Job redesign in software development

PONTIFÍCIA UNIVERSIDADE CATÓLICA DE MINAS GERAIS
Graduate course in software engineering
Mário Antônio de Almeida Ferreira
Job redesign in software development.
Belo Horizonte
2012

Mário Antônio de Almeida Ferreira
marioaaf@hotmail.com
Job redesign in software development.
Paper presented at the graduate course in Software
Engineering from the Pontifícia Universidade
Católica de Minas Gerais, as a partial requirement to
obtain the title of specialist in Software Engineering.
(Translated from Portuguese into English)
Orientador: Carlos Alberto Marques Pietrobon
Belo Horizonte
2012

ABSTRACT
We observe today that the systems development departments of companies have given little
thought to how to structure the work of people. Typically, this process is done without any
scientific study and without checking how that could influence results as productivity and
customer satisfaction. The aim of this work is to help companies find the best way to structure
and divide the work of software development. The study shows how productivity is related to
factors such as work specialization, motivation and systemic view, and how these factors are
related to the way of organizing people at work. It also shows how these factors studied by
management theories have appeared in the evolution of the concepts of software engineering
thus showing trends for the future. It is still an object of study to see how a model of
development formed by more generalist developers could get most of these benefits and result
in a work process more effective and efficient.
Keywords: Software engineering. Generalist. Productivity. Systems development. Work
specialization. Motivation. Systemic view.

FIGURES
FIGURE 1: MASLOW’S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS........................................................23
FIGURE 2: THREE PILLARS FOR SOFTWARE ENGINEERING..............................30
FIGURE 3: TEAM STRUCTURE........................................................................................33
FIGURE 4: COMMUNICATION CHANNELS. ................................................................36
FIGURE 7: ADVANCE NEW ITERATION. NO "TIME BOX"......................................39
FIGURE 8: SEVERAL PROJECTS. COMPLEX MANAGEMENT...............................39

TABLE LIST
TABLE 1: ASPECTS E OBSERVATIONS.........................................................................31

SUMMARY
1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................7
1.1 Justification......................................................................................................................7
1.2 Problem............................................................................................................................7
1.3 Goals.................................................................................................................................8
1.4 Methodology....................................................................................................................9
1.5 Paper structure................................................................................................................9
2 DIVISION AND SPECIALIZATION OF TASKS...........................................................11
2.1 Task specialization........................................................................................................11
2.2 Process optimization.....................................................................................................13
2.3 Organizational structure..............................................................................................16
2.4 Limits of specialization.................................................................................................17
3 SYSTEMIC VIEW OF WORK..........................................................................................18
4 HUMAN FACTOR..............................................................................................................20
4.1 Humanistic approach....................................................................................................20
4.2 Groups and informal leaders.......................................................................................21
4.3 Motivation......................................................................................................................22
4.4 Commitment .................................................................................................................24
5 COMPLEMENTARY THEORIES....................................................................................25
6 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING HISTORY.......................................................................26
7 ORGANIZATION OF WORK IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT.............................31
7.1 Team Composition........................................................................................................32
7.2 Motivation and commitment........................................................................................34
7.3 Leadership.....................................................................................................................35
7.4 Systemic vision and benefits to customers..................................................................35
7.5 Communication.............................................................................................................36
7.6 Suitability for iterative processes ................................................................................37
7.7 Standardization and continuous improvement activities..........................................39
8 CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................42
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................43

7
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Justification
It can be observed currently, that companies' systems development areas have given
little thought to how to structure the tasks performed by people. Typically, this process is
done without any scientific study and without checking how this structure could influence
outcomes such as productivity and customer satisfaction.
Often, efforts have been invested in software process and certifications only to follow
market practices, without, however, have clear objectives how this could actually bring
greater benefits to their customers.
Without a holistic view of the benefits generated, companies may end up organizing
work without any scientific criteria in order to simply find an easier way to adjust the team's
work to implement the processes..
It is believed that scientific research in this area could find better ways or at least
provide a better base of information to help people decide how best to distribute the software
development tasks within companies.
1.2 Problem
Systems development areas of some companies need to structure your work to develop
and maintain corporate systems of the company. They need to know what is the best way to
structure the team work to achieve the best possible results. They must decide whether to
structure their team with more general developers working in various disciplines or whether it
would be better to form teams with more specialized developers working on a single
discipline of software development.
They need to know the advantages and disadvantages of using each approach,
identifying which of them can bring higher productivity and greater benefits for the customer,
analyzing items such as process improvement, motivation, commitment and systemic vision.

8
1.3 Goals
1.3.1 General goals
The aim of this work is to help companies find the best way to structure and divide the
software development tasks showing how this structure could influence productivity and
customer satisfaction.
A more accurate scientific study on this subject, mainly through the administration
area experiences could lead the software development areas to achieve better results with
greater satisfaction of staff and customers.
1.3.2 Specific goals
From the definition of the general purpose of this study was possible to develop specific
goals which follow below:
a. show how productivity is related to factors such as job specialization, motivation
and systemic view; and how these factors are related to the way of organizing
people at work;
b. show the importance of division and specialization of tasks, as well as the care it
should have so that this does not bring as a consequence an excessive
specialization of people;
c. show how it could be possible to achieve greater motivation and commitment of
people and how these factors are related to the specialization of people in task
execution;
d. check how the systems view could make the work be more assertive and how the
teams could do to get this view;
e. see how these factors related to management appear in the evolution of software
engineering showing its trends for the future;

9
f. propose a way to distribute and structure the software development tasks that can
get the most of the benefits identified in this study.
1.4 Methodology
A bibliographic qualitative research through expertise provided by administration field
was done to show the relationship of specialization of jobs, motivation and systemic view
with people's productivity.
To show the relationship between these aspects of management theories with software
engineering was also done a research on the software engineering field and was used the
comparison technique to identify the similarities between these two universes.
Finally, using the knowledge gained in these studies and comparisons, it was possible
to propose a way to structure the jobs of software engineering and infer how it could achieve
the productivity aspects analyzed.
1.5 Paper structure
In chapter 2 was presented how some authors of scientific and classical theories of
administration believe that specialization of activities and tasks could increase productivity in
the execution of the work.
In chapter 3 was seen as systemic vision-based theories are important for effectiveness
at work.
In chapter 4 were presented studies of how the psychological and social effects of
people can also affect productivity.
In chapter 5 it was seen that in new administrative theories, such as contingency
theory, it is believed that scientific theories with emphasis on task can be complementary to
the humanistic theories with emphasis on persons and to the systemic theories with an
emphasis on the system, and that they can together produce even better results than each in its
individual vision.

