ÇALIŞANLARIN PERSPEKTİFİNDEN ÇEVİKLİK VE ÇEVİK ORGANİZASYONLAR: SAAS İŞ MODELİ BAĞLAMINDA NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Year 2022, Volume: 18 Issue: 4, 1128 - 1149, 28.12.2022

Funda Çetin , Ebru Tolay

https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.1144105

Cited By: 3

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, çevik bir organizasyonda çalışan bireylerin çeviklik hakkındaki düşüncelerini öğrenmek ve çeviklik literatürüne, çalışan perspektifinden katkıda bulunmaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, müşterilerine yazılım hizmeti sağlayan bir SaaS firmasında çalışan 10 katılımcı ile yüz yüze mülakatlar yapılmıştır. Elde edilen veriler, MAXQDA 2022 Nitel Veri Analizi Programı aracılığıyla analiz edilmiştir. Çevikliği tanımlamak için en fazla tercih edilen ifadeler incelendiğinde, katılımcıların yüzde 70’inin 8 kez “dinamiklik” ve 7 kez “yenilikçilik” sözcüğünü kullandığı saptanmıştır. Katılımcıların yarısı ise 5’er kez “stres” ve “hız” kelimelerini vurgulamıştır. Katılımcıların yüzde 70’inden fazlası çevikliğin olumlu yönlerinin “yatay bir örgüt yapısına sahip olma” (19 kez), “esneklik” (12 kez) ve “dinamik ve inovatif bir ortamın varlığı” (11 kez) olduğunu belirtmiştir. Katılımcıların yüzde 70’i tarafından 17 kez tekrarlanan “stres ve iş yetiştirme baskısının”, çevikliğin en sık vurgulanan olumsuz yönü olduğu görülmüştür. Katılımcılara göre çevik bir organizasyonda çalışan bireylerin sahip olması gereken yetkinliklerin başında “takım çalışmasına uyum sağlayabilme” ve “açık fikirli/ esnek olma” gelmektedir. Literatürde çalışanların çeviklik uygulamaları hakkındaki duygu ve düşüncelerini nitel araştırma yöntemleri ile derinlemesine inceleyen araştırmalar nadirdir. Bu durum, mevcut çalışmanın özgün yanını oluşturmaktadır.

Keywords

çevik organizasyonlar, Çalışanlar, SaaS İş Modeli, Nitel Araştırma

AGILITY AND AGILE ORGANIZATIONS FROM EMPLOYEES’ PERSPECTIVES: A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SAAS BUSINESS MODEL

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study is to learn the thoughts of individuals working in an agile organization about agility and contribute to the agility literature from the employee perspective. Through this aim, we conducted face-to-face interviews with 10 participants working in a SaaS (Software as a Service) company that provides software services to its customers. We analyzed the data through the MAXQDA 2022 Qualitative Data Analysis Program. When we examined the most preferred expressions to describe agility, 70 percent of the participants used the word “dynamic” 8 times and “innovation” 7 times. Half of the participants emphasized “stress” and “speed” 5 times each. More than 70 percent of the participants stated that the positive aspects of agility are “having a horizontal organizational structure” (19 times), “flexibility” (12 times), and “the existence of a dynamic and innovative environment” (11 times). On the other hand, we saw that “stress and job training pressure,” repeated 17 times by 70 percent of the participants, was the most frequently emphasized negative aspect of agility. According to the participants, “adaptability to teamwork” and “being open-minded/ flexible” are the leading competencies that individuals working in an agile organization should possess. Studies examining employees' feelings and thoughts about agility are rare in the literature. This situation constitutes the original aspect of the present study.

Keywords

agile organizations, Employees, SaaS Business Model, Qualitative Research

References

• Al, B. (2022). The relationship of information management and organizational agility: An application on the banking sector. OPUS– Journal of Society Research. 19(45): 158-170.
• Aleem, S., Batool, R., Ahmed, F. & Khattak, A. (2019). Guidelines for key organizational factors for SaaS organizations. In Proceedings of the 2019 3rd international conference on big data research, November: 83-87.
• Alton, L. (2017). Why agile work cultures are so important to millennials. https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryalton/2017/10/17/why-agile-work-cultures-are-so-important-to-millennials/?sh=3e2022982fd2 Date of access: 27.03.2022.
• Altunay, E., Oral, G. & Yalçınkaya, M. (2014). A qualitative research about mobbing implications in educational institutions. Sakarya University Journal of Education. 4(1): 62-80. Blonde, S. & Ekman, F. (2020). Evaluating the agile transformation process from an HR’s perspective. Master Thesis. (1-60). Linköping University, Sweden. Breu, K., Hemingway, C. J., Strathern, M. & Bridger, D. (2002). Workforce agility: The new employee strategy for the knowledge economy. Journal of Information Technology. 17(1): 21–31.
• Candan A. & Bilal Ç., Seker S.E. (2017). Agility in organizations. YBS encyclopedia, 4-5.
• Cockburn, A. & Highsmith, J. (2001). Agile software development: The business of innovation. IEEE computer: 120-122.
• Cönbez, H. (2020). How fit your employee profile is to the ‘T-shape model’? Platin. https://www.platinonline.com/dergi/calisan-profiliniz-t-shape-modeline-ne-kadar-uygun-1056772, Date of Access: 27.03.2022.
• Croccitto, M. & Youssef, M. (2003). The human side of organizational agility. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 103(6): 388-397.
• Çetinkaya, F. F. & Akkoca, Y. (2021). The mediating role of organizational communication on the relationship between strategic leadership and organizational agility. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty. 8(1): 66-84.
• Dorp T. (2019). Agile teams: Experienced work characteristics and their effects on employees’ perceived job performance and happiness at work. Master Thesis: Utrecht University.
• Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L. & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A Guide to methods. Sage Publications: USA.
• Fifteenth annual state of agile report. (2021) Digital.ai https://digital.ai/resource-center/analyst-reports/state-of-agile-report. (1-23) Date of Access: 30.03.2022.
• Ganguly A., Nilchiani R. & Farr JV. (2009). Evaluating agility in corporate enterprises. Int. J. Production Economics. 118: 410-423.
• Gieles, H. & Van der Meer, W. (2017). Talent management as the beating heart of an agile organization. Prowareness. https://www.prowareness.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/agile-hr-whitepaper.pdf Netherlands. Date of Access: 13.04.2021.
• Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological basis of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology. 30(4): 233-252.
• Harraf A. & Wanasika A, Tate K., Talbott K. (2015). Organizational agility. The Journal of Applied Business Research: 676-677.
• Highsmith, James A. (2002) Agile software development ecosystems. Addison-Wesley, Boston Mass., Pearson Education Inc.
• İmamoğlu, S. Z., İnce, H. & Türkcan, H. (2021). The effects of Industry 4.0 implementations on organizational agility: A Conceptual Study. Atatürk University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences. 35(1): 103-124. İnanır, A. (2020). Örgütsel çeviklik. (71-80). In Modern işletmecilikte yönetsel konular. Edited by: Mehmet Sağır. Eğitim Yayınevi, Konya.
• Junker, T. L., Bakker, A. B., Gorgievski, M. J. & Derks, D. (2021). Agile work practices and employee proactivity: a multilevel study. Human Relations. 1-29.
• Keskinkılıç, M. & Kahveci, F. (2019). A conceptual study and classification on agile methodologies at software engineering. Current Perspectives in Social Sciences. 23(3): 1067-1091.
• Manifesto for Agile Software Development. (2001). https://agilemanifesto.org/iso/tr/manifesto.html, Date of Access: 04.04.2021.
• McCormick M. (2012). Waterfall vs. agile methodology. MPCS, Inc: 3-6.
• Melnik G. & Maurer F. (2006). Comparative analysis of job satisfaction in agile and non-agile software development teams. (p.32-42). Extreme programming and agile processes in software engineering. Eds. P. Abrahamsson, M. Marchesi & G. Succi. 7th International Conference, XP 2006. Springer, Germany.
• Noble, H. & Smith, J. (2015). Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evidence-Based Nursing. 18(2): 34-35.
• Noronha A. P. V. (2018). Agile practices and their impact on organizational culture perceptions of it employees operating in Ireland. Dissertation of the Degree of Master of Business Administration, Dublin.
• Pathak K. & Saha A (2013). Review of agile software development methodologies. Int J. 3: 270–276.
• Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Sage Publications USA.
• Peterson, B. (2020). Agile practices in commercial SaaS teams: a case study on adopting agile practices in non-software teams. Master Thesis. Uppsala Universitet.
• Principles behind the agile manifesto. (2001). https://agilemanifesto.org/iso/tr/principles.html; agilemanifesto.org/iso/en/manifesto.html; Date of Access: 04.04.2021.
• Putnik G. D. (2001). BM-virtual enterprise architecture reference model, agile manufacturing: the 21st century competitive strategy. Elsevier Science: 73- 94.
• Ragin-Skorecka, K. (2016). Agile enterprise: A human factors perspective. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries. 26 (1): 5–15.
• Ranaginghe, V. R. & Sangaradeniya, Y. M. S. W. V. (2021). Agile human resource management. Human Resource Management in Challenging Environments. 23-31.
• Rietze, S. & Zacher, H. (2022). Relationships between agile work practices and occupational well-being: The role of job demands and resources. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 19 (3): 1258-1282.
• Roosendaal XWG (2021). Employees’ perspective on the impact of agile implementation on knowledge sharing: a qualitative study in a large multi-national company. Master Thesis. Holland: University of Twente.
• Rzepka, A. & Bojar, E. (2020). Leadership as one of the factors shaping the development of an agile organization. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research. 9(3): 383-391.
• Saha, N., Gregar, A. & Saha, P. (2017). “Organizational agility and HRM strategy: Do they really enhance firms’ competitiveness?”. Organizational Journal of Organizational Leadership. 6: 323-334.
• Schloegel, U., Stegmann, S., Maedche, A. & Van Dick, R. (2018). Age stereotypes in agile software development – an empirical study of performance expectations. Information Technology & People, 31(1): 41-62.
• Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W. & Layer, J. (2007). “A review of enterprise agility: concepts, frameworks, and attributes”. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 37: 445-460.
• Smith, D. B. & Dickson, M. W. (2003). Staffing the dynamic organization: rethinking selection and motivation in the context of continuous change. (41-64). In Leading and managing people in the dynamic organization. Edited by: Randall S. Peterson & Elizabeth A. Mannix. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., London.
• Sommer, A. F. (2019). Agile transformation at LEGO group. Research-Technology Management, 62(5): 20-29.
• Sucu, M. (2020). İşletmelerde çeviklik. Ankara: İksad Publishing House.
• Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative research journal, 11(2), 63-75.
• Takeuchi H. & Nonaka I. (1986). The new new product development game. Harvard Business Review: 136-146.
• Theocharis G., Kuhrmann M, Münch J. & Diebold P. (2015). Is water-scrum-fall reality? On the use of agile and traditional development practices. Eds. P. Abrahamsson, L. Corral, M. Oivo, & B. Russo. In: Product-focused software process improvement. (149-166.) 16th International Conference, Balzano, Italy.
• The state of agile HR 2020. (2020). Haga organizational explores & organize agile. https://www.stateofagilehr.com/download-state-of-agile-hr-2020/ Date of Access: 06.04.2021.
• Trzcielinski, S. (2007). Agile enterprise: Concepts and some results of research. IEA Press, USA.
• Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., Chan, F. K. Y., Hoehle, H. & Spohrer, K. (2020). How agile software development methods reduce work exhaustion: Insights on role perceptions and organizational skills. Information Systems Journal. 30: 733–761.
• Wendler, R. (2016). Dimensions of organizational agility in the software and it service industry: Insights from an empirical investigation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 39(21): 439-482.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık: Ankara.
• Yin, R. K. (2006). Case Study Methods. In Handbook of complementary methods in education research. Edited by: Judith L. Green, Gregory Camilli, Patricia B. Elmore. American Educational Research Association: USA. DOI:10.4324/9780203874769-8.
• Yusuf, Y. Y., Sarhadi, M. & Gunasekaran, A. (1999). Agile manufacturing: The drivers, concepts, and attributes. Int. J. Production Economics 62: 33-43.
• Zerfaß, A., Dühring, L., Berger, K. & Brockhaus, J. (2018) Fast and flexible: Corporate communications in agile organizations, communication insights, No. 5, Akademische gesellschaft für unternehmensführung & kommunikation, Leipzig.
• Zhang, Z. & Sharifi, H. (2000). A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing organisations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 20(4): 496-512.