2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.im.2008.01.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The impacts of user review on software responsiveness: Moderating requirements uncertainty

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
30
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
(46 reference statements)
0
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, Law VII: The quality of E-type systems will appear to be declining unless they are rigorously maintained and adapted to operational environment changes, and Law VIII: E-type evolution processes constitute multi-level, multi-loop, multi-agent feedback systems and must be treated as such to achieve significant improvement for other than the most primitive process. These members (the wider community of users) interact with software systems to unearth bugs so as to maintain system quality [37]. Community-wide feedback, whether via their reporting of bugs, submission of enhancement requests through an issue tracker, or approving software requirements, also contributes to software improvements.…”
Section: Theory Of Software Evolutionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, Law VII: The quality of E-type systems will appear to be declining unless they are rigorously maintained and adapted to operational environment changes, and Law VIII: E-type evolution processes constitute multi-level, multi-loop, multi-agent feedback systems and must be treated as such to achieve significant improvement for other than the most primitive process. These members (the wider community of users) interact with software systems to unearth bugs so as to maintain system quality [37]. Community-wide feedback, whether via their reporting of bugs, submission of enhancement requests through an issue tracker, or approving software requirements, also contributes to software improvements.…”
Section: Theory Of Software Evolutionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Type of User Part. Choe, 1998(Choe, 1998 Involve users in requirement phase and design & implementation phase X Hsu, et al (Hsu, et al, 2008) Involve end users Involve in review of IS X Lin and Shao (Lin & Shao, 2000) Involve in planning, analysis, design, testing, and implementation. Type of involvement: consultation, representation, consensus Extend: consultative -> consensus X X Lynch and Gregor (Lynch & Gregor, 2004) Degree of user participation = type & depth Type: consultative (of some users) representative (reference group/testing group, selected users) consensus (working group with many users) X X X Depth: stages of the process frequency voice considered Rondeau et al (Rondeau, RaguNathan, & Vonderembse, 2006) Use cross-functional teams X Wagner and Piccoli (Wagner & Piccoli, 2007) Only involve users in topics that are important to them at that time.…”
Section: (Iii)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…X X X X He and King (He & King, 2008) Organizational context and ISD context X Hsu et al (Hsu, et al, 2008) Changing business environment & evolving processes resulting in uncertainty X X Lin and Shao (Lin & Shao, 2000) System impact, system complexity, development methodology System impact reduces user attitude, outsourcing reduces user involvement X X Lynch and Gregor (Lynch & Gregor, 2004) Voluntary use of IS by users & Availability of knowledge with developers If users are free to choose whether to use the system, involvement is beneficial.…”
Section: (Iii)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The consequence of poor responsiveness to customer needs in terms of defect-fixing ranges from user dissatisfaction, to unsafe software [11]. High responsiveness to defects has the potential to result not only in higher quality software, but also higher user contribution to the project.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%