Abstract
Agile software development frameworks such as Scrum promote frequent communication through structured ceremonies intended to foster a shared understanding. However, communication challenges remain a persistent source of process inefficiency, particularly in complex, cross-functional projects. This case study investigates how a lack of common ground contributes to communication-related process loss within Agile settings. Based on semi-structured interviews with experienced Agile team leaders, the study reveals that Agile ceremonies alone are insufficient to ensure effective knowledge sharing and coordination. The findings highlight the need to distinguish communication purposes across stakeholder roles, introducing the concept of role-based communication interfaces as a means of enhancing effective communication. By viewing Agile teams as socio-technical systems, this study identifies targeted strategies to mitigate process loss through structured, purpose-driven communication frameworks. The study contributes to the understanding of how Agile practices can evolve to better address communication challenges, offering practical guidance for improving software development processes in real-world team environments.
Full text
6,687 characters
· extracted from
preprint-html
· click to expand
Mitigating Communication-Related Process Loss in Agile Teams: A Case Study on Common Ground and Role-Based Interaction | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 5 May 2025 V1 Latest version Share on Mitigating Communication-Related Process Loss in Agile Teams: A Case Study on Common Ground and Role-Based Interaction Authors : Jacqueline Vitacco 0000-0003-0954-6416 [email protected] and Thomas Bosshard Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.174643405.52655499/v1 Published Journal of Software: Evolution and Process Version of record Peer review timeline 212 views 150 downloads Contents Abstract Supplementary Material Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract Agile software development frameworks such as Scrum promote frequent communication through structured ceremonies intended to foster a shared understanding. However, communication challenges remain a persistent source of process inefficiency, particularly in complex, cross-functional projects. This case study investigates how a lack of common ground contributes to communication-related process loss within Agile settings. Based on semi-structured interviews with experienced Agile team leaders, the study reveals that Agile ceremonies alone are insufficient to ensure effective knowledge sharing and coordination. The findings highlight the need to distinguish communication purposes across stakeholder roles, introducing the concept of role-based communication interfaces as a means of enhancing effective communication. By viewing Agile teams as socio-technical systems, this study identifies targeted strategies to mitigate process loss through structured, purpose-driven communication frameworks. The study contributes to the understanding of how Agile practices can evolve to better address communication challenges, offering practical guidance for improving software development processes in real-world team environments. Supplementary Material File (agilecommunicationarticlejsep.docx) Download 362.02 KB Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 05 May 2025 Peer review timeline Published Journal of Software: Evolution and Process Version of Record 24 Mar 2026 Published Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Keywords agile software development common ground communication in software teams process loss socio-technical systems software process improvement Authors Affiliations Jacqueline Vitacco 0000-0003-0954-6416 [email protected] Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW View all articles by this author Thomas Bosshard Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz FHNW View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 212 views 150 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Jacqueline Vitacco, Thomas Bosshard. Mitigating Communication-Related Process Loss in Agile Teams: A Case Study on Common Ground and Role-Based Interaction. Authorea . 05 May 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.174643405.52655499/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.174643405.52655499/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9fe6aa3b1cdb06db',t:'MTc3OTIzMTA3Mg=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.