Skip to main content

Table 1 The Research Model Variables Literature Review (Alzoubi & Gill 2015)

From: A measurement model to analyze the effect of agile enterprise architecture on geographically distributed agile development

Variable

Literature

Relevant Definitions/Concepts/Ideas

Agile Enterprise Architecture

Ambler 2014

AEA should follow the strategy of “everyone owns the architecture” and be a team effort. AEA should use a minimum documentation and avoid big up-front design

Bass et al. 2013

System quality can be predicted based solely on an evaluation of its architecture

Gill 2013

AEA is a blue print that the overall structural, technical, social, behavioral, and facility elements of an enterprise

Niemi & Pekkola 2015

EA artefacts can be used as a communication medium in many situations

Ovaska et al. 2003

The architecture represents an important communication tool and a coordination mechanism in multi-site development

Sauer (2010)

EA description can enhance communication in global software environment since EA can play as a common language among distributed developers

Smolander 2002

Architecture can be assumed as a language metaphor such that architecture description about structures and solutions can be used as communication enabler between different stakeholders

Svensson et al. 2012

Using architecture was perceived as delivering big amount of rich information in global sites and enhancing active communication by providing a common vocabulary among distributed teams

Communication Efficiency

Franke et al. 2010

Efficiency concerns with short manufacturing times, cycle times, lead times and work times

Herbsleb & Mockus 2003)

Splitting work across distributed sites slows the work down

Communication efficiency can be enhanced by timely communication and right people to communicate with

Lee & Xia 2010

Efficiency relates to the cost, time, resources and effort associated with software team responses

Melo et al. 2011

Efficiency concerns with doing things right of any task, even if it is not important to the job, that meets all the standards of time, quality, etc.

Misra et al. 2009

Fast communication is a success factor of GDAD practices

Fast communication is hindered in larger team context

Communication Effectiveness

Bhalerao & Ingle 2010

GDAD requires effective communication by adopting tools like teleconference and instant feedback from the customer

Cannizzo et al. 2008

Communication effectiveness concerns with minimum disruption, waiting time and misunderstanding to receive the message

Communication effectiveness requires immediate feedback that reduces waiting time and helps team members to address problems

Dorairaj et al. 2011

Communication effectiveness facilitates rapid knowledge transfer between teams, allows team members to understand customer’s requirements and helps team members perform development activities more efficiently

Communication effectiveness can be increased by reducing the effect of communication challenges such as time-zone differences and language barrier, and increasing effective formal and informal communication

Herbsleb & Moitra 2003

Communication effectiveness is defined as delivering a complete, adequate and accurate message

Communication effectiveness requires more communication frequency and coordination between GDAD teams

Melo et al. 2011

Effectiveness refers to doing the right things for the tasks that are important to the job, even if they are completed without meeting standards of time, quality, etc.

On-Time Completion

Chow & Cao 2008

Delivering software project (system) on time

Drury-Grogan 2014

Refers to the scheduling of tasks and completion dates

Lee & Xia 2010

The extent to which a software project meets its time baseline goals

Melo et al. 2011

Refers to meeting datelines, overtime needed to complete the work, and other time related issues

On-Budget Completion

Chow & Cao 2008

Delivering software project within estimated cost

Lee & Xia 2010

The extent to which a software project meets its cost baseline goals

Mahaney & Lederer 2006

The extent to which a software project is completed within the estimated budget

Software Functionality

Chow & Cao 2008

Meeting customer’s requirements and objectives

Lee & Xia 2010

The extent to which software project meets its functional goals, user needs and technical requirements

Mahaney & Lederer 2006

meeting the technical goals of the software project

Software

Quality

Bartelt & Dennis 2014

Different communication tools (e.g., IM and forum) result in significant different decision quality and team outcome

Chow & Cao 2008

Delivering good product or project

Conboy & Fitzgerald 2004

Achieving high standards of the software, supporting documentation and the development team

Drury-Grogan 2014

Refers to how well the finished product functions

Mahaney & Lederer 2006

Improving the project performance

Misra et al. 2009

Quality criteria are productivity, customer satisfaction, business processes and functionality