Development of Management Commitment to Software Process Improvement Pekka Abrahamssona & Timo Jokelab
[email protected] and
[email protected] a,b University of Oulu, Department of Information Processing Science, P.O.Box 3000, FIN-90014 Oulun yliopisto, FINLAND
Abstract It has been well established in the software process improvement (SPI) literature and practice that without management commitment to SPI the initiative will most likely fail or the results are not far reaching. Three forms of commitment are introduced: affective, continuance and normative. Analysis shows that current models of management commitment development lack scientific validity and are based on three misconceptions: (1) the linearity of human cognitive process in the development of commitment, (2) the controllability of this process, and (3) the sole utility aspect of commitment phenomenon. Five focused interviews are reported together with research project experiences from industry as a basis for the new model of managerial commitment process. Finally, the new model is proposed, which addresses the misconceptions identified and incorporates the conceptual basis of commitment into the model.
Keywords: software process improvement, management commitment, forms of commitment, model of management commitment
1. Introduction Software is playing an ever-increasing role in today’s society and in industry. Modern software organizations operate in a highly dynamic market, under tight time and cost constraints (Cugola and Ghezzi, 1998). As an answer to these business and market needs, organizations have started to undertake software process improvement (SPI) initiatives aimed at increasing the maturity and quality of their software processes (Humphrey, 1989; Humphrey, 1992; Zahran, 1998; Grady, 1997). Investment in process improvement has had significant business benefits such as improving the product quality, reducing time to market, resulted in better productivity (Zahran, 1998), increased organizational flexibility and customer satisfaction (Florac et al., 1997). Literature is rife with statements arguing that that in order for any type of change initiative to be successful, one needs to establish a solid top management commitment (Humphrey, 1989; Humphrey, 1992; Grady, 1997; Stelzer and Mellis, 1998; Wohlwend and S., 1994; Zahran, 1998; Diaz and Sligo, 1997). Humphrey (1989) argues that all major changes to the software process must start at the top and ultimately everyone must be involved Proceedings of IRIS 23. Laboratorium for Interaction Technology, University of Trollhättan Uddevalla, 2000. L. Svensson, U. Snis, C. Sørensen, H. Fägerlind, T. Lindroth, M. Magnusson, C. Östlund (eds.)
in the change process. Wiegers (1998) argues that the lack of adequate management commitment is the first trap to avoid when starting to improve software processes. Achieving management commitment is identified as being one of the potential risk factors in SPI (Statz et al., 1997). Even in software projects the lack of management commitment to the project is considered to be the risk #1 (Keil et al., 1998). In spite of the agreed importance about the need for management commitment SPI community has not considered how the manager's commitment to SPI develops, or has it explored the conceptual base for management commitment. Concrete evidence (i.e. results of commitment process) of management commitment have been identified (Wiegers, 1998), and ways to influence in the process of gaining it (Grady, 1997). This paper concentrates on reporting results from an ongoing study aimed at developing a model of management commitment process. Analyses of the existing models of management commitment show that they are based on three critical misconceptions: (1) the linearity of human cognitive process in the development of commitment, (2) the controllability of this process, and (3) the sole utility aspect of commitment phenomenon. A new model, addressing these misconceptions and others is introduced, but not validated. Results from five interviews with SPI professionals are introduced together with early experiences from gaining management commitment in a research project aimed at spreading usability thinking and practices to an organization is demonstrated as empirical evidence on which the model is being built. This paper is organized so that it starts of by clarifying two central concepts: (a) management and (b) conceptual basis of the term commitment so that the reader will understand the typology used in the rest of the paper. This is followed by an analysis of existing models of commitment development after which the empirical evidence is laid out. Finally, the new model is constructed and the paper is concluded with a brief summary, limitations of the study, implications to the field, and suggestions for future research.
2. Central concepts 2.1. Considering management The purpose of this chapter is to clarify what we mean by the concept of management in the context of improving software processes. Traditionally management is divided in top, middle and first-line level managers. This hierarchy loosely corresponds with strategic, tactical and operational control (Stahl, 1995). In modern software organization, however, many roles defined in SPI infrastructure overlap these hierarchical barriers. Zahran (1998) has used Fowler and Rifkin's (1990) organizational model for defining the organizational and management infrastructure to structure the software process improvement programs. In their structuring Zahran suggests having the following roles involved in the process improvement initiatives: executive sponsor, steering committee, software process engineering process group (SEPG), process improvement teams and projects. If the infrastructure is carefully built, all levels of management are involved within these stakeholder roles, and they are empowered and equipped with certain responsibilities to ensure that organizational process improvement activities are in place and are aligned with business goals of the organization. Depending of the size of the organization these roles overlap and separate units might not be in place.
For the rest of the paper, we consider management anyone who meets any of the following characteristics: 1. Person(s) in the organization with the authority to fund the process improvement initiative, 2. Person(s) in the organization with the authority to provide resources for SPI, 3. Person(s) in the organization, with the authority to decide to what extent the SPI activities are carried out in respective software development projects. A manager meeting the first characteristic is typically a strategic level manager as the second type of manager can be also tactical or even operational (in some organizations) level manager. The third characteristic is linked to an operational level management (i.e. project manager).
2.2. What is commitment? The purpose of this chapter is to explore what we mean by commitment in general terms. This will aid the reader to understand the commitment terminology used in the rest of the paper. A common definition for commitment used in SPI literature is the one defined in CMM (Capability Maturity Model by Software Engineering Institute) as follows: "Commitment – A pact that is freely assumed, visible, and expected to be kept by all parties." (CMU/SEI-94-HB-1, Appendix-6)
This type of explicit pact is only one side of the commitment concept. We view commitment more broadly as a psychological state of attachment that defines the relationship between a person and an entity (O'Reilly and Chatman, 1986). This relationship can be viewed in terms of depth (strength), focus and terms, which are common in all types and forms of commitments (Brown, 1996). Strength of the commitment varies depending on the personal meaning associated with the commitment foci in question, terms define what has to be done in order to fulfil the requirements manifested by the commitment, and finally the focus of commitment is the entity that the person feels committed to. Thus, if SPI is the focus of one's commitment, one then places an SPI initiative at the center of one's experience. All employees and managers are committed to many entities in an organization. Both are committed to organization at some level (strength), co-workers, project, owners, etc. Lack of management commitment has often been argued to cause (to some extent) the failure to sustain SPI activities in an organization. Similarly lack of process user commitment is attributed to cause the failure in an SPI initiative. The reason for having failed in SPI, therefore, has something to do with commitment, but not lack of it since commitment is something that always exists in some form. The failure in these cases is more related to the common aspects of commitment: the depth, focus and terms. Process users might have been highly committed to their current work tasks (different foci). The depth of the psychological attachment process users felt for the SPI was probably low because the SPI under evaluation was not personally important for them. The terms that the process users set for themselves for fulfilling their commitment was at low level (e.g. they might have promised to try out some new procedures to see if it is of use for them). In addition to the depth, focus and terms, commitment as a psychological attachment takes different forms: affective, normative and continuance commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Other classification schemes have been proposed also. Most notable of others is that of O'Reilly and Chatman's (1986) classification. They proposed that commitment can take three distinct forms, which they labeled compliance, identification, and internalization. The reason why we adopt Meyer and Allen's conceptualization is the strong empirical support that it has
received since introduction (Dunham et al., 1994; Benkhoff, 1996). Meyer and Allen's forms of commitment (or components) are identified in studies related to organizational commitment but are adaptable to other commitment foci as well (Meyer and Allen, 1997; Meyer et al., 1993). Affective commitment refers to the employee's attachment to, identification with, and involvement within the entity in question (e.g. organization, SPI initiative). Continuance commitment refers to an awareness of the costs associated with leaving or abandoning the entity in question (e.g. aborting the project). If an organization e.g. has an reward structure where manager's performance is linked to success in SPI activities he/she can be said to have continuance commitment as primary commitment driver (could be other forms too, but reward structure generally invites continuance commitment). In IS literature the term commitment escalation refers to this component of commitment (see e.g. Keil and Robey, 1999 for details). Normative commitment reflects a feeling of obligation to continue membership with the entity in question (e.g. SPI project). A person, be it a manager or a software developer, therefore, might be committed to SPI project in all three forms. The following figure (Figure 1) summarizes the discussion presented here about the concept of commitment. affective
focus (committed to what?)
(I want to)
commitment defines
a person
the relationship
continuance
depth (how strongly?)
normative
terms (what has to be done?)
(I need to)
(I ought to)
an entity (commitment foci) - supervisor - project - organization - coworker - goal - team
Figure 1. Explaining the concept of commitment Authors in organizational commitment research have suggested that the most desirable form of commitment is that of affective commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Similarly in the context of management commitment to SPI the affective commitment would seem most desirable to have. If management has high continuance commitment (based on e.g. reward structure), it can be lost when the basis of this type of commitment looses its value. On the other hand, if management's main driver is based on normative commitment, again, it is in jeopardy to be lost when e.g. social/organizational pressure is not present. However, we do not value one type of commitment over another. Instead, we acknowledge the fact that depending on the situation and organizational culture, the desirability might change.
3. Related work and empirical requirements 3.1. Analysis of existing models The purpose of this chapter is to explore the related literature of managerial commitment development. As identified earlier, the importance of management commitment is well acknowledged but little explored in respective literature. One reason for this could be that trying to capture the cognitive phases that one goes through when becoming committed is known to be a difficult task since it has been acknowledged that individuals differ on every psychological dimension that has ever been investigated (Deci and Ryan, 1980). We shall briefly introduce and analyze existing models, namely Conner and Patterson's (1982) and Ernst &Young's (1990) models. 3.1.1.
Conner and Patterson's model of commitment development
VIII. Internalization VII. Institutionalization VI. Adaptation
Acceptance Phase
V. Installation
COMMITMENT THRESHOLD
IV. Positive perception
III. Understand the Change
DISPOSITION THRESHOLD
II. Awareness of Change Preparation Phase
DEGREE OF SUPPORT FOR THE CHANGE
Commitment Phase
Conner and Patterson (1982) argue that the process of building (everyone's) commitment to change can be represented as a linear model that an organization moves through (Figure 2). Figure 2 also shows the hypothesized outcome for each stage if the stage is not completed adequately. Conner introduced the same model in later in his book (Conner, 1998). SEI (Software Engineering Institute) presents a slightly modified version of the model in their website (SEI, 1999).
