Skip to main content
Log in

Internet Software Engineering: A Different Class of Processes

  • Published:
Annals of Software Engineering

Abstract

This paper describes empirical research into Internet software development practices. The focus of our study is to develop an understanding of the features that characterize Internet software development. Based on a Grounded Theory analysis of data collected in nine US software development organizations, we identify three factors that influence Internet software development processes: demand for rush to market, operating in a different kind of market environment and the lack of experience developing such products. Though many of the characteristics of the development processes identified in our study may be observed in traditional software development, the intensity with which they apply and together distinguish Internet software development. The differences include a distinct collection of methods, tools, and management techniques for software engineering, and embody a unique development culture and negotiable software quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ambler, S. (2000), “The Extreme Programming Software Process Explained, ” Computing Canada 26, 5, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aoyama, M. (1998), “Web-Based Agile Software Development, ” IEEE Software, November/December, 56- 65.

  • Baskerville, R., L. Levine, J. Pries-Heje, B. Ramesh, and S. Slaughter (2001), “How Internet Software Companies Negotiate Quality, ” IEEE Computer 34, 5, 51–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskerville, R. and J. Pries-Heje (2001), “Racing the E-Bomb: How the Internet is Redefining Information Systems Development Methodology, ” In Racing the E-Bomb: How the Internet is Redefining Information Systems Development Methodology, B. FitzGerald, N. Russo, and J. DeGross, Eds., Kluwer, New York, pp. 49–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, K. (2000), Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, Addison-Wesley, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, K. and M. Fowler (2001), Planning Extreme Programming, Addison-Wesley Longman, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, K., J. Hannula, C. Hendrickson, D. Wells, and R. Mee (1999), “Embracing Change with Extreme Programming, ” IEEE Computer 32, 10, 70–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B. (1998), “A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement, ” IEEE Computer 21, 5, 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B., A. Egyed, J. Kwan, D. Port, A. Shah, and R. Madachy (1998), “Using the Win-Win Spiral Model: A Case Study, ” IEEE Computer 31, 7, 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cusumano, M.A. and D.B. Yoffie (1999), “Software Development on Internet Time, ” IEEE Computer 32, 10, 60–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fayad, M.E., M. Laitinen, and R.P. Ward (2000), “Software Engineering in the Small, ” Communications of the ACM 43, 3, 115–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fingar, P. (2000), “Component-Based Frameworks for E-Commerce, ” Communications of the ACM 43, 10, 61–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. (1992), Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. and A. Strauss (1965), Awareness of Dying, Aldine, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. and A. Strauss (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harter, D., M. Krishnan, and S. Slaughter (2000), “Effects of Process Maturity on Quality, Cycle Time, and Effort in Software Product Development, ” Management Science 46, 4, 451–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Highsmith, J. (1999), Beyond RAD: Reducing Cycle Time Through Innovative Management, Cutter Information Corp., Arlington, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M. and A. MacCormack (1997), “Developing Products on Internet Time, ” Harvard Business Review, September- October, 108- 117.

  • Kane, D., D. Dikel, and J.R. Wilson (2001), “Patterns for Managing the Rhythm of E-Commerce, ” Cutter IT Journal 14, 1.

  • Krishnan, M., S. Kekre, C. Kriebel, and T. Mukhopadhyay (2000), “An Empirical Analysis of Productivity and Quality in Software Products, ” Management Science 46, 745–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laitinen, M., M.E. Fayad, and R.P. Ward (2000), “The Problem with Scalability, ” Communications of the ACM 43, 9, 105–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, M. (2001), “Let's StopWasting $78 Billion a Year, ” CIO Magazine, http://www.cio.com/archive/101501/wasting.html

  • MacCormack, A., R. Verganti, and M. Iansiti (2001), “Developing Products on Internet Time: The Anatomy of a Flexible Development Process, ” Management Science 47, 1, 133–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R.C. (2000), “eXtreme Programming Development Through Dialog, ” IEEE Software 17, 4, 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, W.S., A. Podgurski, R.D. Quinn, F.L. Merat, M. Branicky, N. Barendt, G. Causey, E. Hasser, Y. Kim, J. Swaminathan, and V. Velasco (2000), “Design Lessons for Building Agile Manufacturing Systems, ” IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 16, 3, 228–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. (1993), “CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development, ” MIS Quarterly 17, 3, 309–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • PITAC (1999), “Information Technology Research: Investing in Our Future, ” Report to the President, Office of the President, Washington, DC.

  • Rising, L. and N.S. Janoff (2000), “The Scrum Software Development Process for Small Teams, ” IEEE Software 17, 4, 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparling, M. (2000), “Lessons Learned Through Six Years of Component-Based Development, ” Communications of the ACM 43, 10, 47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomke, S. and D. Reinertsen (1998), “Agile Product Development: Managing Development Flexibility in Uncertain Environments, ” California Management Review 41, 1, 8–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, C. (1997), “Exploring Analyst- Client Communication: Using Grounded Theory Techniques to Investigate Interaction in Informal Requirements Gathering, ” In Exploring Analyst- Client Communication: Using Grounded Theory Techniques to Investigate Interaction in Informal Requirements Gathering, A.S. Lee, J. Liebenau, and J.I. DeGross, Eds., Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 149–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, C. (2000), “Strategies for Conversation and Systems Analysis in Requirements Gathering: A Qualitative View of Analyst- Client Communication, ” The Qualitative Report (On-line Serial) 4, 1, http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4–1/urquhart.html

  • Wetherbe, J. and M. Frolick (2000), “Cycle Time Reduction: Concepts and Case Studies, ” Communications of AIS 3, Article 13, 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, L.A. and R.R. Kessler (2000), “All I Really Need to Know About Pair Programming I Learned in Kindergarten, ” Communications of the ACM 43, 5, 108–114.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ramesh, B., Pries-Heje, J. & Baskerville, R. Internet Software Engineering: A Different Class of Processes. Annals of Software Engineering 14, 169–195 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020557725165

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020557725165

Keywords

Navigation