Conflict as software levels diversify : Tactical elimination or strategic transformation of practice?

Abstract Communities of Practice create a shared consensus on practice. Standards defining software levels enable firms to diversify practice based on a software component’s contribution to potential failure conditions. When industrial trends increase the importance of lower software levels, there is a risk that the consensus on practice for software engineers used to primarily working at higher levels of assurance is eroded. This study investigates whether this might lead to conflict and – if so – where this conflict will materialize, what the nature of it is and what it implies for safety management. A critical case study was conducted: 33 engineers were interviewed in two rounds. The study identified a disagreement between designers with different roles. Those involved in the day-to-day activities of software development advocated elimination of practice (dropping or doing parts less stringently), while those involved in expert advice and process planning suggested transforming practice (adopting realistic alternatives). This study contributes to practice by showing that this conflict has different implications for firms that do not lead vs those that lead the early adoption of technology. At the majority of firms, safety management might need to support the organisation of informal opinion leaders to avoid vulnerability. At early adopters, crowdsourcing could provide much-needed help to refine the understanding of new practice. Across entire industries, crowdsourcing could also benefit entire engineering standardization processes. The study contributes to theory by showing how less prescriptive standardization in the context of engineering does not automatically shift rulemaking towards allowing engineers to act more autonomously.