Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Flow Tools to Enact Control in Software Development Projects: A Cross-case Analysis

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Flow development tools and metrics are the latest in a long line of approaches designed to control and improve software development productivity and the overall quality of software produced. While there are many claims regarding the value of flow to control development activity, there is a lack of rigorous research on this topic. In this study, we use control theory as a lens to explore how flow tools and metrics are used to enact both formal and informal control modes. This qualitative study draws on a cross-case analysis of two multinationals located in Ireland that involved interviews with five software development teams distributed across Ireland, India, and the US. The findings reveal that both managers and project teams try to conduct business as usual in order to maintain their control status. This study contributes four key challenges on the use of flow tools, evidence-based recommendations on how to effectively implement flow, and a research agenda for future researchers. While the findings are within the context of flow-based software development projects, the lessons learned can be generalised to other software development contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abubakre, M. A., Ravishankar, M. N., & Coombs, C. R. (2015). The role of formal controls in facilitating information system diffusion. Information & Management, 52(5), 599–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, R., & Lucas Jr, H. C. (2005). The information systems identity crisis: Focusing on high-visibility and high-impact research. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 381–398.

  • Anderson, D. (2013). Lean Software Development. Seattle: Lean Kanban University (LKU).

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D., Concas, G., Lunesu, M. I., & Marchesi, M. (2011). Studying lean-kanban approach using software process simulation Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming (pp. 12–26). Berlin: Springer.

  • Anderson, D. J. (2010). The Kanban Principles: Chicago: Blue Hole Press.

  • Anderson, D. J., & Roock, A. (2011). An agile evolution: why Kanban is catching on in Germany and around the world. Cutter IT Journal, 24(3), 6.

  • Arditi, D., Tokdemir, O. B., & Suh, K. (2001). Effect of learning on line-of-balance scheduling. International Journal of Project Management, 19(5), 265–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arditi, D., Tokdemir, O. B., & Suh, K. (2002). Challenges in line-of-balance scheduling. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 128(6), 545–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bang, S. K., Chung, S., Choh, Y., & Dupuis, M. (2013, October). A grounded theory analysis of modern web applications: knowledge, skills, and abilities for DevOps. In Proceedings of the 2nd annual conference on Research in information technology (pp. 61–62).

  • Banville, C., & Landry, M. (1989). Can the field of MIS be disciplined? Communications of the ACM, 32, 48–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2001). Interpersonal conflict and its management in information system development. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 195–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R. L., & Myers, M. D. (2009). Fashion waves in information systems research and practice. MIS Quarterly, 33(4), 647–662.

  • Basnet, P., & Lane, M. (2005). Informal Control in Open Source Project: An Empirical Assessment. Paper presented at ACIS Conference, Australia.

  • Bell, S. C., & Orzen, M. A. (2010). Lean IT: Enabling and Sustaining Your Lean Transformation. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

  • Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 369–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkeland, J. O. (2010). From a Timebox tangle to a more flexible flow. Paper presented at the International Conference on Agile Software Development.

  • Cardinal, L. B., Sitkin, S. B., & Long, C. P. (2010). A configurational theory of control. Organizational Control, 51(79), 85–100.

  • Choudhury, V., & Sabherwal, R. (2003). Portfolios of control in outsourced software development projects. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 291–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocco, L., Mannaro, K., Concas, G., & Marchesi, M. (2011). Simulating kanban and scrum vs. waterfall with system dynamics. Paper presented at the International Conference on Agile Software Development.

  • Conboy, K. (2009). Agility from first principles: Reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 329–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conboy, K., & Carroll, N. (2019). Implementing large-scale agile frameworks: challenges and recommendations. IEEE Software, 36(2), 44-50.

  • Concas, G., Lunesu, M. I., Marchesi, M., & Zhang, H. (2013). Simulation of software maintenance process, with and without a work-in‐process limit. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 25(12), 1225–1248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, T. K. (1993). A multiple paradigm approach to organizational control. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 1(4), 385–403.

  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 491–512.

  • Dennehy, D., & Conboy, K. (2016). Early adoption of flow artefacts in ISD: An activity theory perspective.

  • Dennehy, D., & Conboy, K. (2017). Going with the flow: An activity theory analysis of flow techniques in software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 133, 160–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennehy, D., & Conboy, K. (2018). Identifying challenges and a research agenda for flow in software project management. Project Management Journal, 49(6), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818800559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennehy, D., & Conboy, K. (2019). Breaking the flow: A study of contradictions in information systems development (ISD). Information Technology & People, 33(2), 477–501. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-2018-0102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwivedi, Y. K., Wastell, D., Laumer, S., Henriksen, H. Z., Myers, M. D., Bunker, D., Elbanna, A., Ravishankar, M. N., & Srivastava, S. C. (2015). Research on information systems failures and successes: Status update and future directions. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(1), 143–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50(9), 833–859.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebert, C., Abrahamsson, P., & Oza, N. (2012). Lean software development. IEEE Software (5), 22–25.

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1985). Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management Science, 31(2), 134–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., & Savage, G. (2015). Project stakeholder management—past and present. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 6–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, B., & Adam, F. (2000). The status of the IS field: historical perspective and practical orientation.

  • Fitzgerald, B., & Stol, K.-J. (2015). Continuous software engineering: A roadmap and agenda. Journal of Systems and Software.

  • Gallivan, M. J. (2001). Striking a balance between trust and control in a virtual organization: a content analysis of open source software case studies. Information Systems Journal, 11(4), 277–304.

  • Goldbach, T., Benlian, A., & Buxmann, P. (2018). Differential effects of formal and self-control in mobile platform ecosystems: Multi-method findings on third-party developers’ continuance intentions and application quality. Information & Management, 55(3), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.07.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gopal, A., & Gosain, S. (2010). Research note—The role of organizational controls and boundary spanning in software development outsourcing: Implications for project performance. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 960–982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, R. W., Beck, R., & Keil, M. (2013). Control balancing in information systems development offshoring projects. MIS Quarterly, 37, 1211–1232.

  • Harris, M. L., Collins, R. W., & Hevner, A. R. (2009). Control of flexible software development under uncertainty. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 400–419.

  • Hassan, N. R., & Mathiassen, L. (2018). Distilling a body of knowledge for information systems development. Information Systems Journal, 28(1), 175–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. C., & Lee, S. (1992). Managing I/S design teams: a control theories perspective. Management Science, 38(6), 757–777.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heumann, J., Wiener, M., Remus, U., & Mähring, M. (2015). To coerce or to enable? Exercising formal control in a large information systems project. Journal of Information Technology, 30(4), 337–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. K., & Lyytinen, K. (1996). Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: a social action theoretic analysis. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 6(1–2), 1–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikonen, M. (2010, October). Leadership in Kanban software development projects: A quasi-controlled experiment. In International Conference on Lean Enterprise Software and Systems (pp. 85–98). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

  • Ikonen, M., Kettunen, P., Oza, N., et al. (2010) Exploring the sources of waste in kanban software development projects. 2010 36th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications. Piscataway: IEEE, pp. 376–381.

  • Ikonen, M., Pirinen, E., Fagerholm, F., Kettunen, P., & Abrahamsson, P. (2011). On the impact of kanban on software project work: An empirical case study investigation. Paper presented at the 16th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS).

  • Jaworski, B. J. (1988). Toward a theory of marketing control: environmental context, control types, and consequences. The Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 23–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1989). Marketing jobs and management controls: toward a framework. Journal of Marketing Research, XXV, 406–419.

  • Keil, M., Rai, A., & Liu, S. (2013). How user risk and requirements risk moderate the effects of formal and informal control on the process performance of IT projects. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(6), 650–672.

  • Khurum, M., Petersen, K., & Gorschek, T. (2014). Extending value stream mapping through waste definition beyond customer perspective. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 26(12), 1074–1105.

  • Kirsch, L. J. (2004). Deploying common systems globally: The dynamics of control. Information Systems Research, 15(4), 374–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, L. S. (1997). Portfolios of control modes and IS project management. Information Systems Research, 8(3), 215–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch, L. J., Ko, D. G., & Haney, M. H. (2010). Investigating the antecedents of team-based clan control: Adding social capital as a predictor. Organization Science, 21(2), 469–489.

  • Kirsch, L. J., Sambamurthy, V., Ko, D. G., & Purvis, R. L. (2002). Controlling information systems development projects: The view from the client. Management Science, 48(4), 484–498.

  • Kitchenham, B. A., Pfleeger, S. L., Pickard, L. M., Jones, P. W., Hoaglin, D. C., Emam, E., & Rosenberg, J. (2002). Preliminary guidelines for empirical research in software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(8), 721–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kniberg, H., & Skarin, M. (2010). Kanban and Scrum-Making the Most of Both. London: Lulu. com.

  • Laanti, M., & Kangas, M. (2015, August). Is agile portfolio management following the principles of large-scale agile? Case study in Finnish Broadcasting Company Yle. In 2015 Agile Conference (pp. 92–96). Piscataway: IEEE.

  • Law, E. L. C., & Lárusdóttir, M. K. (2015). Whose experience do we care about? Analysis of the fitness of scrum and kanban to user experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 31(9), 584–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leffingwell, D. (2010). Agile software requirements: lean requirements practices for teams, programs, and the enterprise. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional.

  • Leopold, K., & Kaltenecker, S. (2015). Kanban change leadership: Creating a culture of continuous improvement. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Lim, E., Taksande, N., & Seaman, C. (2012). A balancing act: What software practitioners have to say about technical debt. IEEE software, 29(6), 22–27.

  • Lindgren, R., Henfridsson, O., & Schultze, U. (2004). Design principles for competence management systems: a synthesis of an action research study. MIS Quarterly, 28(3), 435–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, L., Borman, M., & Gao, J. (2014). Delivering complex engineering projects: Reexamining organizational control theory. International Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 791–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyytinen, K., & Rose, G. M. (2006). Information system development agility as organizational learning. European Journal of Information Systems, 15(2), 183–199.

  • Mahnič, V. (2015). Scrum in software engineering courses: an outline of the literature. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 17(2), 77–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mähring, M. (2002). IT project governance: A process-oriented study of organizational control and executive involvement. SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration, 15.

  • Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(1), 106–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., & Agarwal, R. (2009). A control theory perspective on agile methodology use and changing user requirements. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 377–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Middleton, P., & Joyce, D. (2011). Lean software management: BBC worldwide case study. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(1), 20–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.

  • Mujtaba, S., Feldt, R., & Petersen, K. (2010). Waste and lead time reduction in a software product customization process with value stream maps. Paper presented at the 2010 21st australian software engineering conference.

  • Narayanaswamy, R., Grover, V., & Henry, R. M. (2013). The impact of influence tactics in information system development projects: A control-loss perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 30(1), 191–226.

  • Naylor, J. B., Naim, M. M., & Berry, D. (1999). Leagility: Integrating the lean and agile manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 62(1–2), 107–118.

  • Nerur, S., & Balijepally, V. (2007). Theoretical reflections on agile development methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 50(3), 79–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nikitina, N., & Kajko-Mattsson, M. (2011, May). Developer-driven big-bang process transition from Scrum to Kanban. In Proceedings of the 2011 international conference on software and systems process (pp. 159–168).

  • Nord, R. L., Ozkaya, I., & Sangwan, R. S. (2012). Making architecture visible to improve flow management in lean software development. Software, IEEE, 29(5), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2012.109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öbrand, L., Holmström, J., & Newman, M. (2018). Navigating Rumsfeld's quadrants: a performative perspective on IT risk management. Technology in Society, 53, 1–8.

  • Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota production system: beyond large-scale production. Chicago: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olerup, A. (1991). Design approaches: a comparative study of information system design and architectural design. The Computer Journal, 34(3), 215–224.

  • Ouchi, W. G. (1977). The relationship between organizational structure and organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 95–113.

  • Ouchi, W. G. (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms. Readings in Accounting for Management Control (pp. 63–82). New York: Springer, US.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi, W. G., & Cuchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge (Vol. 13). Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paasivaara, M. (2017, May). Adopting SAFe to scale agile in a globally distributed organization. In 2017 IEEE 12th International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE) (pp. 36–40). Chicago: IEEE.

  • Persson, J. S., Mathiassen, L., & Aaen, I. (2012). Agile distributed software development: Enacting control through media and context: Control in agile distributed software development. Information Systems Journal, 22(6), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00390.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, K., & Wohlin, C. (2010). The effect of moving from a plan-driven to an incremental software development approach with agile practices. Empirical Software Engineering, 15(6), 654–693.

  • Petersen, K., Roos, P., Nyström, S., & Runeson, P. (2014). Early identification of bottlenecks in very large scale system of systems software development. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 26(12), 1150–1171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, K., & Wohlin, C. (2009). Context in industrial software engineering research. Proceedings of the 2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. Washington, D.C.: IEEE Computer Society, pp. 401–404.

  • Petersen, K., & Wohlin, C. (2011). Measuring the flow in lean software development. Software: Practice and Experience, 41(9), 975–996. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polk, R. (2011, August). Agile and Kanban in coordination. In 2011 Agile Conference (pp. 263–268). IEEE.

  • Poppendieck, M. (2002). Principles of Lean Thinking, Published by Poppendieck.

  • Poppendieck, M., & Cusumano, M. A. (2012). Lean software development: A tutorial. Software, IEEE, 29(5), 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poppendieck, M. B., & Poppendieck, T. D. (2013). The lean mindset: ask the right questions. Pearson Education.

  • Power, K. (2014). Definition of ready: An experience report from teams at cisco Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming (pp. 312–319): Springer.

  • Power, K., & Conboy, K. (2015). A Metric-Based Approach to Managing Architecture-Related Impediments in Product Development Flow: An Industry Case Study from Cisco. Paper presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Software Architecture and Metrics (SAM), Piscataway: IEEE/ACM.

  • Reinertsen, D. G. (2009). The principles of product development flow: second generation lean product development (Vol. 62): Celeritas Redondo Beach,, Canada.

  • Remus, U., Wiener, M., Mähring, M., Saunders, C., & Cram, W. A. (2015). Why do you control? The concept of control purpose and its implications for IS project control research. London: ICIS

  • Remus, U., Wiener, M., Saunders, C., & Mähring, M. (2020). The impact of control styles and control modes on individual-level outcomes: A first test of the integrated IS project control theory. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(2), 134–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1718008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remus, U., Wiener, M., Saunders, C., Mähring, M., & Kofler, M. (2016). Control Modes Versus Control Styles: Investigating ISD Project Control Effects at the Individual Level. Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Systems, Dublin, Ireland.

  • Rolland, K., Dingsoyr, T., Fitzgerald, B., & Stol, K. J. (2016). Problematizing agile in the large: alternative assumptions for large-scale agile development. In 39th International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–21). Atlanta: Association for Information Systems (AIS).

  • Runeson, P., & Höst, M. (2009). Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 14(2), 131–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rustagi, S., King, W. R., & Kirsch, L. J. (2008). Predictors of formal control usage in IT outsourcing partnerships. Information Systems Research, 19(2), 126–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, K., Shannon, P., Judson, C., & Kidd, N. (2010). From chaos to kanban, via scrum. Paper presented at the International Conference on Agile Software Development.

  • Senapathi, M., Middleton, P., & Evans, G. (2011). Factors Affecting Effectiveness of Agile Usage–Insights from the BBC Worldwide Case Study. Paper presented at the International Conference on Agile Software Development.

  • Shalloway, A. (2011). Demystifying Kanban. Cutter IT Journal, 24(3), 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinkle, C. M. (2009). Applying the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition to the adoption of Kanban systems at software engineering professionals (SEP). Paper presented at the Agile Conference, 2009. AGILE’09.

  • Sidorova, A., Evangelopoulos, N., Valacich, J. S., & Ramakrishnan, T. 2008. Uncovering the intellectual core of the information systems discipline. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 467–482.

  • Soh, C., Chua, C. E. H., & Singh, H. (2011). Managing diverse stakeholders in enterprise systems projects: a control portfolio approach. Journal of Information Technology, 26(1), 16–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stray, V. G., Moe, N. B., & Dingsøyr, T. (2011, May). Challenges to teamwork: a multiple case study of two agile teams. In International conference on agile software development (pp. 146–161). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

  • Tiwana, A., & Keil, M. (2009). Control in internal and outsourced software projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(3), 9–44.

  • Towill, D., & Christopher, M. (2002). The supply chain strategy conundrum: to be lean or agile or to be lean and agile? International Journal of Logistics, 5(3), 299–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Towry, K. L. (2003). Control in a teamwork environment—The impact of social ties on the effectiveness of mutual monitoring contracts. The Accounting Review, 78(4), 1069–1095.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Rai, A., & Maruping, L. M. (2018). Information systems projects and individual developer outcomes: Role of project managers and process control. Information Systems Research, 29(1), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2017.0723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Versionone. (2016). What is Kanban. https://www.versionone.com/what-is-kanban/. Accessed Sept 2020.

  • Vlasic, A., & Yetton, P. (2004). Effective project control: Insights from the Australian construction industry. Paper presented at the PACIS Conference 2004.

  • Wang, X., Conboy, K., & Cawley, O. (2012). “Leagile” software development: An experience report analysis of the application of lean approaches in agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1287–1299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.01.061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wastell, D., & Newman, M. (1996). Information system design, stress and organisational change in the ambulance services: a tale of two cities. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 6(4), 283–300.

  • Wiener, M., Mähring, M., Remus, U., & Saunders, C. S. (2016). Control configuration and control enactment in information systems projects: Review and expanded theoretical framework. MIS Quarterly, 40(3), 741–774.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., & Wesslén, A. (2012). Experimentation in software engineering. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

  • Womack, J. P., Jones, D. T., & Roos, D. (1990). How lean production can change the world. New York Times Magazine, 23, 20–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). udgaveThousand Oaks: Sage Publications udgave.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported with the financial support of the Science Foundation Ireland grant 13/RC/2094 and co-funded under the European Regional Development Fund through the Southern & Eastern Regional Operational Programme to Lero - The Science Foundation Ireland Software Research Centre (www.lero.ie).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Eurofins Ltd, Dublin, Ireland

    Alex Estevam

  2. National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

    Denis Dennehy & Kieran Conboy

Authors
  1. Alex Estevam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denis Dennehy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kieran Conboy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Dennehy.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Estevam, A., Dennehy, D. & Conboy, K. Using Flow Tools to Enact Control in Software Development Projects: A Cross-case Analysis. Inf Syst Front 24, 287–304 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10081-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10081-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation