Investigating a conceptual construct for software context

ACM International Conference Proceeding Series

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages

  Kirk, Diana ^a   MacDonell, Stephen G ^b  

^a AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Software context; Theory building

Indexed keywords

EXPERIMENTS; PROJECT MANAGEMENT;

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS; EFFORT ESTIMATION; EMPIRICAL SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; PROJECT OUTCOMES; SOFTWARE PROJECT; SPANNING SETS; THEORETICAL APPROACH; THEORY BUILDING;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 84905497454     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2601248.2601263     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (48)

1. B. A. Akinnuwesi, F. Uzoka, S. O. Olabiyisi, E. O. Omidiora, and P. Fiddi. An empirical analysis of end-user participation in software development projects in a developing country context. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 58(6):1-25, 2013.
2. D. Avison and J. Pries-Heje. Flexible information systems development: Designing an appropriate methodology for different situations. In J. Filipe, J. Cordeiro, and J. Cardoso, editors, Enterprise information systems : 9th International Conference, ICEIS 2007, pages 212-224, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008. Springer.
3. M. Bajec, D. Vavpotic, and M. Krisper. Practice-driven approach for creating project-specific software development methods. Information and Software Technology, 49:345-365, 2007.
4. S. Barney, V. Mohankumar, P. Chatzipetrou, A. Aurum, C. Wohlin, and L. Angelis. Software quality across borders: Three case studies on company internal alignment. Information and Software Technology, 56(1):20-36, 2014.
5. V. R. Basili, F. Shull, and F. Lanubile. Building Knowledge through Families of Experiments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(4):456-473, 1999.
6. M. F. Bosu and S. G. MacDonell. A Taxonomy of Data Quality Challenges in Empirical Software Engineering. In Proceedings of the 22nd Australian Conference on Software Engineering (ASWEC 2013), pages 97-106, 2013.
7. J. Carver, J. V. Voorhis, and V. Basili. Understanding the Impact of Assumptions on Experimental Validity. In Proceedings of the 2004 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE'04), pages 251-260. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc., 2004.
8. D. Cho and H. Sung. Vendor or client: What are the important factors for SDO project success? International Journal of Software Engineering and its Applications, 7(4):197-206, 2013.
9. P. Clarke and R. V. O'Connor. The situational factors that affect the software development process: Towards a comprehensive reference framework. Information and Software Technology, 54:433-447, 2012.
10. T. Clear, W. Hussain, and S. G. MacDonell. The many facets of distance and space: the mobility of actors in globally distributed project teams. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Global Software Engineering, pages 144-148. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc., 2012.
11. T. Clear and S. G. MacDonell. Beyond 'Temponomics' - The Many Dimensions of Time in Globally Distributed Project Teams. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Global Software Engineering, pages 297-304. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc., 2010.
12. B. Curtis. Three Problems Overcome with Behavioral Models of the Software Development Process. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 398-399, 1989.
13. B. Curtis, H. Krasner, and N. Iscoe. A Field Study of the Software Design Process for Large Systems. Communications of the ACM, 31(11):1268-1287, 1988.
14. M. Cusumano, A. MacCormack, C. Kemerer, and B. Crandall. Software development worldwide: The state of the practice. IEEE Software, 20(6):28-34, Nov/Dec 2003.
15. M. de Azevedo Santos, P. H. de Souza Bermejo, M. S. de Oliveira, and A. O. Tonelli. Agile practices: An assessment of perception of value of professionals on the quality criteria in performance of projects. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 4:700-709, 2011.
16. T. Dybå, D. I. Sjøberg, and D. S. Cruzes. What Works for Whom, Where, When and Why? On the Role of Context in Empirical Software Engineering. In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2012), pages 19-28, Lund, Sweden, September 2012.
17. B. Fitzgerald. The use of systems development methodologies in practice: a field study. Information Systems Journal, pages 201-212, 1997.
18. B. Furneaux and M. Wade. The end of the information system life: A model of is discontinuance. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 41(2):45-69, 2010.
19. D. J. Gilmore. Methodological Issues in the Study of Programming. In J.-M. Hoc, T. Green, R. Samurcay, and D. Gilmore, editors, Psychology of Programming, pages 83-98. Academic Press Ltd., London, U.K., 1990.
20. S. Gregor. The nature of theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 30(3):611-642, 2006.
