customer satisfaction. Milestones achieved.

Table 37: Scrum team execution

Results

112

4.6.2 Cultural profile

The objective of the following table is to present the most relevant subculture for each

of the six dimensions, in order to find recurrent cultural patterns and so to answer to the

first research question.

Exploiting the pattern matching technique, we have been allowed to compare the

previous identified patterns, in order to determine whether they match or differ, so to

underscore similarities and differences in the cases, based on the specific variables

identified. Therefore, a more concise answer to the first research question is represented

by the following cultural patterns:

CVM variables OCAI keywords Subculture

Dominant characteristic Extended Family Clan

Leadership style Mentoring/facilitating Clan

Management of employees Risk taking orientation Adhocracy

Organizational glue Loyalty Clan

Strategic emphasis Win the marketplace Market

Success factors Outpace competition Market

Table 39: Recurrent cultural patterns

Table 38: Cases cultural profiles

CULTURAL PROFILE

Dominant characteristic

Organizational leadership

Management of employees

Organizational glue

Strategic emphasis

Success factor

T&D SENIOR MARKET ADHOCRACY HIERARCHY

ADHOCRACY MARKET

ADHOCRACY MARKET

ADHOCRACY MARKET

T&D JUNIOR ADHOCRACY

MARKET ADHOCRACY

CLAN CLAN

ADHOCRACY CLAN

MARKET CLAN

MARKET HIERARCHY

T&I SENIOR MARKET

HIERARCHY HIERARCHY

ADHOCRACY CLAN

HIERARCHY MARKET

CLAN MARKET

ADHOCRACY

T&I JUNIOR ADHOCRACY

MARKET CLAN

CLAN ADHOCRACY

CLAN ADHOCRACY CLAN

MARKET

ENERGY CLAN

ADHOCRACY

CLAN HIERARCHY

HIERARCHY CLAN MARKET

MARKET MARKET

HIERARCHY

E-COMMERCE

CLAN MARKET

CLAN ADHOCRACY

MARKET CLAN CLAN

MARKET HIERARCHY

PHARMA CLAN

MARKET CLAN

ADHOCRACY HIERARCHY

CLAN MARKET

MARKET CLAN

MARKET

Results

113

SCRUM PROFILE

T&D SENIOR T&D JUNIOR T&I SENIOR T&I JUNIOR ENERGY E-COMMERCE PHARMACEUTICAL

Commitment Be proactive in finding solutions to the problems

Learn self-organization and agile mindset

Deliver MVPs Respect the releases

Respect rules and guidelines

Respect of the normative boundaries

Respect deadlines

Working together to the objective

Focus Share the same vision Share the same

vision

Improve budget, time and quality of development

Nothing to highlight Find new business opportunities

Deliver solutions faster

Job to be done

Courage Take tasks assigned to a colleague

Spur decision making People are encouraged to propose new ideas

Nothing to highlight Share proactively impediments

Nothing to highlight

Sharing ideas to the customer

Openness Find compromises between team members

Proactively ask for support

Express thoughts and impediments

Enhance relations between members

Absence of prevarications

Embrace seniors’ expertise

Find new paths to reach the objective

Respect Colleagues’ values and time

Visibility should be left to everyone

Avoid aggressive behaviours

Respect the roles of others

Weighting proposal of adjustments

Leaving no one behind

Others’ opinions & professionality

Transparency Everyone must be able to follow others work.

Nothing to highlight Share the current state of work

Transparency of processes

Objectives and timeboxes are clear

Process to reach the objective

Everyone always informed on the new tasks

Adaptation

Adapt ceremonies in function of the objectives and the context

Adapt ceremonies, techniques and tools to the team

Ceremonies & communication to facilitate interaction with remote workers

Ceremonies and communication adapted for remote workers

Allocation of members in function of what is challenging for them

Ceremonies adapted in function of people

Adaptation of ceremonies and tools in function of people

Self-organization

Micro-management is avoided

Avoid micro-management

Autonomy limited by need of coordination

No technique is imposed

Autonomous in managing deliverables

Employees choose the team to belong

Detecting the missing internal competencies

Cross functionality

Everyone has its specific role and is expert in his field

Possibility to learn from similar roles

Nothing to highlight Cross-pollination Trainings for competences development

Seniors facilitate juniors’ work

T-shaped competences

Customer centricity

Receive feedback to adjust the direction

Understand the right direction

Create value for the customer

Nothing to highlight Nothing to highlight Continuous discussion with him

Continuously consulted for feedbacks

Continuous improvement

Share ideas & best practices externally

Experimentation to achieve greater results

Iterative thinking and customer feedbacks

Nothing to highlight Learn from failures Iterative thinking Learn from unsuccess and its causes

Waste reduction

Fast communication Costs savings

Nothing to Highlight Just In Time documentation

Just In Time documentation

Increase process effectiveness

Nothing to highlight

Nothing to highlight

Table 40: Scrum profile

Results

114

4.7 Cross case findings

Connecting results from table 40, where each case defines the scrum variables

investigated, and tables 38 and 39, where cultural patterns are highlighted, it is possible

to extract relevant information to answer to the second research question.

Hereafter the most remarkable findings that will be better investigated in the following

paragraphs:

• F1: Coexistence of competing cultures inside the organization, as every case

defines the workplace as an informal and friendly environment, in correlation with

result-oriented success factors.

o F.1.1: most of the cases tend to have the clan culture as the most relevant

subculture.

o F.1.2: in all the different cases, the organizations invest a lot of their effort

on overcoming their competitors on the market, and so on their result-

orientation.

▪ F.1.2.1: no case shows an aggressive leadership style.

• F2: The management of employees’ dimension is always oriented to risk taking

and innovation, so to the adhocracy culture.

• F3: Hierarchical rates directly depends from the team’s structure and composition.

Indeed, the need of coordination is higher in the T&I case where many workers

are remote and in the Energy case where not all roles are allocated to one team,

so where there are architects, designers and analysts with transversal roles to

teams.

• F4: Considering the embedded approach, so the multiple unit of analysis within

the same context, the correlation of the scrum master’s and team’s maturity

impact over the dominant team’s subculture: seniority leads to a market and a

results orientation.

Results

115

4.7.1 Co-existence of competing values cultures

Our first finding highlights how, taking into consideration the agile teams interviewed, the

clan culture is the most relevant one, in terms of its use and values shared inside the team.

However, there is always a coexistence of competing values, meaning that relevant

cultures are plotted in opposite quadrants: in fact, the working place is informal and

friendly, the leadership style used by Scrum masters tries to exemplify teamworking,

leveraging on mentoring to shape the mindset of team members, and facilitating the way

of working; at the same time, success factors and strategic emphasis of the teams

interviewed are oriented to goal achievement at the defined milestones, to acquire a

dominant position in the market and to satisfy customers’ needs.

In particular, we found out that three out of six competing value dimensions are

principally related to the clan subculture: the dominant characteristic, the leadership style

and the organizational glue. This result is reflected by how teams have implemented the

Scrum methodology. Focusing on the team members, they have the courage to express

feedbacks (openness Scrum value), and thanks to this the general way of working is

improved: everyone in the team has the possibility to share his own ideas, creating a

proactive interaction between colleagues from which members can learn from the ones

with more expertise (Clan dominant characteristic of extended family). On the other hand,

Scrum masters give to teams the responsibility to self-organize (Self-organization): by

doing this, Scrum masters are able to avoid micromanagement, which sometimes may

limit employees’ motivation, moreover individuals have the freedom to choose how to

build the teams and, above all, how to perform the different ceremonies, so the Scrum

master acts only in case of need (Clan leadership style of mentoring). Finally, Scrum

masters always strive to increase the loyalty of people, because it is what creates this

sense of extended family inside the team and increases team’s wellbeing. Loyalty is

enhanced by the transparency of communication (which consequently enhances

individual participation and avoids potential misalignments) and also by the coexistence

of members with different competences in the same team, because it creates horizontal

learning, enhances synergies and makes everyone feel as unique and useful for the team

growth.

Results

116

Regarding the result orientation, evidences coming from the interviews point out how, in

all the cases studied, the success factors of the projects are defined according to the

market culture: to become the market leader by outpacing the competition. In fact, teams

must be able to continuously improve their solutions, because the pivot of their success

is to satisfy the customer’s expectations (customer centricity, continuous improvement).

So, Scrum masters are called to propose technical training to employees, increase velocity

and resilience of the teams in order to be able to respond quickly and with flexibility to

potential changes of the demand (Market strategic emphasis and success factor). It is

important to note that no cases showed evidences of the usage of an aggressive

leadership style: this may be the consequence of the large usage of a more preferred

mentoring leadership style, that facilitates team existence and favours team well-being

instead of threatening it.

In order to answer to the coexistence of this competing cultures, it is important to deeply

investigate their nature and look for possible connections: after the analysis of the within

findings, we found out that those two cultures are implicitly interconnected. In particular,

the market culture imposes the need of high-skilled team members in order to outpace

competition, and the only way to develop members’ skills is by doing continuous technical

trainings: the success factor of the clan culture is human development, so technical

training can be seen as the tool to satisfy success factors of both market and clan cultures.

On the other hand, the clan culture focuses on creating the above mentioned informal

working environment (Clan dominant characteristic) and on increasing the loyalty of

individuals: a direct consequence is the increase in motivation and so an increase of

productivity. This means that the creation of the ideal clan culture environment can

potentially bring to the creation of an effective solution, and consequently succeed in the

market (Market strategic emphasis and success factor).

4.7.2 Management of employees encourages risk taking to drive

innovation

This second finding underlies how, generally, employees are managed with the constant

objective to find new opportunities, to bring innovation both in products and in

procedures (Adhocracy management of employees of risk taking).

Results

117

However, an important clarification is needed: each informant pointed out that the risk is

never taken at the individual level, but at the team one. This clearly confirms what

explained in the previous finding - F1.1 - since everything is conceived and organized

considering the team as whole and not as sum of separate entities. Against this

background, even though the individuals make proposals, it is the team that decides

whether to pursue the riskier alternative, as it will be the one accountable in case of failure

(and of course success).

Therefore, employees are encouraged to take risks (courage Scrum value) and to focus on

experimentation, because it is from unknown challenges that it is possible to generate

innovation to better surprise, and consequently satisfy, the customer.

This generate two positive externalities, because in the first place they will be committed

to be proactive and responsible of own actions. Secondly, they will improve their

approach to failure. Indeed, if from one side they are encouraged to take risks, on the

other side they are forced to fail fast (Waste reduction), for two main reasons: first of all,

they can’t risk the company/department sake or to push the customer base to churn, and

then because they have to learn from those unsuccess, the faster is the learning from

market and customers’ feedbacks and the greater will be the competitive advantage

against competitors.

Moreover, employees are stimulated in taking personal lessons from failures, like being

more proactive, understanding own attitudes and in suffering less pressure to better

perform.

4.7.3 Hierarchical rates depend on teams’ structure

Broadly, the hierarchical culture is the one presenting the lowest values among the four

different cultures. This is due to the fact that in an agile and dynamic context, formal and

standard procedures, compelling documentations and stability of relationships do not find

much room (Beck et al. 2001, Schwaber et al. 2011). First of all, the adaptation scrum pillar

is basically in contraposition with everything that can be considered as extremely

standardized and formalized; secondly, it is the agile manifesto itself that strongly advise

to put in a subordinate level “comprehensive documentation”. Moreover, considering a

dynamic context like the tech intensive, the digital, in which developers receive several

Results

118

jobs offers, it is quite hard to recognize stability and security of employment as key aspects

to guarantee.

However, in peculiar cases, the need of coordination may arise, like in the T&I case where

many workers are remote and in the Energy case where not all roles are allocated to one

team, so where there are architect, designers and analysts that are transversal figures to

the whole agile organization.

The T&I case is a good example of the emphasis placed in making all the efforts possible

to keep everyone aligned, because their teams’ structure is composed by some units hired

as freelancers that works remotely from their home. For this reason, practitioners are

really committed to spread respect towards rules and guidelines, to continuously settle

and update them in order to overcome the so-called organizational inertia.

Regarding the Energy case, the need of coordination is combined with the need of

exploitation of synergies and efforts dedicated of transversal figures. Infrastructural

architect, UX/UI designers and some analysts are not dedicated to one specific team,

instead they have their own sub-team that is called to support operatively the Scrum

teams. Being the final client the same for all the Scrum teams, the transversal figures need

to be aware and updated about the work of all the teams, without forgetting timeboxes,

which means that roles and tasks need to be clearly assigned; therefore, what is pivotal

for them are transparency of rules and advancements, clear definition of roles, so

accountability and personal responsibility for own tasks.

Results

119

4.7.5 Seniority leads to results orientation

This last finding will narrow the focus on the cases included in the embedded approach:

having the possibility to analyse two different units of analysis for each case, we would

like to compare evidences coming from the four Scrum masters in order to find similarities

and differences between Junior Scrum masters and Senior Scrum masters.

As shown by figure 17, the results of

both junior Scrum masters are similar,

as the relevant cultures are clearly the

clan and the adhocracy ones, with a

medium emphasis on the result

orientation and neglecting the

hierarchical culture.

The reasons behind these evidences are multiple: first of all, scrum masters not fully

mature in using the Scrum methodology are usually assigned to teams composed by less-

mature Scrum users. The main objective of the Scrum master is to facilitate the

achievement of the “done” requested at each Sprint: this is why Junior Scrum masters

invest their efforts on the teams well-being, through the creation of a friendly

environment, inspiring the right mindset (Clan leadership style of facilitator), and on the

adaptation of the Scrum ceremonies in function of people (Adaptation), in order to obtain

easier results (Market orientation) by facilitating meetings execution. On the other hand,

there is a continuous research from their part in pushing teams to feel as entrepreneurs

of their own product and so on experimentation: their objective is to create a solid

relationship between teams and customers, in order to have a continuous flow of

feedbacks regarding their solutions, that can be useful to prepare the solutions to possible

market evolutions and to create learning opportunities from client’s feedbacks.

Figure 16: OCAI space juniors

T&I Case

T&D Case

Results

120

Senior Scrum masters instead,

having a high expertise regarding

the Scrum methodology, are

usually assigned to teams that

already worked before using

Scrum, with urgent results to be

delivered. Therefore, the need of

a mentoring leadership is

important but not fundamental,

since teams are supposed to be

already mastering the

methodology, its way of

approaching to problems and

working principles.

Here, the only objective of the Scrum master is to get the job done with positive results

on the market (Market orientation). The teams assigned to Senior Scrum masters already

reached a high degree of self-organization, and so this specific context underpins the

change of role of the Scrum master, from facilitating the operations to obtaining

efficiently the results requested. In fact, teams are continuously monitored, individuals

are assigned to challenging objectives and must be proactive in finding solutions

(Commitment Scrum value). They are constantly trying to avoid time wastes, so Just in

time documentation is produced when needed (Waste reduction).

In conclusion, the maturity of Scrum masters and teams doesn’t have an impact on the

success definition of the solution, as all the projects have the final objective of reaching a

competitive position in the market; their expertise, instead, changes the way of working

of the Scrum master, from a facilitating approach to a competitive one, adapting the

teams to the external market and to the business objective.

T&I Case T&D Case

Figure 17: OCAI space seniors

Discussion

121

5 Discussion

In this section we will detect, for each of our findings, whether they show similarities with

the extant literature and, in case, extend its boundaries.

Concerning the first finding: “Coexistence of competing cultures inside the organization,

as every case defines the workplace as an informal and friendly environment, in

correlation with result-oriented success factors” we can note, first of all, that Cameron

and Quinn theories corroborate it, since, as affirmed in their books, the Competing Values

Model is unlikely to reflect only one subculture, rather it stresses a reasonable balance

between opposite orientations; although some cultural types may be more dominant

than others, imposing paradoxical requirements for effective organizations (Cameron,

1986).

This evidence exemplifies the need of an ordinary balance between the two highlighted

subcultures in using the Scrum methodology, as also stated by Huisman et al. (2007) and

Iivari and Iivari (2011). In particular, concerning the Agile literature, we are in line with

what has been affirmed by Cockburn (2001) and Tolfo et al. (2011), regarding the

emphatization of clan values like teamworking, participation, sharing feedbacks, trust,

motivation, flexibility, and people adaptation; we are also in line with reference to the

market values defined in the Agile Manifesto, which indicates as essential the respect of

timeboxed deadlines, team effectiveness, goal achievement and productivity

enhancement.

So, going even deeper with our first two co-findings “clan culture as the mostly

widespread and market culture as the secondly diffused” we confirm, with the due

caution, that the evidences of our research are in line with those of Iivari and Iivari (2011)

and Othman (2016). However, attention must be addressed to their objective, since they

aimed to identify whether or not the Scrum methodology is compatible with each of the

four subcultures.

Instead, regarding the third co-finding “an aggressive leadership style has never been

found”, we append something to the extant literature, because we are stating that, in

order to be focalised to goals achievement, it is not necessary an aggressive and

Discussion

122

competitive driven leadership style; yet it is important to stimulate employees in working

compactly together, respecting the grid of the Scrum principles.

Like the first macro-finding and the third co-finding, our second evidence “the

management of employees is frequently risk oriented” is in line with the cultural theory

and compounds the Scrum one. So, from the cultural side, the CVF theory of the

probability to find more than one subculture is confirmed; from the Agile side we add

that, in order to establish iterative thinking and incremental development, typical of these

methodologies, it becomes important to support people in experimenting and not being

afraid of unsuccess.

Concerning the third finding, we both confirm and append the extant Scrum literature. In

particular, low hierarchical rates support that this subculture is dysfunctional and

incompatible with the use of the Scrum methodology (Iivari and Iivari, 2011; Othman et

al., 2016; Gupta et al., 2019). But, when they are higher, it is due to circumstances beyond

the team control, like the team structure and composition. So, our contribute is that, even

using Scrum, a true and great need of coordination arises when there are remote workers

or when key Scrum roles are transversal and so not dedicated to a specific team.

Lastly, regarding the maturity related finding, it is important to underline that, in order to

acquire greater validity, more evidences are needed as support; however, Huang et al.

(2010) demonstrated that their hypotheses: “The level of software process maturity

moderates the relationship between the clan culture and software process improvement

deployment” is statistically, but weakly, supported by their findings.

This indirectly confirms our finding: the more a team is mature, the less it will follow a

clan culture; by consequence, giving for granted our first finding (coexistence of clan and

market cultures), in correspondence of clan rates decrease, a growth on market values

coincides. As we have already explained, this is due by the lower need a team has on being

instructed in mastering the Scrum methodology, so a less emphasis on mentoring, cross-

contamination, self-organization and team well-being is required, at the expenses of being

more competitive and focused in overcoming the dynamic external context.

Discussion

123

Parallelly, concerning the enabled values, Strode et al. (2009) found: “the organization

values feedback and learning; social interaction in the organization is trustful,

collaborative, and competent; the project manager acts as a facilitator; the management

style is that of leadership and collaboration; the organization values that teamwork is

flexible, participative and encourages social interaction; the organization enables

empowerment of people; the organization is results oriented; leadership in the

organization is entrepreneurial, innovative, and risk-taker; and the organization is based

on loyalty, mutual trust and commitment” (Strode et al., 2009). Besides the previous list,

we can add: teams well-being should be emphasized, also providing them a discreet level

of self-organization; communication transparency inside teams has to be adopted; the

inclusion of different competencies inside teams gives the possibility to individuals to

grow by horizontal learning from their peers.

Conclusion

124

6 Conclusion

Thanks to our research, we have been able to deeply investigate the very diverse agile

world present in the Italian context. We have realized that even if everyone accepts and

do its best to respect the agile principles, each organization has its own way to exploit the

benefits and the way of working that agile can bring.

In this section we would like, first, to provide possible practical implication of this research

to Scrum practitioners and then to highlight its main limitations and correspondent

potential directions for future methodological adjustments.

6.1 Implications

The objective of this paragraph is to provide to Scrum masters possible implications of our

research, as direct consequences of the findings described in the previous section. The coexistence of the clan subculture and the market one implicitly demonstrates the

importance of technical trainings, horizontal learning and cross-competence pollination

in order to increase loyalty, mutual trust, develop a friendly environment and, at the same

time, increase commitment of individuals, which is translated in being more competitive

on the market with a product that effectively satisfies customer needs. This is why we

would like to suggest Scrum masters to continuously incentivize team members to do

trainings of different nature: in general, the result obtained will be beneficial for both

individuals and the company, as human growth and efficiency will be enhanced.

Another valuable implication regards the risk-taking mindset of team members: generally,

every case studied shows a strong willingness of the Product owner and Scrum master to

listen to new opportunities and new ideas coming from team members. This is why we

would like to advise Scrum masters to give more space to individuals’ idea propositions:

we believe that the Sprint Retrospective is surely a good moment to share ideas within

the team, but another moment can be placed in the middle of the Sprint to discuss about

potential innovations to process and product, in order to give the possibility to implement

eventual changes during the current sprint and not after the work done.

Conclusion

125

Then, an important suggestion can be provided to Scrum masters, to agile practitioners in

general, but also to those called to drive the agile transformation in terms of hierarchical

weights within teams.

In particular, even though general guidelines for internal communication are helpful,

imposing formal and standard procedures, useless production of comprehensive

documentation and, above all, letting shine the idea of team members, are not pairs and

equals.

Charging teams with harsh rules to comply with, hampers the realisation of a key scrum

pillar: the adaptation one. Being constrained obstructs the possibility to shape ceremonies

and tools in function of people and, in some cases, to lose responsiveness to market

changes.

Moreover, having the impression that only the opinion of a restricted number of workers

is taken into consideration, affects the respect and the openness towards others’ thoughts

and feedbacks and thus reduce the willingness to share innovative ideas or take risks with

a team they do not feel to belong.

Often Scrum masters are dedicated to a set of teams with variable maturity degree. This

led us to advise a customized approach in function of their ability in mastering the Scrum

principles.

The more a team is new in working with agile methodologies, the more it will be needed

a mentoring approach where teamwork, participation and horizontal learning are

facilitated. Instead, when a team is already mature, the Scrum master can shift his

behaviour towards a competitive approach, more oriented to business objective

achievements and market dominance.

Moreover, considering the dynamicity typical of the industries under consideration, we

suggest Scrum master to keep employees motivated with challenging objectives and

committed to the organization aims, especially all those (mostly developers) that have a

wide labour market capable to let them switch employment at utmost ease.

Conclusion

126

6.2 Limitations and future research

Even if the findings of this research are interesting and informative, the results should be

interpreted with the study’s limitations in mind: for each of them we propose possible

directions for future researches.

A preliminary consideration refers to different and sometimes fuzzy definitions of agile

and culture boundaries present in literature, which may affect results generalization.

Anyway, especially generalizability and internal validity (Eisenhardt, 1989) are challenged

by our data set, because the interviews/screenshots are obtained only in one time of time,

and by the numerosity of cases and of industries considered, that could not grant

statistical significance.

Not repeating the interviews in different moments of the team life cycle can neglect some

key aspects, related to the evolution of values investigated in function of the acquired

maturity in mastering the methodology. So, for future researches we suggest to at least

duplicate the experiment after a discrete amount of time, with the same interviewee, in

order not to jump to maturity conclusions without enough evidence.

Our sample analysis suggests findings that should be an approximation of the result for

the overall population, however there is always a probability of error, which increases

when the sample is small compared to the universe, the phenomenon is uncertain, and

the universe is diverse.

In exploratory researches, generally, the mostly used sampling class is the so called “non-

probability sampling” that can be distinguished in “judgement sampling”, “convenience

sampling” or “quota sampling” (Strauss and Corbin, 1997) because of the complexity in

reaching the selected segment of population (Henry, 1990).

To either save time or save money, in this sampling class, informants are chosen from the

population through subjective criteria, e.g. not 1000 people randomly selected but 20 that

are experts in a field or that are more accessible. Hence, it is not necessary representative

of the population and it is potentially biased.

Conclusion

127

In particular, we implemented the “convenience sampling” technique, since we

developed our selection process according to criteria of time, cost and easiness of reach.

The potential pool of participants has been identified exploiting, most of all, the LinkedIn

social media, looking for workers that are currently employed as Scrum masters,

dedicated to cross functional teams and available to perform the interview, in the Milan

metropolitan area.

So, even if the Milan metropolitan area can be a good representation of the Italian

context, it would be appropriate in the future to perform a wider research in the whole

territory. Regarding the “convenience sampling” technique, its use might lead to a sample

selection bias, attempting to undermine internal validity for differences or similarities

found in the sample at hand, because of a non-random informant selection in a restricted

geographical area.

In addition, since it is clear that people make voluntary choices on whether or not to be

present on the social platform or to express the job position or even to answer to our

requests, there might exist a self-selection bias; nevertheless, especially in exploratory

studies, scholars (like Gupta & George, 2016) leverage on LinkedIn in order to enter in

contact with the targeted industry professionals, who otherwise are difficult to reach.

It is also important to warn the reader that there are considerable cultural and

management differences between Italian and non-Italian firms (Hofstede, 2001), caution

must be exercised while making generalizations of the findings highlighted from this study

to non-Italian-based firms.

Case studies gather data mainly from informant words and from ethnographic/

behavioural observations, to provide a broad definition of the phenomenon and in order

to support, confirm or disprove the findings via data triangulation: it might be helpful to

lever also on a quantitative analysis, which is totally missing in this study and that can

ensure stronger statistical significance. Granting greater statistical significance gives a

solid support to the research, since it proves the reliability of results and not random

outcomes.

The missing quantitative database shall include not only the aforementioned repeated

experiments, but also multiple units of analysis taken from the same company, in order

Conclusion

128

to generalize about the common values empowered by the same ambience; it should also

include multiple point of views from the same industry, in order to highlight eventual

common patterns in the same context; above all, a quantitative cross-industry analysis

should be performed, as it could provide a deeper generalization about the set of values

enabled by the Scrum methodology.

So, future research should be enriched with data from multiple sources, especially non-

LinkedIn sources and quantitative datasets, in order to provide further rigor and findings

that complement study’s results.

Another critical issue is represented by the fact that this research is placed among the

stream of literature that splits agile practices in two components, the social and the

technical one. As already stated in the open gap analysis, the focus in this study is intended

to investigate how the scrum methodology, in particular its social side, enables recurrent

cultural patterns of team subculture. For this reason, we believe that missing data

regarding how the scrum methodology, via its technical practices, has an impact on the

team subculture might cause information leakage about the potential set of values that

are particularly enabled by technical procedures. So, in order to avoid the risk of an

incomplete evaluation we advise to embed in the whole research process also the impact

of technical agile practices.

Then, clearly, being our unit of analysis represented by the team, we did not include inter-

team factors or, better, we did not include interconnections between teams managed by

different scrum master, but only those teams guided by the same scrum master. So, for

example, we did not encompass inter-team goals objectives, inter-team conflicts, inter-

team trainings, inter-team job rotations and knowledge sharing. As we suggested before

by replicating the interviews within the same company, it might be possible to overcome

this issue.

In conclusion, for future researches, starting from those limitations we would suggest to

study both social and technical agile practices, by interviewing more informants taken

from the same company, in several time stages, and to have a representative population

of different companies for each industry under scrutiny.

Appendix

129

Appendix

A. Questionnaire

Scrum assessment

• Present yourself, your role inside the organization and inside the teams

• What does it mean, in your opinion, to be agile? Which are the most important

values in order to be agile?

• Do you think that the 4 key-values of agile are respected in the

organization?(individuals and interactions over processes and tools; working

software over comprehensive documentation; customer collaboration over

contract negotiation; responding to change over following a plan) which one for

you is the most important?

• How many people are inside a team?

• Are your teams multifunctional? How are they created?

• How does an agile project start? How does specificities of the final product and

their priorities are chosen?

• How much does a sprint generally last? Can you describe what happens inside a

sprint?

• How much frequently the sprint backlog does change and how?

• What does happen generally during the daily stand up?

• How often sprint retrospective is done? What does it happen inside a

retrospective?

• In case of problems or delays in the actual sprint, which corrective actions are

taken and how?

• Is there a unique way of working/communicating for the teams, a common

standard?? (transparency)

Appendix

130

• Do you customize procedure and events in function of teams’ characteristics?

(adaptation)

• What does it need (time, tools etc.) to prepare all the different ceremonies? (stand

up, retrospective etc.)

• Who is the product owner and which is his role inside the organization?

Cultural discussion

• Which is the dominant characteristic of the organization? is it like an extended

family for the employees? Is it more an entrepreneurial place or only paying

attention to the result achieved? Does formal procedure have an important role?

• Which leadership style do you think is the most diffused in the organization? Does

it exemplify Mentoring, entrepreneurship, aggressive result-orientation or

coordination/efficiency?

• Which are the most valuable characteristics of the management style between

teamwork/facilitation, individual risk taking/innovation, hard driving

competitiveness between people/high demand and security of

employment/stability of relationships?

• What is the organizational glue that hold the organization together? Is it

loyalty/mutual trust, commitment to innovation and development, goal

accomplishment and formal rules/policies?

• What does the organization emphasize the most? openness/participation,

acquisition of new resources/search for valuable opportunities, competitive

actions/achievements and permanence/stability

• On which basis does the organization define a success? Development of human

resources/employee commitment, having the most unique product/innovator,

winning in the marketplace/outpacing the competition and efficiency/smooth

scheduling/low cost production

Appendix

131

Scrum as enabler

• Which was the tool that enabled the successful formation of the team?

• Was there the necessity to increase ceremonies/using specific tool in order to

create and “train” the new teams?

• How do you solve conflicts inside the team?

• Do you think that using a specific tool/performing a ceremony in a specific way can

help to solve those conflicts?

• How do you think that the use of scrum can impact teams’ culture?

• Which kind of value (between teamwork, entrepreneurship, efficiency and

competitiveness) do you think it is enabled by the use of Scrum methodology?

• Keep in mind those definitions from the Scrum guide:

Scrum values: commitment, focus, courage, openness and respect.

People personally commit to achieving the goals of the Scrum Team.

The Scrum Team members have courage to do the right thing and work on

tough problems.

Everyone focuses on the work of the Sprint and the goals of the Scrum

Team.

The Scrum Team and its stakeholders agree to be open about all the work

and the challenges with performing the work.

Scrum Team members respect each other to be capable, independent

people.

Scrum pillars: transparency, adaptation, inspection.

Scrum team must be: self-organized and cross functional.

Appendix

132

Structured questionnaire

COMPETING VALUES FRAMEWORK QUESTIONNAIRE (from Cameron & Quinn, 2011)

The following questionnaire consists in six sections. Each section has four alternatives. Divide 100

points (for each section) among these four alternatives depending on the extent to which this

alternative is similar to your organization. With organization we mean the unit of analysis under

investigation, i.e. the set of teams working with SCRUM in your company.

1. Dominant Characteristics Points

A The organization is a very personal place. It is like an extended family.

People seem to share a lot of personal information and features

B The organization is a very dynamic entrepreneurial place. People are willing

to stick out their necks

C The organization is very results oriented. A major concern is getting the job

done. People are very competitive and achievement- oriented

D The organization is a very controlled and structured place. Formal

procedures generally govern what people do

Total =100

2. Organizational Leadership

A The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify a

mentoring, facilitating, or nurturing

B The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify

entrepreneurship, innovation, or risk taking

C The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify a no-

nonsense, aggressive, results-oriented focus

D The leadership in the organization is generally considered to exemplify

coordinating, organizing, or smooth-running efficiency

Total =100

3. Management of employees

A The management style in the organization is characterized by teamwork,

consensus and facilitation

B The management style in the organization is characterized by individual risk

taking, innovation, freedom, and the uniqueness

C The management style in the organization is characterized by hard-driving

competitiveness, high demand, and achievement

D The management style in the organization is characterized by security of

employment, conformity, predictability and stability in relationships

Total =100

Appendix

133

4. Organizational Glue

A The glue that holds the organization together is loyalty and mutual trust.

Commitment to this organization runs high

B The glue that holds the organization together is commitment to innovation

and development. There is an emphasis on being on the cutting edge.

C The glue that holds the organization is an emphasis on achievement and

goal accomplishment

D The glue that holds the organization together is formal rules and policies.

Maintaining a smooth- running organization is important.

Total =100

5. Strategic Emphases

A The organization emphasizes human development. High trust, openness,

and participation persist.

B The organization emphasizes acquiring new resources and creating new

challenges. Trying new things and prospecting for opportunities are valued.

C The organization emphasizes competitive actions and achievement. Hitting

stretch targets and winning in the market place are dominant.

D The organization emphasizes permanence and stability. Efficiency, control

and smooth operations are important

Total =100

6. Criteria of Success

A The organization defines success on the basis of the development of human

resources, teamwork, employee commitment, and concern for people

B The organization defines success on the basis of having the most unique or

newest products. It is a product leader and innovator

C The organization defines success on the basis of winning in the marketplace

and outpacing in the competition. Competitive market leadership is key

D The organization defines success on the basis of efficiency. Dependable

delivery, smooth scheduling and low-cost production are critical.

Total =100

Appendix

134

B. Coding trees: cultural profile and scrum profile

T&D case Senior

Codes from text CVF 6 dimensions subculture

Ambience is friendly DC: Extended family

Empathy Clan culture

Listening LS: Mentoring

Continuous dialogue

Regard to other values and time ME: Teamwork

Explain the problem and the solution OG: Loyalty

Share ideas SE: Participation

Open innovation DC: Entrepreneurial place

Sharing new ideas let you reason outside the box

Interest in bringing innovation

Adhocracy culture

Entrepreneur of the own product

People are encouraged in proposition LS: exemplify innovation

Everyone is able to follow other work

But fail fast ME: risk taking orientation

Proactivity in presenting and solving issues

Taking others’ tasks

Learn From the unsuccess

Each one has his role and is expert in his field OG: cutting edge

To meet new potential needs SE: prospecting new opportunities

Skilling and re-skilling

Share ideas and best practices externally

Line up with external digital players

Tools are key for coordination LS: coordination Hierarchical culture Look for compromises ME: stability of

relationship Punctuality

Continuous track SE: control

Cost savings SF: efficiency

Brilliant, young and full of ideas employees are ro DC: result orientation

Market culture Scrum motivates result orientation

Risk but fail fast ME: competitive

Taking others’ tasks

Proactivity in presenting and solving issues

Negotiation of stories charge OG: goal accomplishment

Challenging objectives but feasible

Enabled by tools

Well trained people need to impose own ideas SE: win the marketplace

Share same vision

Train employees to be better than competitors SF: outpace compet

Appendix

135

Codes from text Values Overarching

Challenging objectives but feasible Commitment

Share same vision

Scrum values Scrum motivates result orientation

Proactivity in presenting and solving issues

Taking others’ tasks Courage

To share impediments

Everyone is able to follow other work Openness

Explain the problem and the solution

Find compromises

Share same roadmap Focus

Regard to other values and time Respect

Punctuality

Negotiation of stories charge in relation to team velocity Adaptation

Resilience of actions and frameworks

Scrum pillars Ceremonies and tools are adapted in function of objectives and context

Continuous monitoring via burn down, burn up and velocity charts

Transparency

Same communication standard between developers and SMEs generates cues of business

Explain the problem and the solution

In big companies you can’t expect that everyone sees each dashboard

No micromanagement Self-organization

Trainings in function of context Cross-functionality

Scrum maturity

Each one has his role and is expert in his field

Only customer collaboration Customer centricity

Near to his needs

Lean principles Feedback to understand if the direction is right

Value of the community

Share ideas and best practices with external companies and partners Continuous improvement

Line up with external digital players

Looking for compromises Waste reduction

“liberating structure” for conflict resolution

Cost savings

Fast communication

Appendix

136

T&D case Junior

Codes from text CVF dimensions subculture

improve way of working DC: Extended family

Create a positive mood Clan culture ask for support (proactivity)

LS: Mentoring Inspire the right mindset

Everyone feels unique in terms of competences ME: Teamwork

Rowing in the same direction

Stakeholders feedbacks helps in adjusting orientation and hold organization since you know you are not wasting efforts

OG: Loyalty

All team members must be collocated SE: Participation

Teams propose how to

Leave visibility to everyone

Support horizontal learning SF: Human development

Open people mind to new ideas

Enhancing cross-contamination

Skilling and reskilling

Stimulation of pioneering spirit DC: Entrepreneurial place

Spur decision making

Entrepreneur of the own product Adhocracy culture Ownership of initiatives LS: innovation

Experimentation creates learning opportunities from market and client’s feedbacks

ME: risk taking orientation

Learn From failed experiments

High impact factor of skills OG:cutting edge

Experimentation is pushed SE: prospecting new opportunities

Unsuccess is awarded

Learning from unsuccess as opportunity for the next sprint

Responsiveness and velocity SF: being product leader

satisfy new customer needs

Strategic management push towards to be tech leader

Numerical approach SE: control Hierarchical culture All the “done” is reached SF: efficiency

Exploring new paths in dynamic context leads to grater goals DC: result orient

Market culture

Introduction of procedures and tools only if strictly needed ME: competitive

Trainings in function of context

See that there is always something to do OG: goal accomplishment Share same vision

To reach the business objective SE: win the marketplace

Responsiveness thanks to cross skills

Train employees to be better than competitors SF: beat compet

Appendix

137

Codes from text Values Overarching

Challenging objectives but feasible Commitment

Scrum motivates result orientation

Proactivity in presenting and solving issues

Taking others’ tasks Courage

To share impediments

Everyone is able to follow other work Openness

Explain the problem and the solution

Find compromises

Share same roadmap Focus

Share same vision

Regard to other values and time Respect

Punctuality

Negotiation of stories charge in relation to team velocity Adaptation

Resilience of actions and frameworks

Scrum pillars Ceremonies and tools are adapted in function of objectives and context

Continuous monitoring via burn down, burn up and velocity charts

Transparency

Same communication standard between developers and SMEs generates cues of business

Explain the problem and the solution

In big companies you can’t expect that everyone sees each dashboard

No micromanagement Self-organization

Trainings in function of context Cross-functionality

Scrum maturity

Each one has his role and is expert in his field

Only customer collaboration Customer centricity

Near to his needs

Lean principles Feedback to understand if the direction is right

Value of the community

Share ideas and best practices with external companies and partners Continuous improvement

Line up with external digital players

Looking for compromises Waste reduction

“liberating structure” for conflict resolution

Cost savings

Fast communication

Appendix

138

T&I case Senior

Codes from text CVF 6 dimensions CVF subculture

People can speak without any dominance or bias DC: Extended family

Autonomy is limited by need of coordination LS: Mentoring Clan culture

Encourage straightforwardness

Share current state of work ME: Teamwork

Not to be aggressive and having understanding of others

OG: Loyalty

Express thoughts, impediments SE: Participation

Constant collaboration

Everyone is called to speak

People are encouraged in exposing impediments

Cross-pollination SF: Human development

Mandatory technical trainings (workshop and online tests)

People are encouraged to propose new ideas, the best idea win

LS: exemplify innovation

Doesn’t matter from where the idea came from Adhocracy culture Design thinking

SE: prospecting new opportunities

Be aware of the continuous changing trends

Elasticity in structure

Create value for the customer SF: being product leader

Ability to respond to change

Committed to follow rules, as some members are in remote

DC: formal place

No misalignments, continuous settlement for remote workers

LS: exemplify coordination

Hierarchical culture

Continuous needs of updates

Need to overcome inertia

Common guidelines OG: rules

Monitor that things are getting done SE: control

Budget, time and quality of development must improve

SF: efficiency

Goals must be clear and achievable DC: result orientation

Customer must communicate that something useful is done

Acquisition of analytical mindset SE: win the marketplace

Market culture

Capability to associate the right value of features in function of the moment and the context

Always improve responsiveness

Enabling iterative thinking SF: outpace competition

Top managers push to market assault

Appendix

139

Codes from text Values Overarching

Deliver MVPs Commitment

Respecting releases Scrum values

“Spike” technique to better understand how to reach the objective

Acquisition of analytical mindset Courage

People are encouraged to propose new ideas, the best idea win

Express thoughts, impediments Openness

Expose own issues

Everyone is called to speak

Budget, time and quality of development must improve Focus

Always improve responsiveness

Not to be aggressive and having understanding of others

Respect

People can speak without any dominance or bias

Starting from feedbacks, the right techniques are chosen

Adaptation

Adapt ceremonies and communication Above all for remote workers Scrum pillars Elasticity in structure

Share current state of work

Transparency

No misalignments, Continuous settlement for remote workers

Autonomy is limited by need of coordination Self-organization

Cross-pollination Cross-functionality

Create value for the customer

Customer centricity

Increase value to the customer

Customer must communicate that something useful is done

Lean principles

Customer feedbacks for continuous improvements Continuous improvement

Enabling iterative thinking

Express feedbacks to avoid conflicts Waste reduction

Encourage straightforwardness

Documentation Just in time

No too much room for mentoring

Appendix

140

T&I case Junior

Codes from text CVF 6 dimensions CVF subculture

Informal workplace DC: Extended family

Listening LS: Mentoring Clan culture

Mindset coaching made in groups and available also on-line.

Boosting teamworking to exploit synergies ME: Teamwork

Continuous relations OG: Loyalty

Mutual trust of team members

Foster human interactions SE: Participation

Constant collaboration

Cross-pollination

SF: Human development

Mandatory technical trainings (workshop and online tests)

Presence of entrepreneurial mindset DC: Entrepreneurial place

Fail fast ME: risk taking orientation

Adhocracy culture

Support iteration to deliver a unique product OG: being on the cutting edge

Everyone does his best in his role

find new paths working in group SE: prospecting new opportunities

Design thinking

Be aware of the continuous changing trends

strive in order to create a unique and innovative product SF: being product leader

Deliver unique product

Risks may be compromising for the team ME: stability of relationship Hierarchical

culture Formal rules NEVER are organizational glues OG: rules

Coordination of teams with remote workers SE: control

Budget, time and quality of development must improve

SF: efficiency

Goals must be clear and achievable DC: result orientation

Acquisition of analytical mindset

SE: win the marketplace

Market culture

Capability to associate the right value of features in function of the moment and the context

Enabling iterative thinking SF: outpace competition

deliver innovative products

Top managers push to market assault

Appendix

141

Codes from text Values Overarching

Strive in order to create a unique and innovative product

Commitment

Acquisition of analytical mindset Courage Scrum values

Share current state of work Openness

Continuous relations

Goals must be clear and achievable Focus

Listening Respect

Everyone does his best in his role

Adapt ceremonies and communication Above all for remote workers

Adaptation

Starting from feedbacks, the right techniques are chosen

Scrum pillars

Transparency of processes thanks to ceremonies

Transparency

No technique is imposed, they choose what they prefer

Self-organization

“Personality matching” technique for members allocation

Scrum maturity

Cross-pollination Cross-functionality

Enabling iterative thinking Continuous improvement

Feedbacks In order to avoid conflicts Waste reduction

Lean principles

Solve conflicts with one-to-one discussion

Absence of misalignments is fundamental for remote workers

Documentation Just in time

Appendix

142

Energy case

Codes from text CVF dimensions subculture

Informal place DC: extended family

Facilitation of expressing issues of any kind, at any moment

Freedom to use the tools that teams prefer LS: exemplify mentoring

Clan culture One to one sessions of coaching

Teams are put at their ease

Use of “common sense” ME: teamwork and facilitation

Continuous transition of competencies

Deep sensibility for others’ propositions OG: mutual trust

Prevarications do not exist

Individuals are motivated to share impediments always SE: participation

Members allocated in function of whats challenging for them DC: entreprene. place

Commitment to find new opportunities Adhocracy culture People encouraged in being proactive (not much indulgence) ME: individual

risk taking Take ownership of initiatives

Exploit customer feedbacks SE: prospecting new opportunities

Explore new business opportunities

Boost forecast process after failures

Commitment in respecting rules DC: Controlled and structured place.

Production of compliance documentation

Transversal figures control the overall view over the teams

Normative assessment

“Form Storm Norm Perform” technique for team building and execution

LS: exemplify coordination

Hierarchical culture

Everything is clear ME: stability of relationship

Punctuality

Clear use of standard references OG: rules

Defined timebox

Roles and tasks are clearly assigned

Velocity SF: efficiency

Cost savings

Procedures improvements

Respect timelines DC: result orientation

Members do their best and know that others do the same

Objectives are clear and they know how to reach them

General agreement in what to do OG: goal accomplishment

Market culture Focus on delivering MVPs before the release

Follow constantly regulation evolutions SE: win the marketplace

Individuals are incentivized to propose skilling trainings

Effective products granting economic retourn SF: outpace competition

Consolidate competitive vantage

Product continuously improved

Appendix

143

Codes from text Values Overarching

Hire people with the right mindset Commitment

To respect normative context Scrum values To goal achievement without being assertive

Objectives are clear and members know how to reach them

Individuals are motivated to share impediments at any moment Courage

Proactivity in making proposals, with not much indulgence

Informal place Openness

Deep sensibility for others’ propositions

Effectiveness Focus

In finding new business opportunities

In producing the compliance documentation

By weighting proposal of adjustments Respect

Prevarications do not exist

Punctuality

No mandatory communication standards

Adaptation

Members are allocated in function of what is challenging for them

Scrum pillars

Follow constantly regulation evolutions

General agreement in what to do

Every team has its own way of communication, so it is internal transparency Transparency

It is key for alignments

Standard reference documentation to mandatory follow for the most important deliverables

Roles and tasks are clearly assigned

In particular internal communication and tools

Self-organization

Individuals are incentivized to propose trainings to develop competences

Scrum maturity

Autonomy in managing deliverables

Ownership of initiatives

“Form Storm Norm Perform” technique Cross-functionality

Internal transition of competencies

Different roles are clearly assigned

A transversal architect connects and aggregates the work

Feedbacks exploitation Customer centricity

It is internal Lean principles Members are invited in proposing ideas for increasing

velocity and quality of sprint activities Continuous improvement

Exploit failures for fostering procedures

Iterative and incremental thinking

Respect timelines and timebox Waste reduction

Increase velocity and cost savings

Appendix

144

E-commerce case

Codes from text CVF 6 dimensions subculture

Everyone is equal DC: Extended family

Expressing feedbacks is a way of respecting others

Continuous dialogue

Clan culture No micro-management

LS: exemplify mentoring and facilitating

People are guided when they are called to build teams

People are left free to follow own attitudes

Coaching on way of working

No one can be left behind ME: teamwork and facilitation

Face to face clarifications

Mutual respect OG: mutual trust and team commitment

Punctuality

Transparency

Creating a stimulating environment

SE: participation

Providing tools for personal growth

Everyone is called to speak

Take ownership of initiatives LS: exemplify innovation and entrepreneurship

Via team building Adhocracy culture Courage in making and finalizing propositions ME: individual risk

taking Don’t worry if unsuccess occur

Teams must have valuable cross-competencies SE: prospecting new opportunities

Provide common guidelines LS: coordination

Team’s settled rules

OG: rules

Hierarchical culture Punctuality

All teams have the same protocol in writing stories

Cost reduction

SF: efficiency

Boost ROI and BE

Increase productivity

Evaluation on results DC: result orientation

Continuous evaluation Market culture Stimulation in doing more

ME: competitive Continuous performance evaluation

People are trained in working in optimal condition

Be faster with propositions, reduce TTM

SF: outpace competition

Be always ready near consumerism events

People are encouraged in doing what they are best in

Perform technical trainings

Increase market share

Appendix

145

Codes from text Values Overarching

To team growth by putting together seniors and juniors (technically and methodologically) Commitment

In enabling the iterative thinking Scrum values In respecting deadlines

In finding own attitudes

Responsibility of own actions Courage

Of ownership and to accomplish of initiatives

Embrace seniors’ wisdom and expertise Openness

To new challenges

To embrace others’ feedback

In delivering faster, reducing the time to market Focus

In reducing inefficiencies

In delivering MVPs

Transparency Respect

Punctuality

No one can be left behind

Teams’ objectives are settled according internal attitudes Adaptation

Teams adapt ceremonies in function of people

Scrum pillars

To common guidelines concerning way of conducting ceremonies, writing stories and backlog, definition of defects acceptance criteria

Everyone should be able to understand other teams’ work by looking in their dashboard Transparency

Clearly describe the done and the what to be done

Share process of reaching the objective

In team building (objectives and composition) Self-organization

When and how ceremonies should be Scrum maturity No micromanagement

Discover own attitudes

Seniors are called to facilitate juniors’ work Cross-functionality

Juniors learn technicalities from seniors, not necessary from the same domain

Each team must have all the competencies for developing end-to-end features

Once MVP and design are ready, collect his feedback Customer centricity

Continuous discussion

Consumerism events are pivotal Lean principles Enhance personal expertise Continuous

improvement Incremental developing

Prioritization of enhancement actions

“meet after” formula for solving impediments Waste (Time) reduction

Strengthen synthesis skill

Cost curve improved sprint after sprint

Identify and solve impediments

Appendix

146

Pharmaceutical case

Codes from text CVF 6 dimensions subculture

Sense of belonging DC: extended family

Share of problems

One to one coaching session LS: exemplify mentoring and facilitating

Clan culture

Choose right tools in function of people

Keep employees committed and not bored

Find a matching person for conflict resolution ME: teamwork and facilitation

Harmony

Standardized dashboards

Professional trust OG: mutual trust and team commitment

Everyone is equal

Mutual aid

Transparency of communication

People ask for specific training SE: participation

Listen others’ propositions

Everyone is involved

Stimulate iterative thinking LS: exemplify innovation

Experiment best working practices Adhocracy culture Circumvent issues and postpone their resolution ME: individual risk

taking Everyone is called in making propositions

Learn from unsuccess SE: prospecting new opportunities

Understand causes of unsuccess

Exploit customer’s feedbacks

Larger preliminary meetings LS: exemplify coordination

No misalignments Hierarchical culture No inter and intra team competition ME: stability of

relationship No vertical movements

Respect milestones SF: efficiency

Find always improvement actions

The job must be done DC: result orientation

Achievements are always visible Market culture No matter how is achieved the goal

ME: competitive Each one has its own goal, constantly monitored

Team work compactly to OG: goal accomplishment

Actions and achievements are always visible

Clear milestones and detailed plan

Technical trainings SE: win the marketplace

Adapt to its dynamicity

Stay in line with its trends

Customer and sponsors satisfaction SF: outpace competition

Intra team union to stupefy stakeholders

By improving internal performances

Appendix

147

Codes from text Values Overarching

Ask for personal skilling Commitment

To accomplish the scope at each step Scrum values

In working together compactly toward the objective

To directly share ideas to the customer Courage

Share impediments

Switching point of view Openness

To find new paths to reach the objective

On iterative thinking Focus

On prioritized items

Following metrics evolution

On the job to be done

Each opinion has the same value Respect

Professional

The detailed plan

Standardized dashboards Adaptation

Of ceremonies and tools in function of people Scrum pillars

To the business context

Experiment procedures till optimal working way is found

A matching person is called to favour conflict resolution

Actions, stories, achievements and feedbacks continuous monitoring Transparency

Of communication generate motivation

Business part always kept informed dev team on new tasks

Detect internal missing competences Self-organization

Talk directly with the customer Scrum maturity

Mutual aid Cross-functionality

Each one has own goal

T-shaped competences

Continuous and direct communication

Customer centricity

Exploit his feedbacks to adjust backlog and directions

Lean principles

Constant demand for feedbacks

Continuous improvement

Always find an action in the retrospective as improvement for the team

Learn from unsuccess and its causes

Provide the asked trainings and courses

Find the optimal working conditions Waste reduction

Respect milestones

Bibliography

148

Bibliography

A. Cockburn, J. Highsmith, Agile software development: the people factor, Computer 34

(11) (2001) 131–133.

A. Kroeber, C. Kluckhohn, Culture: a critical review of the concepts and definitions,

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1952.

A. Qumer, B. Henderson-Sellers / Information and Software Technology 50 (2008) 280–

295

Alesina, Alberto, and Paola Giuliano. "Culture and institutions." Journal of Economic

Literature 53.4 (2015): 898-944.

Allaire, Yvan, and Mihaela E. Firsirotu. "Theories of organizational culture." Organization

studies 5.3 (1984): 193-226.

Alsaqaf, Wasim, Maya Daneva, and Roel Wieringa. "Quality requirements challenges in

the context of large-scale distributed agile: An empirical study." Information and software

technology 110 (2019): 39-55.

Anthony, Robert Newton. Planning and control systems: A framework for analysis [by].

Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University,

1965.

Barley, Stephen R., and Gideon Kunda. "Design and devotion: Surges of rational and

normative ideologies of control in managerial discourse." Administrative science quarterly

(1992): 363-399.

Beck, K., Beedle, M., Van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M.,

Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R. and Kern, J., 2001. Manifesto for agile

software development.

Beck, Kent, and Erich Gamma. Extreme programming explained: embrace change.

addison-wesley professional, 2000.

Beck, Kent, et al. "The agile manifesto." (2001): 2009.

Bibliography

149

Besley, Timothy, and Torsten Persson. "The Joint Dynamics of Organizational Culture,

Design, and Performance." unpublished typescript (2017).

Boyd. R. and P. J. Richerson, 1985, Culture and the Evolutionary Process, Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Boyd, R. and P. J. Richerson, 2005, The Origin and Evolution of Culture, Oxford University

Press.

C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, Basic Books, New York, 1973.

C. Tolfo, R.S. Wazlawick, M.G. Gomes Ferreira, F.A. Forcellini, Agile methods and

organizational culture: Reflections about cultural levels, Software Process Improvement

and Practice, 2011.

C. Tolfo, R.S. Wazlawick, The influence of organizational culture on the adoption of

extreme programming, The Journal of Systems and Software 81 (2008) 1955–1967.

C.-C. Shih, S.-J. Huang / Information & Management 47 (2010) 271–281.

Cameron, K. S. & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture:

Based on the Competing Values Framework (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cameron, K.S. Effectiveness as paradox: consensus and conflict in conceptions of

organizational effectiveness, Management Science 32 (5) (1986) 539–553.

Cavaye, Angèle LM. "Case study research: a multi‐faceted research approach for IS."

Information systems journal 6.3 (1996): 227-242.

Clark, S. M., Gioia, D. A., Ketchen, Jr. D. J., Thomas, J. B., 2010. Transitional identity as a

facilitator of organizational identity change during a merger, Administrative Science

Quarterly, 55(3): 397-438.

Cohen, David, Mikael Lindvall, and Patricia Costa. "An introduction to agile methods."

Advances in computers 62.03 (2004): 1-66.

Corvera Charaf, Marianne, Christoph Rosenkranz, and Roland Holten. "The emergence of

shared understanding: applying functional pragmatics to study the requirements

development process." Information Systems Journal 23.2 (2013): 115-135.

Bibliography

150

Czarniawska-Joerges, Barbara. Exploring complex organizations. Sage Publications, 1992.

D.E. Strode, S.L. Huff, A. Tretiakov, The impact of organizational culture on agile method

use, in: Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference onSystem Sciences,

IEEE, 2009.

Dahlgaard, Jens J., and Su Mi Dahlgaard-Park. "Lean production, six sigma quality, TQM

and company culture." The TQM magazine 18.3 (2006): 263-281

Deemer, Pete, et al. "A lightweight guide to the theory and practice of scrum." Ver 2

(2012): 2012.

Denison, Daniel R., and Gretchen M. Spreitzer. "Organizational culture and organizational

development: A competing values approach." Research in organizational change and

development 5.1 (1991): 1-21.

Derby, Esther, Diana Larsen, and Ken Schwaber. Agile retrospectives: Making good teams

great. Pragmatic Bookshelf, 2006.

Diegmann, P., & Rosenkranz, C. (2016). Improving software development efficiency–How

diversity and collective intelligence shape agile team efficiency.

Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V. and Moe, N.B., 2012. A decade of agile

methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development.

Dingsøyr, Torgeir, et al. "Exploring software development at the very large-scale: a

revelatory case study and research agenda for agile method adaptation." Empirical

Software Engineering 23.1 (2018): 490-520.

Dingsøyr, Torgeir, Tor Erlend Fægri, and Juha Itkonen. "What is large in large-scale? A

taxonomy of scale for agile software development." International Conference on Product-

Focused Software Process Improvement. Springer, Cham, 2014.

Dybå, Tore, and Torgeir Dingsøyr. "Empirical studies of agile software development: A

systematic review." Information and software technology 50.9-10 (2008): 833-859.

E.C. Conforto et al., The agility construct on project management theory / International

Journal of Project Management 34 (2016) 660–674

Bibliography

151

E.H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1985.

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. "Agency theory: An assessment and review." Academy of

management review 14.1 (1989): 57-74.

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., and Melissa E. Graebner. "Theory building from cases:

Opportunities and challenges." Academy of management journal 50.1 (2007): 25-32.

Evans, J.R., Lindsay, W.M., 2005. The Management and Control of Quality, 6th ed. South-

Western, Mason, OH.

Franke, Richard H., Geert Hofstede, and Michael H. Bond. "Cultural roots of economic

performance: A research note." Strategic management journal 12.S1 (1991): 165-173.

Fruhling, Ann L., and Alvin E. Tarrell. "Best Practices for Implementing Agile Methods."

IBM center for the Business government (2008).

Gagliardi, Pasquale. "The creation and change of organizational cultures: A conceptual

framework." Organization studies 7.2 (1986): 117-134.

Gioia, Dennis A., Kevin G. Corley, and Aimee L. Hamilton. "Seeking qualitative rigor in

inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology." Organizational research methods

16.1 (2013): 15-31.

Glaser, Barney, and Anselm Strauss. "Grounded theory: The discovery of grounded

theory." Sociology the journal of the British sociological association 12.1 (1967): 27-49.

Gregory, Kathleen L. "Native-view paradigms: Multiple cultures and culture conflicts in

organizations." Administrative science quarterly (1983): 359-376.

Gupta, Manjul, Joey F. George, and Weidong Xia. "Relationships between IT department

culture and agile software development practices: An empirical investigation."

International Journal of Information Management 44 (2019): 13-24.

H. Robinson, H. Sharp, Organizational culture and XP: three case studies, in: Proceedings

of the Agile Development Conference (ADC-05), 2005.

Henry, Gary T. Practical sampling. Vol. 21. Sage, 1990.

Bibliography

152

Hofstede, G. , Hofstede, G.J. , Minkov, M. , 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of

the Mind, 3rd McGraw Hill, New York .

Hofstede, Geert. "Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context." Online

readings in psychology and culture 2.1 (2011): 8.

Hofstede, Geert. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and

organizations across nations. Sage publications, 2001.

Hummel, M., Rosenkranz, C., & Holten, R. (2015). The role of social agile practices for

direct and indirect communication in information systems development teams.

Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 36(1), 15.

J. Iivari, N. Iivari / Information and Software Technology 53 (2011) 509–520

J. Lett, The Human Enterprise. A Critical Introduction to Anthropological Theory, Westview

Press Inc., Boulder, 1987.

Juhani Iivari and Magda Huisman / MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar., 2007), pp. 35-58

K.V. Siakas, E. Siakas, The agile professional culture: a source of agile quality, Software

Process Improvement and Practice 12 (2007) 597–610.

Kalenda M, Hyna P, Rossi B. Scaling agile in large organizations: Practices, challenges, and

success factors. J Softw Evol Proc. 2018;30:e1954.

L. Smircich, Concepts of culture and organizational analysis, Administrative Science

Quarterly 28 (3) (1983) 339–358.

Leidner, Dorothy E., and Timothy Kayworth. "A review of culture in information systems

research: Toward a theory of information technology culture conflict." MIS quarterly 30.2

(2006): 357-399.

Marshall, Martin N. "Sampling for qualitative research." Family practice 13.6 (1996): 522-

526.

Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., & Agarwal, R. (2009). A control theory perspective on agile

methodology use and changing user requirements. Information Systems Research, 20(3),

377–399.

Bibliography

153

Nerur, Sridhar, and Venu Gopal Balijepally. "Theoretical reflections on agile development

methodologies." Communications of the ACM 50.3 (2007): 79-83.

Nerur, Sridhar, RadhaKanta Mahapatra, and George Mangalaraj. "Challenges of migrating

to agile methodologies." Communications of the ACM 48.5 (2005): 72-78.

One, Version. "State of agile development survey results." Version One 5 (2012).

Othman, H.B., Zouaoui, M. and Hamdoun, M. (2016), “Organizational culture and the

acceptance of Agile methodology”, Digital Economy (ICDEc), Carthage, Tunisia, April 28–

30, 2016, IEEE, pp. 16-23.

Ozcan-Top, Ozden, and Onur Demirörs. "Assessment of agile maturity models: a multiple

case study." International Conference on Software Process Improvement and Capability

Determination. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013.

Paul Brunet, Adam, and Steve New. "Kaizen in Japan: an empirical study." International

Journal of Operations & Production Management 23.12 (2003): 1426-1446.

Quinn, Robert E., and John Rohrbaugh. "A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards

a competing values approach to organizational analysis." Management science 29.3

(1983): 363-377.

R. Keesing, A. Strathern, Cultural anthropology, third ed., A Contemporary Perspective,

Harcourt Brave College Publishers, Fort Worth, 1998.

Rolland, Knut, et al. "Problematizing agile in the large: alternative assumptions for large-

scale agile development." 39th International Conference on Information Systems.

Association for Information Systems (AIS), 2016.

Schwaber, Ken, and Jeff Sutherland. "The scrum guide." Scrum Alliance 21 (2011): 19.

Sedano, Todd, Paul Ralph, and Cécile Péraire. "The product backlog." Proceedings of the

41st International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE Press, 2019.

Silverman, D. (1998). Qualitative research: Meanings or practices? Information Systems

Journal, 8(1), 3-20.

Bibliography

154

So, Chaehan, and Wolfgang Scholl. "Perceptive agile measurement: New instruments for

quantitative studies in the pursuit of the social-psychological effect of agile practices."

International Conference on Agile Processes and Extreme Programming in Software

Engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009.

Spiegler, Simone V., Christoph Heinecke, and Stefan Wagner. "Leadership Gap in Agile

Teams: How Teams and Scrum Masters Mature." International Conference on Agile

Software Development. Springer, Cham, 2019.

Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet M. Corbin. Grounded theory in practice. Sage, 1997.

Sutherland, Jeff, and Ken Schwaber. "The scrum guide." The definitive guide to scrum: The

rules of the game. Scrum. org 268 (2013).

Torgeir Dingsøyr, Sridhar Nerur, VenuGopal Balijepally, Nils Brede Moe / A decade of agile

methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development / The Journal of Systems

and Software 85 (2012) 1213– 1221

V. Stray et al. / The Journal of Systems and Software 114 (2016) 101–124

VersionOne, Collabnet. "12th Annual State of Agile Report. (2018)."

VersionOne, Collabnet. "13th Annual State of Agile Report. (2019)."

Wendorff, Peter. "Organisational culture in agile software development." International

Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement. Springer, Berlin,

Heidelberg, 2002.

Williams, L. What agile teams think of agile principles (2012) Communications of the ACM,

55 (4), pp. 71-76

Yin, Robert. "case study research. Beverly Hills." (1984).

Yin, Robert K. Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage

publications, 2017.