What Counts as Software Process? Negotiating the Boundary of Software Work Through Artifacts and Conversation

Cohn, Marisa Leavitt; Sim, Susan Elliott; Lee, Charlotte P.

doi:10.1007/s10606-009-9100-4

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The scope of coverage is quite broad, ranging from group editing, workflow, group scheduling and software design (see e.g., Coleman and Khanna 1995;Schmidt and Bannon 1992;Cohn et al 2009). Research in these two areas has investigated many important issues in using IT to support group works, but they also encountered certain difficulties and were not very successful in investigating group decision making.…”

Section: Research In Group Support Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework for Adopting Collaboration 2.0 Tools for Virtual Group Decision Making

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision making in virtual teams is gaining momentum due to globalization, mobility of employees, and the need for collective and rapid decision making by members who are in different locations. These factors resulted in a proliferation of virtual team software support tools for decision making, the latest of which is social software (also known as collaboration 2.0), which includes tools such as wikis, blogs, microblogs, discussion forums, and social networking platforms. This paper describes the potential use of collaboration 2.0 software for improving the process and the specific tasks in virtual group decision making. The paper proposes a framework for exploring the fitness between social software and the major activities in the group decision making process and how such tools can be successfully adopted. Specifically, we use a fit-viability model to help assessing whether social software fit a decision task and what organizational factors are important for such tools to be effective. Representative research issues related to the use of such tools are also presented.123 138 E. Turban et al.

show abstract

Section: Research In Group Support Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework for Adopting Collaboration 2.0 Tools for Virtual Group Decision Making

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Stamper, 1973;KaasboU, 1987;Auramäki et al, 1988;Holmqvist, 1989;Marakas and Elam, 1998;Gopal and Prasad, 2000;Stamper et al, 2000;Clarke, 2001;Urquhart, 2001;Alvarez and Urla, 2002;Wynn et al, 2002;Cohn et al, 2009;Pernille and Ojelanki, 2009;Beynon-Davies, 2010;Hansen and Rennecker, 2010;Holten and Rosenkranz, 2011). Specifically, the major focus on the study of language in IS research has been set by researchers using the Language-Action Perspective (LAP) (Goldkuhl and Lyytinen, 1982;Winograd and Flores, 1986;Flores et al, 1988;Hirschheim et al, 1995: 202;Schoop, 2001).…”

Section: Isd and Requirements Development As A Language Development Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language Quality in Requirements Development: Tracing Communication in the Process of Information Systems Development

Rosenkranz

Charaf

Holten

2013

Journal of Information Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge transfer, communication, and shared understanding between project stakeholders are important factors in requirements deveiopment and in the information systems development process. Nevertheless, the impact and analysis of language and linguistic communication during requirements development is still an open issue. In our research, we claim that requirements development depends on the ability to deal with language and communication issues in practice and reach shared understanding of requirements. We propose the concept of language quality as a suitable means for analyzing the emergence of coherent and meaningful requirements. By applying the thereby developed dimensions of language quality to a real information systems development project, we are able to obtain practice-grounded propositions to further evaluate the consequences of different actions on the interaction and communication process of stakeholders in requirements development.

show abstract

“…Linguistic communication in ISD has been previously examined in different contexts and using different approaches, for example, linguistic narratives (Alvarez & Urla, 2002), collective hermeneutics (Hansen & Rennecker, 2010), conversation as artefacts (Cohn et al ., 2009), semantic structuring of inquiry (Marakas & Elam, 1998), or conversation strategies (Urquhart, 2001). The most influential contribution has been provided by the Language‐Action Perspective (LAP; Winograd, 1988; Schoop, 2001).…”

Section: Related Work and Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

The emergence of shared understanding: applying functional pragmatics to study the requirements development process

Charaf¹,

Rosenkranz²,

Holten³

2012

Information Systems Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the importance of social interactions and especially communication is generally acknowledged in information systems development and requirements development, there are few studies that investigate communication.Departing from the conceptualisation of information systems development as a language development and formalisation process, we focus on linguistic communication and the development of language-based shared understanding of requirements. We investigate and analyse the semantic alignment process by which stakeholders achieve shared understanding in requirements development. We adopt Functional Pragmatics and examine how linguistic communication is shaped and regulated during requirements development in an actual project. By developing a pattern for semantic alignment and its use as an analytical lens, we enable a systematic and insightful understanding of communication in information systems development.

show abstract

What Counts as Software Process? Negotiating the Boundary of Software Work Through Artifacts and Conversation

Cited by 23 publications

References 17 publications

A Framework for Adopting Collaboration 2.0 Tools for Virtual Group Decision Making

A Framework for Adopting Collaboration 2.0 Tools for Virtual Group Decision Making

Language Quality in Requirements Development: Tracing Communication in the Process of Information Systems Development

The emergence of shared understanding: applying functional pragmatics to study the requirements development process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About