I. Contact
s
d te or a b sive g e en a n ext n C h ter a t i o af i l i z ut d te or ab l g e tia a n ini n C h ter atio af iz l i ut o tt t no or on pp isi /su n ec pt o D tem llati at sta in
n
es
io
en
us
ar
nf
w
e t i v on g a pti N e rce pe
na
Co
U
TIME
Figure 2. Development of commitment to change (Conner and Patterson, 1982) Their model is presented as a grid with the vertical axis demonstrating the degrees of support for a change and the horizontal axis indicating the passage of time. The model is suggested to
provide "a cognitive map of how commitment can be generated". The model, therefore, is intended for managers so that they can understand the complexities of commitment better when planning for organizational changes. Even though the model does not depict directly management commitment development, it is one of the few existing models of commitment development. The model is divided in three phases: preparation, acceptance and commitment. Conner and Patterson included total of 8 stages that one goes through when becoming committed to a change goal. They claim that each stage indicates a critical juncture where commitment can be threatened. This is represented by downturned arrows. If stage is completed successfully, advancement to the next stage is possible. The purpose of the preparation phase is to produce an awareness that a change may occur in the future. In the acceptance phase a person produces a tendency to act in certain ways toward the project. Acceptance phase may also enable the development of a predominantly negative perception, which could lead to first signs of true resistance. If a person develops a positive perception of the upcoming or ongoing change, a decision to support the change is made and one is able to advance to next phase – the commitment phase. In this phase the change becomes operational, it is tried (i.e. piloted) out and a decision is made to abort the change (e.g. if it is viewed too expensive) or to institutionalize it as an organizational policy. Institutionalizing stage is the highest that an organization can achieve, organization's members control the internalization. Conner and Patterson suggest that when change has been internalized, "participants engage in goal-oriented activities in order to satisfy their own needs, as well as those of the organization." (Conner and Patterson, 1982). In SPI literature e.g. Zahran acknowledges the internalization phase and suggests that the ultimate goal is to make the new process 'painless' (Zahran, 1998). He describes this as follows: Once you have experience and knowledge of a certain situation 'wired' into your brain, this knowledge is automatically retrieved when you face a similar situation. Your actions will be nearly automatic. The process has been 'internalized' by you. (p.5)
Conner and Patterson's article is directed to practical audience and being so does not contain any references to related literature nor do they conceptualize specifically the very concept of commitment. Their model is based largely on anecdotal evidence and experience as consultants lacking therefore any scientific evidence to support their claims. March and Smith basically note that if you're the very first to introduce any set of constructs, model, method, or instantiation, actual performance evaluation is not required at introduction stage (March and Smith, 1995). The research contribution, in their words, lies in the novelty of the artifact and in the persuasiveness of the claims that it actually is effective. The article is well written and provides many useful 'tactics' or strategies for addressing the commitment issue in times of organizational change. Many of these tactics and points they make seem plausible. However, there are several problems e.g. with the linearity of the model. Galliers and Swan argue that such stage model thinking fits comfortably with liner, rational assumptions about the cause and effect sequences, which human mind, naturally, has not been proven to follow (Galliers and Swan, 1999). Poole summarizes briefly the debate on problems identified with the unitary sequence (linear phases) development (Poole, 1981) in his article on decision making. Poole goes back in time to cite Dewey (1910) who reminded that the resemblance of the unitary sequence model to logical progression makes them attractive for both normative and theoretical reason. Kaplan would call this linear phasic transition as 'ideal' type that "does not function as an observational term or even an indirect observable; the fact, therefore, that there is nothing in the world corresponding to it does not of itself rob such
concept of scientific usefulness" (Kaplan, 1964). Indeed, the model has proved its usefulness since e.g. SEI has adopted it as a 'tactic' or a 'strategy' for building up commitment in general (SEI, 1999). Based on the evidence found in literature no judgement can be made on the validity of the model. Commitment literature, on the other hand, is mostly concerned with the conceptualization of commitment phenomenon (Reichers, 1985) and has not even acknowledged Conner and Patterson's model. 3.1.2.
Ernst &Young's model on management commitment
Ernst &Young (Ernst & Young Quality Improvement Consulting Group., 1990) explore the concept of management commitment in the context of quality improvement. They suggest similarly to Conner and Patterson's claims that commitment moves sequentially through several stages in linear fashion (Figure 1). 1.
Enough commitment to sponsor pilot activities
2.
commitment of time to gain an understanding
3.
Intellectual understanding
4.
Willingness to work on cultural issues and to increase personal involvement
5.
6.
Desire to change own behavior
- Personally uninvolved - Need significant short-term results
- No real desire to work on cultural issues - Needs short-term benefits to justify further investments
- No desire to change his/her behavior
- Management doesn’t need short-term benefits to justify the investment in time and effort - Puts quality ahead of quantity
Completely internalized, i.e., behavior reflects the new thinking
Figure 3. Development of management commitment to 'new thinking' (Ernst & Young Quality Improvement Consulting Group., 1990) Taylor has applied Ernst & Young's model and notes already in the beginning that, again, their model is based on anecdotal evidence and the experience of its consultancy staff lacking therefore any scientific evidence to support its claims (Taylor, 1995). Ernst & Young direct their book to practical audience and use no references. They use a lot of eye catching slogans such as "they must see the light!", etc. Their model may contain usable ideas and concepts but still rely heavily on rational phasic commitment developmental thinking as did Conner and Patterson's model. Taylor's use of the model in his respective analysis sheds light on the usefulness of the model, which according to Järvinen is the key evaluation criteria when evaluating the results of
constructive research (Järvinen, 1999). Taylor, however labeled the first stage as unawareness which would seem more appropriate since in the case of SPI piloting would indicate a lot of preparative work and analyzes to advance in piloting phase. Järvinen notes that "the practitioner may construct a fine artifact. In order to get a scientific merit for it, she must describe the building process in detail, argue her selections and explain her decisions. The originality of the solution and its superiority to the known solutions must also be demonstrated." (p.68). Based on these requirements we are not in position to merit these models scientifically. However, we may point out misconceptions that influenced models' structure. This is discussed in the following sub-section. 3.1.3.
Three critical misconceptions in existing models
Based on the analysis presented above, we depict three misconceptions that existing models on commitment development are based on. Assumptions that practitioners (the model developers) hold are 1) the linearity of human cognitive process in the development of commitment, 2) the controllability of this process, and 3) the sole utility aspect of commitment phenomenon. The first assumption was addressed in the analysis of Conner and Patterson's model. The latter two shall be elaborated here. Second underlying assumption behind both models introduced is the idea that commitment development as a phenomenon can be directed and/or controlled. Controlling implies manipulation, which in turn sheds negative light on the commitment development. This assumption supposes that commitment toward change is built or can be built outside of one's control. This issue is related to motivation as well. Deci and Ryan operationalized the intrinsically motivated behaviors as "those that are performed in the absence of any apparent external contingency" (Deci and Ryan, 1980). In other words, they describe the outcome of internalized change. Studies have shown that insintric motivation is undermined by surveillance (enforcement) activities (e.g. internal audit) (Deci and Ryan, 1980). Thus, once such a surveillance system is put in place it can not be removed because the level of insintric motivation toward the activity structure has lowered (when it was under surveillance) resulting to noncompliance to process discipline (i.e. if later exposed to non-surveillance). Commitment by definition (as a state of psychological attachment) develops internally. Therefore, trying to force someone to commit produces compliance not commitment (Senge, 1990). This compliance exists as long as the surveillance or control system is in place. Commitment process can be influenced, not forced. Third basic underlying assumption behind both models is the thinking that commitment is something that should always be looked for. Conner and Patterson claim that commitment "is the cement that provides the critical adhesion between people and change goals." Later in the article they remind that "commitment building is time consuming and expensive". Both arguments may be true in one sense but by definition the desire of wanting employees (or managers) to be committed is a paradox since commitment is known to have a negative aspect as well. These downsides to commitment are resistance to change and an irrational perseverance in behavior, which both has been well documented in literature (Pfeffer, 1997; Randall, 1987). In information systems field (IS) the escalation of commitment to a failing project is a well-known phenomenon (Keil, 1995). The more committed you are to a project, the less setbacks you want to face. In SPI world this would translate to an effort trying to improve the 'wrong' process when the fire is somewhere else. The more committed e.g. the senior management is, the less protest they are willing to take (naturally this depends on largely on the organizational
culture and on the individuals). SPI literature and practice has established those e.g. involving software developers in SPI planning helps to avoid these problems.
3.2. Empirical evidence The purpose of this chapter is to explore management commitment development as evidenced in industrial setting. As a result, themes should arise, that depict developmental issues in the commitment process. The new model should be able to explain and incorporate these themes, concepts and processes. Firstly, we will introduce results from interviews that dealt with the issue of influencing management commitment process, and secondly we will describe an ongoing research project where an initial management commitment was gained toward organizational change initiative. 3.2.1.
SPI professionals' view on gaining the management commitment
Five focused interviews were conducted with persons who have a strong experience in leading industrial software process improvement efforts. Interviews covered a wide variety of themes surrounded by the concept of commitment in the context of improving software processes. This paper reports results from the part that dealt with ways to influence management commitment. Other parts of the interviews are reported elsewhere (Abrahamsson, 1999; Abrahamsson, 2000b; Abrahamsson, 2000a). The interviewees were asked how they try to affect management’s commitment, how do they get their ideas through. The method that seemed to be most widely used is direct communication (when possible) with the upper management. This finding is line with research as it has been established that direct communication method as in use of rational discussions and informal exchange with superiors is one of the most common method used for upward communication (Schilit and Locke, 1982). This type of rational discussion approach is illustrated in the following three abstracts. Usually I try to focus in the current situation, the problems we are facing right now and the solutions I can provide for them. […] I tell them simply what is the advantage they will get from doing that (SPI action). If it is of no use to them, why should they bother? I try to explain to them that they would do better they jobs if they would help me to do mine. You have to be always able to demonstrate the benefit they will get, and if it really is so, they will see it […].
This type of direct, rational approach might also imply that a some type of sales process is taking place as one interviewee explained: I go to them (management), meet them face to face and try to sell my idea. I try not to waste them time by presenting my idea in a half an hour. Otherwise it takes too long.
The idea of 'selling an idea' is criticized by Senge (1990) as he fears that it suggests a sales process, where one person sells and the other person buys something. In his words "selling means getting someone to do something that he might not do if they were in full possession of all facts." (p.218). Senge calls for enrollment instead as it implies free choice, which in Salancik's (1982) argumentation is one of the corner stone in the commitment process. Enrollment therefore implies of becoming part of something by own choice and commitment is seen to be a
state where a person is not only enrolled but also feels fully responsible for the improvement actions. Having a free choice also implies a high self-determination power, which in turn enhances one's insintric motivation for the activity (Deci and Ryan, 1980). Another way of influencing the managers is through indirect communication (Porter et al., 1981) by having someone already inside make the initiative as illustrated in the following interview extract. I would not talk to a project manager at first that there is something he should do in his/her project. I have a contact person who can do that […] He brings it up in their meetings and the project manager can get in touch with me […] This way the communication can be established bypassing formal management channels. This is absolutely possible as long as you are not trying to bully your way through […]
Indirect communication approach seen above is somewhat advocated in commitment research literature by Meyer and Allen (1997) as they note that the nature of commitment means that it is difficult or even impossible to manipulate levels of commitment directly. As became obvious from the discussion above, by using indirect or direct communication methods interviewees direct their effort in trying to educate managers about the benefits of SPI. In Conner and Patterson's terminology interviewees try to achieve a stage of positive perception or in Ernst & Young's terminology the state of intellectual understanding. The processes that the managers inevitably enter into are a learning process and a decisionmaking process. Advancing in a half an hour from the state of vague awareness to willingness to invest in the SPI initiative is therefore intellectually possible because interviewees reported having a success in establishing the need for change. In my opinion I have been relatively successful. Normally I get a positive response, at least when I am present. I am therefore able to establish the will do something in that unit, sometimes [I am able to establish] even commitment (i.e. concrete actions).
No doubt trust plays an important part also in these situations. If the one giving the presentation is equipped with good communication skills, persuasive, and trustworthy, the chances are better than otherwise. Literature is rich with ways to improve communication (see e.g.Greenberg, 1996 for details). Use of indirect method for communication educates the manager (be it a software, department, or executive manager) from the unawareness above. A concept that describes the relationship between manager and the one trying to establish management commitment is that of information asymmetry, which is a term often used in marketing research. They use it to characterize the relationship between a buyer and a seller in which the supplier possesses more information about the object of an exchange than the buyer (Mishra et al., 1998). As indicated above, similar situation is in place when an SPI manager directs effort in order to gain resources from the senior management. In this case the SPI manager is the supplier and the senior manager the buyer. This finding is in line with current literature as Stelzer and Mellis argue that "senior management often agrees to improvement initiatives without completely realizing the investment required for the effort" (Stelzer and Mellis, 1998). This indicates that the level of information asymmetry is high. They (senior management) bought into something not understanding fully its implications. Grady (1997), Zahran (1998) and others suggest that in order to affect (increase) management commitment toward SPI initiatives one should tie improvement initiatives to reflect business and organizational aspects. Grady points out that if one is able to align the process improvement plan according to strategic business aspects that are visible and can be discovered
one will increase chances of gaining and sustaining necessary management commitment. The use of Grady's influence methods was not discovered from the interviews. Nor was it discovered the use of more influential methods such as the use of veiled threats or direct pressure as suggested by Heng et al. (1999) in their study of organizational IT champion behavior in similar situation. 3.2.2.
