What Are the Main Characteristics of High Performance Teams for
Software Development?
Alessandra C. S. Dutra
1
, Rafael Prikladnicki
1
and Tayana Conte
2
1
Department of Computing, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do RS (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil
2
Department of Computing, Universidade Federal do Amazonas (UFAM), Amazonas, Brazil
Keywords: Software Engineering, High Performance Teams, Training, Education, Systematic Literature Review.
Abstract: This paper presents a discussion in relation to current training approaches to software development and their
relation to high performance team formation. We performed an ad hoc literature review about training
approaches in Software Engineering and a systematic literature review about the characteristics of high
performance software development teams. Based on what was found we reflect on the challenges of training
high performance teams for software development projects and to what extent the current training
approaches overcome such challenges.
1 INTRODUCTION
The software development market operates in a
global environment, with rapid changes, and needs
to respond to these new opportunities and new
markets with agility (Sommerville, 2010).
A study done in 2010 by Standish Group
(Standish Group, 2013) with a sample of 10,000
projects around the world produced a report called
“Chaos Manifesto 2011”, which revealed that the
Information Technology (IT) industry faces several
challenges; although 37% of the IT projects have
been successful, being delivered before the deadline
and within the estimated cost; 42% of the IT projects
were delivered after the deadline and more
expensive than the original plan; and 21% of the IT
projects were total failures, being cancelled before
the delivered time, or were delivered but never used.
Faraj and Sambamurthy (2006) say that improving
the productivity and quality of projects are
important. Initial approaches were focused on
discovering better methodologies and tools, but there
is an increasing perception that the projects also face
several challenges related to communication,
coordination, learning, negotiation, diversity and on
how to form high performance teams for software
development projects.
This context indicates that the qualified
education and training of professionals is more
necessary in the society in which we live. Beckman
et al (1997) say that, among other factors, the quality
of the professional is directly related to the quality of
the education he/she received.
The quality of Software Engineering (SE)
training can contribute meaningfully to
improvements in the state of the art of software
development and aid in solving some traditional
problems and crises related to software industry
practices (Gibbs, 1994). Nowadays, training and
capacity-building to prepare a software professional
must include not only basic knowledge of the
Computer Science field, but also the teaching of
concepts, processes and techniques for the
definition, development and maintenance of
software (ACM/IEEE, 2008).
As a result, the education process in Software
Development has begun to question the methods
used in training activities (Beckman et al., 1997).
Recent studies observe that these methods involve
traditional teaching strategies such as theory
presentation, expositive classes and complementary
reading, with which the students find in the industry
a different scenario than what is taught in academia
(Prikladnicki et al., 2009). At the same time,
software development projects have required high
performance team training, and professionals with
strong technical, behavioural, and business skills
which current educational programs are not able to
supply (Monsalve et al., 2011). One of the reasons
could be the fact that such programs concentrate on
basic education focused on the traditional
145
C. S. Dutra A., Prikladnicki R. and Conte T..
What Are the Main Characteristics of High Performance Teams for Software Development?.
DOI: 10.5220/0005375601450152
In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2015), pages 145-152
ISBN: 978-989-758-097-0
Copyright
c
2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
approaches for software development, instead of
preparing the professional to act as a part of a
software development team, which requires
multifunctional competencies and a
multidisciplinary environment.
Thus, the goal of this paper is to develop a
reflection about how the current existing SE training
approaches cover the various high performance
teams characteristics. We first conducted an ad-hoc
literature study about the existing training
approaches in SE and then a systematic literature
review (SLR) about high performance teams
characteristics. At the end, we reflected on how the
existing training approaches help in forming high
performance software development teams.
This paper is divided into six sections. In Section
2 we present the theoretical foundations. In Section
3, we report on existing training approaches. Section
4 provides a systematic literature review of high
performance teams. In Section 5 there is a discussion
on training versus high performance teams
characteristics. Finally in Section 6 the conclusions
and future work are addressed.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Software Engineering Training
Software Engineering is concerned with theory
application, knowledge and practice for the effective
and efficient software development of systems that
satisfies users requirements (ACM/IEEE, 2008). SE
began to be discussed as a discipline in 1968
(ACM/IEEE, 2004) and currently is part of the
curriculum of several courses such as Computer
Science, Computer Engineering, Information
Systems, Automation Control Engineering and
Software Engineering.
Software Engineering is related with all software
production aspects, from the initial stage to its
maintenance, involving not only technical
development processes, but also project
management activities and tools, methods and
theories that support its production (Sommerville,
2010). Therefore, SE goes beyond programming
code creation; it tries to discipline development and
brings to software development principles,
techniques and knowledge to discuss quality
questions, deadlines and economic factors
(ACM/IEEE, 2004).
The professionals who conclude their
undergraduate course, according to curricular
recommendations, are able to, among other aspects,
master knowledge and abilities that are part of the
SE area; work individually or as part of a team to
develop software artifacts with quality; design
solutions using appropriate SE approaches that
integrate ethical, social, legal and economic
questions; know how to apply current theories,
models and techniques that provide a baseline for
identifying and analyzing problems, software design,
development, implementation, verification and
documentation; demonstrate understanding and
appreciation of the importance of negotiation,
efficient work habits, leadership, and good
communication with stakeholders; and learn new
models, techniques and technologies as soon as them
emerge (ACM/IEEE, 2004).
By analyzing the curricular recommendation
listed, we have identified that there are several
required competencies for a SE professional. The SE
curriculum (ACM/IEEE, 2004), (ACM/IEEE, 2008)
points to the necessity of education apart from
expositive class formats, and one of the way to
increase education quality involves innovative
strategies and didactics. According to Beckman
(1997), educational quality is one of the important
factors that influence the quality of the
professionals. Thus, some of the challenges for
improving SE education are: to make SE courses
more attractive to students; to focus appropriately on
SE education, understanding its dimensions; to
present industry practices to the students; provide
education to industry professionals; to make
education in SE evidence-based; to ensure that SE
educators have the necessary experience and
knowledge to this assignment; and to increase the
research prestige and quality of the educational SE
(Sommerville, 2010).
According to Conn (2002), the SE professionals
are dissatisfied with the lack of training of the
university students that enter the work market,
which means that the industry must complement
their education with training that gives them
necessary knowledge in order to make up this
deficiency. This training can involve professionals
or teams, including high performance teams.
2.2 High Performance Teams
A high performance team is a group that brings
together members committed to the mutual growth
and personal success (Moscovici, 2003). According
to Chiavenato (2008), the main high performance
teams attributes are: participation, accountability,
clarity, interaction, flexibility, focalization,
creativity and quickness. The participation in a team
ICEIS2015-17thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
146
increases the commitment and the fidelity of the
people, resulting in delivery of high quality work
(Cleland and Ireland, 2000).
A high performance team, besides all the
requirements of a team, must have its members to be
committed to the personal growth and success of
each team member. Such a team will exceed the
performance of all the other teams and achieve
results above expectations (Moscovici, 2003).
Katzenbach and Smith (1993), present some
characteristics of high performance teams: “Deeply
personal commitments of each one to the growth and
the success of the others is what distinguish high
performance teams from the majority of the existing
teams. Energized by this extra sense of commitment,
the high performance team typically reflects a
vigorous amplification of the fundamental teams
characteristics: deeper sense of purpose, more
ambitious performance targets, a more complete
approach, more fullness in mutual accountability,
knowledge interchangeably and complementarity.”
Boyett and Boyett (1998) mention some
companies that have achieved great results with high
performance teams. The AT&T Credit Corporation
has used high performance interfunctional teams in
order to improve its efficiency and service to the
client.
According to Raj (Raj et al., 2006), there is a
major difficulty for an organization in disseminating
high performance team practices, such as work
reorganization, professional involvement in decision
making processes and improvement in workers’s
skills, despite the evidence that organizations invest
in these as practices to achieve greater productivity
and efficiency.
3 TRAINING APPROACHES IN
SE
Training in SE should prepare the students in both
theory and effective participation in a collaborative
and interdisciplinary environment. In this regard, it
is important to consider the variation in training
techniques.
Traditional approaches in SE training are
considered to be (Anastasiou and Alves, 2004):
1. Dialogued Expositive Classes: This is a content
exposition, with active participation by the
students, whose previous knowledge must be
considered and can be taken as a foundation.
2. Text Study: This is an exploration of an author’s
idea from the critical study of a text and/or
information research and the author’s ideas
exploration.
3. Directed Study: This is study under guidance and
direction by the professor, aiming to solve
specific difficulties.
4. Use of a Discussion List: This is an opportunity
for group of people be able to debate, at a
distance, a theme in which they are experts or
have done a previous study.
5. Verbalization and Observation Groups (VG/OG):
This is an analysis of theme/problem under a
professor’s coordination that divides the students
in two groups: one for verbalization (VG) and
the other for observation (OG).
6. Seminar: This is a space where a group discusses
or debate themes or problems.
7. Case Study: This is the detailed and objective
analysis of a real situation that needs to be
investigated and that is challenge for the people
that are involved.
8. Workshop: This is the gathering of a small
number of people with common interests, which
aims to study and work for the knowledge and
deepening of a theme, under expert orientation.
These alternative approaches can help students learn
more effectively. Alternative approaches are
considered to be (Prikladnicki et al., 2009) (Gresse
and Shull, 2009), (Monsalve et al., 2011), (Halma,
2009):
1. Group Activities, distance education and practice
activities: By using this approach, interaction
with the students is emphasized through
icebreakers that explore specific subjects. The
characteristics are: diversification in the
techniques for group activities; practical classes
in laboratories; the planning of the student work;
and part-time classes: 20% of the discipline is
done through distance education.
2. Capstone projects and practices activities: a
Capstone project is an approach where a student
group plans and executes a software project from
the beginning to the end during one whole
semester.
3. Playgroup and games: For this strategy, related
content is first presented to the class. In the end,
in order to consolidate comprehension, a
playgroup is performed using LEGO®. The
game makes it possible to design, from the
defined requirements, a product to be built that is
similar to the software development.
4. Games and educational simulators: Because of
the need for training students in the SE process,
WhatAretheMainCharacteristicsofHighPerformanceTeamsforSoftwareDevelopment?
147
one of the alternatives is the use of games to fill
the gap between theoretical and practical
aspects. From the reports found in the literature
(Monsalve et al., 2011), it was noticed that the
majority of the proposals developed are
associated with simulator games.
The approaches that are more focused on the
students and that promote their further active
participation on the classes, for example with games
and simulators (Monsalve et al., 2011), (Halma,
2009), have the potential to increase the students
interest, motivate them and improve learning at level
of concept application.
4 SLR: HIGH PERFORMANCE
TEAMS
The purpose of the SLR was to select the main
studies in the literature that report from high
performance software development teams and
identify its characteristics.
4.1 Research Question and Context
The research reported in this article was guided by a
two research questions: (1) What is the concept of
high performance teams in software development?
(2) How are high performance teams characterized?
This article is actually part of a broader research
project that aims to generate a deep understanding of
high performing teams in software engineering, by
revisiting the definition of high performance teams,
and identifying contextual conditions in which teams
are likely to flourish. Thus, answering this research
question is a cornerstone towards the development
of comprehensive models for training and
developing effective software engineering teams.
4.2 SLR Protocol
4.2.1 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The papers included in the search were related to
high performance teams training, characteristics and
environments. We searched for papers available on
the web, with the complete text in electronic format
for reading as well published in a conference or a
journal in the Computer Science field.
We have excluded papers that did not involve
software development process and software
engineering, did not deal with training of software
development teams, and were not written in
Portuguese or English.
4.2.2 The String Search
Similar to the Salleh study (Salleh et al., 2011), the
database used as the research reference selected was
SCOPUS because to its reputation and the greater
numbers of abstracts and citations. The search string
used was formed with the following composition:
1. "high performance team" OR "high performance
teams"
2. "performance teams" OR "team performance"
3. "teams performance" OR "high productivity
team"
4. "high productivity teams" OR "good team" OR
"best team" OR "team productivity"
5. "limitation" OR "practice" OR "characteristics"
OR "environment" OR "organization" OR
"concept" OR "productivity”
6. "software development" OR "software
engineering"
The final string received the following combination:
1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 AND 5 AND 6
The data extraction form was developed with the
following fields: Paper, Year, Author; Conference
(where published); Type (Journal, Conference);
Objective; Context (Education, Practice, Tools);
Contributing, evidences; Research methodology;
Status (Relevant or not relevant); Justification
(status regarding); Answers Question 1(Yes or No?);
Answers Question 2 (Yes or No?).
4.3 SLR Execution
After we defined the research protocol, the review
was executed. The initial search was made in phase
1 and returned only 3 papers. Because of this small
quantity of papers, we decided to search for
synonyms that match the research question, so for
phase 2, we selected 112 papers. The synonyms
were: productivity, productivity teams, high
productivity, team performance, best team, good
team, organization and concept. In phase 3, the 112
papers were classified as relevant or irrelevant,
based on reading the title and abstract, and 61 papers
were relevant.
In the final phase, all the papers selected in the
previous phase were downloaded from the web,
fully read and added to a read form implemented
with MS Excel according to the protocol. In phase 4,
after the reading, 20 papers did not answer the
research question of this review and were removed,
ICEIS2015-17thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
148
so that finished with 41 papers.
4.4 SLR Results
Question 1: What is the concept of high performance
teams in software development?
In the papers searched on the SLR, we found
studies that present high performance team
characteristics that focus on how to increase their
productivity. Staples and Cameron (2005), describes
how team performance is associated with
characteristics such as: appropriate interpersonal
skills, low team turnover, appropriate team size so
that the resources are enough to complete the tasks,
showing strong team spirit, and creation of
innovative ways to coordinate the team, helping to
achieve their tasks.
In our research, we identified some
characteristics that high performance teams must
have for software development. We identified
organizational, behavioral and technique
characteristics. Those most cited are presented in
table 1 and are mainly behavioral characteristics.
Thus, we can suggest that the high performance
teams (1) have an effective communication, (2)
present a diversity that stimulates learning and
innovation, (3) have cohesion, motivation,
leadership and coordination, in order to achieve their
goals.
Table 1: Characteristics most cited in the studies.
Characteristics most cited Papers
Efficient Communication [2][6][7][27][13][28]
Coordination [5][6][23][28]
Team Work [2][6][7][28]
Team Diversity [15][17]
Leadership [2][27]
Team Cohesion [2][19]
Motivation [10][13]
Question 2: How are high performance teams
characterized?
For this research question, 48 characteristics
were cited by the researchers. According to Table 1,
Communication was the most cited, with 6 papers,
next, with 5 papers, was Coordination and with 4
papers was Team Work.
Hause (2005) in the final results of his paper
writes that he found the following characteristics:
High performance teams were more focused on
specific tasks, were more organized in their work,
thus, they communicated less, had to make fewer
decisions, and thus worked fewer hours, shared
better information and had fewer conflicts; had a
leadership style more appropriate for team work; and
had a balance between communication, participation
and work division.
According to Klimoski and Zukin (1999), the
growth in knowledge, abilities, and skills needed to
solve the tasks that create competitive advantages in
today’s organizations makes it impossible for
individuals to work independently of teams.
In their systematic review of empirical studies on
agile software development, Dybå and Dingsøyr
(2008) cite Robinson and Sharp (2004) who
characterized the agile development teams as a team
that has faith in its own abilities and shows respect
and responsibility that establishes the truth and that
preserves quality of life at work.
Regarding communication, its importance to
team work is evident, according to related studies on
this issue (Da Silva et al., 2013), (Jiang et al., 2012)
(Fernández-Sanz, and Misra, 2012),
(Hause, 2005),
(Hause et al., 2003), (Staples and Cameron, 2005).
One must highlight Hause’s research (2003), explain
that the difference between high and low
performance groups is measured by the amount of
produced communication, with low performance
groups producing more communication. Still, the
analysis of their work process suggests that is not the
quantity, but the quality of communication that is
important in the determination of performance.
The characteristics of the teams were classified,
based on Capability Maturity Model Integration
CMMI (SEI, 2006), where technical competencies
are the abilities to use tools, data and required
process by a project or process. Organizational
abilities, meaning the behavior regarding
organizational structure, roles and responsibilities;
and Contextual Abilities, which are abilities in self-
management, communication and inter-relationship.
Table 2 presents all the characteristics we found for
high performance teams.
5 DISCUSSION
The reflection on existing training approach and
high performance team characteristics for software
development led to a necessity and an opportunity.
There is a necessity for adopting alternative
approaches for forming high performance teams in
SE, and an opportunity to use them in undergraduate
and graduate classes at Universities.
Considering the high performance team
characteristics most cited, we can identify that the
majority of the alternative training approaches have
focus on the improvement of these characteristics
such as teamwork, communication, leadership and
WhatAretheMainCharacteristicsofHighPerformanceTeamsforSoftwareDevelopment?
149
motivation (Prikladnicki et al., 2009).
We also identified, that at an organizational
level, little relation is seen between high
performance team characteristics and training
approaches. From a behavioural viewpoint,
characteristics such as leadership, communication,
teamwork, motivation, cohesion, and flexibility are
characteristics that can be associated to some of the
training approaches found. The characteristic related
to technical competencies are easier to be worked
with current training approaches, given that
technical competencies are the aspect most worked
on with current training. Therefore, in an initial
reflection, we understand that it is important to map
training approaches in relation to the high
performance team characteristics in software
development.
By analyzing some of the approaches in relation
to high performance teams characteristics, we can
observe that: (1) Verbalization Groups (VG) and
Observations Groups (OG), workshops and
alternatives approaches, have the goal of developing
skills such as teamwork and communication; (2)
group activity approaches, distance education and
practical activities (Prikladnicki et al., 2009) enable
the student to work with characteristics such as
teamwork, communication, and responsibility, as
well as students’ motivation in relation to the work
done, (3) expositive classes focus more on the
content.
Although the professor asks the students
questions, and they interpret and discuss the study
object, this approach does not work on team,
leadership and communication aspects; Capstone
projects and practical activities, icebreakers and
educational simulators can benefit the training on
communication, teamwork, leadership and
organization, along with team activities.
In that regard, and considering this reflection, we
have some evidence that: (1) it is important to
understand what high performance teams are in
terms of software development and their
characteristics, (2) it is necessary to define the
training approaches based on what one wants to
teach, and not only from the approaches that one
already know how to teach. In terms of research
opportunities, we also identify: (1) the need for
mapping between training approaches and high
performance team characteristics. Such a study
would facilitate the approaches professors choose in
relation to the teams characteristics that he/she
wishes to work on, in this case a focus on high
performance, (2) the opportunity to propose a
methodological approach that is aimed at educating
high performance teams in SE.
We also identified the following challenges: (1)
to be able to identify, in a software development
team, the characteristics that one wishes to train; (2)
to work on training of professors in order to, through
innovative approaches, better prepare them and their
Table 2: Characteristics classified for high performance teams.
High Performance Teams’ Characteristics
Organizational
Characteristics
Contextual Characteristics Technical Characteristics
Team Diversity
[15][17][2]
Team Work
[2][6][7][28][3]
Communication
[2][6][7][27][31][28
]
Motivation [10][13]
Coordination
[5][6][23][28]
Managerial
Involvement
[38]
Team size [23][28]
Team Leadership
[2][27]
Team Cohesion
[2][19]
Unexpected
Challenges [1]
Professional
Orientation [13]
Restriction of
External
Influence [38]
Team’s autonomy
[15][28]
Personality [13] Improvisation [1] Attitude [13]
Teamwork
Orientation [13]
Performance
Evaluation [38]
Work less hours
[27]
Organization [27] Respect [11]
Passion to Teach
[11]
Focus on Specific
Tasks [27]
Competencies
of Management
[13]
Organizational
Commitment [5]
Comprehension [4] Empathy [4]
Better sharing
Information [27]
Experience in
Propagation [38]
Usage of
Resources [6]
Life quality at work
[11]
Accountability [11]
Emotional
Intelligence [4]
Believe on own
abilities. [11]
Knowledge [13]
Low Turnover [28] Flexibility [4]
Cognitive Work /
Abilities [13]
Tasks Participation
[27]
Less Decision
Made [27][31]
Intelligence [10]
Less tendency to
conflicts [27]
Confidence [11]
Work Tasks
Division [27]
Analytic [11] Socialization [10] Awareness [10] Goals Fixing [32]
ICEIS2015-17thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
150
students to form high performance software
development teams.
6 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we presented a discussion about the
current training approaches to software development
and their relation to high performance team
formation. As any other empirical study, this study
has some limitations. The first is related to
researcher bias during the paper analysis process.
For this reason, two researchers were involved in the
systematic literature review execution, both in paper
selection and data extraction. The study on existing
training approaches also had research bias during the
study process as a limitation.
As a next step we intend to identify the practices
of high performance software development teams in
light of existing training approaches, aiming at
proposing ways for developing such practices,
involving existing or new training approaches, and
thus contributing to the formation of high
performance teams for software development.
