An insight into the interplay between culture, conflict and distance in globally distributed requirements negotiations

© 2003 IEEE. There is an increasing interest in research addressing issues of global software development. Specifying software requirements is a communication-intensive collaborative activity that is increasingly performed across cultural, language and time zone boundaries. While inadequate communication significantly impacts the bridging of geographical distance between stakeholders, the cultural differences cannot be considered less significant. Findings from two global software development organizations enables us to present a model of impact of distance and the affected requirements activities due to problems of cultural diversity, inadequate communication, knowledge management and time differences. This evidence provides an important insight into the interplay between culture and conflict as well as the impact of distance on the ability to reconcile different viewpoints with regards to requirements and requirements processes

Effectiveness of Elicitation Techniques in Distributed Requirements Engineering

Software development teams are often geographically distributed from their customers and end users. This creates significant communication and coordination challenges that impact the effectiveness of requirements engineering. Travel costs, and the local availability of quality technical staff increase the demand for effective distributed software development teams. This research reports an empirical study of how groupware can be used to aid distributed requirements engineering for a software development project. Six groups of seven to nine members were formed and divided into separate remote groups of customers and engineers. The engineers conducted a requirements analysis and produced a software requirements specification (SRS) document through distributed interaction with the remote customers. We present results and conclusions from the research including: an analysis of factors that effected the quality of the Software Requirements Specification document written at the conclusion of the requirements process and the effectiveness of requirements elicitation techniques which were used in a distributed setting for requirements gathering

Understanding collaboration in Global Software Engineering (GSE) teams with the use of sensors: introducing a multi-sensor setting for observing social and human aspects in project management

This paper discusses on-going research in the ways Global Software Engineering (GSE) teams collaborate for a range of software development tasks. The paper focuses on providing the means for observing and understanding GSE team member collaboration including team coordination and member communication. Initially the paper provides the background on social and human issues relating to GSE collaboration. Next the paper describes a pilot study involving a simulation of virtual GSE teams working together with the use of asynchronous and synchronous communication over a virtual learning environment. The study considered the use of multiple data collection techniques recordings of SCRUM meetings, design and implementation tasks. Next, the paper discusses the use of a multi-sensor for observing human and social aspects of project management in GSE teams. The scope of the study is to provide the means for gathering data regarding GSE team coordination for project managers including member emotions, participation pattern in team discussions and potentially stress levels

Understanding collaboration in Global Software Engineering (GSE) teams with the use of sensors: introducing a multi-sensor setting for observing social and human aspects in project management

This paper discusses on-going research in the ways Global Software Engineering (GSE) teams collaborate for a range of software development tasks. The paper focuses on providing the means for observing and understanding GSE team member collaboration including team coordination and member communication. Initially the paper provides the background on social and human issues relating to GSE collaboration. Next the paper describes a pilot study involving a simulation of virtual GSE teams working together with the use of asynchronous and synchronous communication over a virtual learning environment. The study considered the use of multiple data collection techniques recordings of SCRUM meetings, design and implementation tasks. Next, the paper discusses the use of a multi-sensor for observing human and social aspects of project management in GSE teams. The scope of the study is to provide the means for gathering data regarding GSE team coordination for project managers including member emotions, participation pattern in team discussions and potentially stress levels

ELECTRONIC REQUIREMENTS NEGOTIATION – A LITERATURE SURVEY ON THE STATE-OF-THE-ART (23)

In the software development process, requirements negotiation is an essential part in which stakeholders jointly have to come to an agreement. Such a negotiation process is often conducted using information systems, which makes it an electronic requirements negotiation process. The aim of the current paper is to present the state-of-the-art in electronic requirements negotiations. We elicit the state-of-the-art by analysing relevant literature, extracting areas of current research, and describing the status quo of each area. The identified areas of research are foundations of electronic requirements negotiation, electronic requirements negotiation methodology, automation of electronic requirements negotiation, computer- mediated communication, and social communication

Negotiation of software requirements in an asynchronous collaborative environment

The effect of task structure and negotiation sequence on collaborative software requirements negotiation is investigated. This work began with an extensive literature review that focused on current research in collaborative software engineering and, in particular, on the negotiation of software requirements and the requisite collaboration for the development of such requirements. A formal detailed experiment was then conducted to evaluate the effects of negotiation sequence and task structure in an asynchronous group meeting environment. The experiment tested the impact of these structures on groups negotiating the requirements for an emergency response information system. The results reported here show that these structures can have a positive impact on solution quality but a negative impact on process satisfaction, although following a negotiation sequence and task structure can help asynchronous groups come to agreement faster. Details of the experimental procedures, statistical analysis, and discussion of the results of the experiment are also presented, as are suggestions for improving this work and a plan for future research

High-Tech Dispute Resolution: Lessons from Psychology for a Post-Covid-19 Era

Covid-19 fostered a remote technology boom in the world of dispute resolution. Pre-pandemic, adoption of technical innovation in dispute resolution was slow moving. Some attorneys, courts, arbitrators, mediators and others did use technology, including telephone, e-mail, text, or videoconferences, or more ambitious online dispute resolution (ODR). But, to the chagrin of technology advocates, many conducted most dispute resolution largely in-person. The pandemic effectively put the emerging technological efforts on steroids. Even the most technologically challenged quickly began to replace in-person dispute resolution with videoconferencing, texting, and other technology. Courts throughout the world canceled all or most in-person trials, hearings, conferences, and appeals and began to experiment with using technologically-assisted alternatives. The U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments using telephone conference calls. Attorneys, mediators, and arbitrators relied far more heavily on phone, e-mail, text, and video. Some courts expanded programs to help disputants obtain information and even resolve their disputes online. “Thanks” to the pandemic, the traditionally slow-moving and technology-resistant legal community suddenly embraced many kinds of technology with both arms and more. This move to technology-mediated dispute resolution was met with greater enthusiasm than many might have anticipated, leading to predictions that we may never return to the world of extensive reliance on in-person dispute resolution. As the pandemic endured, lawyers, neutrals, and court administrators found that practices adopted out of desperation could be worth preserving post-pandemic. Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Bridget Mary McCormack, in describing “temporary” pandemic adjustments, noted: “I don’t think that things will ever return to the way they were, and I think that is a good thing.” Even many who were previously hesitant about or relatively unaware of the possible uses of technology saw the potential for clear benefits. Some judges, mediators, arbitrators, and court administrators observed that the online versions of litigation, mediation, and arbitration could be as good or even better than the in-person versions. Some began to consider new ways to combine processes or to use them differently. Tech advocates saw this as one silver lining of the pandemic, noting that Covid-19 achieved a result that twenty years of tech advocacy could not. As in-person interactions once again become possible, disputants, lawyers, courts, and neutrals will need to decide whether and under what circumstances to conduct interviews, depositions, court proceedings, negotiations, mediations, or arbitrations in-person, by phone, using videoconferencing, or in writing of some form. While many hail the potential benefits of using technology, others fear the loss of the human side of dispute resolution, expressing significant skepticism that technology can adequately replace the close contact, credibility assessment, rapport, and interpersonal connection they believe are critically important aspects of dispute resolution. Some tout the possibilities for using technology to facilitate access to justice, but others worry about the ways that technology might impede such access. Psychological science provides a useful lens through which to consider these essential issues. Using different means of communication can influence how participants experience the interaction and these experiential differences have important implications for dispute resolution. These implications offer valuable lessons for legal actors choosing which modes of communication to use and determining how to communicate well within a particular medium. While it is natural to seek simple answers, the psychological research we explore is nuanced, revealing that no single mode of communication is “best” in all circumstances. In lieu of a simple solution we provide a multi-dimensional analysis that will help guide decision makers in making these critical determinations. Understanding the science will help participants maximize the benefits and minimize the drawbacks of different communication media, enabling them to make informed choices among media, design the chosen media to fit their goals, and adjust their advocacy, judging, negotiation, and other activities to the chosen medium. In Section II, we draw on psychology to analyze four key characteristics of communication media: (1) the channels that they provide for communication, (2) the degree to which they facilitate synchronous or asynchronous communication; (3) the extent to which they provide transparency or privacy; and (4) their formality, familiarity, and accessibility. In Section III, we explore how these characteristics affect participants in dispute resolution. We focus on the impacts of alternative modes of communication in ten areas that are particularly relevant to dispute resolution: (1) focus and fatigue; (2) rapport; (3) emotion; (4) the exchange of information; (5) participant behavior; (6) credibility determinations; (7) persuasion; (8) judgment and decision making; (9) procedural justice; and (10) public views of justice. In Section IV, we explore how decision makers might incorporate the insights of psychology into their technological choices. We identify three important variables for decision makers to consider: the goals the decision maker has for the process; the characteristics of the disputants; and the nature of the dispute or task. We explain why these variables are critically important and provide examples of how decision makers can draw on psychology to best fulfill their goals in designing and using technology for dispute resolution. In Section V, we briefly conclude and point to several areas in which additional research would be particularly useful

Building capacity in climate change policy analysis and negotiation: methods and technologies

Capacity building is often cited as the reason “we cannot just pour money into developing countries” and why so many development projects fail because their design does not address local conditions. It is therefore a key technical and political concept in international development. Some of the poorest countries in the world are also some of the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Their vulnerability is in part due to a lack of capacity to plan and anticipate the effects of climate change on crops, water resources, urban electricity demand etc. What capacities do these countries lack to deal with climate change? How will they cope? What steps can they take to reduce their vulnerability? This innovative and high-profile research project was part of a larger project (called C3D) and conducted with non-governmental organisations in Senegal, South Africa and Sri Lanka. The research involved several participatory workshops and a questionnaire to all three research centres

A Framework to Analyze Knowledge Work in Distributed Teams

This article presents a framework to analyze knowledge work in the changing context of new ways of working. Knowledge work increasingly takes place as collaboration from different and changing workplaces due to mobility, multilocational, and geographical distribution of participants. We define the framework based on five key factors that pose challenges to the performance and productivity of knowledge work performed in distributed teams. The framework extends and integrates traditional performance models of task, team structure, and work process, with context factors like workplace, organization policy, and information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure. The framework is applied in a qualitative comparative cross-case analysis to eight globally distributed teams in two Fortune 100 high-tech companies. We conclude with a series of specific challenges for each factor when studying distributed knowledge work. It is shown that due to changing contexts knowledge workers, teams, and organizations need to constantly adapt, readjust, and realign according to the five factors

Facilitating flexible learning: A study of students’ perceptions of synchronous and asynchronous blended learning

This study explored students’ perceptions of the implementation of synchronous and asynchronous blended learning. The current case study investigated 78 undergraduates who enrolled in a course while involved in an experiential learning program called Merdeka Belajar-Kampus Merdeka (MBKM) or independent learning on an independent campus. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected in this study using surveys and interviews. The quantitative information was analyzed using descriptive statistics whereas thematic analysis was adopted to analyze the qualitative data. The five dimensions of flexible blended learning, including place, time, service, technology and pedagogy were adopted as a framework for this study. The findings suggested that synchronous and asynchronous blended learning could provide flexible learning regarding place, time, service, technology and pedagogy to support students’ learning and participation in the MBKM program. According to students, facilitating factors for the flexibility of synchronous and asynchronous blended learning include providing accessible learning materials, the possibility of time negotiation, providing various ways for social interactions, aligning topics or activities between the course and the MBKM program, small group settings, giving clear feedback and minimal scheduling changes. These factors must be considered when optimizing synchronous and asynchronous blended learning implementations