Table 2.

Illustrative heterogeneity in the operationalization of agile team performance across included studies

StudyOutcome construct measuredMethod
Lindsjørn et al. (2018) Team productivity; project successSurvey (quantitative)
Schmidt et al. (2014) Team performanceSurvey (quantitative)
Malik et al. (2021) Team performance and collaboration effectivenessSurvey (quantitative)
Moe et al. (2010) Coordination and collaboration effectiveness (qualitative)Case study
Tripp et al. (2016) Job satisfactionSurvey (quantitative)
Rathor et al. (2024) Software development agilitySurvey (quantitative)
Alami et al. (2024) Software qualitySurvey/mixed methods
Hennel and Rosenkranz (2021) Software quality; project outcomesCase study
Buvik and Tkalich (2021) Team performance (self-rated efficiency, quality and overall performance)Survey (236 members, 43 teams)
Jaroliya and Gyanchandani (2022) Team performance (leader-rated)Survey (354 respondents)
Dingsøyr et al. (2024) Project success (large-scale, multiteam)Survey (196 participants, 34 teams, four projects)
Moe et al. (2021) Team autonomy classification and alignment mechanisms (qualitative, not a performance outcome)Multiple case studies (two large-scale telecom organizations)
Note(s):

This table reports outcome measures verified against the original publications for 12 of the 35 included studies, illustrating the pattern of heterogeneity described above. Extending this table to the remaining included studies would further strengthen the empirical basis for the shared outcome taxonomy recommended in the Future Research section

or Create an Account

Close subscription notice
Close access options