Commodity Eats Innovation for Breakfast: A Model for Differentiating Feature Realization

  • Aleksander Fabijan
  • Helena Holmström Olsson
  • Jan Bosch
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10027)

Abstract

Once supporting the electrical and mechanical functionality, software today became the main competitive advantage in products. However, in the companies that we study, the way in which software features are developed still reflects the traditional ‘requirements over the wall’ approach. As a consequence, individual departments prioritize what they believe is the most important and are unable to identify which features are regularly used – ‘flow’, there to be bought – ‘wow’, differentiating and that add value to customers, or which are regarded commodity. In this paper, and based on case study research in three large software-intensive companies, we (1) provide empirical evidence that companies do not distinguish between different types of features, which causes poor allocation of R&D efforts and suppresses innovation, and (2) develop a model in which we depict the activities for differentiating and working with different types of features and stakeholders.

Keywords

Customer feedback Innovation Commodity Wow feature Flow feature Duty feature Checkbox feature 

References

  1. 1.
    Boehm, B.: Value-based software engineering: reinventing. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 28, 3 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Khurum, M., Gorschek, T., Wilson, M.: The software value map- an exhaustive collection of value aspects for the development of software intensive products. J. Softw. Evol. Process. 25, 711–741 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lindgren, E., Münch, J.: Software development as an experiment system: a qualitative survey on the state of the practice. In: Lassenius, C., Dingsøyr, T., Paasivaara, M. (eds.) XP 2015. LNBIP, vol. 212, pp. 117–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-18612-2_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Olsson, H.H., Bosch, J.: Towards continuous customer validation: a conceptual model for combining qualitative customer feedback with quantitative customer observation. In: Fernandes, João M., Machado, Ricardo J., Wnuk, K. (eds.) ICSOB 2015. LNBIP, vol. 210, pp. 154–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19593-3_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fabijan, A., Olsson, H.H., Bosch, J.: Customer feedback and data collection techniques in software R&D: a literature review. In: Software Business, ICSOB 2015. pp. 139–153, Braga, Portugal (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Williams, L., Cockburn, A.: Introduction: Agile Software Development: Its About Feedback and Change (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holmström Olsson, H., Bosch, J.: Towards data-driven product development: a multiple case study on post-deployment data usage in software-intensive embedded systems. In: Fitzgerald, B., Conboy, K., Power, K., Valerdi, R., Morgan, L., Stol, K.-J. (eds.) LESS 2013. LNBIP, vol. 167, pp. 152–164. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-44930-7_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bosch-Sijtsema, P., Bosch, J.: User involvement throughout the innovation process in high-tech industries. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 32, 1–36 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bebensee, T., Weerd, I., Brinkkemper, S.: Binary priority list for prioritizing software requirements. In: Wieringa, R., Persson, A. (eds.) REFSQ 2010. LNCS, vol. 6182, pp. 67–78. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14192-8_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knauss, E., Lubke, D., Meyer, S.: Feedback-driven requirements engineering: the heuristic requirements assistant. In: 2009 IEEE 31st International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 587–590. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johansson, E., Bergdahl, D., Bosch, J., Holmström Olsson, H.: Requirement prioritization with quantitative data - a case study. In: Abrahamsson, P., Corral, L., Oivo, M., Russo, B. (eds.) PROFES 2015. LNCS, vol. 9459, pp. 89–104. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-26844-6_7 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., Tsuji, S.: Attractive quality and must-be quality. J. Japanese Soc. Qual. Control. 14, 39–48 (1984)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wiegers, K.E.: Automating requirements management. Softw. Dev. 7, 1–5 (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karlsson, L., Thelin, T., Regnell, B., Berander, P., Wohlin, C.: Pair-wise comparisons versus planning game partitioning-experiments on requirements prioritisation techniques. Empir. Softw. Eng. 12, 3–33 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leffingwell, D., Widrig, D.: Managing Software Requirements: A Unified Approach, pp. 10, 491. Addison-Wesley Longman Publ. Co., Inc., Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karlsson, J., Ryan, K.: A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements. IEEE Softw. 14, 67–74 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kakar, A.K.: Of the user, by the user, for the user: engaging users in information systems product. In: SAIS 2014 Proceedings (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bosch, J.: Achieving simplicity with the three-layer product model. Computer (Long. Beach. Calif) 46, 34–39 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Runeson, P., Höst, M.: Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empir. Softw. Eng. 14, 131–164 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hsieh, H.-F., Shannon, S.E.: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual. Health Res. 15, 1277–1288 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aleksander Fabijan
    • 1
  • Helena Holmström Olsson
    • 1
  • Jan Bosch
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Technology and SocietyMalmö UniversityMalmöSweden
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringChalmers University of TechnologyGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations