Refine
Document Type
- Conference proceeding (25)
- Journal article (1)
Language
- English (26)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (26)
Institute
- Informatik (26)
Publisher
- Springer (10)
- IEEE (9)
- ACM (2)
- Gesellschaft für Informatik (2)
- Elsevier (1)
- Johannes Kepler University Linz (1)
- RWTH Aachen (1)
Software development teams have to face stress caused by deadlines, staff turnover, or individual differences in commitment, expertise, and time zones. While students are typically taught the theory of software project management, their exposure to such stress factors is usually limited. However, preparing students for the stress they will have to endure once they work in project teams is important for their own sake, as well as for the sake of team performance in the face of stress. Team performance has been linked to the diversity of software development teams, but little is known about how diversity influences the stress experienced in teams. In order to shed light on this aspect, we provided students with the opportunity to self-experience the basics of project management in self-organizing teams, and studied the impact of six diversity dimensions on team performance, coping with stressors, and positive perceived learning effects. Three controlled experiments at two universities with a total of 65 participants suggest that the social background impacts the perceived stressors the most, while age and work experience have the highest impact on perceived learnings. Most diversity dimensions have a medium correlation with the quality of work, yet no significant relation to the team performance. This lays the foundation to improve students’ training for software engineering teamwork based on their diversity-related needs and to create diversity-sensitive awareness among educators, employers and researchers.
Context: Agile practices as well as UX methods are nowadays well-known and often adopted to develop complex software and products more efficiently and effectively. However, in the so called VUCA environment, which many companies are confronted with, the sole use of UX research is not sufficient to find the best solutions for customers. The implementation of Design Thinking can support this process. But many companies and their product owners don’t know how much resources they should spend for conducting Design Thinking.
Objective: This paper aims at suggesting a supportive tool, the “Discovery Effort Worthiness (DEW) Index”, for product owners and agile teams to determine a suitable amount of effort that should be spent for Design Thinking activities.
Method: A case study was conducted for the development of the DEW index. Design Thinking was introduced into the regular development cycle of an industry Scrum team. With the support of UX and Design Thinking experts, a formula was developed to determine the appropriate effort for Design Thinking.
Results: The developed “Discovery Effort Worthiness Index” provides an easy-to-use tool for companies and their product owners to determine how much effort they should spend on Design Thinking methods to discover and validate requirements. A company can map the corresponding Design Thinking methods to the results of the DEW Index calculation, and product owners can select the appropriate measures from this mapping. Therefore, they can optimize the effort spent for discovery and validation.
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: 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.
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.
Through increasing market dynamics, rapidly evolving technologies and shifting user expectations coupled with the adoption of lean and agile practices, companies are struggling with their ability to provide reliable product roadmaps by applying traditional approaches. Currently, most companies are seeking opportunities to improve their product roadmapping practices. As a first challenge they have to assess their current product roadmapping capabilities in order to better understand how to improve their practices and how to switch to a new approach. The aim of this article is to provide an initial maturity model for product roadmapping practices that is especially suited for assessing the roadmapping capabilities of companies operating in dynamic and uncertain market environments. Based on interviews with 15 experts from 13 various companies the current state of practice regarding product roadmapping was identified. Afterwards, the model development was conducted in the context of expert workshops with the Robert Bosch GmbH and researchers. The study results in the so-called DEEP 1.0 product roadmap maturity model which allows companies to conduct a self assessment of their product roadmapping practice.
Context: Organizations are increasingly challenged by high market dynamics, rapidly evolving technologies and shifting user expectations. In consequence, many organizations are struggling with their ability to provide reliable product roadmaps by applying traditional roadmapping approaches. Currently, many companies are seeking opportunities to improve their product roadmapping practices and strive for new roadmapping approaches. A typical first step towards advancing the roadmapping capabilities of an organization is to assess the current situation. Therefore, the so-called maturity model DEEP for assessing the product roadmapping capabilities of companies operating in dynamic and uncertain environments has been developed and published by the authors.
Objective: The aim of this article is to conduct an initial validation of the DEEP model in order to understand its applicability better and to see if important concepts are missing. In addition, the aim of this article is to evolve the model based on the findings from the initial validation.
Method: The model has been given to practitioners such as product managers with the request to perform a self-assessment of the current product roadmapping practices in their company. Afterwards, interviews with each participant have been conducted in order to gain insights.
Results: The initial validation revealed that some of the stages of the model need to be rearranged and minor usability issues were found. The overall structure of the model was well received. The study resulted in the development of the version 1.1 of the DEEP product roadmap maturity model which is also presented in this article.
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.
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.