Principles of canonical action research

Davison, Robert M.; Martinsons, Maris G.; Kock, Ned

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00162.x

Cited by 558 publications

(558 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

502

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Third, action research (Baskerville & Wood-Harper, 2002;Davison, Martinsons, & Kock, 2004) provides a relevant methodology for projects that meet the objectives of both research and practice. Engaged scholarship (Mathiassen & Nielsen, 2008;Van de Ven, 2004) provides a similar tradition.…”

Section: Barrier: Research Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information Systems Solutions for Environmental Sustainability: How Can We Do More?

Gholami

Watson²,

Hasan

et al. 2016

JAIS

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Barrier: Research Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information Systems Solutions for Environmental Sustainability: How Can We Do More?

Gholami

Watson²,

Hasan

et al. 2016

JAIS

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Particular threats are that second author's involvement in the release planning affects researcher bias and that already the awareness of being observed affects the behavior of practitioners [30]. The former threat was a conscious decision to increase the accuracy and completeness of the description as practiced in action research [31]. Researcher bias was controlled by triangulating data sources.…”

Section: Threats To Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Release Planning with Feature Trees: Industrial Case

Fricker

Schumacher

2012

Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. [Context and motivation] Requirements catalogues for software release planning are often not complete and homogeneous. Current release planning approaches, however, assume such commitment to detail -at least implicitly. [Question/problem] We evaluate how to relax these expectations, while at the same time reducing release planning effort and increasing decisionmaking flexibility. [Principal ideas/results] Feature trees capture AND, OR, and REQUIRES relationships between requirements. Such requirements structuring can be used to hide incompleteness and to support abstraction. [Contribution] The paper describes how to utilize feature trees for planning the releases of an evolving software solution and evaluates the effects of the approach on effort, decision-making, and trust with an industrial case.Keywords: features, abstraction, release planning, roadmapping, case study. IntroductionSoftware releases are planned by allocating requirements to development projects [1]. A strategic release plan aligns the development of an evolving software solution with market and stakeholder needs, company objectives, and constraints such as time and resources. Release planning is a central concern in iterative development, where multiple iterations, rather than a single project, are defined [2]. Release planning involves the following steps [3]. Requirements are elicited and specified. Criteria [4] are defined to evaluate and prioritize requirements [5]. Releases are then scoped by allocating the prioritized requirements to development projects. The resulting release plans are implemented, delivered, and analyzed with post-release reflections [6].Requirements that enter release planning are often of low quality [7]. Their homogeneity [8], completeness, and understanding [9] are hard to ensure due to the limited effort invested before a development project is funded. This situation contradicts with the assumptions of release planning approaches that scope projects simply by prioritizing and allocating available requirements. Consequently, the results are not trusted and not used for guiding ensuing development steps [10].Release Planning with Feature Trees: Industrial Case 289 This paper describes in detail how to hide the requirements-related problems by structuring the release planning inputs. The approach, whose initial ideas were introduced in an earlier position paper [11], is based on variability modeling [12] that allows abstracting from requirements with AND, OR, and REQUIRES relationships [13]. Variability is here used to structure decision options [14] for product evolution. This paper then introduces an industrial case [15] to understand how to use variability modeling in a real-world context of continuous agile product management [16]. Evaluated were feasibility of the approach and its effects on effort, decision-making, and trust were evaluated.The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes background and motivation. Section 3 introduces variability-based release planning. Section 4 describe...

show abstract

“…Due to the cooperative nature of this research project, the research method adopted for both companies was the participative research method, action research [4]. In order to properly describe and differentiate the research methods used, we describe them according to the five principles suggested by Davison et al [9] (table 1) and the three aspects of control structures suggested by Avison et al [3] (table 2). At the Alpha company, the research on how to use project workshops to define software process was carried out during 2003.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Software Processes Through Process Workshops: A Multicase Study

Bjørnson

Stålhane

Moe

et al.

Product-Focused Software Process Improvement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We present the application of the process workshop method to define revised work processes in software development companies. Through two empirical action research studies, we study the impact of company premises and goals on the execution and subsequently on the results of the method. We conclude that both premises and goals will influence the workshops, and suggest how the focus of the workshops should be altered to achieve better results depending on the context. We also strengthen previous claims that the process workshops are a good arena that fosters discussion and organizational learning, and that involvement in the workshops leads to higher acceptance and usage of the resulting process.

show abstract

Principles of canonical action research

Cited by 558 publications

References 55 publications

Information Systems Solutions for Environmental Sustainability: How Can We Do More?

Information Systems Solutions for Environmental Sustainability: How Can We Do More?

Release Planning with Feature Trees: Industrial Case

Defining Software Processes Through Process Workshops: A Multicase Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About