REFERENCES
ACM/IEEE, 2004. Software Engineering Curriculum.
Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in
Software Engineering.
ACM/IEEE, 2008. Computer Science Curriculum,
Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in
Software Engineering.
Anastasiou, L. G. C., Alves, L. P., 2004. Teaching
Strategies. In: Proceedings of education at the
university. Strategies work in the classroom. 3. ed.
Joinville: Univille, p. 67-100 (in portuguese).
Beckman, K., Coulter, N., Khajenouri, S., Mead, N., 1997.
Collaborations: Closing the industry–academia gap.
IEEE Software 14 (6), pp. 49–57.
Boyett, J.H, Boyett, J.T., 1998. The Guru Guide-The Best
Ideas of the Top Management Thinkers. New York:
Wiley.
Chiavenato, I., 2008. People management: the new role of
human resources in organizations. Rio de Janeiro:
Elsevier, 3a edition (in portuguese).
Cleland, D. I., Ireland R. L., 2000. Project Manager`s
portable handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill, 257p.
Conn, R. 2002. Developing Software Engineers at the C-
130J Software Factory. IEEE Software, Los Alamitos,
v. 19, n. 5, p. 25-29.
Da Silva, F.Q.B., França, A.C.C., Suassuna, M., De Sousa
Mariz, L.M.R., Rossiley, I., De Miranda, R.C.G.,
Gouveia, T.B., Monteiro, C.V.F., Lucena, E., Cardozo,
E.S.F., Espindola, E., 2013. Team building criteria in
software projects: A mix-method replicated study. In:
Journal Information and Software Technology.
Faraj, S., Sambamurthy, V., 2006. Leadership of
information systems development projects. In: IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management.
Fernández-Sanz, L., Misra, S., 2012. Analysis of cultural
and gender influences on teamwork performance for
software requirements analysis in multinational
environments. In: Journal IET Soft.
Gibbs, W., 1994. Software's chronic crisis. Scientific
American 271 3, pp. 86–95.
Gresse, V. W. C., Shull, F., 2009. To Game or Not to
Game?. Software, IEEE, v. 26, n. 2, p. 92-94.
Halma, A., 2009. Robomind.net – Welcome to
Robomind.net, the new way to learn programming.
http://www.robomind.net Access in: set. 2014.
Hause, M.L., 2005. Distributed team performance in
software development. In: Proceedings of the 10th
Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and
Technology in Computer Science Education.
Hause, M., Petre, M., Woodroffe, M., 2003. Performance
in international computer science collaboration
between distributed student teams. In: Proceedings -
Frontiers in Education Conference.
Jiang, L., Carley, K.M., Eberlein, A., 2012.Assessing team
performance from a socio-technical congruence
perspective. In: International Conference on Software
and System Process, ICSSP 2012 – Proceedings.
Katzenbach, J. R, Smith D. K., 1993. The Wisom of
Teams. Summarized by permission of Harvard
Business School Press Copyright by McKinsey &
Company, Inc. 275 pages.
Klimoski R., Zukin L.N., 1999. Selection and staffing for
team effectiveness. In: E. Sundstrom (Ed.), Supporting
Work Team Effectiveness, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, pp. 63–91.
Monsalve E., Werneck V., Leite J., 2011. Teaching
Software Engineering with SimulES-W. Conf. on
Software Engineering Education and Training
(CSEE&T).
Moscovici, F., 2003. Teams work right: Multiplication of
Human Talent. Rio de Janeiro: José Olympio, 8a
edition (in portuguese).
Prikladnicki R., Albuquerque A., Wangenheim C., and
Cabral R., 2009. Teaching Software Engineering:
Challenges, Teaching Strategies and Lessons Learned
in FEES - Education Forum in Software Engineering
(in portuguese).
Raj, P.P, Baumotte A.C.T, Fonseca D.P.D, Silva,
L.H.C.M., 2006. Project Human Resource
Management. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV –
Fundação Getúlio Vargas, 180p. (in portuguese).
Robinson H., Sharp H., 2004. The characteristics of XP
teams. In: Extreme Programming and Agile Processes
in Software Engineering, Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, vol. 3092, Berlin.
Salleh, N., Mendes, E., Grundy, J., 2011. Empirical
studies of pair programming for CS/SE teaching in
higher education: A systematic literature review. In:
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering,
WhatAretheMainCharacteristicsofHighPerformanceTeamsforSoftwareDevelopment?
151
37(4):509–525.
SEI, 2006. CMMI® for Development, Version 1.2.
CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008 ESC-TR-2006-008.
Pittsburgh, PA Software Engineering Institute-SEI,
Carnegie Mellon University: 561.
Sommerville, I., 2010. Software Engineering, 9a edition.
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Staples, D.S., Cameron, A.F., 2005. The effect of task
design, team characteristics, organizational context
and team processes on the performance and attitudes
of virtual team members. In: Proceedings of the
Annual Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences.
The Standish Group, “Chaos”, http://
www.versionone.com/assets/img/files/CHAOSManife
sto2013.pdf, access in: June 2013.
Dybå, T., Dingsøyr, T., 2008. Empirical studies of agile
software development: A systematic review. In:
Journal of Science Direct.
APPENDIX
Due to the page limit, the list of all 41 references of the
SLR can be accessed here: http://goo.gl/mkDi6O.
[1] Magni, M., Maruping, L.M., Hoegl, M., Proserpio,
L., 2013. Managing the unexpected across space:
Improvisation, dispersion, and performance in NPD
teams. In: Journal of Product Innovation
Management.
[2] Da Silva, F.Q.B., França, A.C.C., Suassuna, M., De
Sousa Mariz, L.M.R., Rossiley, I., De Miranda,
R.C.G., Gouveia, T.B., Monteiro, C.V.F., Lucena,
E., Cardozo, E.S.F., Espindola, E., 2013. Team
building criteria in software projects: A mix-method
replicated study. In: Journal Information and
Software Technology.
[3] De Melo, C.O., S. Cruzes, D., Kon, F., Conradi, R.,
2013. Interpretative case studies on agile team
productivity and management. In: Journal of
Information and Software Technology.
[4] Günsel, A., Açikgöz, A., 2013. The Effects of Team
Flexibility and Emotional Intelligence on Software
Development Performance. In: Journal of Group
Decision and Negotiation.
[5] Chen, P.-C., Chern, C.-C., Chen, C.-Y., 2012.
Software project team characteristics and team
performance: Team motivation as a moderator. In:
Proceedings - Asia-Pacific Software Engineering
Conference, APSEC.
[6] Jiang, L., Carley, K.M., Eberlein, A., 2012.
Assessing team performance from a socio-technical
congruence perspective. In: International Conference
on Software and System Process, ICSSP 2012 –
Proceedings.
[7] Fernández-Sanz, L., Misra, S., 2012. Analysis of
cultural and gender influences on teamwork
performance for software requirements analysis in
multinational environments. In: Journal of IET
Software.
[8] Staats, B.R., 2012. Unpacking team familiarity: The
effects of geographic location and hierarchical role.
In: Journal of Production and Operations
Management.
[9] Maheshwari, M., Kumar, U., Kumar, V., 2012.
Alignment between social and technical capability in
software development teams: An empirical study. In:
Journal of Team Performance Management.
[10] Georgieva, K., Neumann, R., Fiegler, A., Dumke,
R.R., 2011. Validation of the model for prediction of
the human performance. In: Proceedings - Joint
Conference of the 21st International Workshop on
Software Measurement, IWSM 2011 and the 6th
International Conference on Software Process and
Product Measurement, Mensura.
[11] Dybå, T., Dingsøyr, T., 2008. Empirical studies of
agile software development: A systematic review.
In: Journal os Science Direct.
[12] Czekster, R.M., Fernandes, P., Sales, A., Webber,
T., 2010. Analytical modeling of software
development teams in globally distributed projects.
In: Proceedings - 5th International Conference on
Global Software Engineering, ICGSE.
[13] Siau, K., Tan, X., Sheng, H., 2010. Important
characteristics of software development team
members: An empirical investigation using
Repertory Grid. In: Journal of Information System
Journal.
[14] Ganesh, M.P., Gupta, M., 2010. Impact of
virtualness and task interdependence on extra-role
performance in software development teams. In:
Team Performance Management.
[15] Lee, G., Xia, W., 2010. Toward agile: An integrated
analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on
software development agility. In: MIS Quarterly:
Management Information Systems.
ICEIS2015-17thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
152
