Asian Journal

Asian Research Consortium of Research in

Social Sciences
and
Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities
Vol. 6, No. 4, April 2016, pp. 151-171. Humanities
ISSN 2249-7315
A Journal Indexed in Indian Citation Index www.aijsh.com

Identifying the Impact of Team Size on

Team Work Quality (TWQ) in Software Teams through
an Empirical Approach

Rajalakshmi Subramaniam*; Dr. Senthilkumar Nakkeeran**

*Department of Management Studies,

Anna University,
Chennai, India.
**Department of Management Studies,
Anna University,
Chennai, India.
DOI NUMBER-10.5958/2249-7315.2016.00051.4

Abstract
The aim of this research is to investigate the impact that team size creates on team work quality
(TWQ) of teams that are involved in software development. This study has considered the seven
constructs of a team proposed by Weimar et al (2013) for measuring team work quality of a
software team. 112 respondents from various IT based multinational organizations belonging to
Chennai, India have been surveyed. A multiple analysis variance analysis was applied on the data
collected. The statistical analysis of the primary quantitative data collected reveals that team work
quality is greatly affected by the size of the team. Also it has been proven that smaller teams exhibit
better overall performance when compared with that of the larger teams.

Keywords: Team work quality, Team size, MANOVA, Software teams, Indian software
organizations.
________________________________________________________________________________

I Introduction
Increase in the advancement of technology has software development has resulted in execution of
more complex tasks that could not be achieved by an individual which in turn have enhanced the
need for building teams for organizations to execute their operations (Mathieu et al, 2005).
Software development unlike other activities is a collaborative activity and is knowledge as well as

151
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

labour intensive task. Therefore it involves much team work for each and every phase of the
development of product or solution such as design phase, implementation phase, testing phase and
maintenance phase. Team work plays a very vital role in determining the success of any software
project (Blackburn, Lapre and Wassenhove, 2002). The quality of the software deliverable will be
good only when the people involved in developing the same do quality work (Scott and Pollock,
2006). Team work quality as a terminology emerged only a decade ago when Hoegl and
Gemeunden (2001) identified and conceptualized six constructs namely coordination, mutual
support, communication, effort, balance of member contributions, collaboration and cohesion and
proved them to determine the collaboration between a team, thereby enhancing the overall quality
of the team. Similarly team size is defined as the number of individuals making up a team (Rico et
al, 2011). In other words it is defined as the number of individuals a particular team is composed of.
Even though there have been several studies in the past emphasizing the importance of Team Work
Quality in the successful development of software projects (Hoegl et al, 2004; Hoegl, 2003,
Weimar et al, 2013) and the importance of Team size in contributing towards the success of
software development projects (Colombo and Grilli, 2005; Wheelan, 2009; Hoegl, 2005), there
have been no studies in the past that has attempted to identify the relationship between both. This
research intends to bridge the gap by identifying how team size as a factor creates an individual
impact on each of the seven constructs of team work quality (TWQ) namely Team communication,
mutual support, value diversity, coordination of expertise, team performance, cohesion and trust
proposed by Weimar et al (2013). Further this research also has been conducted from an Indian
perspective which adds more uniqueness to the study.

II Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

2.1 Team Work Quality

Weimer et al (2013) in their research revisited the original six dimensions proposed by Hoegl and
Gameunden (2001) and came up with the proposition that team work quality, especially with
respect to software teams is being determined by seven factors namely trust, mutual support,
coordination of expertise, communication, cohesion, value diversity and team performance. Their
study revealed that software teams can produce high quality outcomes only when the above
mentioned seven elements are present in a team. Team work quality as a latest area of research has
attracted few researchers wherein some of them have examined the empirical relationship that exist
between team work quality and productivity (Tohidi, 2010) innovative project success (Hoegl et al.,
2003), team performance (Easley et al., 2003) etc. Dayan and Benedetto, (2009) as the next step
studied the consequences and antecedents of team work quality.

2.2 Team Size

Team size as a factor has always been identified to impact the success of software projects
(Katzenbach and Smith, 2005; Hoegl, 2005). The study conducted by Rodriguez et al (2011)
revealed that team size affected the productivity of the software development projects. To be more
specific the study found out that the teams with an average size of 9 members or more exhibited
lesser productivity when compared with that of the teams with smaller number of members. The
study done by Akinola and Ayinla (2014) identified that the optimal team size for any software
programming project must be 4 for the project to be efficient and successful. The research done by

152
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

Jiang and Comstock (2009) also proved that team size affected the productivity of the software
teams. Beckett and Putnam (2010), have identified that the size of the team does impact the quality
of the software deliverable delivered by a team. There have been several studies from the Indian
context as well supporting this fact. The study done by Mahajan (2013) proved that the quality of
the software especially the ones developed within software companies at Pune, India, varied
depending upon the number of members involved in that particular team that developed the specific
software. Balan and Ramasubbu (2007), in their study from the context of India as well as USA
identified that team size impacted the productivity of the development team and the conformance to
Quality of the software deliverable. This research intends to investigate the impact of team size on
each and every individual dimension of team work quality. Team work quality is assumed to be
comprised of seven dimensions proposed by Weimar et al (2013). The conceptual framework is
given below

Figure 1: Conceptual Model portraying the relationship between Team Size

and Team Work Quality

153
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

Source: Authors

The following are the hypothesis that have been derived by the conceptual framework

H1: The level of communication within teams varies with respect to the size of the team. The
members of smaller teams do not communicate better when compared with that of the members of
the larger teams.

H2: The level of co-ordination of expertise varies with respect to the size of the team. The level of
coordination of expertise is lower in smaller teams when compared with that of the larger teams.

H3: The level of mutual support varies with respect to the size of the team. The level of mutual
support is lesser in smaller teams when compared with that of larger teams.

H4: The diversification of values varies with respect to the size of the team. Value diversity is
lesser in smaller teams when compared with that of the larger

H5: The level of trust varies with respect to the size of the team. The level of trust is greater in
smaller teams when compared with that of the larger teams

H6: The level of cohesion varies with respect to the size of the team. Smaller teams are less
cohesive when compared with that of the larger teams.

H7. The level of performance of a team varies with respect to the size of the team. Smaller teams
exhibit lesser team performance when compared with that of the larger teams

III Research Methodology

3.1 Research Approach and Data Collection

A quantitative approach has been carried out in conducting the research. Data has been collected
from software organizations spread across Chennai, India. The research design adapted in this
research is descriptive research design. The researcher sent a survey link containing the
questionnaire to the respondents through electronic mail. The sampling design that has been
adapted is simple random sampling. The researcher has ensured that the target respondents are a
part of a software development team. Questionnaire links were sent to 132 respondents and the
response rate was 87 percent. Since the hypothesis is about comparing and testing the aspects of
team work quality between larger and smaller teams, the analysis has been done after classifying
responses from the respondents who were a part of teams with size less than 8 than that and
responses from the respondents from teams with size 8 or more. In other words a team with number
of members between 4 and 7 has been considered as ―S mall‖ team and a team with number of
members with 8 and above, is considered as ―L arge‖ team in this research setting. The coding of
collected primary data based on the mentioned criteria resulted in 74 respondents belonging to
smaller teams and 38 respondents belonging to larger teams thereby constituting a total sample size
of 112.

154
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

3.2 Measures and Instrument

The questionnaire consisted of three parts [Appendix A]. The first part covered the questions on
demographic profile of the participants involved in the survey. The demographic factors namely
age of the participant gender of the participant, educational qualification of the participant and work
experience of the participant were included as the first part of the questionnaire. The second part
contained only one item which enquired the size of the software team to which a particular
participant belonged. The third and final part of the questionnaire included the survey instruments
adapted by Weimar (2013) in order to measure the seven dimensions of team work quality namely
team cohesion, team communication, trust, coordination of expertise, value diversity, mutual
support and team performance. The instrument adapted by Weimar et al (2013) has been adapted as
it is without any changes being made to the same. The survey instruments for measuring seven
dimensions of team work quality as adapted by Weimar (2013) has been given below

