MEASURING THE IMPACT OF GENERATIVE AI ON SOFTWARE TEAM PRODUCTIVITY AND OUTPUT QUALITY IN AGILE ENVIRONMENTS

Abstract

Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) is becoming more incorporated into software engineering functions like code creation, debugging, requirement analysis, testing, and sharing knowledge. This research looks at how GAI affects software teams in terms of productivity and quality of the output in Agile environments. The research design used is quantitative, cross-sectional survey type using a questionnaire prepared for this research. The data used consists of 35 responses, with 34 usable cases in analyzing 30 Likert items. The measuring instrument consists of six concepts: use of GAI, efficiency of the software team, quality of the software output, GAI in Agile, team collaboration, and communication, and overall impact perceived. The descriptive results show positive feelings about the six concepts. The values on the mean for the different concepts varied from 3.54 to 3.78 on a scale of five, with GAI being the concept that received the highest mean (M = 3.78, SD = 0.47) while productivity was the one that received the lowest (M = 3.54, SD = 0.69). The instrument has a high level of internal consistency with α = 0.799 for the entire scale of 30 items. In terms of specific items, productivity, quality, and team collaboration had acceptable reliability, whereas GAI had low internal consistency and Agile and general have the upper limit of reliability therefore, construct-level findings should be interpreted cautiously.

Pearson correlation analysis showed statistically significant positive associations between overall perceived impact and software output quality (r = 0.365, p = 0.034) and team collaboration and communication (r = 0.371, p = 0.031). Productivity was positively associated with overall impact but did not reach the conventional 0.05 significance level (r = 0.312, p = 0.073). In a multiple regression model, the five dimensions explained 23.5% of the variance in overall perceived impact (R² = 0.235); however, the overall model was not statistically significant (F(5, 28) = 1.719, p = 0.163). These findings support a cautious interpretation: respondents generally perceive GAI positively, but the present small sample does not provide strong evidence for broad causal claims.