Context: Teamwork is an important aspect of agile software development, and the widespread adoption of agile methodologies emphasizes the need for educational approaches that prepare students for effective teamwork. Capstone courses in agile software engineering provide a valuable setting for students to experience collaborative work. However, the dynamics within these teams, particularly regarding gender, require further exploration. Objectives: This study examines teamwork experiences in an agile capstone course focusing on how team gender composition affects role distribution, teamwork quality, and gender bias. Methods: This study involved 94 teams comprising 561 students over two years (213 women and 348 men). We employed a mixed-methods approach, using four surveys (806 responses) and 12 in-depth interviews to capture ambition level, satisfaction with agile practices, and gender differences. Results: Team gender composition significantly impacted teamwork quality (TWQ), with female-dominated but gender-diverse teams showing the highest TWQ scores. Interestingly, women in token positions in male-majority teams reported unexpectedly high satisfaction levels, challenging aspects of Kanter’s tokenism theory. However, women were more likely to report that team members underestimated their competence, particularly in male-majority teams. Observed gender differences included a tendency for women to engage more in design and process-oriented tasks, while men predominantly focused on programming and technical aspects such as architecture and algorithms. Conclusion: This study underscores the importance of considering team composition in relation to gender in agile teams, as we found this aspect greatly impacts team dynamics. Further, the implementation of agile practices in capstone courses yielded high overall TWQ scores, indicating significant educational value. Our findings provide insights for both software engineering education and agile practitioners.

Abstract Team composition is a critical factor influencing collaboration within agile software development. This study investigates the impact of gender distribution on teamwork quality in software engineering capstone courses. We examined the experiences of 240 students organized into 40 teams during an agile project course. We analyzed two surveys, one conducted before team composition and one at the end of the project work. As much as 91% of the students chose to use the practice of conducting stand-up meetings in their project work and the majority were satisfied with the practice. Further, our analysis reveals that while women tend to engage more in design and men in programming, an increase in the proportion of women within a team correlates with a higher involvement of women in programming tasks. Our findings highlight gender differences in perceptions and experiences related to project involvement in agile software engineering courses.

Abstract Teamwork is crucial in software development, particularly in agile development teams which are cross-functional and where team members work intensively together to develop a cohesive software solution. Effective teamwork is not easy; prior studies indicate challenges with communication, learning, prioritization, and leadership. Nevertheless, there is much advice available for teams, from agile methods, practitioner literature, and general studies on teamwork to a growing body of empirical studies on teamwork in the specific context of agile software development. This article presents the agile teamwork effectiveness model (ATEM) for colocated agile development teams. The model is based on evidence from focus groups, case studies, and multi-vocal literature and is a revision of a general team effectiveness model. Our model of agile teamwork effectiveness is composed of shared leadership, team orientation, redundancy, adaptability, and peer feedback. Coordinating mechanisms are needed to facilitate these components. The coordinating mechanisms are shared mental models, communication, and mutual trust. We critically examine the model and discuss extensions for very small, multi-team, distributed, and safety-critical development contexts. The model is intended for researchers, team members, coaches, and leaders in the agile community.

Small, self-directed teams are central in agile development. This article investigates the effect of teamwork quality on team performance, learning and work satisfaction in agile software teams, and whether this effect differs from that of traditional software teams. A survey was administered to 477 respondents from 71 agile software teams in 26 companies and analyzed using structural equation modeling. A positive effect of teamwork quality on team performance was found when team members and team leaders rated team performance. In contrast, a negligible effect was found when product owners rated team performance. The effect of teamwork quality on team members´ learning and work satisfaction was strongly positive, but was only rated by the team members. Despite claims of the importance of teamwork in agile teams, this study did not find teamwork quality to be higher than in a similar survey on traditional teams. The effect of teamwork quality on team performance was only marginally greater for the agile teams than for the traditional teams.

Context: Most of the software organizations that use agile methods organize daily team meetings. Aim: Our aim was to understand how daily meetings are conducted and identify obstacles that reduce their efficiency. Method: We observed 56 daily meetings and conducted 21 interviews in three different teams in two countries. We used the repertory grid technique in the interviews and to analyze the results. Results: We identified thirteen obstacles. The four most prominent ones were: (1) The daily meetings lasted too long (on average, 22 minutes instead of the scheduled 15 minutes). (2) In the meetings that were not self-organized, team members reported to the Scrum Master instead of sharing information among all team members. (3) The interruption caused by daily meetings required substantially more time than the actual meeting time due to overhead before and after the meetings. (4) Several team members had negative attitudes towards the daily meetings. Conclusion: Organizers of daily meetings should evaluate whether the obstacles we have identified are present in their organization and consider our suggestions to remove or reduce these obstacles.