Figure 2: Instrument for measuring dimensions of Team Work Quality

Source: Weimar, 2013

3.3 Reliability and Validity

The reliability of the instrument was identified using Cronbach alpha. The data collected has been
subject to statistical analysis using SPSS. The Cronbach α values as identified for the instrument is
given in the form of a table as follows

Table 1: Reliability Statistic of the instrument employed in this study

Scale Cronbach Alpha

Team communication 0.780
Coordination of expertise 0.808
Cohesion 0.787
Mutual Support 0.812
Trust 0.732
Value diversity 0.728
Team performance 0.752

155
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

As the above table shows, the instrument has been identified to be reliable since the Cronbach α
value obtained lies under the acceptable criterion of α > 0.7 (George and Mallery,2007).

Looking into the validity of the instrument, the items employed in this questionnaire has been taken
from previous literature. Many scholars have already implemented the same in their research work
and have proven that these items reflect the variables very accurately. Therefore this instrument is a
valid instrument for conducting the research.

3.4 Statistical Techniques Employed

In this research MANOVA was carried out in order to find out the relationship between team size
and each of the dimensions of team work quality. MANOVA or Multiple Analysis of Variance is a
technique employed when the researcher wants to test a hypothesis portraying the effect that one or
more independent variables create on two or more dependant variables (Stevens, 2001). According
to Hair, et al. (2006) MANOVA is superior to ANOVA in such a way that it prevents Type I errors
that might arouse in case of independently conducting multiple ANOVAs. Further it has the
capability to reveal the differences between the variables which cannot be done by ANOVA tests.
Use of MANOVA helps the researcher in identifying which factor truly affects the dependent
variable. While applying in a practical research setting MANOVA is in general used in order to
find out the significant differences in the set of criterion variable (In this case the dimensions of
Team Work Quality) across series of groups formed by one or more categorical measures of the
predictor variable (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2006). In this case categorization of Team Size as Small
and Large). On the whole seven MANOVA tests have been conducted by the researcher in order to
assess the significance of each of the seven dimensions of team work quality on the criterion
variable(s), Team size.

3.5 Ethical Considerations

Ethics is an essential part in conducting any research. The researcher has ensured to conduct the
research in a very ethical manner and by keeping the respondent information strictly confidential.
Further the respondents were informed well in advance before the conduct of the survey the
purpose of the same and only participants who came forward willingly to contribute to the research
were offered the survey questionnaire.

IV Statistical Analysis and Results

The following section presents the results of the statistical analysis on the primary data collected
and discusses the same.

4.1 Descriptive Statistics

4.1.1 Analysis of the Demographic Profile

The descriptive statistics conducted on the primary data on the demographic profile of the
respondents revealed that 51.8% of the respondents who attended the same were male. It is
illustrated in the bar chart as well.

156
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

Table 4: Gender Description

With respect to the age the study revealed that about 40.2% of the respondents were aged between
26 – 35 years followed by those who were aged between 36- 45 years. The bar chart also shows
taller bar corresponding to those who were aged between 26 – 35 years.

157
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

Table 5: Age Description

About 58.0% of the respondents in this study were educated up to post graduate degree level. The
educational qualification profile of the target respondents is illustrated through bar chart as well

Table 6: Description of Educational Qualification

158
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

About 49.1% of the respondents in this study had a work experience of 8 years and above. The
table and the chart clearly explains the same.

159
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

Table 7: Description of Work Experience

1.1.2 Team Size

The table below displays that the team size was 3 – 5 members in 49.1% of the respondents. It is
illustrated in the form of a bar chart as shown below.

160
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

Table 8: Team size

4.1.3 Relation between team work quality and team size

4.1.3.1 Team communication and team size -Test of Hypothesis (H1)

The table below shows that the mean of statement ― Team members communicate often in
spontaneous meeting, phone conversations, etc‖ was higher in smaller teams and mean value of
― Team members are happy with the timeliness in which they received information from other team
members‖ had a low mean value in smaller team size. In large team size, statement ― Team
members are happy with the usefulness in which they received information from other team
members‖ had high mean value compared to the statement ― Team members are happy with the
timeliness in which they received information from other team members‖ which had low mean
value.

161
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

Table 9: Team Communication and Team size -Test of Hypothesis (H1)

The proposed hypothesis was about the difference in communication between members of teams
with different sizes. The F value for the difference in mean communication between the size of the
groups was 2.736 and its corresponding p value was 0.016<0.05. Since the p value was less than
0.05, we can conclude that there is a significant difference in communication between the size of
the teams. Further it is also clear that the level of communication of smaller teams is better when
compared with that of the larger teams thereby proving the hypothesis H1 to hold true.

4.1.3.2 Team co-ordination of expertise and team size -Test of Hypothesis (H2)

Among the items of coordination of expertise statement ― More knowledgeable team members
freely provide other members with hard-to-find knowledge or specialized skills‖ had high mean
value among the team with small size and statement ― Team members know who on the team has
specialized skills and knowledge that is relevant to their work‖ had low mean value compared to
other items. Among the team with large size, ― More knowledgeable team members freely provide
other members with hard-to-find knowledge or specialized skills‖ had high mean value and
statement ― Team members know who on the team has specialized skills and knowledge that is
relevant to their work‖ had low mean value.

162
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

Table 10: Team co-ordination of expertise and team size -Test of

Hypothesis (H2)

The F value corresponding to the difference in mean between the teams of different size was 3.246
and its p value was 0.006. Since the p value is less than 0.05, it can be concluded that there is a
significant difference in the means of groups of different sizes. Further it is also clear that the level
of coordination of expertise in smaller teams is greater than that of the larger teams. Therefore the
hypothesis H2 is accepted.

163
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

4.1.3.3 Mutual support and team size -Test of Hypothesis (H3)

The items of mutual support had shown that statement ― Our team is able to reach consensus
regarding important issues‖ had high mean value compared to the statement ― Discussions and
controversies are conducted constructively within the team‖ which had low mean value in team
with small size. Among the team with large size, statement ―Our team is able to reach consensus
regarding important issues‖ had high mean value and statement ―Discussions and controversies are
conducted constructively within the team.‖ had low mean value.

Table 11: Mutual support and team size -Test of Hypothesis (H3)

The F value corresponding to the difference means of different group size was 5.447 and its
corresponding p value was 0.000<0.05. Since the p value is lesser than 0.05, a conclusion can be
made that there is a significant difference in mutual support between the teams of different sizes. It
is also understood that smaller team members mutually support each other to a great extent when
compared with that of the members of the larger teams. Therefore the hypothesis H3 is accepted.

164
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

4.1.3.4 Value diversity and team size -Test of Hypothesis (H4)

The statement ― The values of all team members are similar‖ had a high mean value among the
items of value diversity and statement ― Team members have similar goals‖ had low mean value in
teams of small size. In teams of large size, ―
The team as a whole has similar goals‖ had high mean
value and statement ― Team members have strongly held beliefs about what is important within the
team‖ had low mean value.

Table 12: Value diversity and team size -Test of Hypothesis (H4)

The F value corresponding to the value of diversity between the teams of different sizes was 1.368
and its corresponding p value is more than 0.05. Since the p value is more than 0.05, we can
conclude that the value of diversity is not significantly different between the teams of different
sizes. Therefore the hypothesis H4 is rejected. In other words the value diversity is greater in larger
teams when compared with that of the smaller teams.

4.1.3.5 Trust and team size -Test of Hypothesis (H5)

Among the items of trust, statement ― We are usually considerate of one another’s feelings on this
team‖ had high mean value among team of small size and statement ― The people in my team are
friendly‖ had low mean value. In large size group, statement ― We are usually considerate of one
another’s feelings on this team‖ had high mean value and statement ― The people in my team are
friendly‖ and ―There is a noticeable lack of confidence among those I worked with‖ had low mean
value among the items trust.

165
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

Table 13: Trust and team size -Test of Hypothesis (H5)

The F value corresponding to the trust between the teams of different sizes was 2.075 and its
corresponding p value is more than 0.05. Since the p value is more than 0.05, we can conclude that
the trust is not significantly different between the teams of different sizes. Therefore the hypothesis
H5 is rejected. Further it can be understood that the level of trustworthiness that prevail in smaller
teams is greater when compared with that of the larger teams.

4.1.3.6 Cohesion and team size -Test of Hypothesis (H6)

Among the items of Cohesion, statement ― I feel that I am member of this team‖ had high mean
value in both small as well as larger teams. At the same time the statement ―I see myself as part of
this team‖ had low mean value among the groups with small size as well as large size.

166
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

Table 14: Cohesion and team size -Test of Hypothesis (H6)

The F value corresponding to the cohesion between the teams of different sizes was 2.876 and its
corresponding p value is less than 0.05. Since the p value is lesser than 0.05, a conclusion can be
made that the cohesion is significantly different between the teams of different sizes. Further it can
be understood that smaller teams are more cohesive when compared with that of the larger teams.
Therefore the hypothesis H6 can be accepted.

4.1.3.7 Team performance and team size -Test of Hypothesis (H7)

The statement ― Project goals are met‖ had high mean value for the items of team performance and
statement ― The expected scope of work is completed‖ had low mean value among the teams of
small size. Among the teams large size, statement ― Project goals are met‖ had high mean value and
statement ― Task operations are carried out as fast as possible‖ had low mean value.

Table 15: Team performance and team size -Test of Hypothesis (H7)

167
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

The F value corresponding to the team performance between the teams of different sizes was 3.228
and its corresponding p value is less than 0.05. Since the p value is lesser than 0.05, a conclusion
can be made that the team performance is significantly different between the teams of different
sizes. Also the performance exhibited by smaller teams is superior to that of the larger teams.
Therefore the hypothesis H7 can be accepted.

V Discussion and Conclusion

The statistical analysis of the primary data reveals that team size does create an impact on the team
work quality of the software development teams. When considering the impact of team size on each
and every individual dimension of team work quality this study reveals that smaller teams
communicate better than that of larger teams. It is also identified that the level of value diversity
among smaller teams is less when compared with that of the larger teams. The members of smaller
teams mutually support each other and trust each other to a great extent and the level of cohesion as
well as co-ordination is high among smaller teams. In addition to that smaller teams exhibit greater
level of performance in terms of developing projects when compared with that of the larger teams.
Further it is understood that the overall quality of the output delivered by smaller software teams is
superior when compared with that of the output that is delivered by the software teams with larger
numbers of members. The results obtained are in line with the research work done by several
researchers such as Rising and Janoff (2000), Bradner et al (2003), Hoegl (2005), Lalsingh,
Kishnah and Pudaruth (2012) and Phillips, Zimmermann and Bird (2014) which confirms that the
statistical results hold true and valid.

To conclude, the study clearly shows that for the success of any software development process
contribution of the human resource is very essential and important. Software development is more a
social activity rather than a technical activity. Further it has been understood that for a software
development process to be successful and effective it is important for people to work as teams
rather than as individuals. This study is not free from limitations. The teams considered in this
study are exclusively software development teams and therefore the findings cannot be generalized
across teams involved in operations other than software development.

Therefore, the study could be further extended by testing the proven hypothesis on data collected
from a different group of participants who do not belong to the software industry but to other
industries such as education, healthcare, manufacturing etc to ensure to what extent the identified
fact holds true for other industries.

References
Akinola, O. and Ayinla, B. (2014) An Empirical Study of the Optimum Team Size Requirement in
a Collaborative Computer Programming/Learning Environment. Journal of Software
Engineering and Applications, 7, 1008-1018.

Becket, D. M., & Putnam, D. T. (2010). Predicting software quality. Journal of Software
Technology, 13(1).

168
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

Blackburn, J. D., Lapre, M. A., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2002) Brooks’ Law Revisited:
Improving Software Productivity by Managing Complexity. Vanderbilt University
Working paper 2002-85.

Bradner, E., Mark, G., and Hertel, T. (2003). Effects of team size on participation, awareness, and
technology choice in geographically distributed teams. Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences.

Colombo, M. and Grilli, L. (2005). Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology-
based firms: A competence-based view. Research Policy, 34(6):795–816.

Dayan.M and Benedetto.A (2009), Antecedents and consequences of teamwork quality in new
product development projects: An empirical investigation", European Journal of
Innovation Management, 12(1) 129 – 155

Easley, R. F., Devaraj, S., et al. (2003). Relating collaborative technology use to teamwork quality
and performance: An empirical analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems,
19(4), 247 — 268.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference.
11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. Seventh
Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Hoegl.M (2005), Smaller teams—better teamwork: How to keep project teams small, Business
Horizons.

Hoegl, M., &Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects:
A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435 — 449.

Hoegl, M., Parboteeah, K. P., &Gemuenden, H. G. (2003). When teamwork really matters: Task
innovativeness as a moderator of the teamwork—performance relationship in software
development projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20,
281 — 302.

Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., &Gemuenden, H. G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment,
and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science,
15(1), 38— 55

Jiang, Z., & Comstock, C. (2007). The Factors Significant to Software Development Productivity.
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Volume 25,January 2007

Katzenbach, J.R. and D.K. Smith (2005), The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High Performance
Organization, Collins Business Essentials, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, NY

Lalsingh, V., Kishnah, S., & Pudaruth, S. (2012). People factors in agile software development and
project management. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications, 3(1).

169
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

Mahajan, D A (2013). A Study of Correlation of Software Development Project’s Team Size with
it’s Quality Variances – A Study of Selected Software Development Projects. International
Journal of Business Intelligents. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 88-91.

Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2005). Scaling
the quality of teammates’ mental models: Equifinality and normative comparisons. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 26, 37–56.

Phillips, S., Zimmermann, T., and Bird, C., (2014). Understanding and Improving software build
teams, Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, (ICSE)
ACM. June 2014. 735-744

Ramasubbu, N. and R.K. Balan (2007), ― Globally Distributed Software Development Project
Performance: An Empirical Analysis‖, ESEC-FSE’07, September 3-7, 2007, Cavtat near
Dubrovnik, Croatia

Rico, R., de la Hera, M. C. A., & Tabernero, C. (2011). Work team effectiveness: A review of
research for the last decade (1999-2009). Psychology in Spain, 15(1), 57–79.

Rising .L,. Janoff. N., S., (2000). The Scrum Software Development Process for Small Teams.
IEEE Software 17(4), 2000, 26-32

Rodriguez, D., Sicilia, M.A., García E., Harrison, R., Empirical Findings on Team Size and
Productivity in Software Development, Journal of Systems and Software, 85(3), March
2012, pp 562-570.

Scott, E., & Pollock, M. (2006). Effectiveness of Self-selected Teams: A Systems Development
Project Experience. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 3, 601-617.

Stevens, J. P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4 th Ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (5th Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.

Tohidi.H (2010), Teamwork Productivity and Effectiveness in an Organization base on Rewards,

Leadership, Training, Goals, Wage, Size, Motivation, Measurement and IT, procedia
computer science.

Weimar E (2013), ―The Influence of Teamwork Quality on Software Development Team

Performance‖, Master’s thesis, Tilburg University, 2013.

Weimar, E.; Nugroho, A.; Visser, J.M.W.; Plaat, A. (2013), Towards High Performance Software
Teamwork, Ease’13 Proceedings of the 17 th International Conference on Evaluation and
Assessment in Software Engineering. EASE '13, Porto de Galinhas, Brazil, April 14-16,
2013, pp. 212-215

170
 Subramaniam & Nakkeeran (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.4, pp. 151-171.

Wheelan S.A. (2009). Group size, group development, and group productivity. Small Group
Research, 40, 247-262.

171