Early experiences from a research project in industry
Background and goals Authors are participating in a three-year research project which aims at facilitating companies to enhance their competitiveness by producing scientifically and empirically validated models for business-based user-centered development. In other words, 'Kessu' project (for details see www.kessu.oulu.fi) spreads the usability thinking, and directs effort in trying to get the participating companies interested in developing their usability capability. These goals imply organizational level change that will take place in near future. In the early phases of this project our main target, however, is to establish adequate management commitment for the project so that our chances for spreading the usability issues are enhanced. In this sub-section of the paper we will briefly describe some representative events that took place in past months in one of the participating company, which we shall call TradeSystems Marketing Inc. (name changed). From these events and their consequences we attempt to identify themes, concepts and processes that affected the development of managerial commitment. So far, the current state analysis is performed by assessing the organization's current practices in respect to usability processes. This assessment was performed by interviewing 15 out of about 50-60 employees in the organization. Currently the organization is analyzing the results of the assessment, and determining the actions that will take place in near future. The data for this section is gathered from the field notes that were collected by all participating researchers Description of Events Event #1 First meeting at TradeSystems Marketing Inc.. We introduced project's basic concepts and goals. Response was pretty 'lame'. They probably did not understand the matter yet. There were, however, a lot of people present from the company: steering group members, quality, marketing and project representatives. There were quite many university students present who work in the company. It became apparent that the initiative [for this research project] came […] from their part. […]. Steering group member, John (name changed), seemed suspicious. It seemed that steering group members were not at all aware of what this project will try to do, what is the concrete benefit for the company and what on earth are we (researchers) going to do for the next three years in the company. […]. It was good idea to use sticker tags to list goals for the next year. TradeSystems Marketing Inc. people seemed to experience uncertainty for the whole project: no reasonable goals were identified [at first]. As a result however, many appealing goals were discovered. […]. The meeting was ended in an enthusiastic atmosphere.
Event #2 (one month later) This is the second meeting at TradeSystems Marketing Inc.. I felt having prepared well for the meeting. The plan for current state analysis had progressed and a clear proposition for timetable is ready [to be presented]. The meeting however does not proceed with the way we planned it [in last meeting]. TradeSystems Marketing Inc. takes the initiative as agreed and notifies that they are going to proceed with customer satisfaction survey as quickly as possibly. The university people, including me, are taken by surprise. The pla n made in last meeting did not hold. It appears however that in TradeSystems Marketing Inc. they have established their own project called usix (name changed), and the first task of the usix project is to conduct the survey. […]. University people were thought to potter about their own surveys. […] Comparing to the last time we had fewer people from the TradeSystems Marketing Inc. present. More interested, and more motivated tighter group had formed. The project had been introduced to the steering group. […] People (from the company) in the meeting seemed to be more interested than last time we met. […]. TradeSystems Marketing Inc. are clearly trying to sell the project to their employees. Task for defining the communication strategy was initiated. […].
Event #3 (one month later, assessment introduction) Meeting is organized in the cafeteria. […]. John starts with his introduction. He is clearly excited about the progress of our project and upcoming assessment. Expectations are up high – [the organization has] invested to assessment and the results are expected to produce some beneficial, concrete findings. John was selling eagerly assessment (procedure) and usability issues to his subordinates. Also to his superior, I heard [afterwards] that e.g. managing director was also there, one which I did not spot. […]. […]. Meeting started by gathering attention and John gave a general introduction about the Kessu –project […]. Business, effectiveness [were the issues that] were brought up most frequently. TradeSystems Marketing Inc. personnel stared with little reaction. John emphasized the importance of the project and the interestingness of the results frequently. He even used terms like usability and usability capability (later on) sometimes […]. Timo's (project leader from the university side) presentation went fluently. Audience sat still and quiet, and was not willing to pose any questions even though some silent moments started to come along. John filled [these] silent gaps often by appearing to tell how usability is visible in their products and how understanding current procedures (the main purpose of the assessment) would help achieving. "This affects our future!" John noted frequently […]. […]. Participating in this type of research project improves our image
Event #4 (two weeks later, presenting assessment results to company's internal usix -project) […]. John brought up […] that user groups indeed are unclear inside the [software] house […]. John also brought up [the issue] of reusability of usability [analysis] work. [He] was seeking for assurance for the view that when the analysis work of various user groups is once done carefully, it will serve [as a base] for several years, for several projects. […]. The presentation went on. John was clearly interested in finding out what 'really' happened in the interviews, what people said, and what they meant. He was interested in knowing the "gang's" current state, [their] mental world. […]. John asked directly whether people interviewed felt the need for investing in usability [development]. […]. Mike (the managing director, name changed) clarified the role of usability [in their] business strategy by noting that usability is one tool in the tool set. [He viewed that] if it is felt important in strategic sense and [important for their] business success, the [usability] tool will be used more. […]. I brought up that people [in the organization] felt being in a hurry and that they seem not having time to really cling to anything truly. This [finding] gathered a lot of attention since it
became evident they aren't really in that much of a hurry. […]. John wants the "gang" to undermine the current way of working. […].
Analysis of data Psychologists argue that the relationship between an event and the consequent action can and should be studied but that the results will always be somewhat conflicting because the linkage between an action and an event will always be more or less incidental (Weckroth, 1988; Manicas, 1982). This randomness, however, from the action viewpoint is not only part of psychological life; it is presupposition for logical life (Weckroth, 1988). In this analysis we consider 1 key player – a management team member and his commitment development (or the development of visible interest from an outsider's eye). A danger in performing an analysis of this type lies in the self-fulfilling prophecies that may occur when a researcher expects certain stages of development or a certain process to occur (Poole, 1981). Poole argues that "it is too easy to find evidence in complex processes for whatever one expects and therefore to ignore other motors". Acknowledging this, the original field notes were kept and collected without the knowledge of using them for a specific purpose other than for the benefit of the project. This prevented us from contaminating the data by collecting only certain type of notes, i.e., focusing only on certain aspects, or seeing things that really were not there. The project was initially initiated as a bottom-up approach – a strategy that recent organizational change literature has favored over the traditional top-down approach (Beer et al., 1990; Frohman, 1997; Clarke and Meldrum, 1999). At the first meeting management group members were skeptic, but the fact that they were there was a significant sign of interest. It may be that they participated in the first meeting because it is a project concerning their company and they ought to be present (reflects a type of normative commitment) or it is a standard procedure with no specific feelings attached. In the second meeting we were missing the other member, but had John still present. We suspect that on the one part he felt that he ought to be in the next meeting, but on the other part we feel that he wanted (reflects affective commitment) to be there. This was demonstrated e.g. by his active involvement in the discussion. The atmosphere had changed from the first meeting. Concrete evidence of work for the Kessu project had been done: inner meeting was held, project was introduced to steering group, an internal project was established, tentative deadlines were set and the need for communication strategy was identified. The major investment from organization's part was the assessment procedure in which a member of organization's usix –project participated as a full time member of the assessment team. As evidenced in the case of event #3, John played a major role in our assessment introduction meeting in which the whole organization was present. Last comment in one of the field notes provides evidence that in spite of the fact that John brought up the importance of the work being done, he also saw these type of projects as image promoters. However, we viewed this as a major sign of interest in the project and in the assessment procedure. After the assessment (event #4) John revealed some other reasons for the high level of interest in Kessu project's work, namely the interest in understanding organization's current state of thinking, atmosphere, feelings, gaining concrete ideas, etc. In short, in a period of four months many positive things happened for the project in which specifically management team members were skeptic at the very beginning. Considering the themes, concepts or processes that were inevitably in a major role in the development of interest are the learning processes that this particular manager went through.
By participating actively the information asymmetry (concept introduced in the earlier subsection) between us (supplier) and him (buyer) was reduced. This was evidenced in two occasions (event #1 and event #3) respectively. In the first case he possessed little or no knowledge about the usability issues. In later case having gained insight, he was able to communicate to his subordinates using very specific terminology involved with the usability issues and interpreted it to their organization specific terminology. The level of understanding he obtained was not tested using other means than observation. Whatever type of commitment (affective, normative or continuance) the project has been able to establish on the senior manager (or vice versa), his positive actions have facilitated the progress of the project. Near future will demonstrate how the results from the assessment can be translated into effective improvement plans, and whether the behavior of senior manager will remain at active level.
4. Interplay of commitment elements The purpose of this last section is to introduce a new theoretical framework (shown in Figure 4) of the managerial commitment process. The purpose of the framework is to serve as an intellectual frame of reference, which may be used to explain how management commitment is developing in an SPI initiative. Commitment process is part of human cognitive processes. As such it is difficult to put in form of model that captures all necessary elements. However, such attempts are frequent in psychological, sociological and organizational behavior literature. Using Simon's typology our model concentrates on higher mental processes (Simon, 1979). A word of caution from Kaplan (1964) is in place at this point. He warned that borrowing concepts from different theories without understanding the theoretical roots of these concepts can produce confounded explanations. Therefore, we do not propose any singular theoretical underpinning for the model but reflect more closely to e.g. cognitive complexity theory which as a theoretical device does not describe a particular theory as much as a related family of theories which address individual differences in cognitive structure (Carlson, 1993).
Interplay of commitment elements
Determinants Project Psychological Social Structural
learning consequence +/-
+/-
Commitment
Reflective behavior
affective continuance normative
decisionmaking
+/-
Commitment evaluation
managerial context
Figure 4: Managerial commitment process
• focus • depth • terms
The model is divided in three distinct parts: (1) Determinants affecting the managerial commitment process, (2) managerial commitment process as interplay of commitment elements, and (3) the consequence of the process. Each part will be introduced in the following. Determinants affecting managerial commitment process are drawn directly from escalation of commitment literature (Brockner, 1992: Newman and Sabherwal, 1996; Staw and Ross, 1987). Other determinants were considered but the nature of commitment in escalating situation is somewhat similar to managerial commitment development to SPI. They both share the same element – the manager, who is in position to make decisions. This ruled out antecedent factors to commitment identified mainly in organizational commitment literature (for two comprehensive analysis see Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Randall, 1990). Project determinants are objective attributes of the SPI project; its costs and benefits. Change agents trying to get manager's commitment are addressing this determinant, they may e.g. provide a cost-benefit analysis. Psychological determinants involve the key individuals that participate in the project. In the context of SPI this translates to level of involvement in the project itself. The physical involvement increases the level of psychological attractiveness of the project and when faced problems may result in an attempt to self-justify the events (Sabherwal and Elam, 1995). Social determinants originate from the group (i.e. other members in the management team) surrounding the individual. Structural determinants are the conditions surrounding the project: the SPI infrastructure, administrative inertia, etc. The second part of the model is the central one; the main contribution of this paper. It is the core of commitment process not tied to the type of commitment. Based on the analysis of existing models, literature review on commitment, empirical evidence from industry we propose that in the core managerial commitment process are three main (sub-)processes: (a) learning process, (b) decision-making process and (c) commitment evaluation process. Each of these processes can be explained using several theories. However, understanding human learning falls out of the scope of this paper. We suggest that the purpose of the learning process is to reduce the inherent information asymmetry between the supplier (e.g. SPI change agent) and the buyer (e.g. senior manager). We hypothesize that there is a two-way relationship between the learning process and the commitment evaluation process. Learning enables and triggers evaluating one's commitment affecting either positively or negatively depending of the content of the learning experience. Learning process would incorporate stages 1-3 in both models analyzed. Decision-making is a central process to all managerial levels. In decision-making theories, structured, semi-structured and unstructured decisions are acknowledged (also referred as programmed vs. nonprogrammed decisions in respective literature (Greenberg, 1996). The less structured the decision is the more uncertainty there exists (i.e. less information is available for the decision making). As mentioned earlier the level of information asymmetry reduced in learning process greatly affects the level of trust needed in decision making. Managers are often forced to make a commitment after a short period of time. The more unstructured the commitment decision is, the more important role the trust plays. Again, decision-making theories fall out of scope of this paper. Decision-making process would involve stages 4 in Conner and Patterson's model and stages 4-5 in Ernst & Young's model. A level of commitment, i.e., strength, does not remain at same level indefinitely. A person evaluates his/her commitment from time to time when triggered by a certain stimulus. The evaluation process itself is affected by current attitudes, circumstances, organizational factors and the “history” of the commitment – its development process, the reasons driving this development (Brown, 1996). Brown suggests that together these forces affect the way in which
a commitment is evaluated and acted upon. If a person is involved in several projects and is introduced with a new task, he/she will automatically enter into commitment evaluation process after which he/she will be able to prioritize his/her tasks. The decision-making process directly affects this process. A decision made is known to strengthen one's commitment on the issue the decision was made about (Kiesler, 1971). The last part of the model is the consequent of the process, a visible action. In terms of behavioral theories such as Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and in IS literature widely applied Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989), the managerial commitment process – model depicts the behavioral intention (BI). These theories were not chosen as the basis of the model proposed since they would explain the phenomenon only partially. E.g. technology acceptance model could be used to explain why a certain process is used and another is not at process user level. The drivers in managerial level are different. While process user are mostly interested in the implications for their work (though, not always), managers (depending on the position they hold) tend to produce a more holistic view (Isenberg, 1986). The model proposed addressed the misconceptions identified in current commitment development model and incorporated the conceptual basis of commitment. The validation of the model is a task in the future research agenda.
5. Conclusions Management commitment has been identified as an important factor determining the success of SPI initiatives. We focused on analyzing existing models of management commitment. Three misconceptions were introduced: (1) the linearity of human cognitive process in the development of commitment, (2) the controllability of this process, and (3) the sole utility aspect of commitment phenomenon. Each aspect was addressed. Empirical evidence were gathered to establish some themes, concepts and processes inherent in managerial commitment process. Lastly, the new model incorporating these issues was introduced with a short description of its elements. A limitation to this study is the small-scale empirical evidence that was used as a basis for model development. Small-scale empirical evidence implies the number of people interviewed, and the fact that only one manager was finally observed. Most interesting events occurred probably outside of researchers' eyes, in between the meetings. A focused interview on several key managers would have provided a better, richer angle to managerial commitment development processes. More research is needed in the context of exploring management commitment. This would include a use of qualitative research approaches in explaining managerial behavior. Potential research methods could e.g. be in-depth interviews with different levels of management, and on-site observation in staff and management meetings where the SPI initiative is discussed. Information asymmetry brought up in the empirical part of the paper could prove to enhance understanding about the relationship between e.g. a change agent and a software developer. Validation of the model proposed, or parts of it would enhance understanding about the complexities of commitment in managerial context. This paper has provided researchers and practitioners a preliminary model of managerial commitment process and tied it to general theoretical framework. This is a solid
starting point for further development and understanding of the complexities inherent in getting management committed to improving software processes.
6. Acknowledgments We wish to express our gratitude to Mr. Mikko T. Siponen at the Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu for his insightful comments on the early version of this paper, the Kessu project members for their assistance in gathering the field data, and the three anonymous reviewers for their ideas and suggestions.
7. References Abrahamsson, P. (1999) Expanding Goal Setting Theory Concepts – Using Goal Commitment Measurements to Improve Chances for Success in SPI, In International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement(Eds, Oivo, M. and Kuvaja, P.) VTT, Oulu, Finland, pp. 481-96. Abrahamsson, P. (2000a) Commitment to Software Process improvement – Development of Diagnostic Tool to Facilitate Improvement, Accepted for publication in Software Quality Journal, 8. Abrahamsson, P. (2000b) Is Management Commitment a Necessity After All in Software Process Improvement?, In Submitted to Euromicro 2000 conference. Ajzen, I. (1991) The Theory of Planned Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A. and Spector, B. (1990) Why Change Programs Don't Produce Change, Harward Business Review, 68, 158-66. Benkhoff, B. (1996) Disentangling organizational commitment - The dangers of OCQ for research and policy, Personnel Review, 26, 114-131. Brockner, J. (1992) The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: toward theoretical progress, Academy of Management Review, 17, 39-61. Brown, R. B. (1996) Organizational commitment: Clarifying the concept and simplyfying the existing construct typology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 230-51. Carlson, D. A. (1993) Cognitive models of strategic management, In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sicth Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Vol. 4 (Eds, Mudge, T. N., Milutinovic, V. and Hunter, L.) IEEE Electronic Library online, Hawaii, pp. 282-291. Clarke, M. and Meldrum, M. (1999) Creating change from below: early lessons for agents of change, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20, 70-80. Conner, D. R. (1998) Managing at the speed of change : how resilient managers succeed and prosper where others fail, Wiley, Chichester. Conner, D. R. and Patterson, R. B. (1982) Building Commitment to Organizational Change, Training and Development Journal, . Cugola, G. and Ghezzi, C. (1998) Software Processes: a Retrospective and a Path to the Future, Software Process Improvement and Practice, 4, 101-123. Davis, F. D. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology, MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-340. Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M. (1980) In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 13 Academic Press, Inc., , pp. 39-80. Dewey, J. (1910) How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston.
