Software Development Process Ambidexterity and Project Performance: A Coordination Cost-Effectiveness View

Werder, Karl; Li, Ye; Maedche, Alexander; Ramesh, Balasubramaniam

doi:10.1109/tse.2019.2904571

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 106 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For completeness, it includes risk and satisfaction as additional criteria, and the related arrows underline that performance along the six dimensions affects the satisfaction with the project and the total risk associated with it. Varying the team size (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9). Collective ownership.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, I prefer to use a more general expression "quantity per time" 8. I prefer the term "sprint" to "iteration" since sprints do not necessarily only iterate but usually implement new (additional) functionalities 9. Furthermore, research has reported software development teams with nine people and more to be less productive than smaller teams(Rodriguez, Sicilia, García, & Harrison, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Paradox Lens to Systems Development Projects: The Case of the Agile Software Development

Iivari¹

2021

CAIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research into organizations has concluded that organizational effectiveness is paradoxical (i.e., effective organizations must have simultaneously contradictory, even mutually exclusive, attributes). Although systems development projects constitute temporary organizations, researchers have largely omitted the paradox lens in their context. In this paper, I move toward rectifying the situation by focusing specifically on the agile software development (ASD) as a timely systems development approach in practice. I identify 11 interrelated and actable paradoxical tensions concerning the priority, structure, and execution of systems development projects. Each tension imposes competing demands on projects. To address them requires human ingenuity and judgement, though systems development methods and approaches can provide aid. I show that ASD comprises mechanisms for that purpose largely due to the reflective nature of the ASD process in which each retrospective assesses what went well in the previous sprint (iteration) and what could be improved in the next sprint. At the same time, ASD has built-in flexibility that makes it possible to adapt the method-in-use when deemed necessary or reasonable.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Paradox Lens to Systems Development Projects: The Case of the Agile Software Development

Iivari¹

2021

CAIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

On Estimating the Feasible Solution Space of Multi-objective Testing Resource Allocation

Zhang,

Li,

et al. 2024

ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The multi-objective testing resource allocation problem (MOTRAP) is concerned on how to reasonably plan the testing time of software testers to save the cost and improve the reliability as much as possible. The feasible solution space of a MOTRAP is determined by its variables (i.e., the time invested in each component) and constraints (e.g., the pre-specified reliability, cost, or time). Although a variety of state-of-the-art constrained multi-objective optimisers can be used to find individual solutions in this space, their search remains inefficient and expensive due to the fact that this space is very tiny compare to the large search space. The decision maker may often suffer a prolonged but unsuccessful search that fails to return a feasible solution. In this work, we first formulate a heavily constrained MOTRAP on the basis of an architecture-based model, in which reliability, cost, and time are optimised under the pre-specified multiple constraints on reliability, cost, and time. Then, to estimate the feasible solution space of this specific MOTRAP, we develop theoretical and algorithmic approaches to deduce new tighter lower and upper bounds on variables from constraints. Importantly, our approach can help the decision maker identify whether their constraint settings are practicable, and meanwhile, the derived bounds can just enclose the tiny feasible solution space and help off-the-shelf constrained multi-objective optimisers make the search within the feasible solution space as much as possible. Additionally, to further make good use of these bounds, we propose a generalised bound constraint handling method that can be readily employed by constrained multi-objective optimisers to pull infeasible solutions back into the estimated space with theoretical guarantee. Finally, we evaluate our approach on application and empirical cases. Experimental results reveal that our approach significantly enhances the efficiency, effectiveness, and robustness of off-the-shelf constrained multi-objective optimisers and state-of-the-art bound constraint handling methods at finding high-quality solutions for the decision maker. These improvements may help the decision maker take the stress out of setting constraints and selecting constrained multi-objective optimisers and facilitate the testing planning more efficiently and effectively.

show abstract

Software Development Process Ambidexterity and Project Performance: A Coordination Cost-Effectiveness View

Cited by 2 publications

References 106 publications

A Paradox Lens to Systems Development Projects: The Case of the Agile Software Development

A Paradox Lens to Systems Development Projects: The Case of the Agile Software Development

On Estimating the Feasible Solution Space of Multi-objective Testing Resource Allocation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About