Refine
Document Type
- Conference proceeding (68)
- Journal article (21)
- Book chapter (2)
- Report (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (93)
Institute
- Informatik (93)
Publisher
- Springer (24)
- IEEE (22)
- Gesellschaft für Informatik (11)
- ACM (8)
- Elsevier (7)
- PeerJ Ltd. (2)
- RWTH Aachen (2)
- Springer Science + Business Media B.V (2)
- The Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. (2)
- Wiley-Blackwell (2)
- Association for Computing Machinery ACM (1)
- DIMECC Oy (1)
- DUZ Medienhaus (1)
- Elektronikpraxis, Vogel Business Media GmbH & Co. KG (1)
- Fachausschuß Management der Anwendungsentwicklung und -wartung (1)
- Hochschule der Medien (1)
- IARIA (1)
- IGI Publishing (1)
- Johannes Kepler University Linz (1)
- World Scientific Publishing (1)
Workshops and tutorials
(2018)
The 19th International Conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES 2018) hosted two workshops and three tutorials. The workshops and tutorials complemented and enhanced the main conference program, offering a wider knowledge perspective around the conference topics. The topics of the two workshops were Hybrid Development Approaches in Software Systems Development (HELENA) and Managing Quality in Agile & Rapid Software Development Processes (QUaSD). The topics of the tutorials were The human factor in agile transitions – using the personas concept in agile oaching, Process Management 4.0 – Best Practices, and Domain-specific languages for specification, development, and testing of autonomous systems.
Context: Companies that operate in the software-intensive business are confronted with high market dynamics, rapidly evolving technologies as well as fast-changing customer behavior. Traditional product roadmapping practices, such as fixed-time-based charts including detailed planned features, products, or services typically fail in such environments. Until now, the underlying reasons for the failure of product roadmaps in a dynamic and uncertain market environment are not widely analyzed and understood.
Objective: This paper aims to identify current challenges and pitfalls practitioners face when developing and handling product roadmaps in a dynamic and uncertain market environment.
Method: To reach our objective we conducted a grey literature review (GLR).
Results: Overall, we identified 40 relevant papers, from which we could extract 11 challenges of the application of product roadmapping in a dynamic and uncertain market environment. The analysis of the articles showed that the major challenges for practitioners originate from overcoming a feature-driven mindset, not including a lot of details in the product roadmap, and ensuring that the content of the roadmap is not driven by management or expert opinion.
Objective: This paper aims at getting an understanding of current problems and challenges with roadmapping processes in companies that are facing volatile markets with innovative products. It also aims at gathering ideas and attempts on how to react to those challenges.
Method: As an initial step towards the objectice a semi-structured expert interview study with a case company in the Smart Home domain was conducted. Four employees from the case company with different roles around product roadmaps have been interviewed and a content analysis of the data has been performed.
Results: The study shows a significant consensus among the interviewees about several major challenges and the necessity to change the traditional roadmapping process and format. The interviewees stated that based on their experience traditional feature-based product roadmaps are increasingly losing their benefits (such as good planning certainty) in volatile environments. Furthermore, the ability to understand customer needs and behaviors has become highly important for creating and adjusting product roadmaps. The interviewees see the need for both, sufficiently stable goals on the roadmap and flexibility with respect to products or features to be developed. To reach this target the interviewees proposed to create roadmaps based on outcome goals instead of product features. In addition, it was proposed to decrease the level of detail of the roadmaps and to emphasize the long-term view. Decisions about which feature to develop should be open as long as possible. Expected benefits of such a new way of product roadmapping are higher user centricity, a stable overall direction, more flexibility with respect to development decisions, and less breaking of commitments.
Software development consists to a large extend of humanbased processes with continuously increasing demands regarding interdisciplinary team work. Understanding the dynamics of software teams can be seen as highly important to successful project execution. Hence, for future project managers, knowledge about non-technical processes in teams is significant. In this paper, we present a course unit that provides an environment in which students can learn and experience the impact of group dynamics on project performance and quality. The course unit uses the Tuckman model as theoretical framework, and borrows from controlled experiments to organize and implement its practical parts in which students then experience the effects of, e.g., time pressure, resource bottlenecks, staff turnover, loss of key personnel, and other stress factors. We provide a detailed design of the course unit to allow for implementation in further software project management courses. Furthermore, we provide experiences obtained from two instances of this unit conducted in Munich and Karlskrona with 36 graduate students. We observed students building awareness of stress factors and developing counter measures to reduce impact of those factors. Moreover, students experienced what problems occur when teams work under stress and how to form a performing team despite exceptional situations.
Context: Organizations are increasingly challenged by dynamic and technical market environments. Traditional product roadmapping practices such as detailed and fixed long-term planning typically fail in such environments. Therefore, companies are actively seeking ways to improve their product roadmapping approach. Goal: This paper aims at identifying problems and challenges with respect to product roadmapping. In addition, it aims at understanding how companies succeed in improving their roadmapping practices in their respective company contexts. The study focuses on mid-sized and large companies developing software-intensive products in dynamic and technical market environments. Method: We conducted semi structured expert interviews with 15 experts from 13 German companies and conducted a thematic data analysis. Results: The analysis showed that a significant number of companies is still struggling with traditional feature based product-roadmapping and opinion based prioritization of features. The most promising areas for improvement are stating the outcomes a company is trying to achieve and making them part of the roadmap, sharing or co-developing the roadmap with stakeholders, and the establishing discovery activities.
Context: Organizations are increasingly challenged by dynamic and technical market environments. Traditional product roadmapping practices such as detailed and fixed long-term planning typically fail in such environments. Therefore, companies are actively seeking ways to improve their product roadmapping approach.
Goal: This paper aims at identifying problems and challenges with respect to product roadmapping. In addition, it aims at understanding how companies succeed in improving their roadmapping practices in their respective company contexts.
Method: We conducted semi-structured expert interviews with 15 experts from 13 German companies and conducted athematic data analysis.
Results: The analysis showed that a significant number of companies is still struggling with traditional feature-based product-roadmapping and opinion-based prioritization of features. The most promising areas for improvement are stating the outcomes a company is trying to achieve and making them part of the roadmap, sharing or co-developing the roadmap with stakeholders, and establishing discovery activities.
Together with many success stories, promises such as the increase in production speed and the improvement in stakeholders' collaboration have contributed to making agile a transformation in the software industry in which many companies want to take part. However, driven either by a natural and expected evolution or by contextual factors that challenge the adoption of agile methods as prescribed by their creator(s), software processes in practice mutate into hybrids over time. Are these still agile In this article, we investigate the question: what makes a software development method agile We present an empirical study grounded in a large-scale international survey that aims to identify software development methods and practices that improve or tame agility. Based on 556 data points, we analyze the perceived degree of agility in the implementation of standard project disciplines and its relation to used development methods and practices. Our findings suggest that only a small number of participants operate their projects in a purely traditional or agile manner (under 15%). That said, most project disciplines and most practices show a clear trend towards increasing degrees of agility. Compared to the methods used to develop software, the selection of practices has a stronger effect on the degree of agility of a given discipline. Finally, there are no methods or practices that explicitly guarantee or prevent agility. We conclude that agility cannot be defined solely at the process level. Additional factors need to be taken into account when trying to implement or improve agility in a software company. Finally, we discuss the field of software process-related research in the light of our findings and present a roadmap for future research.
Among the multitude of software development processes available, hardly any is used by the book. Regardless of company size or industry sector, a majority of project teams and companies use customized processes that combine different development methods— so-called hybrid development methods. Even though such hybrid development methods are highly individualized, a common understanding of how to systematically construct synergetic practices is missing. In this paper, we make a first step towards devising such guidelines. Grounded in 1,467 data points from a large-scale online survey among practitioners, we study the current state of practice in process use to answer the question: What are hybrid development methods made of? Our findings reveal that only eight methods and few practices build the core of modern software development. This small set allows for statistically constructing hybrid development methods. Using an 85% agreement level in the participants’ selections, we provide two examples illustrating how hybrid development methods are characterized by the practices they are made of. Our evidence-based analysis approach lays the foundation for devising hybrid development methods.
Regardless of company size or industry sector, a majority of project teams and companies use customized processes that combine different development methods-so-called hybrid development methods. Even though such hybrid development methods are highly individualized, a common understanding of how to systematically construct synergetic practices is missing. Based on 1,467 data points from a large-scale online survey among practitioners, we study the current state of practice in process use to answer the question: What are hybrid development methods made of? Our findings reveal that only eight methods and few practices build the core of modern software development. This small set allows for statistically constructing hybrid development methods.
Context: Organizations increasingly develop software in a distributed manner. The cloud provides an environment to create and maintain software-based products and services. Currently, it is unknown which software processes are suited for cloud-based development and what their effects in specific contexts are.
Objective: We aim at better understanding the software process applied to distributed software development using the cloud as development environment. We further aim at providing an instrument which helps project managers comparing different solution approaches and to adapt team processes to improve future project activities and outcomes.
Method: We provide a simulation model which helps analyzing different project parameters and their impact on projects performed in the cloud. To evaluate the simulation model, we conduct different analyses using a Scrumban process and data from a project executed in Finland and Spain. An extra adaptation of the simulation model for Scrum and Kanban was used to evaluate the suitability of the simulation model to cover further process models.
Results: A comparison of the real project data with the results obtaind from the different simulation runs shows the simulation producing results close to the real data, and we could successfully replicate a distributed software project. Furthermore, we could show that the simulation model is suitable to address further process models.
Conclusion: The simulator helps reproducing activities, developers, and events in the project, and it helps analyzing potential tradeoffs, e.g., regarding throughput, total time, project size, team size and work-in-progress limits. Furthermore, the simulation model supports project managers selecting the most suitable planning alternative thus supporting decision-making processes.