Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 197–225 | Cite as

Agile Project Management: A Case Study of a Virtual Research Environment Development Project

  • Rob ProcterEmail author
  • Mark Rouncefield
  • Meik Poschen
  • Yuwei Lin
  • Alex Voss


In this paper we use a case study of a project to create a Web 2.0-based, Virtual Research Environment (VRE) for researchers to share digital resources in order to reflect on the principles and practices for embedding eResearch applications within user communities. In particular, we focus on the software development methodologies and project management techniques adopted by the project team in order to ensure that the project remained responsive to changing user requirements without compromising their capacity to keep the project ‘on track’, i.e. meeting the goals declared in the project proposal within budget and on time. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork, we describe how the project team, whose members are distributed across multiple sites (and often mobile), exploit a repertoire of coordination mechanisms, communication modes and tools, artefacts and structuring devices as they seek to establish the orderly running of the project while following an agile, user-centred development approach.

Key words

agile software project management eResearch Virtual Research Environment user engagement Web 2.0 


  1. Abrahamsson, P., Warsta, J., Siponen, M. and Ronkainen, J. (2003). New directions on agile methods: A comparative analysis. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, Portland, May. IEEE.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: Embracing change. Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. Boehm, B. W. (1988). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. IEEE Computer, 21, 61–72.Google Scholar
  4. Borda, A., Careless, J., Dimitrova, M., Fraser, M., Frey, J., Hubbard, P., et al. (2006). Report of the Working Group on Virtual Research Communities for the OST e-Infrastructure Steering Group. London, UK: Office of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  5. Button, G., & Sharrock, W. (1994). Occasioned practices in the work of software engineers. In M. Jirotka & J. Goguen (Eds.), Requirements engineering: Social and technical issues. London: Academic.Google Scholar
  6. Button, G., & Sharrock, W. (1996). Project work: The organisation of collaborative design and development in software engineering. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, 5, 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chin, J. and Coveney, P. (2004). Towards tractable toolkits for the Grid: a plea for lightweight, usable middleware. UK e-Science Technical Report Series, National e-Science Centre. Available at (Retrieved on December 1, 2010).
  8. Crabtree, A., Nichols, D., O’Brien, J., Rouncefield, M., & Twidale, M. (2000). Ethnomethodologically informed ethnography and information system design. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(7), 666–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Roure, D., & Goble, C. (2008). Six principles of software design to empower scientists. IEEE Software, 26(1), 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Roure, D., Goble, C. and Stevens, R. (2007). Designing the myExperiment virtual research environment for the social sharing of workflows. In: Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on e-Science and Grid Computing (pp. 603–610), Bangalore, India, 10–13 December.Google Scholar
  11. Dyba, T., & Dingsoyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50(9–10), 833–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fowler, M. and Highsmith, J. (2001). The agile manifesto. Software Development Magazine. August. Available at (Retrieved May 8, 2009).
  13. Gil, Y., Deelman, E., Ellisman, M., Fahringer, T., Fox, G., Gannon, D., et al. (2007). Examining the challenges of scientific workflows. IEEE Computer, 40(12), 24–32.Google Scholar
  14. Glaser B. and Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory. strategies for qualitative research. Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hey, T and Trefethen, A. (2003). The data deluge: An e-Science perspective. In: Berman. F., Fox. G. and Hey, A. (Eds.), Grid computing—making the global infrastructure a reality. Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialisation of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hole, S., & Moe, N. B. (2008). A case study of coordination in distributed agile software development. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 16(5), 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hughes, J. A., King, V., Rodden, T. and Andersen, H. (1994). Moving out from the control room: Ethnography in system design, In: Proceedings of CSCW’94. Chapel Hill: ACM.Google Scholar
  20. Mackenzie, A. and Rouncefield, M. (2002). How ‘hacking’ hides a project: from software engineering to open source and back again. Appendix C. Dependability Issues in Open Source Software DIRC Project Activity 5 Final Report. University of Newcastle on Tyne.Google Scholar
  21. Morris, J. (2006). Software product management and the endless beta. Available at (Retrieved April 9, 2008).
  22. Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A., et al. (2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, special issue on e-Science, 368(1926), 4039–4056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ramesh, B., Cao, L., Mohan, K., & Xu, P. (2006). Can distributed software development be agile? Communications of the ACM, 49(10), 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Randall, D., Harper, R. and Rouncefield, M. (2007). Fieldwork for Design: Theory and practice. Kluwer.Google Scholar
  25. Royce, W.W. (1987 [1970]). Managing the development of large software systems: Concepts and techniques. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 328–338). Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
  26. Russo, N. L., & Stolterman, E. (2000). Exploring the assumptions underlying information systems methodologies: Their impact on past, present and future ISM research. Information Technology & People, 13(4), 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2002). Agile software development with scrum. NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Segal, J. (2005). Two principles of end-user software engineering research. In: Proceedings of the first workshop on end-user software engineering. St Louis: ACM.Google Scholar
  29. Sharp, H., Robinson, H., & Petre, M. (2009). The role of physical artefacts in agile software development: Two complementary perspectives. Interacting with Computers, 21(1–2), 108–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sharrock, W., & Anderson, B. (1993). Working towards agreement. In G. Button (Ed.), Technology in working order (pp. 149–161). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  33. Sommerville, I. (2001). Software engineering (6th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education & Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  34. Suchman, L. (1994). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work Journal, 2(1–2), 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Suchman, L. (1995). Making work visible. Communications of the ACM, 38(9), 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Voss, A., & Procter, R. (2009). Virtual research environments in scholarly work and communications. Special issue on Virtual Research Environments. Library Hi Tech Journal, 27(2), 174–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wastell, D. G. (1996). The fetish of technique: Methodology as a social defence. Information Systems Journal, 6, 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Woolgar, S. (1991). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters. Essays on power technology and domination (pp. 58–100). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rob Procter
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mark Rouncefield
    • 2
  • Meik Poschen
    • 1
  • Yuwei Lin
    • 3
  • Alex Voss
    • 4
  1. 1.Manchester eResearch CentreUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.School of Computing and CommunicationsLancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  3. 3.School of Media, Music and PerformanceUniversity of SalfordSalfordUK
  4. 4.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUK

Personalised recommendations