Background: Previous studies investigated key characteristics of software engineers and factors influencing the performance of individuals, productivity of teams and project success within agile software development (ASD). They aided in the active investigation of human aspects in ASD. However, capability measurement and prediction with respect to agile workforce, owing to its importance, is an area that needs spotlight. Objective: The objective of this paper is to present the state of the art relating to capability measurement of software engineers and teams working in ASD projects. Method: We carried out a systematic literature review (SLR) focused on identifying attributes used for measuring and predicting the capabilities of individual software engineers and teams. Results: Evidence from 16 studies showed attributes that can measure capabilities of engineers and teams, and also attributes that can be used as capability predictors. Further, different instruments used to measure those attributes were presented. Conclusions: The SLR presented a wide list of attributes that were grouped into various categories. This information can be used by project managers as, for example, a checklist to consider when allocating software engineers to teams and in turn teams to a project. Further, this study indicated the necessity for an investigation into capability prediction models. © 2018 Association for Computing Machinery.

Context: A significant number of studies discussed various human-aspects of software engineers over the past years. However, in the light of swift, incremental and iterative nature of Agile Software Development (ASD) practices, establishing deeper insights into capability measurement is crucial, as both individual and team capability can affect software development performance and project success.

Objective: Our study investigates how agile practitioners perceive the relevance of individual and team level measures, pertaining to professional, social and innovative aspects, for characterizing the capability of an agile team and its members.

Method: We undertook a Web-based survey using a questionnaire built based on the capability measures identified from our previous Systematic Literature Review (SLR). This questionnaire sought information about agile practitioners’ perceptions of individual and team capability measures.

Results: We received 60 usable responses, corresponding to a response rate of 17% from the original sampling frame. Our results indicate that 127 individual and 28 team capability measures were considered as relevant by majority of the practitioners. Our survey also identified seven individual and one team capability measure which have not been previously characterized by our SLR.

Conclusion: In practitioners’ opinion, an agile team member’s state of being answerable or accountable for things within one's control (responsibility) and the ability to feel or express doubt and raise objections (questioning skills), are the two measures that significantly represent the member’s capability. Overall, the findings from our study shed light on the sparsely explored field of capability measurement in ASD. Our results can be helpful to practitioners in reforming their team composition decisions. © 2021 Elsevier Inc.

Context: Previous research found that the performance of a team not only depends on the team personality composition, but also on the interactive effects of team climate. Although investigationon personalities associated with software development has been an active research area over the past decades, there has been very limited research in relation to team climate.

Objective: Our study investigates the association between the five factor model personality traits(openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism) and the factors related to team climate (team vision, participative safety, support for innovation and task orientation) within the context of agile teams working in a telecom company.

Method: A survey was used to gather data on personality characteristics and team climate perceptions of 43 members from eight agile teams. The data was initially used for correlation analysis; then, regression models were developed for predicting the personality traits related toteam climate perception.

Results: We observed a statistically significant positive correlation between agreeableness and participative safety (r = 0.37), and also between openness to experience and support for innovation(r = 0.31). Additionally, agreeableness was observed to be positively correlated with overall team climate (r = 0.35). Further, from regression models, we observed that personality traits accountedto less than 15% of the variance in team climate.

Conclusion: A person’s ability to easily get along with team members (agreeableness) has a significant positive influence on the perceived level of team climate. Results from our regression analysis suggest that further data may be needed, and/or there are other human factors, in addition to personality traits, that should also be investigated with regard to their relationship with team climate. Overall, the relationships identified in our study are likely to be applicable to organizations within the telecommunications domain that use scrum methodology for software development.

Context: Former literature revealed team performance is contingent on personality composition and interactive effects of team climate. While decades of research on personality prevails in software engineering, team climate remains sparsely researched. Objective: In agile software development, individuals and interactions are key sources of agility. This study replicates a previous study and analyzes the relationship between five-factor-model personality traits and team climate dimensions among agile teams in a telecom company. Method: A Web-based survey was replicated twice, first with 75 professionals from 12 teams in Sweden, followed by 46 professionals from seven teams in India. The data was used for correlation, regression analyses, and meta-analysis. Results: We observed significant negative correlations between neuroticism and all the team climate dimensions. Meta-analysis identified a significant medium-sized negative effect between neuroticism and participative safety. Regression analysis showed personality traits accounted for around 10 % of the variance in team climate dimensions. Conclusions: High neuroticism is not conducive to team climate as emotionally unstable members could impair team cohesion by being reactive and susceptible to stress. Managers assembling Scrum teams ought to mitigate higher neuroticism by counterbalancing it with an elevation of corresponding negatively correlated personality variables and providing support/training towards increasing the aforementioned variables. © 2023

Context: Investigating factors influencing agile team climate is pressing given its impact on organizational performance. Despite previous studies, association between human aspects and team climate remains yet unexplored. Objective: Exploring association between two human aspects, namely team member's capability measures and personality traits, and member's perceived team climate. Method: 75 professionals (12 teams) from one division participated in the first survey iteration, second iteration in another division included 46 professionals (7 teams). We employed correlation analyses to measure association between human aspects and climate, and regression analyses to identify team climate predictors. Results: In relation to team climate dimensions, we observed a significant negative correlation with neuroticism and a significant positive correlation with responsibility. Linear regression analysis showed capability measures accounted for 19.2% of variance in team climate. Multivariable regression analysis revealed capability measures and personality traits together accounted for 25.7% of variance in team climate. Conclusion: An individual's propensity towards self-doubt (neuroticism) negatively affects perceived team climate, whereas individual's ability to be responsible and teamwork-oriented positively affect perceived team climate. The inclusion of both capability and personality variables as input for multivariable regression explained slightly more variance in team climate, compared to only capability measures (25.7% against 19.2%). © 2024 The Author(s)