21. J. E. Hannay, D. I. K. Sjøberg, and T. Dybå. A systematic review of theory use in software engineering experiments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 33(2):87-107, 2007.
22. C. Hansson, Y. Dittrich, B. Gustafsson, and S. Zarnak. How agile are software development practices? Journal of Systems and Software, 79:1295-1311, 2009.
23. R. Hoda, P. Kruchten, J. Noble, and S. Marshall. Agility in Context. In Proceedings of the ACM international conference on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications (OOPSLA '10), pages 72-88. ACM Press, 2010.
24. I. Jacobson, B. Meyer, and R. Soley. Software Engineering Method and Theory. http://www.semat.org, 2013.
25. I. Jacobson, I. Spence, and P.-W. Ng. Agile and SEMAT - Perfect Partners. Communications of the ACM, 56(11):53-59, 2013.
26. D. Kirk and S. MacDonell. A Systems Approach to Software Process Improvement in Small Organisations. In Proceedings of the 16th European Systems and Software Process Improvement and Innovation (EuroSPI) Conference), pages 2.21-30. Delta/Publizon, 2009.
27. D. Kirk and S. MacDonell. A model for software contexts. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches in Software Engineering (ENASE 2013), pages 177-182, July 2013.
28. D. Kirk, S. MacDonell, and E. Tempero. Modelling software processes - a focus on objectives. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN conference companion on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications (OOPSLA), Session: Onward short papers session 2., pages 941-948. ACM Press, 2009.
29. D. Kirk and E. Tempero. A lightweight framework for describing software practices. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(3):581-594, 2012.
30. B. A. Kitchenham, S. L. Pfleeger, D. C. Hoaglin, K. El Emam, and J. Rosenberg. Preliminary Guidelines for Empirical Research in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(8):721-734, 2002.
31. P. Kruchten. Contextualizing agile software development. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 25(4):351-361, 2013.
32. A. MacCormack, W. Crandall, P. Henderson, and P. Toft. Do you need a new product-development strategy? Research Technology Management, 55(1):34-43, 2012.
33. S. D. Muller, P. Kraemmergaard, and L. Mathiassen. Managing Cultural variation is Software Process Improvement: A Comparison of Methods for Subculture Assessment. IEEE Tranactions on Engineering Management, 56(4):584-599, 2009.
34. W. Orlikowski. Knowing in Practice: Enabling a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing. Organization Science, 13(3):249-273, 2002.
35. Oxford Dictionaries. Context. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ definition/english/context, 2014.
36. K. Petersen and C. Wohlin. A comparison of issues and advantages in agile and incremental development between state of the art and an industrial case. Journal of Systems and Software, 82:1479-1490, 2009.
37. I. Richardson, V. Casey, F. McCaffery, J. Burton, and S. Beecham. A Process Framework for Global Software Engineering Teams. Information and Software Technology, 54:1175-1191, 2012.
38. D. I. Sjøberg, T. Dybå, B. C. Anda, and J. E. Hannay. Building Theories in Software Engineering, pages 312-336. Springer-Verlag, 2008.
39. D. I. Sjøberg, J. E. Hannay, O. Hansen, V. B. Kampenes, A. Karahasanovic, N.-K. Liborg, and A. C. Rekdal. A Survey of Controlled Experiments in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(9):733-753, 2005.
40. K. Stol and B. Fitzgerald. Uncovering Theories in Software Engineering. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Grand Theory in Software Engineering (GTSE 2013), colocated with ICSE 2013, pages 5-14, San Francisco, USA, 2013.
41. S. Stuckenberg and A. Heinzl. The Impact of the Software-as-a-Service concept on the Underlying Software and Service Development Processes. In Proceedings of the 2010 Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2010), pages 1297-1308, 2010.
42. R. Turner, A. Ledwith, and J. Kelly. Project management in small to medium-sized enterprises: Matching processes to the nature of the firm. International Journal of Project Management, 28:744-755, 2010.
43. S. ul Haq, M. Raza, A. Zia, and M. N. A. Khan. Issues in global software development: A critical review. Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 4:590-595, 2011.
44. D. Smite, C. Wohlin, Z. Galviña, and R. Priladnicki. An empirically based terminology and taxonomy for global software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering, 19:105-153, 2014.
45. X. Wang, K. Conboy, and O. Cawley. "Leagile" software development: An experience report analysis of the appliction of lean approaches in agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 85:1287-1299, 2012.
46. R. Wieringa. Requirements researchers: are we really doing research? Requirements Engineering, 10:304-306, 2005.
47. J. A. Zachman. Engineering the Enterprise: The Zachman Framework for Enterprise Architecture. http://www.zachmaninternational.com/index.php/the- zachman-framework, 2009.
48. A. Zendler. A preliminary software engineering theory as investigated by published experiments. Empirical Software Engineering, 6(2):161-180, 2001.