Skip to main content
Log in

Collaborative conceptual design: A large software project case study

  • Published:
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Boehm, B. (1983): Software Engineering Economics. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, F. (1986): No Silver Bullet. InProceedings of the IFIP Tenth World Computing Congress, Dublin, Ireland. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1069–1076.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, J. and M. Begeman (1989): gIBIS: A Tool for all Reasons.J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., May, pp. 200–213.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Keil, M. and E. Carmel (1995): Customer-Developer Links in Software Development.Comm. ACM, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, R.F. and L.A. Streeter (1995): Coordination in Software Development.Comm. ACM, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 69–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1970):The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Ed. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Potts, C., K. Takahashi, and A. Anton (1994): Inquiry-Based Requirements Analysis,IEEE Software, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Schon, D.A. (1983):The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Potts, C., Catledge, L. Collaborative conceptual design: A large software project case study. Comput Supported Coop Work 5, 415–445 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136713

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136713

Key words

Navigation