Using agents to manage Socio-Technical Congruence in a Global Software Engineering project

Portillo-Rodríguez, Javier; Vizcaíno, Aurora; Piattini, Mario; Beecham, Sarah

doi:10.1016/j.ins.2014.01.009

Cited by 19 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(2011), Portillo-Rodríguez et al. (2014)6OtherWorkshop Wang et al. (2012), Simmons (2003), de Souza and Fonseca (2007), Surjaputra and Maheshwari (1999)4 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, the Alarcos Research Group at the University of Castilla-La Mancha in Spain authored 11 studies regarding tools used in SPM for GSD projects (Portillo-Rodríguez et al. 2010, 2012, 2014; Jiménez et al. 2009; Garrido et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(2012)Fonseca’s ToolxRes.SATx Portillo-Rodríguez et al. (2012, 2014)Vathsavayi et al’s ToolxRes.SATx Vathsavayi et al. (2014)ABC4GSDxxRes.SATxx Tell and Ali Babar (2011b)ActiveCollabxxCmlPlat.xxx Lanubile et al.…”

Section: Appendixunclassified

“…(2012)AriadnexRes.Pluginxx Portillo-Rodríguez et al. (2012, 2014), Al-Ani et al. (2014)AssemblaxCmlEnv.xx Portillo-Rodríguez et al.…”

Section: Appendixunclassified

See 3 more Smart Citations

Software project management tools in global software development: a systematic mapping study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global software development (GSD) which is a growing trend in the software industry is characterized by a highly distributed environment. Performing software project management (SPM) in such conditions implies the need to overcome new limitations resulting from cultural, temporal and geographic separation. The aim of this research is to discover and classify the various tools mentioned in literature that provide GSD project managers with support and to identify in what way they support group interaction. A systematic mapping study has been performed by means of automatic searches in five sources. We have then synthesized the data extracted and presented the results of this study. A total of 102 tools were identified as being used in SPM activities in GSD. We have classified these tools, according to the software life cycle process on which they focus and how they support the 3C collaboration model (communication, coordination and cooperation). The majority of the tools found are standalone tools (77%). A small number of platforms (8%) also offer a set of interacting tools that cover the software development lifecycle. Results also indicate that SPM areas in GSD are not adequately supported by corresponding tools and deserve more attention from tool builders.

show abstract

“…(2011), Portillo-Rodríguez et al. (2014)6OtherWorkshop Wang et al. (2012), Simmons (2003), de Souza and Fonseca (2007), Surjaputra and Maheshwari (1999)4 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Appendixunclassified

“…(2012)AriadnexRes.Pluginxx Portillo-Rodríguez et al. (2012, 2014), Al-Ani et al. (2014)AssemblaxCmlEnv.xx Portillo-Rodríguez et al.…”

Section: Appendixunclassified

See 2 more Smart Citations

Software project management tools in global software development: a systematic mapping study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Failure to understand and to identify risks leads to software development failures (Stahl & Bosch, 2014;Reyes et al, 2011). Literature on how to manage a development project often refers to cost, time, and quality as the key project success criteria; however, there are also many other different, broad, and overlapping definitions of project success and failures (Portillo-Rodríguez et al, 2014;Jorgensen, 2010;Baccarini et al, 2004;Linberg, 1999;Ropponen, 2000). Various researchers observe that in practice it may be very difficult to claim the project was really successful or a failure (Martín & Yelmo, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Factor reduction and clustering for operational risk in software development

Mohd-Rahim¹,

Chen²,

Boussabaine³

et al. 2014

JOP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software development failures frequently emerge as a result of the failure to understand and identify risks.The aim of this paper is to identify the most salient risk factors during a software development project lifecycle, in terms of occurrence likelihood and impacts on cost overrun. A questionnaire survey was circulated to 2000 software development companies, IT consultancy and management companies, and web development companies in the UK, USA, Europe, India, China, Japan, Canada, Australia and Asian countries.This asked respondents to evaluate a number of risk factors. However, many factors were closely related and so we apply a factor reduction and clustering process to allow a smaller number of crucial risk factors to be identified. The three main clusters of risk factors identified in this study are 'feasibility study', 'project team management', and 'technology requirements'. While 'feasibility study' may be unlikely to occur it can have significant impact on outcomes; 'project team management' is likely to occur but has relatively little impact on outcomes in comparison to 'technology requirements'. Professionals will need to carefully check and balance these factors and generate a risk mitigation plan to reduce the severity of the project failures. These results allow them to connect the probability of occurrence and overall impact to focus their scarce resources on reducing the most pertinent risks in their project.Keywords: factor reduction, factor clustering, software development risk, risk occurrence likelihood, cost overrun INTRODUCTIONSoftware projects are dynamic and tend to have volatile requirements making them difficult to manage and control as the project scope can change frequently. Failure to understand and to identify risks leads to software development failures (Stahl & Bosch, 2014;Reyes et al., 2011). Literature on how to manage a development project often refers to cost, time, and quality as the key project success criteria; however, there are also many other different, broad, and overlapping definitions of project success and failures (Portillo-Rodríguez et al., 2014;Jorgensen, 2010;Baccarini et al., 2004;Linberg, 1999;Ropponen, 2000). Various researchers observe that in practice it may be very difficult to claim the project was really successful or a failure (Martín & Yelmo, 2014). A single project can be considered successful by one stakeholder and failure by another (Naquin & Tynan, 2003;Thüm et al., 2014). This is a copy of the "Post-print" (i.e., final authors' copy, post-refereeing). Published as:Mohd-Rahim, F. A., Wang, C., Boussabaine, H., . Factor reduction and clustering for operational risk in software development. Journal of Operational Risk, 9(3), 53-88. IT literature has produced a number of conceptual frameworks to explain different types of software development risk, risk management strategies and measures of software project performance (Dingsoyr et al., 2012;Nidumolu, 1996;. Many studies suggest that failure to manage risks causes common problems such as cost...

show abstract

Understanding Software‐centered Evolutive Ecosystems through Activity Theory

Camargo‐Henríquez

Silva

2023

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes an interdisciplinary approach aimed to bring into practice some novel Software Engineering theoretical paradigms. The premise of these news paradigms is based on the idea of “ecologies” as realities that take place in the environment of a Software product. These “ecologies” are understood as tight but flexible interactions between the human, social, and technical components involved, where Software is just another component. However, the theoretical paradigms discussed do not offer a viable way to make sense of these ecologies into the practice of Software design and development. Thus, as a more operationalized approach, this paper proposes a framework based on Networks of Activities, a concept derived from Activity Theory, as a resource to help in the design, development, and evolution of these new emergent complex socio‐technical ecologies. This framework has been conceived as a tool for the design, capture, and, especially, to analyze the evolution of these ecologies. The concepts and notations used by the proposed approach are illustrated through a proof of concept that shows the essential ideas and their use in real scenarios. In this way, the concepts discussed contribute to the improvement of related fields like Requirements Engineering, Human‐Computer Interaction, or Software Architecture, among others.

show abstract

Using agents to manage Socio-Technical Congruence in a Global Software Engineering project

Cited by 19 publications

References 15 publications

Software project management tools in global software development: a systematic mapping study

Software project management tools in global software development: a systematic mapping study

Factor reduction and clustering for operational risk in software development

Understanding Software‐centered Evolutive Ecosystems through Activity Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About