Skip to main content

Why the Development Outcome Does Not Meet the Product Owners’ Expectations?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming (XP 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 212))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Many software development projects fail due to problems in requirements, scope, and collaboration. This paper presents a case study of the mismatch between the expectations of Product Owners and the outcome of the development in a large distributed Scrum organization. The data was collected in retrospective meetings involving a team of Product Owners and two software development teams. A focused root cause analysis of the problem “Why the expectations of Product Owners do not meet the outcome of development teams?” was conducted. The analysis aimed at explaining why the problem occurred and how the causes were related to one another. The outcomes were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Our results illustrate the challenges of implementing the Product Owner role in the context of complex, high-variability requirements and distributed development. We highlight the importance of true collaboration, effective requirements specification activities, and sufficient resources for the Product Owner role.

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

Access this chapter

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 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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Verner, J.M., Abdullah, L.M.: Exploratory case study research: Outsourced project failure. Information and Software Technology 54, 866–886 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Moløkken-Østvold, K., Jørgensen, M.: A comparison of software project overruns - flexible versus sequential development models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(9), 754–766 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lehtinen, T.O.A., Mäntylä, M.V., Vanhanen, J., Lassenius, C., Itkonen, J.: Perceived Causes of Software Project Failures – An Analysis of their Relationships. Information and Software Technology 56(6), 623–643 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. McLeod, L., MacDonell, S.G.: Factors that affect Software Systems Development Project Outcomes: A Survey of Research. ACM Computing Surveys 43, 24–55 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J.: Scrum guide. Scrum Alliance (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lee, S., Yong, H.: Distributed agile: project management in a global environment. Empirical Software Engineering 15, 204–217 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Paasivaara, M., Heikkila, V.T., Lassenius, C.: Experiences in scaling the product owner role in large-scale globally distributed scrum. In: Seventh International Conference On Global Software Engineering (ICGSE), pp. 174–178. IEEE (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Moe, N.B., Dingsøyr, T., Dybå, T.: A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case study of a Scrum project. Information and Software Technology 52, 480–491 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Strode, D.E., Huff, S.L., Hope, B., Link, S.: Coordination in co-located agile software development projects. J. Syst. Software 85, 1222–1238 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bjarnason, E., Wnuk, K., Regnell, B.: Are you biting off more than you can chew? A case study on causes and effects of overscoping in large-scale software engineering. Information and Software Technology 54, 1107–1124 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yin, R.K. (ed.): Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications, United States of America (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lehtinen, T.O.A., Virtanen, R., Viljanen, J.O., Mäntylä, M.V., Lassenius, C.: A tool Supporting root cause analysis for synchronous retrospectives in distributed software teams. Information and Software Technology 56(4), 408–437 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Patton, M.Q.: Qualitative Research. Sage (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lehtinen, T.O.A., Mäntylä, M.V., Vanhanen, J.: Development and evaluation of a lightweight root cause analysis method (ARCA method) – field studies at four software companies. Information and Software Technology 53(10), 1045–1061 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Runeson, P., Höst, M.: Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering 14(2), 131–164 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timo O.A. Lehtinen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lehtinen, T.O., Virtanen, R., Heikkilä, V.T., Itkonen, J. (2015). Why the Development Outcome Does Not Meet the Product Owners’ Expectations?. In: Lassenius, C., Dingsøyr, T., Paasivaara, M. (eds) Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming. XP 2015. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 212. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18612-2_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18612-2_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-18611-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-18612-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics