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

Abstract

Efficient and effective communication (active communication) among stakeholders is thought to be central to agile development. However, in geographically distributed agile development (GDAD) environments, it can be difficult to achieve active communication among distributed teams due to challenges such as differences in proximity and time. BackgroundAgile methods have been introduced to address a number of issues related to the development and delivery of software projects. These issues include projects running over budget, projects running behind schedule, and projects not meeting customers' needs and expectations (Chow & Cao 2008). Agile methods emerged over a period of time to increasingly influence future trends in software and information system development in both the local and distributed contexts (Gill 2015a). According to Ramesh

An Empirical Investigation of Geographically Distributed Agile Development: The Agile Enterprise Architecture is a Communication Enabler

“…Content validity and face validity were carried out in order to ensure the survey questionnaire's reliability and accuracy [100]. In the content validity, the questionnaire was sent to five experts who assessed the questionnaire items for completeness, readability, and accuracy purposes.…”

“…Appendix A provides the items for measuring the research model constructs. We developed new 7 measures for the AEA construct [100], as there are no existing measures in the literature. AEA was measured by how much EA is used in GDAD in aligning the project with business strategy and investment, involved in solution architecture, and used and shared among distributed teams.…”

“…A. MEASUREMENT SCALES AND ITEMS [100] Since enterprise architecture, communication, and GDAD performance may go by different titles in different organizations, the respondent was asked to refer to the following definitions while completing this survey.…”

Institutional Perspectives on the Process of Enterprise Architecture Adoption

“…EA adoption studies have often ignored the challenges of institutionalizing EA (Dang and Pekkola 2016;Hylving and Bygstad 2019). Instead, they have studied on frameworks (c.f., Simon et al 2013;Dang and Pekkola 2017), the benefits and success factors of EA adoption (c.f., Schmidt and Buxman 2011;Lange et al 2015), agile EA adoption (c.f., Bondar et al 2017;Alzoubi et al 2018), and problems with EA (c.f., Kappelman and Zachman 2013;Ajer and Olsen 2018). However, they provide little or no insight into institutional and stakeholder factors in EA adoption from the viewpoints of senior managers and chief information officers [CIOs], project managers and enterprise architects, and IT specialists and non-IT civil servants, for instance.…”

Determinants to Provide the Efficiency of Integrated Development of the Light Industry Enterprises

“…But they should be capable of forming large amounts of information and knowledge, transmitting them over a distance, accumulating, storing and shaping new intellectual products in the company development process (Ma and Wang, 2016;Moisescu and Sacala, 2016). The team of scientists (Alzoubi et al, 2018) emphasizes effective and strong interrelations between stakeholders engaged in the process of integrated development. Consequently, they have developed and justified a quantitative assessment model for analyzing flexible corporate architecture for geographically remote stakeholders.…”