Corporate hackathons, how and why? A multiple case study of motivation, projects proposal and selection, goal setting, coordination, and outcomes

Bibliographic Data

ID15216207
AuthorsEi Pa Pa Pe‐Than (0000-0003-0614-3507, Institute for Software Research, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, corresponding author), Alexander Nolte (0000-0003-1255-824X, Institute for Software Research, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA), Anna Filippova (Data Science GitHub Inc., San Francisco, California, USA), Christian Bird (0000-0002-7774-0387, Empirical Software Engineering, Microsoft Research, Redmond, Washington, USA), Steve Scallen (Microsoft Garage, Redmond, Washington, USA), James D Herbsleb (0000-0002-7159-7524, Carnegie Mellon University), James Herbsleb (Institute for Software Research, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA)
Year2020
Volume37
Issue4
Pages281-313
Publication date2020-10-24
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueHuman-Computer Interaction (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0737-0024 • E-ISSN: 1532-7051
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/07370024.2020.1760869
OpenAlexW3093799715
LanguageEN
Citations received2
References cited57

Time-bounded events such as hackathons, data dives, codefests, hack-days, sprints or edit-a-thons have increasingly gained attention from practitioners and researchers. Yet there is a paucity of research on corporate hackathons, which are nearly ubiquitous and present significant organizational, cultural, and managerial challenges. To provide a comprehensive understanding of team processes and broad array of outcomes of corporate hackathons, we conducted a mixed-methods, multiple case study of five teams that participated in a large scale corporate hackathon. Two teams were "pre-existing" teams (PETs) and three were newly-formed "flash" teams (FTs). Our analysis revealed that PETs coordinated almost as if it was just another day at the office while creating innovations within the boundary of their regular work, whereas FTs adopted role-based coordination adapted to the hackathon context while creating innovations beyond the boundary of their regular work. Project sustainability depended on how much effort the team put into finding a home for their projects and whether their project was a good fit with existing products in the organization's product portfolio. Moreover, hackathon participation had perceived positive effects on participants' skills, careers, and social networks

Business · Context (archaeology · Knowledge management · Portfolio · Process management · Product (mathematics · Selection (genetic algorithm · Sustainability · Work (physics · Biomedical and Engineering Education · Computer Science · Engineering · Open Source Software Innovations · Psychology

Tools

Open DOI