Effect of team diversity on software project performance

Abstract

Purpose-This research seeks to investigate the relationship between knowledge diversity (KD) in software teams and project performance. Previous research has shown that member diversity affects team performance; most of that work, however, has focused on diversity in personal or social attributes, such as gender or social category. Current research targets at the knowledge level aim to facilitate the implementation of knowledge management in organizations. Design/methodology/approach-A research framework was developed based on conflict theory and empirically tested on software teams in Taiwan. Findings-It was found that KD increases task conflict, which in turn has significant positive effects on team performance and that value diversity (VD) increases relationship conflict, which in turn negatively affects team performance. Research limitations/implications-The findings indicate that task conflict can enhance team performance, while relationship conflict can reduce team performance. Therefore, it is important to maintain healthy relationships among team members. Practical implications-This research concludes that KD is beneficial and that VD is harmful to project outcome in software development. It is, therefore, useful for managers to form teams whose members encompass a broad knowledge base. Originality/value-This paper proposes a novel way to measure knowledge and VD in teams and reports the effects of these attributes on team performance. The work also shows that a proper level of task conflict in a software team is necessary for achieving high performance.

Determinants of the Success of Information Techology Project Management in Thailand

“…Knowledge diversity was interpreted in the manner described in Table 1 by Jehn (1999) and Liang et al (2007) since this is similar to the interpretations by Horwitz and Horwitz (2007), Jackson et al (1995), and Pelled (1996) and distinct from value diversity unlike the interpretations by Milliken and Martins (1996) and Harrison et al (1998). There are inconclusive results among previous studies concerning the effects of team diversity on outcomes and team processes (Horwitz and Horwitz, 2007).…”

“…The findings have been inconclusive and it is not clear if there are differences in performance between heterogeneous and homogenous teams (Horwitz and Horwitz, 2007). This influence is important in IT projects where teams may include individuals with varying degrees of: social diversity (age, gender, and ethnicity); knowledge diversity (field and level of education, work experience, and position); and value diversity (beliefs about the mission, goals, objectives, and tasks of the project) (Jehn, 1999;Liang et al, 2007). This study examined each form of team diversity except for variation in the ethnicity of team members who were all Thai nationals.…”

“…Team diversity has been conceptualized using three constructs: social diversity; value diversity; and knowledge diversity. Social diversity refers to the observable characteristics of: age; gender; and ethnicity (Jehn, 1999;Horwitz and Horwitz, 2007;Liang et al, 2007) and value diversity concerns differences in what team members think the tasks, objectives, goals, and mission of the project should be (Jehn, 1999;Liang et al, 2007). Previous studies have adopted different but related interpretations for knowledge diversity as summarized in Table 1.…”

“…Team Diversity and Team Culture directly affect team processes with or without the intervention of leaders (Jehn, 1999;Liang et al, 2007;Schaubroeck et al, 2007). Team diversity has been conceptualized using three constructs: social diversity; value diversity; and knowledge diversity.…”

“…Jehn (1999); Liang et al (2007) In this study social diversity only included age and gender because all of the team members were Thai nationals. Knowledge diversity was interpreted in the manner described in Table 1 by Jehn (1999) and Liang et al (2007) since this is similar to the interpretations by Horwitz and Horwitz (2007), Jackson et al (1995), and Pelled (1996) and distinct from value diversity unlike the interpretations by Milliken and Martins (1996) and Harrison et al (1998).…”