Skip to main content

When Software Engineers Met Research Scientists: A Case Study

Abstract

This paper describes a case study of software engineers developing a library of software components for a group of research scientists, using a traditional, staged, document-led methodology. The case study reveals two problems with the use of the methodology. The first is that it demands an upfront articulation of requirements, whereas the scientists had experience, and hence expectations, of emergent requirements; the second is that the project documentation does not suffice to construct a shared understanding. Reflecting on our case study, we discuss whether combining agile elements with a traditional methodology might have alleviated these problems. We then argue that the rich picture painted by the case study, and the reflections on methodology that it inspires, has a relevance that reaches beyond the original context of the study.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Bache, E. 2003. Building software for scientists—a report about incremental adoption of XP. Poster presented at XP2003, Genoa, Italy.

  • Beck, K. 2000. Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B. 2002. Get ready for agile methods, with care. IEEE Computer 35(1): 64–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, B., and Turner, R. 2004. Balancing Agility and Discipline. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratthall, L., and Jorgensen, M. 2002. Can you trust a single data source exploratory software engineering case study? Empirical Software Engineering 7: 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, A. 2002. Agile Software Development. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, A., and Williams, L. 2001. The costs and benefits of pair programming. In: G. Succi and M. Marchesi, (eds.), Extreme Programming Examined. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMarco, T., and Boehm, B. 2002. The agile methods fray. IEEE Computer 35(6): 90–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, B. 1998. An empirical investigation into the adoption of system development methodologies. Information and Management 34: 317–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, R. 2002. Searching for the Holy Grail of software engineering. Communications of the ACM 45(5): 15–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, R. L., Vessey, I., and Ramesh, V. 2002. Research in software engineering: an analysis of the literature. Information and Software Technology 44: 491–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. K., and Myers, M. D. 1999. A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly 23(1): 67–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanubile, F. 1997. Empirical evaluation of software maintenance technologies. Empirical Software Engineering 2: 97–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, A. S. 1989. A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. Management and Information Systems Quarterly 13(1): 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulk, M. 2002. Agile methodologies and Process Discipline. Crosstalk, The Journal of Defense Software Engineering 15(10): 15–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, H., Hall, P., Hovenden, F., and Rachel, J. 1998. Postmodern software development. The Computer Journal 41(6): 363–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, H., Segal, J., and Sharp, H. 2003. The case for empirical studies of the practice of software development. In: A. Jedlitscha and M. Ciolkowski, (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop in the Workshop Series on Empirical Studies in Empirical Software Engineering, pp. 99–108.

  • Seaman, C. 1999. Methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25(4): 557–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segal, J. 2004. The nature of evidence in empirical software engineering. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice (STEP) 2003, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 40–47.

  • Segal, J., Grinyer, A., and Sharp, H. 2005. The type of evidence produced by empirical software engineers. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Realizing Evidence-Based Software Engineering, ICSE-2005, http://portal.acm.org/dl.cfm

  • Wood, W. A., and Kleb, W. L. 2003. Exploring XP for scientific research. IEEE Software 20(3): 30–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zelkowitz, M. V., Wallace, D. R., and Binkley, D. W. 2002. Experimental validation of new software technology. In: N. Juristo and A. M. Moreno, (eds.), Lecture Notes on Empirical Software Engineering, World Scientific Publishing Co, pp. 229–263.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Judith Segal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Segal, J. When Software Engineers Met Research Scientists: A Case Study. Empir Software Eng 10, 517–536 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-005-3865-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-005-3865-y

Keywords

  • Case study
  • software engineers
  • scientific software
  • agile methodologies
  • tailoring methodologies