Yazılım Geliştirme Takımlarında İklim ve Ürün Kalitesi: Problem Çözmenin ve Öğrenmenin Bağdaştırıcı Rollerinin Değerlenmesi

Öz

Haşin rekabetin yönetilmesi maksadıyla bilgi-yoğun örgütler her geçen gün daha fazla yeni ürün geliştirmeye yönelmektelerdir. Yeni ürün geliştirmenin birçok örgütün performansına olan kritik etkisini göze alarak, problem çözmeyi destekleyen mekanizmaların açığa çıkarılması önem arz etmektedir. Mevcut literatürün dikkate alınması çizgisinde, bu çalışma takım iklimi, takım problem çözmesi, takım öğrenmesi ve yazılım ürünü kalitesi arasındaki ilişkileri incelemektedir. Yine, bu çalışmada takım problem çözmesinin takım iklimi ve takım öğrenmesi arasındaki ilişki üzerinde bağdaştırıcı rolü ile takım öğrenmesinin takım problem çözme ve yazılım ürünü kalitesi arasındaki ilişki üzerindeki bağdaştırıcı rolü araştırılmaktadır. 139 farklı yazılım geliştirmesi projesinden elde edilen veriler, yapısal eşitlik modeli tabanlı kısmi En Küçük Kareler (PLS) metodu takip edilerek, bahsedilen ilişkileri açıklamak maksadıyla kullanılmıştır. Bulgular şu sonuçları vermiştir: (i) takım iklimi takım problem çözmesi üzerinde pozitif yönlü bir etkiye sahiptir, (ii) takım problem çözmesi takım öğrenmesini pozitif yönlü etkilemektedir, (iii) takım öğrenmesi ise yazılım ürününün kalitesini pozitif yönlü artırmaktadır. İlaveten, sonuçlar takım problem çözmesinin takım iklimi ve takım öğrenmesi arasındaki ilişki üzerinde kısmi bağdaştırıcı role sahip olduğunu; takım öğrenmesinin de takım problem çözmesi ve yazılım ürünü kalitesi arasındaki ilişki üzerinde kısmi bağdaştırıcı role sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu bağlamda, kuramsal ve pratik etkiler tartışılmıştır

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Takım İklimi, Takım Problem Çözmesi, Takım Öğrenmesi

Climate and Product Quality in Software Development Teams: Assessing the Mediating Role of Problem Solving and Learning

Öz

The popularity of new product development has been increasing in knowledgeintensive organizations as a means to manage aggressive competition. Given the criticality of product development to the performance of many organizations, it is important to unveil the mechanisms that support problem solving. In line with the relevant literature, this study examined the relationships among team climate, team problem solving, team learning, and software quality. As well, this study explored the mediating effect of team problem solving on the relationship between team climate and team learning, and the mediating effect of team learning on the relationship between team problem solving and software quality. By using 139 questionnaires from different projects, structural equation modeling was employed as a statistical analysis tool to investigate the given hypotheses. The findings showed that (i) team climate was positively related to team problem solving, ii) team problem solving positively influenced team learning, iii) team learning was positively associated with software quality. In addition, the results indicated that the relationships between team climate and team learning was partially mediated by team problem solving, while the relationship between team problem solving and software quality was partially mediated by team learning. The implications for both theory and practice are discussed

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Team Climate, Team Problem Solving, Team Learning, Software Quality

Kaynakça

1. Açıkgöz, Atif, Günsel, Ayşe, Bayyurt, Nizamettin, and Kuzey, Cemil, “Team climate, team cognition, team intuition, and software quality: The moderating role of project com- plexity”, Group Decision and Negotiation, 2014, 23, p.1145-1176.
2. Akgün, Ali E., Lynn, Gary, and Yılmaz, Cengiz, “Learning process in new product devel- opment teams and effects on product success: A socio-cognitive perspective”, Indus- trial Marketing Management, 2006, 35, p.210-224.
3. Aladwani, Adel, “An integrated performance model of information systems projects”, Journal of Management Information Systems, 2002, 19, p.185-210.
4. Anderson, James C., and Gerbing, David W., “Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach”, Psycgological Bulletin, 1988, 103, p.411-423.
5. Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku, and Wei, Yinghong, “The vital role of problem-solving compe- tence in new product success”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2011, 28, p.81-98.
6. Bagozzi, Richard P., Yi, Youjae, and Phillips, Lynn W., “Assessing construct validity in organizational research”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1991, 36, p.421-58.
7. Baron, Reuben M., and Kenny, David A., “The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research – conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986, 51, p.1173-1182.
8. Bstieler, Ludwig, and Hemmert, Martin, “Increasing learning and time efficiency in in- terorganizational new product development teams”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2010, 27, p.485-499.

9. Chen, Stephen, “Task partitioning in new product development teams: A knowledge and learning perspective”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 2005, 22, p.291-314.
10. Chin, Wynne W., “The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling.” In Marcoulides, George A., (Eds.) Modern business research methods. (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998).
11. Day, George S., “The capabilities of market-driven organizations”, Journal of Marketing, 1994, 58, p.37-52.
12. Drach-Zahavy, Anat, “The proficiency trap: How to balance enriched job designs and the team’s need for support”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2004, 25, p.979-996.
13. Edmondson, Amy C., “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams”, Ad- ministrative Science Quarterly, 1999, 44, p.350-383.
14. Edmondson, Amy C., and Nembhard, Ingrid, M. “Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits”, Journal of Production Innovation Man- agement, 2009, 26, p.123-138.
15. Fornell, Claes, and Larcker, David F., “Evaluating structural equation models with unob- servable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, 1981, 48, p.39-50.
16. Gefen, David, Straub, Detmar, and Boudreau, Marie-Claude, “Structural equation model- ing techniques and regression: Guidelines for research practice”, Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2000, 7, p.1-78.
17. González-Romá, Vicente, Fortes-Ferreira, Lina, and Peiró, José, “Team climate, climate strength and team performance: A longitudinal study”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2009, 82, p.511-536.
18. Günsel, Ayşe, and Açıkgöz, Atif, “The effects of team flexibility and emotional intelligence on software development performance”, Group Decision and Negotiation, 2013, 22, p.359-377.
19. Harman, Harry, H., “Modern Factor Analysis”. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960).
20. Huang, Jing-Wen, and Li, Yong-Hui, “Slack resources in team learning and project perfor- mance”, Journal of Business Research, 2012, 65, p.381-388.
21. Huber, George, P., “Managerial Decision Making”. (Scott Foresman & Co, 1980).
22. Katila, Riitta, and Ahuja, Gautam, “Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction”, Academy of Management Journal, 2002, 45, p.1183-1194.
23. Li, Yuzhu, Yang, Ming-Hsien, Klein, Gary, and Chen, Houn-Gee, “The role of team prob- lem solving competency in information system development projects”, International Journal of Project Management, 2011, 29, p.911-922.
24. Lynn, Gary S., Skov, Richar B., and Abel, Kate D., “Practices that support team learning and their impact on speed to market and new product success”, Journal of Product Innova- tion Management, 1999, 16, p.439-454.
25. Lynn, Gary S., Reilly, Richard R., and Akgün, Ali E.,” Knowledge management in new product teams: Practices and outcomes”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage- ment, 2000, 47, p.221-231.
26. Nambisan, Satish, “Software firm evolution and innovation-orientation”, Journal of Engi- neering and Technology Management, 2002, 19, p.141-165.
27. Nickerson, Jack, Yen, C. James, and Mahoney, Joseph T., “Exploring the problem-finding and problem- solving approach for designing organizations”, Academy of Manage- ment Perspectives, 2012, 26, p.52-72.
28. Nidumolu, Sarma, “The effect of coordination and uncertainty on software project perfor- mance: residual performance risk as an intervening variable”, Information Systems Research, 1995, 6, p.191-219.
29. Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Takeuchi, Hirotaka,” The knowledge-creating company”. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).
30. Nunnally, Jum C., “Psychometric theory”. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978).
31. Podsakoff, Philip M., and Organ, Dennis W., “Self-reports in organizational research: Prob- lems and prospects”, Journal of Management, 1986, 12, p.531-544.
32. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., ve Will, A., “SmartPLS - Version 2.0”. (Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, 2005).
33. Siguaw, Judy A., Simpson, Penny M., and Enz, Cathy A., “Conceptualizing innovation orientation: A framework for study and integration of innovation research”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2006, 23, p.556-574.
34. Sole, Deborah, and Edmondson, Amy, “Situated knowledge and learning in dispersed teams”, British Journal of Management, 2002, 13, p.17-34.
35. Tenenhaus, Michel., Vinzi, Vincenzo Esposito, Chatelin, Yves-Marie, and Lauro, Carlo, “PLS path modeling”, Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 48, 2005, p.159-205.
36. Thomke, Stefan H., “Managing experimentation in the design of new products”, Manage- ment Science, 1998, 44, p.743-762.
37. Thomke, Stefan H., and Fujimoto, Takahiro, “The effect of ‘front-loading’ problem-solving on product development performance”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2000, 17, p.128-142.
38. Tjosvold, Dean, Yu, Zi-You, and Hui, Chun, “Team learning from mistakes: The contribu- tion of cooperative goals and problem-solving”, Journal of Management Studies, 2004, 41, p.1223-1245.
39. Yang, Jen-Shou., and Chen, Chin-Yi., “Systemic design for improving team learning cli- mate and capability: A case study”, Total Quality Management, 2005, 16, p.727-740.
40. Zellmer-Bruhn, Mary, and Gibson, Cristina, “Multinational Organization Context: Implica- tions for Team Learning and Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, 2006, 49, p.501-518.