Advertisement

Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 389–397 | Cite as

Users’ involvement may help respect social and ethical values and improve software quality

  • Barbara BegierEmail author
Article

Abstract

Global informatization brings potential threats. It is possible to reduce them if software developers are aware of those threats and if customers insist on eliminating them. The survey described in the paper shows that future programmers are aware of numerous threats associated with global informatization. Many threats may be reduced by users’ involvement in the software process. Software developers should learn and develop cooperation with users, as emphasized in agile methodologies. It is a task for academic teachers to promote collaboration between software authors and users, to show how to organize it, and to convince programmers that it is valuable. Users’ involvement requires changes in the software life cycle and in the set of established processes. Such changes, in the form of additionally established processes and phases in the software development cycle, are identified in the paper. One recommended process is the software product assessment intended to elicit feedback from users. Users’ involvement may help to respect ethical and social values and to produce software adapted to user expectations.

Keywords

Threats related to extensive informatization Social threats Software quality Users’ involvement Feedback from users Primary and supporting processes in software development Agile approach 

References

  1. Agile_FDD. (2004). Agile software development using Feature Driven Development (FDD), (1993–2004), Nebulon Pty. LTD., http://www.nebulon.com.fdd.
  2. Ambler, S. W. (2005). Phases examined: why requirements, analysis, and design no longer make sense, http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/phasesExamined.htm.
  3. Ambler, S. W. (2006). Agile Model Driven Development (AMDD), http://www.agilemodeling.com.
  4. Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Begier, B. (2002). Evaluating software quality to regard public interest. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference “The Transformation of Organisations in the Information Age: Social and Ethical Implications” ETHICOMP 2002 (pp. 39–52). Lisbon.Google Scholar
  6. Begier, B. (2005). The UID approach—the balance between hard and soft methodologies. In K. Zielinski & T. Szmuc (Eds.), Software engineering: Evolution and emerging technologies (pp. 15–26). Amsterdam: IOS.Google Scholar
  7. Begier, B. (2007). Software quality improvement by users’ involvement in the software process (in Polish), ISSN 0551–6528. Poznan (Poland): Publishing House of PUT.Google Scholar
  8. Begier, B., & Wdowicki, J. (2006). Feedback from users on a software product to improve its quality in engineering applications. In K. Sacha (Ed.), IFIP volume 227. Software engineering techniques: Design for quality (pp. 167–178). Boston: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biffl, S., Aurum, A., Boehm, B., Erdogmus, H., & Grünbacher, P. (Eds.) (2006). Value-based software engineering. Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2004). Balancing agility and discipline. A guide for the perplexed. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. Cockburn, A. (2005). Crystal clear. A human-powered methodology for small teams. Upper Saddle River: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  12. Ferre, X., Juristo, N., Moreno, A. M. (2005). Framework for integrating usability practices into the software process. In F. Bomarius & S. Komi-Sirviö (Eds). Product focused software process improvement (pp. 202-215), LNCS 3547. Berlin / Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Gotterbarn, D. (1999). How the new software engineering code of ethics affects you. IEEE Software, 16(6), 58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Highsmith, J. (2004). Agile project management. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  15. Huff, Ch, & Martin, D. (1995). Computing consequences: a framework for teaching ethical computing. Communications of the ACM, 38, 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Iivari, N. (2004). Enculturation of user involvement in software development organizations—an interpretive case study in the product development context. In Proceedings of the third Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 287–296). Tampere (Finland): ACM (USA).Google Scholar
  17. Kujala, S. (2008). Effective user involvement in product development by improving the analysis of user needs. Behaviour & Information Technology, 27(6), 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Manifesto for Agile Software Development (co-authors: Beck, K., Cockburn, A., Fowler, M., Highsmith, J., Martin, R. C., et al.) (2001). Agile Alliance, http://agilemanifesto.org.
  19. Martin, R. C., & Martin, M. (2007). Agile principles, patterns, and practices in C#. Indianapolis: Pearson Education and Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Mattsson, J. (2009). Exploring user-involvement in technology-based service innovation, ICE-Project Working Paper 2009:02, Department of Communication, Business and Information Technologies Roskilde University and Center for Communication, Media and Information Technologies Aalborg University, both in Denmark, http://www.ice-project.dk.
  21. Ritzer, G. (1996). The McDonaldization of society. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge.Google Scholar
  22. Rogerson, S., & Gotterbarn, D. (1998). The ethics of software project management. In G. Collste (Ed.), Ethics and information technology (pp. 137–154). Delhi: New Academic.Google Scholar
  23. Tabaka, J. (2006). Collaboration explained. Facilitation skills for software project leaders. Upper Saddle River: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  24. The GC Strategy Group. (2003). Building the case for global computing, (v0.99), online at ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/ist/docs/fet/fetgc-32.pdf accessed 16.06.2008.
  25. Turner, R., & Boehm, B. (2003). People factors in software management: lessons from comparing agile and plan-driven methods. Crosstalk: The Journal of Defense Software Engineering, 16(12), 4−8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Automation and Information TechnologyPoznan University of Technology (PUT)PoznanPoland

Personalised recommendations