Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering

CAiSE 2019: Information Systems Engineering in Responsible Information Systems pp 87–98Cite as

Blurring Boundaries

Towards the Collective Team Grokking of Product Requirements

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

  • 891 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 350))

Abstract

Software development has become increasingly software ‘product’ development, without an authoritative ‘customer’ stakeholder that many requirements engineering processes assume exists in some form. Many progressive software product companies today are empowering cross-functional product teams to ‘own’ their product – to collectively understand the product context, the true product needs, and manage its on-going evolution – rather than develop to a provided specification.

Some teams do this better than others and neither established requirements elicitation and validation processes nor conventional team leadership practices explain the reasons for these observable differences. This research examines cross-functional product teams and identifies factors that support or inhibit the team’s ability to collectively create and nurture a shared mental model that accurately represents the external product domain and its realities. The research also examines how teams use that collective understanding to shape development plans, internal and external communications, new team member onboarding, etc.

We are engaged with several software product companies using a constructivist Grounded Theory method towards the research question.

Early results are emerging as organisational factors, within and surrounding the teams. One emerging observation relates to the degree to which functional distinctions are treated as demarcations or blurred boundaries. The other observation is the impact an expectation of mobility has on an individual’s sense of feeling part of the collective team versus solely being a functional expert. This also becomes a factor in the first observation.

The research is in-progress but early observations are consistent with a basic element of empathy that a certain blurring of the boundaries is necessary for a period of time in order to better understand the other context. Future research will examine whether the observed organisational factors are pre-conditions for the team being able to collectively understand the context of the product requirements, collectively and deeply.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Grok: Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kuhn, T.S.: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th edn. University of Chicago Press, London (2012)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Polanyi, M.: The tacit dimension. In: Knowledge in Organisations (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cohn, M.: User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley Professional, Boston (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ralph, P.: The illusion of requirements in software development. Requirements Eng. 18(3), 293–296 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mohanani, R., Ralph, P., Shreeve, B.: Requirements fixation. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 895–906 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Guinan, P.J., Cooprider, J.G., Faraj, S.: Enabling software development team performance during requirements definition: a behavioral versus technical approach. Inf. Syst. Res. 9(2), 101–125 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ralph, P., Mohanani, R.: Is requirements engineering inherently counterproductive?. In: Proceedings - 5th International Workshop on the Twin Peaks of Requirements and Architecture, TwinPeaks 2015 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Koppen, E., Meinel, C.: Knowing people: the empathetic designer. Des. Philos. Pap. 10(1), 35–51 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Van Rijn, H., Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P.J., Özakar, A.D.: Achieving empathy with users: the effects of different sources of information. CoDesign 7(2), 65–77 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Postma, C., Zwartkruis-Pelgrim, E., Daemen, E., Du, J.: Challenges of doing empathic design: experiences from industry. Int. J. Des. 6(1) (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Woodcock, A., McDonagh, D., Osmond, J., Scott, W.: Empathy, design and human factors. In: Advances in Usability and User Experience, pp. 569–579 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dong, Y., Dong, H., Yuan, S.: Empathy in design: a historical and cross-disciplinary perspective. In: Baldwin, C. (ed.) AHFE 2017. AISC, vol. 586, pp. 295–304. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60642-2_28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Kouprie, M., Sleeswijk-Visser, F.: A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out of the user’s life. J. Eng. Des. 20(5), 437–448 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kolko, J.: Well-Designed: How to Create Empathy to Create Products People Love. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wieringa, R.: Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering. Springer, Berlin (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43839-8

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Russell, D., Pirolli, P.: An Overview of Sensemaking: A View from the Workshop CHI 2009. Sensemaking Work. CHI, pp. 1–2 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kurtz, C.F., Snowden, D.: The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex-complicated world. IBM Syst. J. 42(3), 462–483 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Klein, G., Moon, B., Hoffman, R., Associates, K.: Making Sense of Sensemaking 2: a macrocognitive model. IEEE Intell. Syst. 21(5), 88–92 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Naumer, C., Fisher, K., Dervin, B.: Sense-Making: a methodological perspective. In: CHI 2008 Work. Sense-Making Florence (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kolko, J.: Sensemaking and framing: a theoretical reflection on perspective in design synthesis. In: 2010 Design Research Society Conference, pp. 1–9 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Isabella, L.A.: Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: how managers construe key organisational events. Acad. Manag. J. 33(1), 7–41 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Weick, K.E., Roberts, K.H.: Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks. Adm. Sci. Q. 357–381 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.: The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 19(4), 9–30 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gable, G., Sedera, D., Taizan, C.: Re-conceptualizing information system success: the IS-Impact measurement model. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 9(7), 1–32 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Oliver, R.L.: Effect of expectation and disconfirmation on post exposure product evaluations - an alternative interpretation. J. Appl. Psychol. 62(4), 480 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Oliver, R.L.: A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J. Mark. Res. 17, 460–469 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bhattacherjee, A.: Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation - confirmation model. MIS Q. 25(3), 351–370 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Transaction, Piscataway (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Charmaz, K.: Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage, London (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Adolph, S., Hall, W., Kruchten, P.: Using grounded theory to study the experience of software development. Empirical Softw. Eng. 16(4), 487–513 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dagenais, B., Ossher, H., Bellamy, R.K.E., Robillard, M.P., De Vries, J.P.: Moving into a new software project landscape. In: ICSE 2010 Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 275–284 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Coleman, G., O’Connor, R.: Using grounded theory to understand software process improvement: a study of Irish software product companies. Inf. Softw. Technol. 49(6), 654–667 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Martin, A.M.: The role of customers in extreme programming projects. Ph.D. thesis. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hoda, R.: Self-organizing agile teams : a grounded theory. Ph.D thesis. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Eisner, E.W.: The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and The Enhancement of Educational Practice. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Maxwell, J.A.: Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Krznaric, R.: Empathy: Why It Matters, And How to Get It. Penguin Random House, New York (2014)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada

    Rob Fuller

Authors
  1. Rob Fuller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rob Fuller .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Cinzia Cappiello

  2. Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Marcela Ruiz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Fuller, R. (2019). Blurring Boundaries. In: Cappiello, C., Ruiz, M. (eds) Information Systems Engineering in Responsible Information Systems. CAiSE 2019. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 350. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21297-1_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21297-1_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-21296-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-21297-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation