Advertisement

Effects of Software Process in Organization Development – A Case Study

  • Hogne Folkestad
  • Espen Pilskog
  • Bjørnar Tessem
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3096)

Abstract

In this case study we present the approach, analytical framework, and results from a study of a software development enterprise using an activity theory perspective. The studied company chose to use Unified Process as their software development method at a stage where they were changing from mainframe technology into modern object-oriented technologies. The goal for them was to use a new development project as a tool for learning the technology and Unified Process, in addition to constructing the new software. In our study we have focused on the role of Unified Process in this process, and whether Unified Process had consequences for the development of the project team and the company. Our results indicate that the iterative approach of Unified Process ensures large effects in terms of learning, but Unified Process also improves on communication and work distribution in the company.

Keywords

Software Development Software Engineering Activity Theory Timely Information Unify Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barthelmess, P., Anderson, K.M.: A View of Software Development Environments Based on Activity Theory. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing 11(1-2), 13–37 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Decortis, F., Noirfalise, S., Saudelli, B.: Activity Theory as a Framework for Cooperative Work. In: Decortis, F., Noirfalise, S., Saudelli, B. (eds.) Activity Theory: COTCOS – T.M.R. programme, pp. 8–21 (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dubé, L., Robey, D.: Software stories: three cultural perspectives on the organizational practices of software development. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 223–259 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Engeström, Y.: Expansive visibilization of work: an activity theoretical perspective. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing 8(1-2), 63–93 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gallivan, M.J.: The influence of software developers’ creative style on their attitudes to and assimilation of a software process innovation. Information & Management 40, 443–465 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacobson, I., Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J.: The Unified Software Development Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuutti, K.: Activity theory as a potential framework for human computer interaction research. In: Nardi, pp.17-44 (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    MacCormack, A.: Product-Development Practices That Work: How Internet Companies Build Software. MIT Sloan Management Review 42(2), 75–84 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Markus, M.L.: Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM 26(6), 430–444 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nardi, B.A. (ed.): Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nelson, H.J., Armstrong, D.J., Ghods, M.: Old dogs and new tricks. Communications of the ACM 45(10), 132–137 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paulk, M.C., Weber, C.V., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M.B.: The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robey, D., Boudreau, M.-C.: Accounting for the contradictory organizational consequences of information technology: theoretical directions and methodological implications. Information Systems Research 10(2), 167–185 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seaman, C.B.: Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25(4), 557–572 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sharp, H., Woodman, M., Hovenden, F., Robinson, H.: The role of ‘culture’ in software process improvement. In: 25th Euromicro conference (EUROMICRO 1999), vol. 2, IEEE, Los Alamitos (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walsham, G.: Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems 4(2), 74–81 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wertsch, J.V.: The Concept of Activity in Soviet Psychology. Sharpe (1981)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yin, R.: Case study research: Design and methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publishing, Beverly Hills (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hogne Folkestad
    • 1
  • Espen Pilskog
    • 1
  • Bjørnar Tessem
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information Science and Media StudiesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations