Disrupted Software Management - Assignment Example

Communication and Culture Issues over disrupted Software management Introduction The current business situation in the world requires that software develops at a very high speed to ensure that business success is achieved. While the software development business proves to be viable and real, there are various challenges, mostly communication and cultural issues that underlie this business, which makes it necessary for such businesses to develop and apply strategies that will see them survive and overcome the challenges. According to Lee, Delone and Espinosa, the main aim of the software development re-organizations is to develop high quality software for the customers, which are sold at a reasonable price (Lee, Delone, & Espinosa, 2006). However, to achieve this, there is a need for a globally organized team to handle the production and the distribution of software. Considering that a single organization cannot afford to undertake the production and distribution of the software globally on its own, the collaboration with other partners to achieve this is inevitable (Andreessen, 2011). It is this collaboration with other business partners that makes the coordination of the business more complex, threatening to affect the software development project negatively. As observed by Lee, Delone and Espinosa, the factors that creates major barriers to the coordination between the software producers and their partners include geographic distance, time separation, cultural differences, language differences and organizational boundaries (Lee, Delone, & Espinosa, 2006). Complexity of Global coordination Businesses rarely understand what makes the global software business successful. Thus even when confronted by such challenges, businesses are not in a position to dissect and clearly identify the appropriate strategies that would see them overcome these challenges (Gonsalves, 2011). Nevertheless, there are certain strategies that can be applied to overcome such challenges, which include building a common platform, where the business partners should share an initial understanding of the suitable framework that would drive the collaboration between these business partners successful (Rosenberg, 2012). Labor organization is yet another strategy applicable to overcome the challenges of global software business partners’ communication since it entails the allocation of specialized duties to each of the partners, which ensures that they do not duplicate or overstep their operations thus avoiding the confusion that would ensue (Hoffman, 2013). The creation of understanding is yet another vital strategy, which calls upon the software business partners to share the challenge they face in a single platform, which will create a reference point for future operation plans, and thus help in avoiding the same challenges. Educating the team members on the unique challenges facing the global software business and informing them of the strategies applicable to effectively overcome such challenges goes a long way in preparing the teams on how to address future challenges based on the past experiences (Brett, Behfar & Kern, 2006). Technology readiness is yet another strategy applicable, which impresses upon the team members to always prepare to adapt to new technologies that would enhance their collaboration. Increasing the frequency of new software development, coupled with teamwork which enables the teams to work as a co-located entity serves to foster high coordination, and thus enhance speedy goal achievement for the global team (Lee, Delone, & Espinosa, 2006). The advantage created by these strategies is that they foster goal attainment for the global software development and distribution team as if the team was a single co-located entity, working in a seamless collaboration. Nevertheless, the application of such strategies requires high levels of commitment and efforts by all the team members involved. Ramesh, Cao, Mohan and Xu observe that there is a tendency for software development companies to seek to reap the benefit of both agile software development and distributed software development (Ramesh, Cao, Mohan & Xu, 2006). However, integrating the two approaches to reap their benefits is not easy due to the differences present in both tenets. While agile software production mainly relies on informal channels to foster coordination, the distributed software development approach applies the formal means of coordination, which may include subcontracting, partnering or global venturing (Hitt, Ireland & Hoskisson, 2013). Therefore, the problem associated with this approach of integrating both agile and distributed approaches to software development is trying to reconcile both approaches and emerge with a blended approach that successfully utilizes both (Andreessen, 2011). The advantage of a blended approach between the agile software development approach and the distributed software development approach is that, it would enable the companies involved to reap the benefit of both approaches. Thus, such companies would see a speedy development of software, as well as streamlined software distribution and high coordination (Kamaruddin, Noor & Mohamed, 2012). Nevertheless, there are various disadvantages associated with this blended approach. First, since the agile approach applies informal interactions which have minimal explicit documentation, it is not easy to accommodate this approach within the distributed software development approach, which relies mainly on a well architectural mechanism, to address the communication and the geographical complexities (Ramesh, Cao, Mohan & Xu, 2006). Quality requirements also pose a major threat to blending the two approaches since the distributed software development approach applies a predetermined fixed software quality commitment with its partners and teams while the agile applies a flexible software quality formula, which entails continuous negotiations and improvements, depending on the changing circumstances (Rosenberg, 2012). The combination of formal and informal contract agreement is yet another challenge facing the blended approach since the distributed software development approach applies formal contractual agreements while the agile approach applies loose informal contractual agreements (Brett, Behfar & Kern, 2006). These challenges can only be overcome through continuously adjusting the process while also increasing knowledge sharing in order to bridge the gap between formal and informal communication and coordination channels. Case study Lori Kiel, through a case study indicates that the major impediment to the success of software development is an intersection of social, cultural, linguistic and political factors (Kiel, 2001). Language acts as a major hindrance to the coordination between teams and partners in a software development business since the placements of the development companies might be in countries or regions where a different language is applied. This serves to hinder effective communication since many issues raised by one section of the team may not get the prompt response it deserves, due to the communication barrier (Gonsalves, 2011). While the coordination between the teams may call for the use of technological infrastructure such as teleconferencing to address the urgent issues within reasonable time, it becomes impossible to hold such a session since there lacks a common language that all teams from different regions can understand. The separation in time zones also creates another communication and coordination barrier, since the urgent communications that need to be addressed with a short span have to be delayed, pending the appropriate time for the teams to engage the issues (Hall & Fernandez-Ramil, 2007). This serves to make the process of communication and coordination even more complex, disrupting the business organization and threatening to create independent operations for different teams, which would create further complexities in quality and cost commitments of the team. Cultural impediments Cultural attributes are also a major impendent to the effective creation of a distributed software development network (Kiel, 2001). Different cultures inform how different communication and business interactions are to be undertaken. When such cultures fail to match, there is definitely a gap that needs to be filled, which calls for some form of compromise between the cultures (Hitt, Ireland & Hoskisson, 2013). A major problem arises under circumstances where the different cultures exhibited by the teams cannot blend to give an acceptable cultural position and approach. Cultures make people to say things differently and at the same time, do things differently (Kiel, 2001). This being the case, culture interferes with effective communication and coordination, since the way one team raises an issue might result to major disagreements with other team members, not because of the inappropriateness of the issue, but because of the manner in which the issues are raised. Culture may also interfere with effective operations, since different teams from different regions may do things in a way that does not harmonize their operations with others (Hall & Fernandez-Ramil, 2007). Thus, while other factors could play a great role in hindering the effective development of distributed software, culture is the major impendent. Technological infrastructure Komi-Sirvio and Tihinen concur with the observation made by Lee, Delone and Espinosa, that technological infrastructure has enhanced the emergence and growth of distributed software development (Komi-Sirvio & Tihinen, 2005). The development of technological and technical infrastructure has enticed many companies to distribute their software to countries globally, in an attempt to capture the highly desired expertise, while also reaching their customers. However, all this is not achievable without various coordination and communication barriers that need to be overcome, to realize the success aimed by the companies (Reifer, 2006). This calls for the development of appropriate approaches that would see the distributed software development companies mitigate the risks involved (Andreessen, 2011). Strategies Partnership-based development and global business ventures are the other viable strategies that are applied by distributed software development companies to enhance the development and distribution of software globally. Partnership-based development entails a business strategy where the parent companies looks for other local companies to partner with, in different countries and regions, which would oversee the continued software development for the parent company (Hoffman, 2013). Partnership-based development is advantageous since it allows the partnering companies to continue the operation of the parent company, while overcoming the, communication, coordination, cultural and geographical boundary complexities that could be involved. On the other hand, global business ventures entail the investment by a software development company in different countries and regions, where the companies that continue the production of the software in such regions are under the control of the mother company, and thus directly reports to it (Kiel, 2001). This is yet another viable strategy that allows software development companies to continue their production and distribution of software globally, from different geographic regions, thus beating the cultural and the geographic barriers involved (Reifer, 2006). However, these two strategies are disadvantageous in the sense that; the distributed software development companies continue to face the same problems that single-site software projects have been struggling with, which include the quality, scheduling and software costs related problems (Komi-Sirvio & Tihinen, 2005). Summary Distributed software development makes it possible for software development to occur without depending on the geographical locations of the organizations and the partners involved. This has seen the concept of software subcontracting emerge, where the main software development company located in a different country subcontracts another company from a different country or region, to undertake its software development operations, as if it was a single entity of the original software development company (Komi-Sirvio & Tihinen, 2005). This strategy serves to ensure that the production and distribution of software for the mother company continues, regardless of the geographical or other barriers that would hinder the mother company from undertaking its operations in a different country or region. While such a strategy is advantageous in continuing the uninterrupted development and distribution of the software, it is disadvantageous since it calls for a high level of coordination and communication, which must surpass the geographical and the cultural barriers involved (Neuling, 1999). Reference Andreessen, M. (2011). Why Software Is Eating The World. The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460.html Brett, J, Behfar, K. & Kern, M. (2006). Managing Multicultural Teams. Harvard business Review. http://hbr.org/2006/11/managing-multicultural-teams/ar/1 Gonsalves, A. (2012). How Cloud Computing’s Growth Disrupts Hardware & Software Vendors. http://readwrite.com/2012/09/18/how-cloud-computings-growth-disrupts-hardware-software-vendors Hall, P. A. V., & Fernandez-Ramil, J. (2007). Managing the software enterprise: Software engineering and information systems in context. London: Thomson. Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2013). Strategic management: Competitiveness & globalization. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Hoffman, R. (2013).Will Software Eliminate Physical Retail? Not Quite. http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130208012431-1213-will-software-eliminate-physical-retail-not-quite Kamaruddin, N., Noor, A. & Mohamed, A. (2012). Chaos Issues on Communication in Agile Global Software Development. IEEE Business, Engineering & Industrial Applications Colloquium. http://www.academia.edu/1540723/Chaos_Issues_on_Communication_in_Agile_Global_Software_Development Kiel, L. (2001). Experiences in Distributed Development: A Case Study. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Komi-Sirvio, S. & Tihinen, M. (2005). Lessons Learned by Participants of Distributed Software Development. Knowledge and Process Management 12 (2), 108–122. Lee, G, Delone, W & Espinosa, A. (2006). Ambidextrous coping strategies in globally distributed software development projects. Communications of the ACM, 49 (10), 35-40. Neuling, I. (1999). Differences in communication styles between cultures, Munich, GRIN Publishing GmbH, http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/104380/differences-in-communication-styles-between-cultures Ramesh, B, Cao, L, Mohan, K & Xu, P. (2006). Can distributed software development be agile? Communications of the ACM, 49 (10), 41-46. Reifer, D. J. (2006). Software management. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. Roush, W. (2011). How Mindflash Disrupted Itself by Taking Training Software to the Web. http://www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2011/12/13/how-mindflash-disrupted-itself-by-taking-training-software-to-the-web/ Rosenberg, D. (2012). Software interrupted: Developer tool maker Atlassian readies for IPO. CNET News. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-57425559-62/developer-tool-maker-atlassian-readies-for-ipo/ Read More