Cited By
View all- Hoy ZXu M(2023)Agile Software Requirements Engineering Challenges-Solutions—A Conceptual Framework from Systematic Literature ReviewInformation10.3390/info1406032214:6(322)Online publication date: 6-Jun-2023
Situated Boundary Spanning: An Empirical Investigation of Requirements Engineering Practices in Product Family Development
Article No.: 16, Pages 1 - 29
Abstract
Requirements Engineering (RE) faces considerable challenges that are often related to boundaries between various stakeholders involved in the software development process. These challenges may be addressed by boundary spanning practices. We examine how boundary spanning can be adapted to address RE challenges in Product Family Development (PFD), a context that involves complex RE. We study two different development approaches, namely, conventional and agile PFD, because these present considerably different challenges. Our findings from a multisite case study present boundary spanning as a solution to improve the quality of RE processes and highlight interesting differences in how boundary spanner roles and boundary objects are adapted in conventional and agile PFD.
References
[1]
E. Allman. 2012. Managing technical debt. Communications of the ACM 55, 50--55.
[2]
V. Alves, N. Niu, C. Alves, and G. Valença. 2010. Requirements engineering for software product lines: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology 52, 806--820.
[3]
D. Ancona and D. Caldwell. 1992. Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 37, 634--665.
[4]
B. A. Bechky. 2003. Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science 14, 312--330.
[5]
M. Bergman, K. Lyytinen, and G. Mark. 2007. Boundary objects in design: An ecological view of design artifacts. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 8, 546--568.
[6]
J. M. Bhat, M. Gupta, and S. N. Murthy. 2006. Overcoming requirements engineering challenges: Lessons from offshore outsourcing. IEEE Software 23, 38--44.
[7]
J. Bosch, G. Florijn, D. Greefhorst, J. Kuusela, H. Obbink, and K. Pohl. 2001. Variability issues in software product lines. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Product Family Engineering.
[8]
L. Cao, B. Ramesh, and T. Abdel-Hamid. 2010. Modeling dynamics in agile software development. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems 1, 1--26.
[9]
P. Carlile. 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science 15, 555--568.
[10]
P. R. Carlile. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science 13, 442--455.
[11]
P. Clements and L. Northrop. 2002. Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
[12]
A. Cockburn and J. Highsmith. 2001. Agile software development: The people factor. IEEE Computer 34, 131--133.
[13]
K. Conboy. 2009. Agility from first principles: Reconstructing the concept of agility in information systems development. Information Systems Research 20.
[14]
K. Conboy and L. Morgan. 2011. Beyond the customer: Opening the agile systems development process. Information and Software Technology 53, 535--542.
[15]
W. Cunningham. 1992. The WyCash portfolio management system. SIGPLAN OOPS Messages 4, 29--30.
[16]
B. Curtis, H. Krasner, and N. Iscoe. 1988. A field study of the software design process for large systems. Communications of the ACM 31, 1268--1287.
[17]
E. J. Davidson. 2002. Technology frames and framing: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS Quarterly 26, 329--358.
[18]
G. Davis. 1982. Strategies for information requirements determination. IBM Systems Journal 21, 4--31.
[19]
T. Demarco and T. Lister. 2003. Risk management during requirements. IEEE Software 20, 99--101.
[20]
M. Dodgson, D. M. Gann, and A. Salter. 2007. In case of fire, please use the elevator: Simulation technology and organization in fire engineering. Organization Science 18, 849--864.
[21]
K. Eisenhardt. 1989. Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review 14, 532--550.
[22]
K. M. Eisenhardt and M. E. Graebner. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal 50, 25--32.
[23]
M. Eriksson, J. Börstler, and K. Borg. 2009. Managing requirements specifications for product lines—An approach and industry case study. Journal of Systems and Software 82, 435--447.
[24]
A. Espinosa, J. Cummings, J. Wilson, and B. Pearce. 2003. Team boundary issues across multiple global firms. Journal of Management Information Systems 19, 157--190.
[25]
L. Fleming and D. M. Waguespack. 2007. Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science 18, 165--180.
[26]
U. Gal, K. Lyytinen, and Y. Yoo. 2008. The dynamics of IT boundary objects, information infrastructures, and organisational identities: The introduction of 3D modelling technologies into the architecture, engineering, and construction industry. European Journal of Information Systems 17, 290--304.
[27]
S. Gasson. 2005. The dynamics of sensemaking, knowledge and expertise in collaborative, boundary-spanning design. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10.
[28]
S. Gasson. 2007. Progress and breakdowns in early requirements definition for boundary-spanning information systems. In International Conference on Information Systems.
[29]
Y. Ghanam, F. Maurer, and P. Abrahamsson. 2012. Making the leap to a software platform strategy: Issues and challenges. Information and Software Technology 54, 968--984.
[30]
E. Guba. 1981. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal 29, 75--91.
[31]
P. C. Guinan, J. and S. Faraj. 1998. Enabling software development team performance during requirements definition: A behavioral versus technical approach. Information Systems Research 9, 101--125.
[32]
O. Henfridsson and R. Lindgren. 2010. User involvement in developing mobile and temporarily interconnected systems. Information Systems Journal 20, 119--135.
[33]
M. Jarke, P. Loucopoulos, K. Lyytinen, J. Mylopoulos, and W. Robinson. 2011. The brave new world of design requirements. Information Systems 36, 992--1008.
[34]
K. Jonsson, J. Holmström, and K. Lyytinen. 2009. Turn to the material: Remote diagnostics systems and new forms of boundary-spanning. Information and Organization 19, 233--252.
[35]
M. Keil, P. E. Cule, and K. Lyytinen. 1998. A framework for identifying software project risks. Communications of the ACM 41, 76--83.
[36]
L. Kirsch and M. Haney. 2006. Requirements determination for common systems: Turning a global vision into a local reality. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15, 79--104.
[37]
T. Klinger, P. Tarr, P. Wagstrom, and C. Williams. 2011. An enterprise perspective on technical debt. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Managing Technical Debt. ACM, 35--38.
[38]
B. Kovitz. 2003. Hidden skills that support phased and agile requirements engineering. Requirements Engineering 8, 135--141.
[39]
R. E. Kraut and L. A. Streeter. 1995. Coordination in software development. Communications of the ACM 38, 69--81.
[40]
D. Lau and J. Murnighan. 2005. Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal 48, 645--659.
[41]
B. Lawrence, K. E. Wiegers, and C. Ebert. 2001. The top risks of requirements engineering. IEEE Software 18, 62--63.
[42]
A. Lee. 1989. A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS Quarterly 13, 33--50.
[43]
N. Levina and E. Vaast. 2005. The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly 29, 335--363.
[44]
N. Levina and E. Vaast. 2008. Innovating or doing as told? Status differences and overlapping boundaries in offshore collaboration. MIS Quarterly 32, 307--332.
[45]
E. Lim, N. Taksande, and C. Seaman. 2012. A balancing act: What software practitioners have to say about technical debt. Software, IEEE 29, 22--27.
[46]
A. Malhotra and A. Majchrzak. 2012. How virtual teams use their virtual workspace to coordinate knowledge. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems 3, 1--14.
[47]
J. A. Marrone, P. E. Tesluk, and J. B. Carson. 2007. A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. The Academy of Management Journal 50, 1423--1439.
[48]
J. Mason. 2002. Qualitative Researching. Sage Publications, London.
[49]
B. Mcevily, V. Perrone, and A. Zaheer. 2003. Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science 14, 91--103.
[50]
M. Meyer. 2010. The rise of the knowledge broker. Science Communication 32, 118--127.
[51]
M. B. Miles and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
[52]
K. Mohan, B. Ramesh, and V. Sugumaran. 2010. Integrating software product line engineering and agile development. IEEE Software 27, 48--55.
[53]
M. Moon, K. Yeom, and H. Seok Chae. 2005. An approach to developing domain requirements as a core asset based on commonality and variability analysis in a product line. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31, 551--569.
[54]
J. Nandhakumar, N. S. Panourgias, and H. Scarbrough. 2013. From knowing it to “getting it”: Envisioning practices in computer games development. Information Systems Research, 933--955.
[55]
S. Nerur, R. Mahapatra, and G. Mangalaraj. 2005. Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies. Communications of the ACM 48, 72--78.
[56]
W. J. Orlikowski. 1993. CASE tools as organizational change: Investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development. MIS Quarterly 17, 309--340.
[57]
P. Padmanabhan and R. Lutz. 2005. Tool-supported verification of product line requirements. Automated Software Engineering 12, 447--465.
[58]
F. Paetsch and F. Maurer. 2003. Requirements engineering and agile software development. In 12th IEEE International Workshops on Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprises 308--313.
[59]
S. D. Pawlowski and D. Robey. 2004. Bridging user organizations: Knowledge brokering and the work of information technology professionals. MIS Quarterly 28, 645--672.
[60]
J. T. Polzer, C. B. Crisp, S. L. Jarvenpaa, and J. W. Kim. 2006. Extending the faultline model to geographically dispersed teams: How colocated subgroups can impair group functioning. Academy of Management Journal 49, 679--692.
[61]
B. Ramesh, L. Cao, and R. Baskerville. 2010. Agile requirements engineering practices and challenges: an empirical study. Information Systems Journal 20, 449--480.
[62]
E. Rubin and H. Rubin. 2012. Supporting agile software development through active documentation. Requirements Engineering 16, 117--132.
[63]
S. A. Slaughter, L. J. Kirsch, L. Ma, S. R. Boss, E. I. Diamant, and M. H. Haney. 2007. The formation and evolution of faultlines in large-scale, multi-party information systems development. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems.
[64]
A. Strauss and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications, London.
[65]
E. Tom, A. Aurum, and R. Vidgen. 2013. An exploration of technical debt. Journal of Systems and Software 86, 1498--1516.
[66]
D. M. Weiss and C. T. R. Lai. 1999. Software Product-Line Engineering: A Family-based Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
[67]
A. Yan and M.-R. Louis. 1999. The migration of organizational functions to the work unit level: Buffering, spanning, and bringing up boundaries. Human Relations 52, 25--47.
[68]
R. K. Yin. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, London.
Index Terms
- Situated Boundary Spanning: An Empirical Investigation of Requirements Engineering Practices in Product Family Development
Recommendations
An Empirical Study on the Requirements Engineering Practices for Agile Software Development
SEAA '14: Proceedings of the 2014 40th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced ApplicationsCollecting, understanding, and managing requirements are critical aspects in all development methods including agile methods as well. Nevertheless, little contemporary data exists for document actual practices of software professionals for software ...
A Conceptual Model For Web Accessibility Requirements In Agile Development
MO2RE 2024: Proceedings of the 1st IEEE/ACM Workshop on Multi-disciplinary, Open, and RElevant Requirements EngineeringAccessibility is the practice of making content and functionality accessible to all users, regardless of their abilities. Although accessibility is a highly relevant quality attribute, it is often treated as an afterthought in software development, ...
A multi-case study of agile requirements engineering and the use of test cases as requirements
ContextIt is an enigma that agile projects can succeed 'without requirements' when weak requirements engineering is a known cause for project failures. While agile development projects often manage well without extensive requirements test cases are ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
January 2015
163 pages
Copyright © 2014 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 12 December 2014
Accepted: 01 April 2014
Revised: 01 March 2014
Received: 01 April 2013
Published in TMIS Volume 5, Issue 3
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 497Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)22
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
Reflects downloads up to 05 Mar 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Hoy ZXu M(2023)Agile Software Requirements Engineering Challenges-Solutions—A Conceptual Framework from Systematic Literature ReviewInformation10.3390/info1406032214:6(322)Online publication date: 6-Jun-2023
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in