Oss-TMM

Free/Libre Open Source Software has evolved dramatically in the last twenty years and many open source products are now considered similar, or even better than proprietary counterparts. Given the evolution of softwareboth concerning its development and its usageit is likely that the motivations for adopting an open source rather than a proprietary product have changed over time. The goal of this work is to identify the current motivations for adopting open source software, and compare them with the motivations that held in the past. We conducted a set of interviews among software practitioners, asking them to rank motivations for the adoption of open source software, and we compared these new results with the motivations elicited in previous surveys published in 2010 and 2013. The results show that motivations have actually changed over time.

show abstract

Why Do Developers Adopt Open Source Software? Past, Present and Future

Lenarduzzi

Tosi

Lavazza

et al. 2019

IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparing Requirements Decomposition Within the Scrum, Scrum with Kanban, XP, and Banana Development Processes

Taibi

Lenarduzzi

Janes

et al. 2017

Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Eliciting requirements from customers is a complex task. In Agile processes, the customer talks directly with the development team and often reports requirements in an unstructured way. The requirements elicitation process is up to the developers, who split it into user stories by means of different techniques. Objective: We aim to compare the requirements decomposition process of an unstructured process and three Agile processes, namely XP, Scrum, and Scrum with Kanban. Method: We conducted a multiple case study with a replication design, based on the project idea of an entrepreneur, a designer with no experience in software development. Four teams developed the project independently, using four different development processes. The requirements were elicited by the teams from the entrepreneur, who acted as product owner and was available to talk with the four groups during the project. Results: The teams decomposed the requirements using different techniques, based on the selected development process. Conclusion: Scrum with Kanban and XP resulted in the most effective processes from different points of view. Unexpectedly, decomposition techniques commonly adopted in traditional processes are still used in Agile processes, which may reduce project agility and performance. Therefore, we believe that decomposition techniques need to be addressed to a greater extent, both from the practitioners' and the research points of view.

show abstract