10
In chapter 6 was made a description of how the work in software development is
carried out and divided into disciplines and activities. It was also noted how aspects of
administrative theories discussed in previous chapters appear and are treated in software
engineering.
In chapter 7, based on the results and conclusions of research conducted, the study
suggested and justified a way to structure the jobs that meets as much as possible the
identified requirements to achieve better productivity and better benefits for customers.
Finally, the last chapter presents a conclusion.

11
2 DIVISION AND SPECIALIZATION OF TASKS
2.1 Task specialization
As societies have been organized, there was a process of division of tasks whereby
people have been giving their best skills in the service of society, so that the product of their
labor could be replaced with the product of the work of others and together they all could
meet individual needs.
At the end of the eighteenth century, Adam Smith (1976) began to notice that the
division and specialization of activities could make the work more efficient. Observing a
small factory of pins, Smith noted that a worker not trained for this activity could hardly make
more than twenty pins per day. He noted that despite the pin manufacturing longer be
regarded as a specific activity in society, their work could be further divided into several
smaller tasks each considered as a specialized craft: unrolling the wire, straightening the
wire, cutting, making the tips, sharpening tips for placing the pin head, make the head of the
pin, etc. In all, approximately 18 operations would be required to produce a pin. He noted a
manufacturing with 10 employees, with each one executing at most 2 or 3 of these operations,
that they could together produce about 48,000 pins per day, which would give 4800 pins per
day per person.
Adam Smith (1976) considers that this huge difference in productivity as a result of
the division of labor is due to three different circumstances:
a. "Greater skill in each worker," due to repetition of the task;
b. "Savings that time that usually lose going from one kind of work to another";
c. "The invention of a large number of machines which facilitate and shorten the
work, enabling one person to do the work that otherwise would have to be
done by many."
Given this study, we propose in this work to analyze these three justifications given by
Smith for increased productivity in three different forms of use of 10 employees.
First, with each of the 10 workers making the operations necessary to produce a pin
sequentially, that is, each making one pin at a time.

12
Regarding the first justification, Adam Smith considers that the higher the repetition of
the same task, the greater the ability acquired for execution. From this point of view, it is
logical that the less different tasks an employee perform, the higher your skill in
implementing them. Whereas employees in this example repeat the same 18 operations for an
extended period of time (months, perhaps years), they should gain greater skill in
implementing all of them. This repetition would not be enough to gain the necessary skills in
all of them? In the model observed by Smith some even execute up to three tasks. Does the
skill acquired in an operation could help in another operation when it comes to activities in
the same industry (manufacturing pins)? What would be the ideal level of specialization?
These are the questions Smith observations are not sufficient to respond.
The second justification, task switching, this does seem to have a major effect on the
productivity gap found by Smith. The preparation activities for carrying out tasks such as
preparing the materials, prepare tools and position yourself for enforcement may be much
larger than the actual performance of the task. One can take as an example, the activity of
cutting the wire. It would be much more productive to use the same preparation time to cut
the wire to many pins. For the example with every employee making a pin at a time, the time
of switching between tasks greatly influences the total output pins.
The third justification of Adam Smith, it appears that the longer a person is dedicated
to the same task, the more apt they are to find areas for improvement in the process and to
identify tools and machines that can assist her in implementation. Again, for the example of
the 10 employees making all 18 operations we would have, theoretically, a drop in ability to
identify improvements in the process. However we would have the possibility to identify
further improvements through ideas that may arise from all ten employees, rather than depend
on the ideas of a single employee. Also, would be easier to identify improvements in the
relation of one process to another or even to identify new operations or the elimination of
some. Employees doing all the activities would have a more comprehensive view of the entire
pin manufacturing process.
We can see here the fact that perhaps the most important is to see that the work must
be specialized and not people.
The second way to divide the work on the ten employees would be to divide the tasks
between them so that each one be responsible for a task, or up to three tasks, since we have 18
operations to be divided by 10 employees. Because this is exactly the case observed by Smith,

13
we have his own explanation for each of the justifications presented. With greater repetition
of the operation, the employee gets greater skill in execution. You can greatly decrease the
alternation of tasks. And the specialization of the task may make people better visualize the
task process so that they can improve it or seek innovations in order to execute it.
Finally, a third way to analyze the reasons of Smith, would be to execute all the 18
operations, but not in sequence as seen in the first example. To facilitate understanding,
suppose that there is no limitation of equipment and tools, so that all 10 employees can
engage in the implementation of the same operation for a while so that eliminates a new
preparation for the task. As an example, we could use a day of work to stay in the same task
since they would have to stop activities to go to their homes and return to work the next day.
In this example, employees would eliminate the time spent switching activities, which is the
justification Smith seems that more influence productivity. As for the others Smith
justifications, this form of division of labor would behave like that has been discussed in the
first example. However, there is a difference that can be highlighted: the employees would
have a much better view of the division of labor and specialization of all tasks.
Given the analysis from these examples, there appeared to be that the main factors that
contributed to this huge increase in productivity were basically the ability to see the work in
its minimum operation and the minimization of switching between tasks. But the fact of
specialize people in the activities also seems to have some importance, but not necessarily this
specialization should be given in the minimum operations. What we need to understand is
what would be the optimal point of people's specialization that would bring greater benefits to
production.
2.2 Process optimization
In 1911 was published the book "Principles of scientific management" of Frederick
Winslow Taylor.
Taylor (1971) wanted to replace the empirical methods by scientific methods. After
the successes that had been achieved with the division and specialization of tasks and
consequently the decrease in switching between them, Taylor thought the task should stop
being made empirically. He considered scientifically possible to find the best ways to
implement them. He believed that a scientific study of time and motion of tasks, could show

14
the most productive way to execute each of the minimal operations identified in the division
and specialization of work.
According Chiavenato (2003), for Taylor, the worker was not able nor training to
scientifically analyze their own work. He did not agree that the supervisor should let the
employee determine how to perform the task. Taylor thought that there should be a shared
responsibility between management and the employee. The management (direction) would be
with planning (study and establishment of the working method) and the employee with the
execution.
According to Taylor, these new tasks of managers can be grouped in four titles below:
a. "Develop for each element of individual work a science to replace the
empirical methods";
b. "Scientifically select, then train, teach and improve worker";
c. "Cordially cooperate with workers to articulate all the work with the principles
of science that was developed";
d. "Maintain equitable division of labor and responsibilities between the
management and the workers".
For Taylor was the combination of the worker's initiative, with new types of duties
assigned to the direction, that made the administration more efficient than the old systems.
Chiavenato (2003) has also commented that although Taylor was worried more with
philosophy, since it considered that the main objective of the administration was to ensure
maximum prosperity for the employer while the maximum prosperity for the employee, the
tendency of his followers was much more to concern with the techniques than with
philosophy itself.
Taylor considered that the employee's prosperity was almost entirely related with
money. Their satisfaction was just a result of the increase in their income. Taylor thought that
higher productivity would bring an increase in the wages of employees and a reduction in the
price of the product. However, his followers realized that, with the specialization of the task
and the domain of execution by management (managers), they could also specialize
employees in order to reduce the work in minimum tasks that could be easily understood
making employees fully disposable, reducing the level of skills required to implement and

15
therefore reducing wages. Chiavenato (2003) comments that as the labor supply was abundant
at the time, the company owed them nothing, although loyalty from them was expected.
According Chiavenato (2003), a result of time and motion study ended up being the
specialization of worker limiting them to perform a single task continuously and repetitively.
This led to the creation of assembly line where the employee lost his freedom and initiative
and he was confined to automatic and repetitive task execution throughout his workday.
Although some examples of Taylor own actions reported in the book ended up giving
the confinement idea of the automatic and repetitive task execution, one can see that this was
not specifically his thinking because in his book he discussed the cooperation of workers in
the improvement of methods and tools.
Taylor also commented in his work the importance of the effect that the task has on
worker efficiency. Even so, this system had been known by the name “management tasks”.
The simple fact of seeing the work into smaller tasks that can be arranged and improved
already made employees more productive.
It may be noted that the scientific proposal of Taylor was a system that enables the
management of knowledge and the dissemination of best practices among the workers. He
wanted to provide a scientific model that could continuously improve the execution of each
task. Hence the importance of seeing the smaller operations that composed work.
Like many models recently created to improve the organization's maturity in process
execution, Taylor advocated that the processes should be managed, defined, measured and be
in constant optimization. You can identify the following activities described in Taylor's work:
manage and observe the performance of the tasks; define the best way to run, train workers
and repeat good practice; quantitatively manage the processes and find improvements that can
be added; encouraging employee participation for the process to be in constant optimization.
It is not difficult to note here a clear resemblance to the maturity levels of CMMI (2010)
(Capability Maturity Model Integration) SEI.
Even, one can point out to the negative similarities that exist in some deployments
made by followers who not had attempted to the correct values of the two models (Taylor and
CMMI). Distorting the theory they made the employee lose all their freedom and initiative,
confining him to an automatic and repetitive task execution and making him disposable and
easily replaceable.

16
2.3 Organizational structure
According Chiavenato (2003), while the theory of Scientific Management was
developed in the United States by Taylor and other engineers in 1916, appeared in France The
Classical Management Theory. While the first was characterized by an emphasis on task
performed by the worker, the second emphasized the structure that the organization should
have to be efficient, but both, in a way, shared the same concept of job specialization.
Fayol (1989) pointed out that every company was divided into six functions: technical
functions, business functions, financial functions, security functions, accounting functions and
administrative functions.
Fayol (1989) also advocated certain principles, among them, the division of labor,
control unit and centralization. Principles that led him to suggest a linear and hierarchical
organizational structure based on essential functions and on absolute authority of the superior
about their subordinates, typical of military organizations.
According Chiavenato (2003), currently, no more functions are named and divided
that way, and the way they organize and compose the organizational structure has changed in
the companies.
According to him, besides the functional departmentalization, which brings together
the activities and tasks according to the main functions developed by the company, some
companies have adopted other types of departmentalization as a way to organize the company
to best suit your goals. So besides the functional which is still the most used, you can have
also a departmentalization by products and services, geographic location, customer, process
phases and projects. Some companies also mix these types to reach the ideal model and bring
more benefits in implementing their business.
Although Fayol defended the linear structure and the control unit, it is possible today
to see some cases questioning this theory and presenting structures with more than one control
unit. Even the PMI (Project Management Institute) considers the matrix structure as a way of
structuring an organization for projects with the command split between the project manager
and the functional manager. As people become more self-managing, it is permitted that
managers can move to a supporting role, coach, and less control functions, allowing the
structures to change to matrix models that give more flexibility and agility for companies to
develop and run their businesses.

17
2.4 Limits of specialization
Through this study, it has been listed several ways of specialization of labor in society
and business. However many criticisms were made to this model due to the fact of not
knowing for sure how much people should be specialized.
"As much as its benefits are universally recognized and not admit the possibility of
progress without the specialized work of scholars and artists, the division of labor has its
limitations and the experience and the sense of the measure teach not to exceed ." (Fayol ,
1989).
Furthermore, it is found in today's enterprises, a search for agility and consequently
the need to group together people not only by the technical functions performed, but also for
other types of relations (projects, customers, products, etc.) and sometimes even by more than
one way at the same time, forcing them to reduce the rigid control unit existed and mature
their professional making them more self-managed.

18
3 SYSTEMIC VIEW OF WORK
According to Senge (2010), people learn early on to dismember the problems and
fragment the world to make tasks and complex issues more manageable. But in exchange,
they pay a hidden, very high price, which is to lose the ability to understand the consequences
of their actions, losing the intrinsic notion of connection to the whole.
The classical approach was influenced by three dominant intellectual principles:
reductionism, that principle is based on the belief that all things can be decomposed and
reduced in its simple basic elements; analytical thinking, in which the whole is the sum or the
explanations of the parties; and the mechanism, principle which is based on simple cause-and-
effect relationship between two phenomena. (Chiavenato, 2003).
With advent of general systems theory, management has also become influenced by
three new principles opposed to the classical approach which were focused on task
specialization. These new principles are: expansionism, a principle which believes that every
phenomenon is part of a larger phenomenon and the emphasis is on the whole of which that
phenomenon is part; synthetic thinking, where the phenomenon is seen as part of a larger
system and is explained in terms of the role it plays in that larger system; and teleology,
principle where the cause is necessary but not always sufficient for the effect arises.
(Chiavenato, 2003).
Senge (2010) believes that the world is not made of separate forces unrelated, and
when people realize this, they can build organizations that learn. Organizations where people
continually expand their capacity to create results they truly desire, where they can stimulate
new thinking patterns, where collective aspiration gain freedom and people continually learn
how to learn together.
For Senge (2010) there are five subjects or dimensions converging to innovate
learning organizations:
a. personal domain: the ability to clarify and continuously deepen your own
personal vision;
b. mental models: generalizations or images that influence how we see the world
and how we act;

19
c. shared vision: ability to have a shared image of the future that we intend to
create together;
d. team learning: ability to extend the existing limits that a single person can learn
individually.
e. systemic vision: ability to see connections and relationships between objects
and actions.
According to Senge (2010), systemic thinking is the discipline that integrates all
others, fusing them into a coherent body of theory and practice. Building a shared vision
encourages commitment to the long term. The theory of mental models focuses on the
openness needed to reveal the limitations in our current ways of seeing the world. The
learning team develops the ability to seek together a vision of the whole picture, which is
beyond individual perspectives. And the personal domain stimulates personal motivation to
continually learn how our actions affect the world and not get caught in our limited mental
models.
Each person thinking in a systemic way is important, but as systems can be very
complex, contain many variables and can be difficult to observe, all these disciplines work
together to make larger the vision of a group of people, something that individually might be
impossible to achieve.
Without systemic vision, organizations end up losing a lot of efforts in activities and
actions that individually appear to be important, but systemically and globally do not
contribute or contribute negatively to the company's results. You can, for example, think that
you are acting to solve a problem, when in fact you are increasing it. Without overall view of
the situation, you end up increasing efforts in the same action and cause the problem becomes
larger and larger in an endless cycle.
As was seen the importance of seeing the task in a divided and specialized way to
understand what is being done and improve the process and reduce the switching between
activities, one can see here the importance that there is also in the opposite perspective, seeing
the tasks as part of a complex and dynamic system where each task influences and is
influenced by it. This new perspective helps you understand which tasks contribute or not to
positive results in the system, so that there is greater efficiency in the actions chosen and in
the allocation of efforts.

20
4 HUMAN FACTOR
4.1 Humanistic approach
In the study of specialization of labor, it seems that by a simple logic that the more you
specialize the work of people, they become more skilled and therefore more productive.
However, when dealing with people, this simple logic does not work. Various
psychological and social factors may also influence the productivity of people working in
organizations.
According Chiavenato (2003), in the 1930s, because of the need to humanize and
democratize administration, emerged Human Relations Theory in the administration. The
humanistic approach prioritized the concern for people and their social groups than the
concern with machine and the working method.
Also according Chiavenato (2003), Kurt Lewin in his research on social behavior has
already referred to the important role of motivation with the elaboration of a field theory
which was based on two fundamental assumptions: that human behavior is derived from the
totality of coexisting facts and that these facts have character of a dynamic field where each
part of the field has interrelation with other parties.
Lewin proposes that behavior is a function or result of the interaction between the
person and the environment.
According Chiavenato (2003), Elton Mayo conducted research in a textile industry
with very high staff turnover around 250% a year and had already tried several salary
incentives approaches uselessly . Mayo introduced rest breaks and delegated to the workers
the decision on production schedules and also hired a nurse. Soon emerged a group of spirit,
production increased and staff turnover decreased.
Chiavenato (2003) describes that in 1927, the National Research Council began a
series of experiments in the Hawthorne plant. In these experiments can be observed variation
in production in relation to the modification of several work conditions as in the payment
system for group, in break to rest and in amount of working hours.
According Chiavenato (2003), through these experiences it was reached the following
conclusions:

21
a. that the level of production results from the social integration of the employee
and not only from your physical capacity or physiological;
b. the higher the social integration in the group, higher is willingness to produce;
c. that workers do not act or react in isolation as individuals, but as members of a
group;
d. that the rewards and social sanctions may be more valuable than financial ones,
observed that some workers preferred to earn less than endanger their friendly
relations with colleagues;
e. that each person has their own personality and influences the behavior and
attitudes of other people that she keeps in touch and on the other hand, they are
also influenced by them;
f. that people want to be understood, accepted and participate in order to meet
their interests and aspirations;
g. that simple and repetitive tasks become monotonous and dull and adversely
affect the employee's attitude and reducing your satisfaction and efficiency,
that is, the nature of work has influence on worker morale.
4.2 Groups and informal leaders
One of the conclusions of the Hawthorne experiments was the identification of the
existence of informal groups and their influence on production. These groups are influenced
by several informal leaders. An informal leader is anyone in the workplace engaged in a
positive or negative influence on others. The sum of these influences is that will produce the
values, motivation and commitment of the group.
Maslow (2001) describes in his book a remark made in an Indian tribe where there
was no formal hierarchy. He noted that for each different function, emerged a different leader,
based on the needs of each function and the confidence of the people in knowledge and skills
of each leader.
This shows the natural process that exists in the emergence of informal leaders while
performing work in a society. Also can be seen that anyone in the work environment can

22
influence and be influenced, and this feature is not unique to the formal leader (boss or
manager). All people are potential leaders and in any group there will always be people
influencing and being influenced forming their culture, their values and beliefs.
That is why it is important to observe the informal groups and make the influences
generated by them to be the most possible positive, motivating them to act in order to obtain
the maximum commitment to the group and with the work done.
To Chiavenato (2003), when tasks are routine and repetitive, formal leadership is
limited and subject to controls by the heads. In these environments, people see the informal
leaders as the only way to meet your needs and are strongly influenced by them, and in most
cases, negatively impacted, ie, against the organization's interests.
4.3 Motivation
Studies of motivation tend to discover and understand the reasons for a person to act in
a certain way.
According Chiavenato (2003), the motivation refers to behavior that is caused by a
need within the individual who directs the goals that can satisfy these needs.
According Chiavenato (2003), the human is considered an animal with needs that
alternate or succeed together or separately. Satisfied a need arises another in its place, and so
on, continuous and infinitely.
Chiavenato (2003) speaks of three levels or stages of needs that must be met: the
physiological, psychological and self-realization.

23
Figure 1: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
Source: Maslow, 2001.
One of the best known works of Maslow (2001) is his pyramid of hierarchy of needs .
Maslow believed that all people sought climb the pyramid layers in search of self-realization.
When a level had been satisfied, the person was motivated to seek the next level. And he
believed that the role of companies would be to facilitate this way to the top of the pyramid.
First should be satisfied physiological needs such as food, sleep, sex, shelter and physical
activity. On the second level there are the security needs such as protection, self defense, job
stability. The next level is the need for socialization through friendship, family and
relationships in general. In the fourth level we have the need for esteem, be respected and be
recognized. And last, there is the self-realization which is the impulse to pursue his own
potential and be in continuous self-development.
For Maslow (2001), with people in self-realization process, these highly evolved
individuals would assimilate his work as identity, causing the work to become an inherent
part of the definition that they make of yourself. When you can say "We did it" you
participate in glory, pleasure and pride of everyone in the group.
"The only happy people I know are those who are working directly in something they
feel is important." (Maslow, 2001).
Finally, Maslow thought it was not necessary to find something to make people create.
They are naturally creative. What is needed is to find out what is inhibiting and blocking these

24
people making them not creative. In other words, you need to find out what companies are
doing to lock people climb in the hierarchy of needs and seek self-realization.
4.4 Commitment
According Chiavenato (2003), one of the ways that leaders have to transform
organizations and obtain the commitment of people is to build trust between people. For him,
trust can not be built without treating people with respect and dignity. Trust requires that
organizational values adopted have strong meaning for people.
In this environment of trust, Senge (2010) believes that the systemic view helps people
to engage with the whole. When people see only a piece of work, they can not commit to the
final work.
According to Maslow and Senge, a broader and shared vision makes the person feel in
the search for self-realization making her work be coincident with their own self.
"A real achievement inevitably means a valid and virtuous task. Make an idiot task
very well indeed is not real achievement." (Maslow, 2001).
Herzberg, quoted by Chiavenato (2003), proposes enrichment of tasks and jobs as a
way to continuously provide the motivation at work. Consists in replacing simplest tasks for
more complex tasks or by a larger number of tasks. According to him, this enrichment of the
task can give meaning to the work, causing desirable effects such as increased motivation,
increased productivity, reduced absenteeism and turnover of people.
In addition, a more comprehensive and systemic view allows people to have more
capacity to contribute in decision making, increasing the contribution of each person and
therefore inceasing their motivation and commitment by feeling more responsible for their
work.
"The personal commitment is an emotion. If this is ignored, there is not personal
commitment and the task is performed automatically and mechanically, without motivation.
"(Chiavenato, 2003).

25
5 COMPLEMENTARY THEORIES
According Chiavenato (2003), in recent theories such as contingency theory, the
theory of human relations has been seen more as a compensation or complement than as a
contradiction to scientific management.
To Chiavenato, contingency theory emphasizes that there is nothing absolute in
organizations or in management theory. Everything is relative and it all depends. Therefore, it
is unnecessary to say that a theory is better or worse than another. They may have different
hits for different environments and can be complementary.
According yet Chiavenato (2003), Lawrence and Lorsch concluded through research
that all companies have of differentiation and integration features. The differentiation relates
to the job specialization process, while integration refers to the opposite movement in getting
the union and coordination of efforts.
This shows the need for companies to live with the two views: specialized and
systemic.

26
6 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING HISTORY
You can see aspects of some administrative approaches in software engineering. As in
the scientific management of Taylor, the software development task was also divided into
smaller activities so it could be better understood and optimized. Software engineering began
in a scientific study to find out what were the steps necessary for the production of software,
and for each of these steps, it began to catalog what are the best practices, methods,
techniques and tools to make work more productive and produce a higher quality software.
Pressman (2011) has spoken about five activities that can be considered for any
generic software process: communication (statement of requirements), planning, modeling,
construction, deployment..
Also can be seen in various software processes and software engineering books a
grouping of activities for disciplines.
RUP (Rational Unified Process), unified process created by Ivar Jacobson, Grady
Booch and James Rumbaugh defines some subjects which are groupings of activities that go
to a detail level slightly higher than the generic activities raised by Pressman. It also added
some support activities that are necessary for the development of software. In all, RUP has the
following disciplines: business modeling, requirements, analysis, design, implementation,
testing, deployment, configuration management, project management and environment
configuration (Kruchten, 2000).
Just as happened in Taylor's work in the scientific management theory, where it was
observed that switching between tasks lost productivity, the first software processes also
proposed do each of these activities completely before moving to the next. It was believed
that the next task would be easier to do if the previous task was made completely in order to
minimize rework.
From this concept, the process of software called "waterfall model", that suggests a
sequential and systematic approach to software development, has emerged, beginning with
the statement of requirements with the client, followed by planning, modeling, construction,
delivery until you reach the system maintenance. (Pressman, 2011).
As in scientific management, the detailed view of the work allowed the software
engineering improve the activities. Thus, the software production got the same benefits as

27
achieved by Taylor's followers: increased productivity, improved assertiveness in performing
the tasks and more quality of the final product. In addition, maturity models such as CMMI
(Capability Maturity Model Integration) were created to improve and disseminate the
techniques, methods and best practices of each discipline.
However, it was noted that in several projects, products built did not meet user needs.
Sometimes quality software were built taking full account of the requirements, but these
requirements don't represented effectively the needs of the user or sometimes the software
brought no benefit. In other situations, the software did not reach the end, because only in the
middle of implementation, it is found that the model defined at the beginning of the project
was not achievable.
These problems have led to software engineering evolve in another direction. In
addition to observing the work in detail and improve each activity there was also a need to
observe the benefits generated by the software built, and the relationship between activities
and their result with the benefits generated. At this point some aspects seen in the systems
approach of the administration were noticed.
A little more attention began to be given to global aspects of software development.
The disciplines and their activities came to be seen on related way. Through the systemic
view, it was identified that in the software development there was a mutual dependence of
disciplines. Not only the following disciplines depended on the previous ones, but the
opposite was also true. It has been found that the "feedback," the return of the following
disciplines could improve the results of the previous ones.
Thus, it was verified that in many situations, it was preferable, return several times in
all disciplines, in a cyclical and evolutionary process, until that the whole software have been
completed.
Of this concept came the "iterative" process that goes through all disciplines and ends
in the delivery of an executable. Thus, the "feedback" obtained with the delivery could feed
the next iteration making software meet more and more user needs.
Craig Larman (2004) points out in his book the main motivations to develop
iteratively. Among them are: the anticipation of software pieces delivery bringing confidence
and satisfaction for staff and clients; and bringing risk anticipation and changing requirements
for the early stages of the project making them more controllable and predictable.

28
However, it still lacked solve a problem created by iterative processes: minimize
rework and the difficulties of integrating the pieces of software. It was found that this work
would decrease if he had started with the parts of greater value to the business and greater
technical difficulty. This would cause the risk decreased considerably and consequently
increase the project's chances of success. This concept of requirement prioritization has
gained such importance that has become one of the main work of the software architects: the
identification of architectural requirements that has been an essential task for several iterative
processes. Some processes have yet some points to verify if some risks have been overcome.
In RUP, where this prioritization is done, the end of the conception phase is used to indicate
that the project is technically feasible and worth to be built in the business point of view. The
end of the elaboration phase indicates that the greatest technical and business risks were
resolved and stabilized allowing an increase in production in the next step (Rational, 2001). In
Scrum, the "backlog" of the product is usually ordered by value, risk, priority and need. The
higher the order (top of the list) of an item, more the item should be considered, and more
consensus exists in relation to it and its value (Schwaber; Sutherland, 2011).
These are various concepts and techniques coming from a more systemic view and not
just the simple vision of each discipline and activity.
More recently, a new global concept has emerged in software engineering, the search
for agility. We can no longer follow a software process by making all models simply by
standardizing without a reason that really justifies each artifact produced. With this, the
process has become more flexible and customizable to contain only the work required being
done. The process used in a project could not be right for another project, but still, it is
important that the best practices, techniques and tools were shared and used when necessary.
Thus, more emphasis came to be given to fundamental concepts such as values and principles
rather than emphasizing rigid and bureaucratic processes.
“When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken".
(Benjamin Disraeli). One can make an analogy to the processes showing that some people
will not follow them, because they do not believe in them or because they do not agree with
them. While for those who follow them, you did not need them. It was enough to these, using
the good practices available, driven by principles and values.
That's why this concept has made important personalities of software engineering
come together and created the Agile Manifesto.

29
Through this work we have come to value:
Individuals and interactions over Processes and tools
Working software over Comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over Contract negotiation
Responding to change over Following a plan. (BECK e outros, 2012)
Interesting to note, this agile approach has also developed other aspects of
management theory: the humanistic theory. This development seems to be essential to reduce
the rules and the rigidity in processes and work on the most fundamental level with values and
principles in order to increase the freedom and flexibility to implement their activities without
reducing the quality of the final product. The first item of the manifesto speaks of the value of
the individual and the relationship between them. The third item manifesto also shows a
greater customer confidence value, more than the paper and signatures.
One can even say that there is more value in making mistakes together than to do the
right thing alone, such importance being given to the relationship and trust between people in
relation to processes and activities. The group gets stronger to overcome and correct their own
mistakes and walk more consistently to the right direction.
In addition, we also observed an incentive to self-managing teams that can only be
achieved with the development and the maturation of people providing them a path to self-
realization. One of the principles of the Agile Manifesto is "Build projects around motivated
individuals. Giving them the environment and support they need, and trust that they will do
their work. "(Beck et al, 2012).
In Scrum guide developed by Schwaber and Sutherland (2011), we also have: "Scrum
Teams are self-organizing and multifunctional. Self-organizing teams choose how best to
complete their work, instead of being directed by others outside the team. "
Even PMI (Project Management Institute) has observed this trend of self-management
and created project management certifications for technical people. One of the targets of this
CAPM® certification are technical professionals without experience in managing projects,
but working on projects and want to get more project management knowledge.
Therefore, software engineering seems now to have taken the right path, joining the
scientific, systemic and humanistic approaches. Valuing both the specialization of activity,
holistic and systemic view as well as people. And for these paths it must keep evolving their
methods, techniques, concepts and tools to provide the best software development practices.

30
Figure 2: Three pillars for Software Engineering.
Source: Provided by author.

31
7 ORGANIZATION OF WORK IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
This topic is intended to show how a team of development could be composed and
structured in order to get the most out of productivity factors discussed in previous chapters.
Will be presented and discussed an organizational structure based on more generalist
developers under a multidimensional management in contrast to teams with more specialized
developers with single authoritative control unit.
Next will be seen that there are strong indications that this team of more generalist
developers under a multidimensional management would be better able to achieve the
discussed productivity factors.
We will analyze important aspects for the efficiency and effectiveness in the
development of systems such as motivation and team commitment; leadership; systemic view
and benefits to customers; communication; standardization and continuous improvement
activities. For each of these aspects, the strengths and difficulties of achieving them will be
verified in the case of have been chosen the team structure with more generalist developers.
The following table shows the criteria to be considered for the team proposed in order
to observe and infer if it fits on the factors identified above as the best productivity drivers.
TABLE 1: Aspects e observations
Aspect Observations
Motivation Ability of people to reach the highest levels on
Maslow's hierarchy pyramid
Commitment More likely that people commit and take
responsibility for the work.
Leadership Ability to bring the influences of informal leadership
to the organization's interests.
Systemic view Team's ability to achieve a more systemic view,
better see the consequences of their actions and
provide greater benefits to customers.
Communication Ability to use the communication more efficiently.
Suitability for iterative processes Easier allocation of human resources.
Standardization and software
processes
Knowledge management, use of standards and best
practices and process improvement.
Source: Provider by author.

32
7.1 Team Composition
One can see the importance of these three perspectives for the development of any
work: specialization of the task, the systemic vision and the development of people. This
importance that exists, both seeing in detail each of the work and see its consequences for all,
without forgetting the people who do it. That is, the importance of the whole, the part and the
environment.
One can now try to find an ideal way to organize and share the work of software
engineering among people in order to facilitate the most of the development of these three
perspectives within the organization.
As discussed, people need to have some specialization in the tasks to gain experience
and skill, but this can not be excessive to not prevent the motivation and the systemic view of
the group. Regarding motivation, it was seen that the person needs to feel doing something
important to achieve self-realization. In the aspect of systemic view, it is important that
people can see as much as possible of the work being performed. When this is not possible,
the sum of the individual views must be able to reach all the system observed and is also
interesting to have a bit of overlap between the skills to facilitate communication of the
visions and together form a shared vision of the whole.
To meet the most of these requirements, the team could be composed of
multidisciplinary and self-managing developers. The level of specialization used for people
could be specialization in development of software systems engineering. At first, this level of
specialization would be enough to repeat several times the work and acquire greater skill in
execution. Taking up the RUP disciplines as an example, these developers would have to be
competent to work in most disciplines, from business modeling to the deployment also going
through the supporting disciplines.
If the competence of the person can not reach all disciplines, one should participate in
projects where there are other people who can supply their deficiencies, but so that there is
some overlap of disciplines to facilitate communication and form a shared vision of all the
group. Even some people on the team should start acquiring competence in customer business
for this overlap and shared vision come to him.
Observing the forms of departmentalization and trends to multidimensional views of
the organization previously discussed, could there be four managerial visions supporting these

33
developers in a matrix form: business management, project management, strategic
management and functional management. The business management to keep the development
tasks aimed at providing real benefits for the customer who is being attended. Project
management to keep the work directed to the agreements between stakeholders and maintain
trust between them. The strategic management to keep the loyal group to the values,
principles and the shared vision of the future. And the functional management to provide the
technical expertise needed to develop the systems.
Figure 3: Team structure.
Source: Provider by author.
Figure 3 shows examples of the distribution of skills and expertise of developers. The
more disciplines the developer is aware, better to build a systemic view, which makes it
important that they be trained in the skills they do not yet have. Overlays highlighted in
orange allow you to have multiple mental models, facilitate team learning and help to build a
shared vision. Some developers and customers should also have overlapping abilities so that
the shared vision can cover a wider scope making software development and knowledge of
the business closer to each other. The ellipses show the multidimensional managerial visions
that guide the groups to achieve the results and benefits expected by the organization.
In the following sections will be discussed how this form of organization could meet
some aspects of system development as motivation and team commitment; leadership;
systemic vision and benefits to customers; communication; standardization and continuous
improvement activities.
Business
Business Modeling
Requirements
Analysis and Design
Implementation
Test
Implantation
Configuration
Management
Project Management
environment
D D D D D
strategy business
functional Project
C C

34
7.2 Motivation and commitment
As previously mentioned, the organization should ease the way for people reach the
top of Maslow's pyramid so that they stay in constant pursuit of their self-achievement.
At first it seems that it would not be achieved neither the first levels of Maslow's
pyramid if it was applied in the systems development team the same concepts seen in Taylor's
time because jobs and the people were very specialized in order to make the tasks
independent of people, making them disposable, and thereby reducing their salaries. In these
early levels, people seek to satisfy their physiological and safety needs. They seek to have a
salary that meets those needs, in addition to seeking stability for the assurance that the salary
is not something temporary. In addition, in these job models, much of the communication is
done through documents that transfer the specifications of a discipline (a sector) to the
following discipline letting people very isolated and alone at the computer and damaging
socialization necessities, friendship and affection. About esteem needs, recognition and
respect, it is common to see in these environments individual recognition attitudes. These
attitudes do not reach everyone and demotivate all people, who did not win and also the
person who won for feeling away from the group. On the search for self-realization, was seen
by Maslow studies, Senge and Chiavenato that it would be almost impossible someone feel
accomplished performing tasks in such a small scope.
On the other hand, with a team of more generalist and multidisciplinary developers
would be much more likely to get people to meet those needs. Their work would become
more noble, they would perform more important things, they would become more recognized,
their salaries would be higher, they would interact more with other people, and finally they
would be able to seek self-realization. They would not only be part of a simple design task.
They would become part of product realization and even of benefits generated for customers.
As previously mentioned, the commitment of people is achieved through trust. Make it
easy the way for a person to climb the hierarchy of motivation and to seek self-realization
contributes greatly to generate that trust. When people feel accomplished and important in
what they are doing and receive recognition and respect, people will engage.

35
7.3 Leadership
Was previously seen the power that informal leaders have on the team, and it is
important to make this leadership be positive for the organization.
With the proposal of a team of generalists developers, is expected to give more
strength to these informal leaders. In the matrix management (functional, project, strategy,
client), the formal leaders become weaker and, because of that, there is a need for self-
managed teams where informal leaders come and go all the time according to the subject
matter or the task performed. These formal managers that tend to become advisors or
consultants should act only to keep on people and informal leaders the different views that are
important to the organization. That is, continue the development of functional techniques,
maintain and evaluate the planning, develop the values and principles and seek greater
benefits for the customer.
7.4 Systemic vision and benefits to customers
As we have seen, Peter Senge defines the five disciplines of the companies that learn:
personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, systemic view.
In the suggested organization, people would own skills in several disciplines,
including also the client's business knowledge. The overlapping competences would cause
people to have several mental models and give them different perspectives of the work. The
team would get a broader view of all work and it would facilitate the construction of a shared
long-term vision.
Through this systemic perspective, customer business decisions would be shared with
the development team, adding the experience and ability of customer in seeing the whole
business with the development team's ability to structure concepts and structures.
Therefore, this approach would also contribute to the personal development of people
making them feel doing something more important and looking for their self-realization. The
team can feel like really a company's business participant, rather than simply feel like a
support structure.

36
Thus, the demands could be prioritized jointly and be more assertive preventing the
development of products or features that would be discarded for not bringing any benefit to
the business.
This effectiveness of doing the right thing would be one of the factors that most
would contribute to improve the performance of systems development area. Many efforts
could be avoided through the systemic and shared vision. Ideas for business may arise
preventing complete systems to be built, or at least, would make them to be more simple.
7.5 Communication
Most of the work time of a project manager is spent on communication. (PMI, 2008).
Some people even speak of 90% of the time.
The project manager should consider the number of potential communication channels
as an indicator of the complexity of project communications. The number of potential
communication channels is given by n (n-1) / 2 where n represents the number of
"stakeholders" (project stakeholders). (PMI, 2008).
Figure 4: Communication Channels.
Fonte: Provided by author.
With the proposal of a multidisciplinary team, you tend to form smaller teams with
more dedication to the project. In models with more specialist, to not stay idle, they end up
working in more than one project increasing the number of people who are working on the
same project. Thus, the more vertical way to work with more general developers decrease the
communication channels and thus the complexity of the project communications. And as the

37
complexity decreases, the time required from project management would also be reduced.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons that enable teams to be more self-managed, principle of
agile methodologies.
Also, another concept of agile methodologies, reduce the documentation to what is
really necessary, can also be achieved with this type of team. It would not be necessary to
document simply to communicate from one discipline to another, because in another
discipline would be the same people. Thus the documentation could be more focused on
understanding the problem and system maintenance. In many cascade processes with people
allocated only in one of the disciplines, it has been noticed that a huge part of the
documentation has this goal and even then the understanding is flawed. To tackle this
problem, it has been seen that more and more efforts are invested in these documentations to
improve understanding making them even bigger.
7.6 Suitability for iterative processes
The iterative development is an approach to building software in which the overall
project life cycle is composed of several iterations in sequence. Each iteration is a self-
contained mini-project consisting of activities such as requirements analysis, design,
programming and testing. The goal for the end of an iteration is a release of a partial version,
stable, tested and integrated of the system. (Larman, 2004).
You could say also, that this process is very similar to the PDCA cycle, plan (plan) of
(do), check (review), act (act) devised by Shewhart and released by Deming. Both aim to have
a "feedback", an assessment, in order to act in the next iteration or the next cycle.
With a team of developers that works in all disciplines, activities of the different
disciplines could be allocated to all of them. They could divide and separate some kind of
work, but in rare moments would have someone idle since they could collaborate with any
type of work that needed to be done (Figure 5).

38
Figure 5: Generalists. Same people in the activities.
But if the team was formed by developers exclusively allocated to each subject, it
would be more difficult to not leave them stranded, as some works of some disciplines depend
on the work carried out in previous ones (Figure 6). Also, the work of a next iteration could
not be done, because the next iteration would depend on a "feedback" (return) of the product
that would be generated in the current iteration. Moreover, an iteration has the characteristic
of being "time box", meaning that they are time slots that must not overlap in time (Figure 7).
Another solution would be the allocation of these people in several projects, which probably
would cause them completely lose the perception of the whole and the meaning of each
project, and also greatly complicate the management of resources since the activity of a given
project could delay impacting on another project (figure 8).
Figure 6: Iterative. Idleness.

39
Figure 7: Advance new iteration. No "Time Box"
.
Figure 8: Several projects. Complex management.
7.7 Standardization and continuous improvement activities
As we have seen, through Adam Smith and Taylor, the specialization of the task may
bring some benefits for work performance. The simple fact of seeing the divided form of the
activities already provides an increase in productivity through evaluation mechanisms and
improvement of each activity. It was also seen that software engineering has been working in
this direction to find the best methods, techniques and tools that can be used in each of the
activities according to the need of the software being built.
It was also seen that the expertise of people at work increases their ability in
performing the task. However, excesses of specialization can bring some social and

40
motivational problems, and the lack of systemic vision and lack of vision of the consequences
of carrying out the tasks.
One can see some organizations specializing the most of the activities of people with
the aim of making them more productive, and also to standardize tasks to make them more
independent of people.
Although the concept of "Software Factory" was created more as a way to standardize
development best practices and reuse components, some organizations have created software
factories as a way to specialize the work of people and following it through a concept of
"production line "where each discipline appears as a specific sector of this production line
getting artifacts of previous discipline and sending resulting artifacts to the next discipline. As
Taylor preached, usually people of these factories are required to do the activities as described
by their managers. However, this ends up being contradictory to another proposal of Taylor
himself, that is to improve processes continuously through a better perception that people
have of their activities. In practice, process improvement ends up being made only by
manager and almost with no participation of other people, and with time, the process ends up
stagnating.
Through this authoritarianism imposed by managers or by the owners of processes,
one can make the company reach a good standardization and consequently achieve some
CMMI levels. However, certification does not necessarily mean that the software can meet
the needs expected by the customer and neither that the development was done
productively.This can only mean that even mistakes could now be standardized.
Authoritarianism and the specialization of people really seem to be the quickest way to
achieve this standardization so desired by companies. Thus the company could more easily
reach to the certification level 3. But from level 4, the participation of people begin to be most
needed, and if the company continue in this model, it won't having a true benefit. There are
indications that both measurements and continuous process improvements require the active
participation of individuals and systemic vision to really bring real benefits. To measure and
improve processes is essential to have more maturity, that's why these two concepts appear in
later levels of maturity models.
With the suggested organization of multidisciplinary teams would take longer to reach
a standardization and reuse techniques and methods, but they reach it more consistently. From
what has been seen by Senge, shared systems view of the team and the customer would cause

41
be used only methods and techniques really needed and would cause user benefits be actually
achieved. But the sharing of methods, techniques and tools could be achieved by the teams
using the structure of shared functional management. This adviser could observe the practices
used by the teams, as well as new market practices and disseminate them throughout the
group making the management of technical knowledge.
In relation to standardization, this should not be achieved completely, because it would
not be useful. The standardization could lead teams to use unnecessary practices for their
projects. The standardization that should exist is the reuse of solutions to the same problem
until a better way is found by any team, in the same way that the design patterns (design
patterns) standardize solutions to design problems.
The standardization should be given only at the level of values and principles as
proposed by the new agile approaches. This would create a shared vision among developers
and directing their decisions.
This way, companies could have real knowledge management, re-use of best practices
and continuous improvement activities really generating benefits for the team and for the
client. Independent of certification they have, this might be the true level 5 of CMMI
maturity, with principles and values institutionalized; best practices being followed and
shared; and continuous improvement of the work being carried out achieved through the
maturity of people.

42
8 CONCLUSION
First, it can be concluded that it is worth a deeper scientific study to better understand
the consequences and influences of the division of labor in the organization's results.
It has been shown that this division can greatly influence factors such as productivity
and satisfaction of customers.
It was also found that some administrative theories seems to have been applied in the
evolution of software engineering and new concerns, such as systemic vision and relationship
of people joined the early theories of process improvement.
The study also proposes a structure that could be used to achieve the aspects identified
as important to the organization's results.
Finally, it is expected that companies can observe in a more holistic and systemic
manner the issues identified and analyzed here before deciding which structure the
organization should adopt in its software development units.

43
REFERENCES
BECK Kent et al. Manifesto Ágil em português. Disponível em:
http://www.manifestoagil.com.br, Outubro/2012.
CHIAVENATO, Idalberto. Introdução a teoria geral da administração. 7ª Ed. Rio de
Janeiro: Elsevier, 2003.
CMMI. Disponível em: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/ , Outubro /2012.
FAYOL, Henry. Administração industrial e geral. Tradução: Irene de Bojano e Mário de
Souza. São Paulo: Atlas, 1989.
KRUCHTEN, Philippe. The rational unified process: an introduction. Addison Wesley,
2000.
LARMAN, Craig. Agile and iterative development: a manager's guide. Boston: Pearson
Education, 2004.
MASLOW, Abraham H.. Maslow no Gerenciamento. Tradução de Eliana Casquilho. Rio de
Janeiro: Qualitymark, 2001
MPS-BR. Disponível em: http://www.softex.br/mpsbr/ , Outubro /2012.
PRESSMAN, Roger S.. Engenharia de Software. Porto Alegre: AMGH, 2011.
PMI, A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: PMBOK. Pennsylvania,
USA: 2008
RATIONAL Software Corporation. Rational Unified Process®. 2001.
SCHWABER Ken; SUTHERLAND Jeff. Guia do Scrum. Tradução de Fábio Cruz.
Disponível em http://www.scrum.org/ScrumGuide.aspx, Outubro, 2011.
SENGE, Peter M.. A Quinta Disciplina. Tradução: Gabriel Zide Neto. Rio de Janeiro:
BestSeller, 2010
SMITH, Adam. A riqueza das nações. Tradução: Luís João Baraúna. São Paulo: Círculo do
Livro, 1996.
SOMMERVILLE, Ian. Engenharia de Software. Tradução de Selma Shin Shimizu
Meinnikoff e Reginaldo Arakaki. São Paulo: Pearson Addison-Wesley, 2007.
TAYLOR, F. W.. Princípios de administração científica. Tradução: Arlindo Vieira
Ramos. São Paulo: Atlas, 1971.

Job redesign in software development

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (8)

Destaque

Destaque (19)

Semelhante a Job redesign in software development

Semelhante a Job redesign in software development (20)

Último

Último (20)

Job redesign in software development