How do open source software (OSS) developers practice and perceive requirements engineering? An empirical study

Kuriakose, Jaison; Parsons, Jeffrey

doi:10.1109/empire.2015.7431307

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared to classic RE [31], OSS RE can be described as a collaborative, transparent and open process involving the stakeholders (both developers and users) in the community with interest in specific requirements [31,32]. Formal methods and processes, as well as documents or central repositories, are often absent [33,34]. Instead, a requirement may often be represented by multiple artifacts which are stored and managed in a series of interconnected and overlapping repositories, e.g., as an issue in an issue tracker and mail threads in a mailing list [35].…”

Section: Requirements Engineering In Oss Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead, a requirement may often be represented by multiple artifacts which are stored and managed in a series of interconnected and overlapping repositories, e.g., as an issue in an issue tracker and mail threads in a mailing list [35]. These repositories also function as communication channels for the stakeholders where the requirements are asserted (i.e., elicited from the OSS community perspective), analyzed, and specified informally, and often realized simultaneously [36,33,37,34]. This is an iterative process characterized as just-in-time RE [37,36] and where the social interactions between the stakeholders are often decentralized and dynamic [38].…”

Section: Requirements Engineering In Oss Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Community Strategy Framework -- How to obtain Influence on Requirements in Meritocratic Open Source Software Communities?

Linåker,

Regnell,

Damian

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: In the Requirements Engineering (RE) process of an Open Source Software (OSS) community, an involved firm is a stakeholder among many. Conflicting agendas may create miss-alignment with the firm's internal requirements strategy. In communities with meritocratic governance or with aspects thereof, a firm has the opportunity to affect the RE process in line with their own agenda by gaining influence through active and symbiotic engagements. Objective: The focus of this study has been to identify what aspects that firms should consider when they assess their need of influencing the RE process in an OSS community, as well as what engagement practices that should be considered in order to gain this influence. Method: Using a design science approach, 21 interviews with 18 industry professionals from 12 different software-intensive firms were conducted to explore, design and validate an artifact for the problem context. Results: A Community Strategy Framework (CSF) is presented to help firms create community strategies that describe if and why they need influence on the RE process in a specific (meritocratic) OSS community, and how the firm could gain it. The framework consists of aspects and engagement practices. The aspects help determine how important an OSS project and its community is from business and technical perspectives. A community perspective is used when considering the feasibility and potential in gaining influence. The engagement practices are intended as a tool-box for how a firm can engage with a community in order to build influence needed. Conclusion: It is concluded from interview-based validation that the proposed CSF may provide support for firms in creating and tailoring community strategies and help them to focus resources on communities that matter and gain the influence needed on their respective RE processes.

show abstract

Section: Requirements Engineering In Oss Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Requirements Engineering In Oss Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Community Strategy Framework -- How to obtain Influence on Requirements in Meritocratic Open Source Software Communities?

Linåker,

Regnell,

Damian

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this context, the organization is a stakeholder among many and needs to consider potentially conflicting agendas from other stakeholders (Munir et al 2016;Schaarschmidt et al 2015;Mäenpää et al 2018;Linåker et al 2019b). If there is a misalignment between the organization's and the community's Requirements Engineering (RE) process (Ernst and Murphy 2012;Alspaugh and Scacchi 2013;Kuriakose and Parsons 2015), the organization may need to influence the development direction of the community (Munir et al 2018a). If the organization lacks the influence needed, they need to consider the cost of gaining it (Linåker et al 2019a).…”

Section: Costs and Risks Of Sharing Software As Ossmentioning

confidence: 99%

What to share, when, and where: balancing the objectives and complexities of open source software contributions

Linåker¹,

Regnell²

2020

Empir Software Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Software-intensive organizations' rationale for sharing Open Source Software (OSS) may be driven by both idealistic, strategic and commercial objectives, and include both monetary as well as non-monetary benefits. To gain the potential benefits, an organization may need to consider what they share and how, while taking into account risks, costs and other complexities. Objective: This study aims to empirically investigate objectives and complexities organizations need to consider and balance between when deciding on what software to share as OSS, when to share it, and whether to create a new or contribute to an existing community. Method: A multiple-case study of three case organizations was conducted in two research cycles, with data gathered from interviews with 20 practitioners from these organizations. The data was analyzed qualitatively in an inductive and iterative coding process. Results: 12 contribution objectives and 15 contribution complexities were found. Objectives include opportunities for improving reputation, managing suppliers, managing partners and competitors, and exploiting externally available knowledge and resources. Complexities include risk of loosing control, risk of giving away competitive advantage, risk of creating negative exposure, costs of contributing, and the possibility and need to contribute to an existing or new community. Conclusions: Cross-case analysis and interview validation show that the identified objectives and complexities offer organizations a possibility to reflect on and adapt their contribution strategies based on their specific contexts and business goals.

show abstract

Network structure and requirements crowdsourcing for OSS projects

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do open source software (OSS) developers practice and perceive requirements engineering? An empirical study

Cited by 7 publications

References 27 publications

A Community Strategy Framework -- How to obtain Influence on Requirements in Meritocratic Open Source Software Communities?

A Community Strategy Framework -- How to obtain Influence on Requirements in Meritocratic Open Source Software Communities?

What to share, when, and where: balancing the objectives and complexities of open source software contributions

Network structure and requirements crowdsourcing for OSS projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About