Refine
Document Type
- Conference proceeding (20)
- Journal article (2)
Language
- English (22)
Has full text
- yes (22)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (22)
Institute
- Informatik (22)
Publisher
- IEEE (22) (remove)
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.
Early reduction of risks in a startup or an innovation project is highly important. Appropriate means for risk reduction, such as testing business models with different kinds of experiments exist. However, deciding what to test and how to select the right test, is challenging for many startups and innovation projects. This article presents the so-called Business Experiments Navigator (BEN), a toolkit to assist startup and innovation processes. It compliments other tools such as the Business Model Canvas or the Lean Startup process. The main contribution of BEN is to bridge the gap between the riskiest assumptions of a business model and the multitude of available testing techniques by providing assumption templates. The Business Experiments Navigator has been validated in several workshops. Results show that it creates awareness among the workshop participants that a business model is based on assumptions which impose risks and need to be validated. Further, users of BEN were able to identify relevant assumptions and map different kinds of assumptions to appropriate testing techniques. The process applied in the workshops, as well as the assumption templates, helped the participants understand the main concepts and transfer their learnings, to their own business ideas.
Software process improvement (SPI) is around for decades, but it is a critically discussed topic. In several waves, different aspects of SPI have been discussed in the past, e.g., large scale company-level SPI programs, maturity models, success factors, and in-project SPI. It is hard to find new streams or a consensus in the community, but there is a trend coming along with agile and lean software development. Apparently, practitioners reject extensive and prescriptive maturity models and move towards smaller, faster and continuous project-integrated SPI. Based on data from two survey studies conducted in Germany (2012) and Europe (2016), we analyze the process customization for projects and practices for implementing SPI in the participating companies. Our findings indicate that, even in regulated industry sectors, companies increasingly adopt in-project SPI activities, primarily with the goal to continuously optimize specific processes. Therefore, with this paper, we want to stimulate a discussion on how to evolve traditional SPI towards a continuous learning environment.
Context: The software-intensive business is characterized by increasing market dynamics, rapid technological changes, and fast-changing customer behaviors. Organizations face the challenge of moving away from traditional roadmap formats to an outcome-oriented approach that focuses on delivering value to the customer and the business. An important starting point and a prerequisite for creating such outcome-oriented roadmaps is the development of a product vision to which internal and external stakeholders can be aligned. However, the process of creating a product vision is little researched and understood.
Objective: The goal of this paper is to identify lessons-learned from product vision workshops, which were conducted to develop outcome-oriented product roadmaps.
Method: We conducted a multiple-case study consisting of two different product vision workshops in two different corporate contexts.
Results: Our results show that conducting product vision workshops helps to create a common understanding among all stakeholders about the future direction of the products. In addition, we identified key organizational aspects that contribute to the success of product vision workshops, including the participation of employees from functionally different departments.
Product roadmaps in the new mobility domain: state of the practice and industrial experiences
(2021)
Context: The New Mobility industry is a young market that includes high market dynamics and is therefore associated with a high degree of uncertainty. Traditional product roadmapping approaches such a detailed planning of features over a long-time horizon typically fail in such environments. For this reason, companies that are active in the field of New Mobility are faced with the challenge of keeping their product roadmaps reliable for stakeholders while at the same time being able to react flexibly to changing market requirements.
Objective: The goal of this paper is to identify the state of practice regarding product roadmapping of New Mobility companies. In addition, the related challenges within the product roadmapping process as well as the success factors to overcome these challenges will be highlighted.
Method: We conducted semi-structured expert interviews with 8 experts (7 German company and one Finnish company) from the field of New Mobility and performed a content analysis.
Results: Overall the results of the study showed that the participating companies are aware of the requirements that the New Mobility sector entails. Therefore, they exhibit a high level of maturity in terms of product roadmapping. Nevertheless, some aspects were revealed that pose specific challenges for the participating companies. One major challenge, for example, is that New Mobility in terms of public clients is often a tender business with non-negotiable product requirements. Thus, the product roadmap can be significantly influenced from the outside. As factors for a successful product roadmapping mainly soft factors such as trust between all people involved in the product development process and transparency throughout the entire roadmapping process were mentioned.
Context: Companies in highly dynamic markets increasingly struggle with their ability to plan product development and to create reliable roadmaps. A main reason is the decreasing lack of predictability of markets, technologies, and customer behaviors. New approaches for product roadmapping seem to be necessary in order to cope with today's highly dynamic conditions. Little research is available with respect to such new approaches. Objective: In order to better understand the state of the art and to identify research gaps, this article presents a review of the scientific literature with respect to product roadmapping. Method: We performed a systematic literature review (SLR) with respect to identify papers in the field of computer science. Results: After filtering, the search resulted in a set of 23 relevant papers. The identified papers focus on different aspects such as roadmap types, processes for creating and updating roadmaps, problems and challenges with roadmapping, approaches to visualize roadmaps, generic frameworks and specific aspects such as the combination of roadmaps with business modeling. Overall, the scientific literature covers many important aspects of roadmapping but does provide only little knowledge on how to create product roadmaps under highly dynamic conditions. Research gaps address, for instance, the inclusion of goals or outcomes into product roadmaps, the alignment of a roadmap with a product vision, and the inclusion of product discovery activities in product roadmaps. In addition, the transformation from traditional roadmapping processes to new ways of roadmapping is not sufficiently addressed in the scientific literature.
Product roadmaps are an important tool in product development. They provide direction, enable consistent development in relation to a product vision and support communication with relevant stakeholders. There are many different formats for product roadmaps, but they are often based on the assumption that the future is highly predictable. However, especially software-intensive businesses are faced with increasing market dynamics, rapidly evolving technologies and changing user expectations. As a result, many organizations are wondering what roadmap format is appropriate for them and what components it should have to deal with an unpredictable future. Objectives: To gain a better understanding of the formats of product roadmaps and their components, this paper aims to identify suitable formats for the development and handling of product roadmaps in dynamic and uncertain markets. Method: We performed a grey literature review (GLR) according to the guidelines from Garousi. Results: A Google search identified 426 articles, 25 of which were included in this study. First, various components of the roadmap were identified, especially the product vision, themes, goals, outcomes and outputs. In addition, various product roadmap formats were discovered, such as feature-based, goal-oriented, outcome-driven and a theme-based roadmap. The roadmap components were then assigned to the various product roadmap formats. This overview aims at providing initial decision support for companies to select a suitable product roadmap format and adapt it to their own needs.
In recent years companies have faced challenges by high market dynamics, rapidly evolving technologies and shifting user expectations. Together with the adaption of lean and agile practices, it is increasingly difficult to predict upfront which products, features or services will satisfy the needs of the customers and the organization. Currently, many new products fail to produce a significant financial return. One reason is that companies are not doing enough product discovery activities. Product discovery aims at tackling the various risks before the implementation of a product starts. The academic literature only provides little guidance for conducting product discovery in practice. Objective: In order to gain a better understanding of product discovery activities in practice, this paper aims at identifying motivations, approaches, challenges, risks, and pitfalls of product discovery reported in the grey literature. Method: We performed a grey literature review (GLR) according to the guidelines to Garousi et al. Results: The study shows that the main motivation for conducting product discovery activities is to reduce the uncertainty to a level that makes it possible to start building a solution that provides value for the customers and the business. Several product discovery approaches are reported in the grey literature which include different phases such as alignment, problem exploration, ideation, and validation. Main challenges are, among others, the lack of clarity of the problem to be solved, the prescription of concrete solutions through management or experts, and the lack of cross-functional collaboration.
Context: The manufacturing industry is facing a transformation with regard to Industry 4.0 (I4). A transformation towards full automation of production including a multitude of innovations is necessary. Startups and entrepreneurial processes can support such a transformation as has been shown in other industries. However, I4 has some specifics, so it is unclear how entrepreneurship can be adapted in I4. Understanding these specifics is important to develop suitable training programs for I4 startups and to accelerate the transformation.
Objective: This study identifies and outlines the essential characteristics and constraints of entrepreneurial processes in I4.
Method: 14 semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts in the field of I4 entrepreneurship. The interviews were analysed and categorized by qualitative analyses.
Results: The interviews revealed several characteristics of I4 that have a significant impact on the various phases of the entrepreneurial process. Examples of such specifics include the difficult access to customers, the necessary deep understanding of the customer and the domain, the difficulty of testing risky assumptions, and the complex development and productization of solutions. The complexity of hardware and software components, cost structures, and necessary customer-specific customizations affect the scalability of I4 startups. These essential characteristics also require specialised skills and resources from I4 startups.