We went to a seminar not too long ago in a local interest group on agile software development. One of the speakers was Jim Coplien. He's a good at it, speaking emphatically on what to do and not to do.
Also he had the interesting point that if you're going to try to change what a software development organization is doing, process improvement programmes turn out to be less effective than one thinks because processes tend to come from the underlying structures. So if you don't change them, people fall back after some time.
For instance, if you have the problem that the developers aren't good enough at coming up with what the users need, then instead of installing a process where they must fill in check lists to try to force them to listen, maybe you need to look at the fact that they aren't communicating directly with the users, but perhaps through a manager who dictates what should happen. If you change the manager's role, maybe the rest will follow automatically.
Anyway, he talked at some length about some organizational patterns he and others have come up with, which was interesting because many of the seem to describe what we're doing at IOLA. He's collected a big bunch in a book he's written (together with Neil B. Harrison), "Organizational Patterns of Agile Software Development".
If you're interested in software development and what works when you structure the work, the team and relationships to stakeholders and users, it's worth a read.
What's interesting in it is that most patterns may be profound in their effect, but are really lightweight in what you actually need to do. For instance, if you have the problem that developers are interrupted too much, you can sacrifice one person and make him a firewall that people have to go through. Simple as that. No big piles of lists and specifications and meeting minutes and memos necessary.
I think the big downside of the book is that it's not very friendly written. It's in the style of a reference in many places with only little background rationale and so many crossreferences that you need to have read most of the book to understand what's going. This probably works well for Jim Coplien when he travels around on his research and consultancy campaign to fix sick organizations, but I think the audience for a gentler style would be much higher.
Still, it has material I haven't seen elsewhere and it's actually based on research on succesful software teams rather than just handwaving.