Advertisement

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 415–445 | Cite as

Collaborative conceptual design: A large software project case study

  • Colin Potts
  • Lara Catledge
Article

Abstract

During software development, the activities of requirements analysis, functional specification, and architectural design all require a team of developers to converge on a common vision of what they are developing. There have been remarkably few studies of conceptual design during real projects. In this paper, we describe a detailed field study of a large industrial software project. We observed the development team's conceptual design activities for three months with follow-up observations and discussions over the following eight months. In this paper, we emphasize the organization of the project and how patterns of collaboration affected the team's convergence on a common vision. Three observations stand out: First, convergence on a common vision was not only painfully slow but was punctuated by several reorientations of direction; second, the design process seemed to be inherently forgetful, involving repeated resurfacing of previously discussed issues; finally, a conflict of values persisted between team members responsible for system development and those responsible for overseeing the development process. These findings have clear implications for collaborative support tools and process interventions.

Key words

Collaboration software process conceputal design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atwood, M.E., B. Burns, D. Gairing, A. Girgensohn, A. Lee, S. Turner, S. Alteras-Webb, and B. Zimmermann (1995): Facilitating Communication in Software Development. InProceedings DIS'95: Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems, Ann Arbor, MI, August 23–25. New York: ACM Press, pp. 65–73.Google Scholar
  2. Berlin, L.M., R. Jeffries, V.L. O'Day, A. Paepcke, and C. Wharton (1993): Where Did You Put It? Issues in the Design and Use of a Group Memory. InProc. InterCHl, Amsterdam, Netherlands. New York: ACM Press, pp. 23–30.Google Scholar
  3. Boehm, B. (1983): Software Engineering Economics. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, F. (1986): No Silver Bullet. InProceedings of the IFIP Tenth World Computing Congress, Dublin, Ireland. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1069–1076.Google Scholar
  5. Conklin, J. and M. Begeman (1989): gIBIS: A Tool for all Reasons.J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., May, pp. 200–213.Google Scholar
  6. Curtis, B., H. Krasner, and N. Iscoe (1988): A Field Study of the Software Design Process for Large Teams.Comm. ACM, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1268–1287.Google Scholar
  7. Fagan, M. (1976): Design and Code Inspections to Reduce Errors in Program Development.IBM Systems Journal, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 182–211.Google Scholar
  8. Grudin, J. (1988): Why Groupware Applications Fail: Problems in Design and Evaluation.Office: Technology and People, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 245–264.Google Scholar
  9. Keil, M. and E. Carmel (1995): Customer-Developer Links in Software Development.Comm. ACM, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 33–44.Google Scholar
  10. Kraut, R.F. and L.A. Streeter (1995): Coordination in Software Development.Comm. ACM, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 69–81.Google Scholar
  11. Kuhn, T. (1970):The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Ed. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kunz, W. and H. Rittel (1970):Issues as Elements of Information Systems. Working Paper 131, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
  13. Kuwana, E. and J.D. Herbsleb (1993): Representing Knowledge in Requirements Engineering: An Empirical Study of What Software Engineers Need to Know. InProc. RE 93: IEEE Int. Symp. Requirements Eng., San Diego, CA Jan 4–6. IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 273–276.Google Scholar
  14. Lai, K.-Y, T.W. Malone, and K.-C. Yu (1988): Object Lens: A “Spreadsheet” for Cooperative Work.ACM Trans. Office Inf. Sys., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 332–353.Google Scholar
  15. Lee, J. (1991): Extending the Potts and Bruns Model for Recording Design Rationale. InProc. 13th Int. Conf. Software Eng. IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 114–127.Google Scholar
  16. Lubars, M., C. Potts, and C. Richter (1993): A Review of the State of Practice in Requirements Modeling. InProc. IEEE Symp. Requirements Eng. (RE'93), San Diego, CA, January 4–6. IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 2–14.Google Scholar
  17. Paulk, M., B. Curtis, M. Chrissis, and C. Weber (1995):The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  18. Potts, C. (1995): Using Schematic Scenarios to Understand User Needs. InProceedings DIS'95: Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems, Ann Arbor, MI, August 23–25. New York: ACM Press, pp. 247–256.Google Scholar
  19. Potts, C., J.D. Bolter, and A. Badre (1993):Collaborative Pre-Writing with a Video-Based Group Working Memory. Georgia Institute of Technology, GVU Technical Report, pp. 93–35.Google Scholar
  20. Potts, C. and G. Bruns (1988): Recording the Reasons for Design Decisions. InProc. 10th Int. Conf. Software Eng., Singapore (May). IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 418–427.Google Scholar
  21. Pottts, C. and K. Takahashi (1993): An Active Hypertext Model for System Requirements. InProc. 7th Int. Workshop Software Specification and Design, Redondo Beach (December). IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 62–67.Google Scholar
  22. Potts, C., K. Takahashi, and A. Anton (1994): Inquiry-Based Requirements Analysis,IEEE Software, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 21–32.Google Scholar
  23. Russell, D.M., M.J. Stefik, P. Pirolli, and S.K. Card (1993): The Cost Structure of Sensemaking. InProc. InterCHl, Amsterdam, Netherlands. New York: ACM Press, pp. 269–276.Google Scholar
  24. Schon, D.A. (1983):The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. Sharples, M. (1993): Adding a Little Structure to Collaborative Writing. InCSCW in Practice: An Introduction and Case Studies, eds. D. Diaper and C. Sanger. London: Springer, pp. 51–67.Google Scholar
  26. Suchman, L. (1983): Office Procedures as Practical Action: Models of Work and System Design.ACM Trans. Office Systems, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 320–328.Google Scholar
  27. Terveen, L.G., P.G. Selfridge, and M.D. Long (1995): Living Design Memory: Framework, Implementation, Lessons Learned.HCI, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar
  28. Walz, D., B. Curtis, and J. Elam (1993): Inside a Software Design Team: Knowledge Acquisition, Sharing and Integration.Comm. ACM, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 62–77.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin Potts
    • 1
  • Lara Catledge
    • 1
  1. 1.Georgia Institute of Technology, College of ComputingAtlantaU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations