Coordination mechanisms

Sabherwal (2003) examined prior information system literature to arrive at a broad classification of coordination mechanisms into plan, standard, formal mutual adjustment and informal mutual adjustment. The mechanisms identified by Sabherwal are distinguished by their fixed and variable costs. The more formal coordination mechanisms have higher initial costs but lower variable costs. The less formal mechanisms have a lower initial cost but higher variable costs as illustrated in Figure 2.

Sabherwal examined a number of software development projects to identify which types of coordination mechanism were used between the developer and the supplier and whether this evolved during the course of the project. He found that the coordination mechanisms did evolve and that the customer preferred to pull (sic) the relationship toward a hierarchical structure, typified by informal adjustment while the developer pulled (sic) the relationship toward a market structure, typified by standards, plans and formal mutual adjustment (Sabherwal, 2003).

Figure 2: The classification of coordination mechanisms - from Sabherwal (2003)

Adler (1995) investigated coordination strategies between design and manufacture. In such a setting, an absence of any form of coordination between the two functions, described

colloquially as “throw it over the wall”, is a valid coordination strategy. In all other respects, the taxonomy of coordination mechanisms is very similar to that of Sabherwal: non-coordination, standards-based, schedule and plan-based, mutual adjustment and teams. These are shown in

Fixed costs

Variable costs Does the mechanism

rely on a priori specification of a blueprint of action, or adjustments using information obtained during the project?

A priori specification

Mutual adjustment

Does the mechanism specify the rules for performing the task or the goals to be

achieved?

Are the adjustments made in a formal, structured fashion or an informal, unstructured fashion? Coordination by standards Coordination by plans Coordination by formal mutual adjustment Coordination by informal mutual adjustment High High Low Low

Page 38

Table 4. Adler’s main interest was in the differing coordination strategies that were more

successful, or more frequently used, at different stages of the product development life cycle.

Table 4: Adler (1995) typology of design/manufacturing coordination mechanisms.

Pre-project phase Product and process design phase

Manufacturing phase

Non-coordination Anarchy Over-the-wall Work-arounds

Standards Compatibility standards

Design rules or tacit knowledge

Manufacturing flexibility Schedules and plans Capabilities,

development schedules

Sign-offs Exceptions, resolution plans

Mutual adjustment Coordination committees

Producability design reviews

Producability engineering changes

Teams Joint development Joint teams Transition teams

Andres and Zmud (2002) investigated relationships between coordination strategy and project success as the two contingencies of task interdependence and goal conflict varied. They identified a three dimensional model of coordination with the dimensions being:

• Formality - vertical versus horizontal communication • Cooperativeness - the extent of shared decision making • Centralization - the locus of decision autonomy.

Within these three dimensions coordination mechanisms are described as organic at one extreme and mechanistic at the other, adopting terms first used to describe different styles of

organizational management (Burns and Stalker, 1966). Informal, cooperative and decentralised strategies reflect an organic strategy whereas formal, controlling and centralised strategies reflect a mechanistic coordination strategy. The relationships between task interdependence, coordination strategy and project success are illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Task interdependence - coordination strategy. An organic coordination strategy is more successful as the tasks become more interdependent. From Andres and Zmud (2002)

The relationships found between goal conflict, coordination strategy and project success are illustrated in Figure 4. Task Interdependence Organic Mechanistic Software Project Su cces s

Page 39

Figure 4: Goal conflict - coordination strategy. A mechanistic coordination strategy is more successful as project goals are increasingly in conflict. From Andres and Zmud (2002)

Nidumolu (1996) uses a continuum of coordination mechanisms similar to that of Andres and Zmud (2002) although using the two dimensions of vertical coordination and horizontal coordination. Vertical coordination is given as “the extent to which coordination between users and IS staff is undertaken through decisions by authorized entities” while horizontal

coordination is given as “the extent to which coordination between users and IS staff is undertaken through mutual adjustments and communication” (Nidumolu, 1996). Nidumolu compared structural contingency and risk-based perspectives regarding the effects of coordination and requirements uncertainty on project performance. Project performance was measured on the two dimensions of process control and product flexibility.

Process control is described as “the extent to which the development process is under control.” Process control is reflected in how well the project met its schedule, cost and quality objectives. Product flexibility is given as “the extent to which the software developed at the end of the project is able to support distinctly new products or functions in response to changing business needs.” These two performance dimensions were chosen because they are typical of the tradeoffs made to meet differing project objectives.

Grinter and Herbsleb (1999) investigated coordination strategies in software development when geographical distance impeded direct communication. The thrust of their research is not to identify coordination mechanisms, but to identify which strategies are used to solve particular coordination problems. Four coordination strategies are identified that different organizations use to resolve the main coordination difficulties: divide the work according to functional areas of expertise, divide the work according to product structure (architecture), divide the work according to process steps and divide the work according to product feature. Each strategy attempts to deal with the main coordination problems which they identify as minimising the amount of communication needed between the separated groups. However, each strategy does not provide all of the necessary coordination and part of the discussion concerns the

consequences and compensatory coordination needed to make the strategy work. The

mechanisms are only briefly mentioned and are not intended to fully describe the range needed to coordinate the work. Each of the four coordination strategies would be grouped under a plan- based mechanism even though each is quite different from the perspective of the main problem

Software Project Su cces s Goal conflict Organic Mechanistic

Page 40

each tries to address. The theme of architecture-based coordination occurs in another study by the same authors (Herbsleb and Grinter, 1999a).

2.4.2.1 Summary

The available models of coordination (Adler, 1995; Nidumolu, 1996; Andres and Zmud, 2002; Sabherwal, 2003) all display some form of continuum from more formal and less interactive to less formal and more interactive. Since this research needs to identify the different coordination mechanisms rather than deal with an undifferentiated group of mechanisms, it will adopt the classifications proposed by Sabherwal as a result of considering the body of research concerning coordination mechanisms; that is, plan-based, standards-based, formal mutual adjustment and informal mutual adjustment.

In document in software development (Page 52-55)