Understanding the building blocks of accountability in software engineering
Authors: 
Adam Alami, 
Neil ErnstAuthors Info & Claims
Pages 153 - 163
Abstract
In the social and organizational sciences, accountability has been linked to the efficient operation of organizations. However, it has received limited attention in software engineering (SE) research, in spite of its central role in the most popular software development methods (e.g., Scrum). In this article, we explore the mechanisms of accountability in SE environments. We investigate the factors that foster software engineers' individual accountability within their teams through an interview study with 12 people. Our findings recognize two primary forms of accountability shaping software engineers individual senses of accountability: institutionalized and grassroots. While the former is directed by formal processes and mechanisms, like performance reviews, grassroots accountability arises organically within teams, driven by factors such as peers' expectations and intrinsic motivation. This organic form cultivates a shared sense of collective responsibility, emanating from shared team standards and individual engineers' inner commitment to their personal, professional values, and self-set standards. While institutionalized accountability relies on traditional "carrot and stick" approaches, such as financial incentives or denial of promotions, grassroots accountability operates on reciprocity with peers and intrinsic motivations, like maintaining one's reputation in the team.
References
[1]
Adam Alami and Oliver Krancher. 2022. How Scrum adds value to achieving software quality? Empirical Software Engineering 27, 7 (2022), 165.
[2]
Adam Alami, Oliver Krancher, and Maria Paasivaara. 2022. The journey to technical excellence in agile software development. Information and Software Technology 150 (2022), 106959.
[3]
Adam Alami and Maria Paasivaara. 2021. How do agile practitioners interpret and foster "technical excellence"? In Evaluation and assessment in software engineering. 10--19.
[4]
Adam Alami, Mansooreh Zahedi, and Oliver Krancher. 2023. Antecedents of psychological safety in agile software development teams. Information and Software Technology (2023), 107267.
[5]
Khaldoun M Aldiabat and Carole-Lynne Le Navenec. 2018. Data saturation: The mysterious step in grounded theory methodology. The qualitative report 23, 1 (2018), 245--261.
[6]
Raymond Angelo. 2015. Healthcare.Gov: A Retrospective Lesson in the Failure of the Project Stakeholders. Issues in Information Systems 16, 1 (2015).
[7]
Barry W Boehm. 1983. Seven basic principles of software engineering. Journal of Systems and Software 3, 1 (1983), 3--24.
[8]
Glenn A Bowen. 2008. Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note. Qualitative research 8, 1 (2008), 137--152.
[9]
Ruben Burga, Chris Spraakman, Carson Balestreri, and Davar Rezania. 2022. Examining the transition to agile practices with information technology projects: Agile teams and their experience of accountability. International Journal of Project Management 40, 1 (2022), 76--87.
[10]
Amy Edmondson. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative science quarterly 44, 2 (1999), 350--383.
[11]
Robert Folger and Russell Cropanzano. 2001. Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. Advances in organizational justice 1, 1--55 (2001), 12.
[12]
Dwight D Frink, Angela T Hall, Alexa A Perryman, Annette L Ranft, Wayne A Hochwarter, Gerald R Ferris, and M Todd Royle. 2008. Meso-level theory of accountability in organizations. In Research in personnel and human resources management. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 177--245.
[13]
Dwight D Frink and Richard J Klimoski. 1998. Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human resource management. (1998).
[14]
Dwight D Frink and Richard J Klimoski. 2004. Advancing accountability theory and practice: Introduction to the human resource management review special edition. Human resource management review 14, 1 (2004), 1--17.
[15]
Michele J Gelfand, Beng-Chong Lim, and Jana L Raver. 2004. Culture and accountability in organizations: Variations in forms of social control across cultures. Human Resource management review 14, 1 (2004), 135--160.
[16]
Daniel Graziotin, Fabian Fagerholm, Xiaofeng Wang, and Pekka Abrahamsson. 2017. On the Unhappiness of Software Developers. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering.
[17]
Daniel Graziotin, Fabian Fagerholm, Xiaofeng Wang, and Pekka Abrahamsson. 2018. What happens when software developers are (un)happy. Journal of Systems and Software 140 (jun 2018), 32--47.
[18]
Angela T Hall, Dwight D Frink, and M Ronald Buckley. 2017. An accountability account: A review and synthesis of the theoretical and empirical research on felt accountability. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38, 2 (2017), 204--224.
[19]
Angela T Hall, Dwight D Frink, Gerald R Ferris, Wayne A Hochwarter, Charles J Kacmar, and Michael G Bowen. 2003. Accountability in human resources management. New directions in human resource management 29 (2003), 63.
[20]
Ben Hutchinson, Andrew Smart, Alex Hanna, Emily Denton, Christina Greer, Oddur Kjartansson, Parker Barnes, and Margaret Mitchell. 2021. Towards accountability for machine learning datasets: Practices from software engineering and infrastructure. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 560--575.
[21]
Phillip Johnston and Rozi Harris. 2019. The Boeing 737 MAX saga: lessons for software organizations. Software Quality Professional 21, 3 (2019), 4--12.
[22]
Heidi Jugovic and Christopher Swickline. 2023. Case Studies in Disaster: Modern Digital Engineering Methods and Error Detection. In INCOSE International Symposium, Vol. 33. Wiley Online Library, 797--807.
[23]
Daniel Katz and Robert L Kahn. 1978. The social psychology of organizations. Vol. 2. wiley New York.
[24]
Patricia A McQuaid. 2012. Software disasters---understanding the past, to improve the future. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 24, 5 (2012), 459--470.
[25]
Neal P Mero, Rebecca M Guidice, and Amy L Brownlee. 2007. Accountability in a performance appraisal context: The effect of audience and form of accounting on rater response and behavior. Journal of Management 33, 2 (2007), 223--252.
[26]
Neal P Mero, Rebecca M Guidice, and Steve Werner. 2014. A field study of the antecedents and performance consequences of perceived accountability. Journal of Management 40, 6 (2014), 1627--1652.
[27]
Matthew B Miles, A Michael Huberman, Johnny Saldana, et al. 2014. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[28]
Janice M Morse. 2004. Theoretical saturation. Encyclopedia of social science research methods 3 (2004), 1122--3.
[29]
Helen Nissenbaum. 1996. Accountability in a computerized society. Science and engineering ethics 2 (1996), 25--42.
[30]
Barbara Romzek, Kelly LeRoux, Jocelyn Johnston, Robin J Kempf, and Jaclyn Schede Piatak. 2014. Informal accountability in multisector service delivery collaborations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24, 4 (2014), 813--842.
[31]
Barbara S Romzek, Kelly LeRoux, and Jeannette M Blackmar. 2012. A preliminary theory of informal accountability among network organizational actors. Public administration review 72, 3 (2012), 442--453.
[32]
Johnny Saldaña. 2021. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. sage.
[33]
Barry R Schlenker, Thomas W Britt, John Pennington, Rodolfo Murphy, and Kevin Doherty. 1994. The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological review 101, 4 (1994), 632.
[34]
Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland. 2020. The scrum guide. Scrum Alliance 21, 19 (2020), 1.
[35]
Philip E Tetlock. 1992. The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. In Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 25. Elsevier, 331--376.
[36]
J Craig Wallace, Paul D Johnson, Kimberly Mathe, and Jeff Paul. 2011. Structural and psychological empowerment climates, performance, and the moderating role of shared felt accountability: A managerial perspective. Journal of applied psychology 96, 4 (2011), 840.
[37]
Kelly L Zellars, Wayne A Hochwarter, Stephen E Lanivich, Pamela L Perrewé, and Gerald R Ferris. 2011. Accountability for others, perceived resources, and well being: Convergent restricted non-linear results in two samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 84, 1 (2011), 95--115.
Index Terms
- Understanding the building blocks of accountability in software engineering
Recommendations
Putting Human Aspects of Software Engineering in University Curricula
Although people-related issues are central factors in determining the success of software projects, they do not receive sufficient attention in the software industry to improve project results. This essay describes two barriers to their getting more ...
Reflection and Abstraction in Learning Software Engineering's Human Aspects
Intertwining reflective and abstract modes of thinking into the education of software engineers, especially in a course that focuses on software engineering's human aspects, can increase students' awareness of the discipline's richness and complexity ...
Accountability and the new media: use of ICTs in governance in India
ICTD '10: Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and DevelopmentCitizens across the world are constantly innovating new mechanisms of holding their governments accountable for their actions. One such mechanism that is gaining popularity in developing countries is E-governance. Using two case studies of Online Public ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
April 2024
210 pages
ISBN:9798400705335
DOI:10.1145/3641822
- General Chair:
- Daniel Graziotin,
- Program Chairs:
- Alexander Nolte,
- Birgit Penzenstadler,
- Klaas-Jan Stol,
- Giuseppe Destefanis,
- Adriana Meza Soria,
- Silvia Abrahão
Copyright © 2024 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
In-Cooperation
- Faculty of Engineering of University of Porto
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 12 June 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
CHASE '24
Sponsor:
CHASE '24: 2024 IEEE/ACM 17th International Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering
April 14 - 15, 2024
Lisbon, Portugal
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 47 of 70 submissions, 67%
Upcoming Conference
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 40Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)40
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)30
Reflects downloads up to 14 Aug 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in