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
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