For trust communication and knowledge sharing laanti

for trust, communication, and knowledge sharing (Laanti et al.,
2011; McHugh et al., 2011).
In regard to our propositions and as displayed in Table 4, we
found support for all three propositions as displayed in Figure 1
and outlined in the section. Support for proposition P
1
can be
found in all three cases:
“In my opinion, Scrum helps to really deliver quality.” (I2-2,
Q10)
“I know they [the team] perform and that we’re in roll-out now.
And obviously—it worked.” (I2-5, Q11)
“And towards the end, we had actual change requests. [...]
There you can see the complete harmony between what I ex-
pected and what I got.” (I2-5, Q12)
Similarly, proposition P
2
is supported by two of three cases.
One aspect, as identified by I1-3, is that by “forcing” people
together, by promoting social interactions, people are more
likely to develop a common understanding:
“You can’t avoid each other. ... You’re already working things
out together. You must at least create a basic understanding to-
gether and through this you must speak a common language
Table 4. Identified Codes and Codings
Code Group Code Insure1 Insure2 Develop1
Social Agile Practices* Daily Standups high high high
Reviews and Retrospectives high high high
Pair Programming low high low
Sprint Planning and Prioritization high high high
Collective Code Ownership - - high
Cross-Functional Teams high high high
... affect Psychological Safety high high -
... affect Performance high high high
Psychological Safety Safe environment high high high
Neither safe nor unsafe environment low - high
Unsafe environment low low -
... affects SAPs high high high
... moderates SAPs → Performance high high high
Performance ... increased with SAPs high high high
... decreases with SAPs low low -
Note . * Of all SAPs, only the codes that were found are listed. (“high” marks a code that was identified clearly and often; “low” marks a code that was
identified seldom and/or only indirectly)

Project Management Journal 00(0) 10
[e.g., during retrospectives]. So, we have invested a lot of time
in a common understanding ... However, I believe that this is
very valuable in the long term.” (I1-3, Q13)
I2-5 made a very similar argument. He thinks that an itera-
tive approach, combined with learning and a common vision
help in establishing trust:
“All this didn’t work overnight. It has gone through a process
and trust has been built up among each other. And you can ac-
tually say that people have grown more attached to each other
and what you produce here as a product ... that can be sold on
the market, that’s their baby. They developed a deep identifica -
tion with their work [after the introduction of agile practices].”
(I2-5, Q14)
Further support for proposition P
2
can be found in all three
cases. Insure1’s internal guidelines document core organiza -
tional values close to the four values postulated in the Agile
Manifesto , and participants of Insure1 were especially outspo-
ken about the effects of a safe environment on the agile
practices:
“Colleagues should simply be open—to new topics and simply
have fun trying things out.” (I1-2, Q15)
“I think to be able to work really well together; it is important
to be part of the team.” (I1-3, Q16)