Diaz, M. and Sligo, J. (1997) How software process improvement helped Motorola, IEEE Software, 14, 75-81. Dunham, R. B., Grube, J. A. and Castañeda, M. B. (1994) Organizational Commitment: the Utility of an Integrative Definition, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 370-380. Ernst & Young Quality Improvement Consulting Group. (1990) Total quality : an executive's guide for the 1990s, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, Ill. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addision-Wesley, Reading, MA. Florac, W. A., Park, R. E. and Carleton, A. D. (1997) Practical Software Measurement: Measuring for Process Management and improvement, The Software Engineering Institution, Pittsburgh. Fowler, P. and Rifkin, S. (1990) Software Engineering Process Group Guide, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh. Frohman, A. L. (1997) Igniting organizational change from below: the power of personal initiative, Organizational Dynamics, 25, 39-53. Galliers, B. and Swan, J. (1999) In Rethinking management information systems : an interdisciplinary perspective(Eds, Currie, W. and Galliers, B.) Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 361-387. Grady, R. B. (1997) Successful software process improvement, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Greenberg, J. (1996) Managing Behavior in Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. Heng, M. S. H., Trauth, E. M. and Fischer, S. J. (1999) Organizational champions of IT innovation, Accounting Management & Information Technologies, 9, 193-222. Humphrey, W. S. (1989) Managing the Software Process, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. Humphrey, W. S. (1992) Introduction to software process improvement, Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, Pa. Isenberg, D. J. (1986) In The Thinking Organization(Eds, Sims, H. P. J. and Gioia, D. A.) Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Järvinen, P. (1999) On research methdods, Juvenes-Print, Tampere. Kaplan, A. (1964) The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science, Chandler, New York. Keil, M. (1995) Pulling the Plug: Software Project Management and the Problem of Project Escalation, MIS Quarterly, 19, 421-447. Keil, M., Cule, P. E., Lyytinen, K. and Schmidt, R. C. (1998) A Framework for Indentifying Software Project Risks, Communications of the ACM, 41, 76-83. Keil, M. and Robey, D. (1999) Turning Around Troubled Software Projects: An Exploratory Study of the Deescalation of Commitment to Failing Courses of Action, Journal of Management Information Systems, 15, 63-87. Kiesler, C. A. (1971) The Psychology of Commitment: Experiments Linking Behavior to Belief, Academic Press, London, UK. Kontio, J., Pitkänen, O. and Sulonen, R. (1998) Towards Better Software Projects and Contracts: Commitment Specifications in Software Development Projects, In ICSE 98IEEE Computer Society, Kyoto, Japan. Manicas, P. (1982) In Esplaining human behavior. Consciousness, human action and social structure(Ed, Secord, P.) Sage Publications, London. March, S. T. and Smith, G. F. (1995) Design and natural science on information technology, Decision Support Systems, 15, 251-266. Mathieu, J. E. and Zajac, D. M. (1990) A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment, Psyhcological Bulletin, 108.
Meyer, J. P. and Allen, N. J. (1991) A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment, Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89. Meyer, J. P. and Allen, N. J. (1997) Commitment in the Workplace : Theory, Research, and Application, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J. and Smith, C. A. (1993) Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551. Mishra, D. P., Heide, J. B. and Cort, S. G. (1998) Information asymmetry and levels of agency relationships, Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 277-295. Newman, M. and Sabherwal, R. (1996) Determinants of Commitment to Information Systems Development: A Longitudinal Investigation, MIS Quarterly, 20, 23-54. O'Reilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986) Organizational Commitment and Psychological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identification, and Internalization on Prosocial Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499. Pfeffer, J. (1997) New directions for organization theory : problems and prospects, Oxford University Press, New York. Poole, M. S. (1981) Decision development in small groups I: A test of two models, Communication Monographs, 48, 1-24. Porter, L. W., Allen, R. W. and Angle, H. L. (1981) In Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 3 (Eds, Staw, B. and Cummings, L.) JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. Randall, D. M. (1987) Commitment and the organization: The organization man revisited, Academy of Management Review, 10, 465-476. Randall, D. M. (1990) The consequences of Organizational Commitment: Methodological Investigation, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 361-378. Reichers, A. E. (1985) A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment, Academy of Management Review, 10, 465-476. Sabherwal, R. and Elam, J. (1995) Overcoming the problems in information systems development by building and sustaining commitment, Accounting, Management, and Information Technologies, 5, 283-309. Schilit, W. K. and Locke, E. A. (1982) A study of upward influence in organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 304-316. SEI (1999) Building Commitment, , Vol. 1999 Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, . Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline, Century Business, Kent. Simon, H. (1979) Information processing models of cognition, Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 363-396. Stahl, M. J. (1995) Management: Total Quality in a Global Environment, Blackwell Publishers. Statz, J., Oxley, D. and O'Toole, P. (1997) Identifying and Managing Risks for Software Process Improvement, Crosstalk, The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, . Staw, B. M. and Ross, J. (1987) In Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9 (Eds, Cummings, L. L. and Staw, B. M.) JAI Press, Greenwich, Conn., pp. 39-78. Stelzer, D. and Mellis, W. (1998) Success Factors of Organizational Change in Software Process Improvement, Software Process - Improvement and Practice, 4, 227-250. Taylor, W. A. (1995) Senior executives and ISO 9000 attitudes, behaviours and commitment, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Managemenet, 12, 40-57. Weckroth, K. (1988) Toiminnan psykologia (The psychology of action) In Finnish, Hakapaino, Helsinki. Wiegers, K. E. (1998) Software Process Improvement: Eight Traps to Avoid, CrossTalk, The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, .
Wohlwend, H. and S., R. (1994) Schlumberger's software improvement program, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20, 833-839. Zahran, S. (1998) Software process improvement : practical guidelines for business success, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, Mass.
