A Software System Development Life Cycle Model for Improved Stakeholders' Communication and Collaboration

Software vendors and entrepreneurs, who try to introduce an innovative software product to a specific organization or an entire market, enter a long and tedious process. During this process, the market and various organizations evaluate the product from different perspectives, such as software robustness, manufacturer reliability, and corporate need for the product. The vendors and entrepreneurs engaged in this process encounter decision crossroads for which no relevant guidance exists in the literature. The research closely monitored the processes associated with the introduction and assimilation of an innovative off-the-shelf (OTS) software product into five different organizations in different vertical market segments. Observations were carried out to assess organizational and marketing processes and to document and analyze what the software product undergoes before it is accepted for acquisition or full implementation within the organization. The research outcomes offer a unified, collaborative multi-tier System Development Life Cycle (SDLC) framework and methodology for packaged OTS software products that greatly improves communication and collaboration among the stakeholders. Each tier addresses a different force or stakeholder involved in the software market: vendor, customer, consultants and integrators. All stakeholders refer to the same time-line thus; tasks of various stakeholders are streamlined. Adherence to the unified time-line brings about an increased amount of stakeholder interaction, communication and collaboration. Newly found tasks that improve communication and collaboration among stakeholders include (1) offering of the OTS software product together with personnel as a bundle, (2) an improvisation-intensive iterative task of weaving potential customers’ requirements into the prototype, and (3) a third sale milestone, representing the successful diffusion of the product. The significance of this interdisciplinary research stems from its unique position at a crossroad between software engineering, marketing, and business administration, which has not yet been sufficiently explored or cultivated.

[1]  Erran Carmel,et al.  Customer-developer links in software development , 1995, CACM.

[2]  Dov Dori,et al.  Object-Process Methodology , 2002, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[3]  K. Eisenhardt Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[4]  Charles H. Fine Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control In The Age Of Temporary Advantage , 1998 .

[5]  A. Stinchcombe Social Structure and Organizations , 2000, Political Organizations.

[6]  R. Zmud,et al.  Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach , 1990 .

[7]  A. N. Alderman Implementing the whole product concept in strategic sector marketing , 2000, APEC 2000. Fifteenth Annual IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (Cat. No.00CH37058).

[8]  W. W. Royce,et al.  Managing the development of large software systems , 1970 .

[9]  Winston Tellis,et al.  Introduction to Case Study , 1997 .

[10]  Erja Mustonen-Ollila,et al.  Why organizations adopt information system process innovations: a longitudinal study using Diffusion of Innovation theory , 2003, Inf. Syst. J..

[11]  Jacques Verville,et al.  An investigation of the decision process for selecting an ERP software: the case of ESC , 2002 .

[12]  Sabine Kuester,et al.  Entry Strategy for Radical Product Innovations: A Conceptual Model and Propositional Inventory , 2002 .

[13]  Dov Dori,et al.  OPCAT - A Bimodal Case Tool for Object-Process Based System Development , 2003, ICEIS.

[14]  E. Carmel Cycle time in packaged software firms , 1995 .

[15]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[16]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  The impact of alternative IS acquisition options upon the IS implementation and success , 1992, SIGCPR '92.

[17]  Christof Ebert,et al.  Understanding the product life cycle: four key requirements engineering techniques , 2006, IEEE Software.

[18]  Anne S. Miner,et al.  Improvising firms: bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process , 2003 .

[19]  Henry C. Lucas Jr.,et al.  Technology Acceptance and Performance: A Field Study of Broker Workstations , 1997 .

[20]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  The Art of Continuous Change : Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations , 1997 .

[21]  John B. Shoven,et al.  I , Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal.

[22]  T. Levitt Marketing Intangible Products and Product Intangibles , 1981 .

[23]  James C. Wetherbe,et al.  The Adoption of Spreadsheet Software: Testing Innovation Diffusion Theory in the Context of End-User Computing , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[24]  Steve Sawyer,et al.  A market-based perspective on information systems development , 2001, CACM.

[25]  Bendik Bygstad,et al.  Cross-Community Collaboration and Learning in Customer-Driven Software Engineering Student Projects , 2007, 20th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training (CSEET'07).

[26]  Mark Billinghurst,et al.  Crossing the Chasm , 2001 .

[27]  Barry Boehm,et al.  A collaborative spiral software process model based on Theory W , 1994, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Software Process. Applying the Software Process.

[28]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[29]  Paula Kotzé,et al.  An overview of systems design and development methodologies with regard to the involvement of users and other stakeholders , 2003 .

[30]  Steven C. Wheelwright,et al.  The Product Development Challenge: Competing Through Speed, Quality, and Creativity (A Harvard Business Review Book) (Проблема создания новых продуктов: конкурируя посредством скорости, качества и креативности) , 1995 .

[31]  Michael A. Cusumano,et al.  Software Development Worldwide: The State of the Practice , 2003, IEEE Softw..

[32]  Steven C. Wheelwright,et al.  Accelerating the Design‐build‐test Cycle for Effective Product Development , 1994 .

[33]  Dusya Vera,et al.  Improvisation and Innovative Performance in Teams , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[34]  Guy Fitzgerald,et al.  Where now for development methodologies? , 2003, CACM.

[35]  Leslie P. Willcocks,et al.  Information technology sourcing reflections , 2003 .

[36]  Mark C. Paulk,et al.  Structured Approaches to Managing Change , 1999 .

[37]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  Now the learning curve affects CASE tool adoption , 1992, IEEE Software.

[38]  S. Shane,et al.  The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research , 2000 .

[39]  Erran Carmel,et al.  A process model for packaged software development , 1995 .

[40]  Mary Tripsas,et al.  THE EXPLORATORY PROCESSES OF ENTREPRENEURIAL FIRMS: THE ROLE OF PURPOSEFUL EXPERIMENTATION , 2004 .

[41]  Alfred C. Weaver,et al.  Social Networking , 2008, Computer.

[42]  Abraham Seidmann,et al.  Two dimensions of software acquisition , 1996, CACM.

[43]  Michael A. Cusumano,et al.  The Business of Software: What Every Manager, Programmer, and Entrepreneur Must Know to Thrive and Survive in Good Times and Bad , 2004 .

[44]  이훈,et al.  지각된 유용성(Perceived Usefulness)의 영향분석 , 2004 .

[45]  Indira R. Guzman,et al.  Employee Resistance to Digital Information and Information Technology Change in a Social Service Agency: A Membership Category Approach , 2004, J. Digit. Inf..

[46]  Yikuan Lee,et al.  New product launch strategy for network effects products , 2003 .

[47]  Steven C. Wheelwright,et al.  Managing New Product and Process Development: Text and Cases , 1992 .

[48]  R. Yin The abridged version of case study research: Design and method. , 1998 .

[49]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  The Illusory Diffusion of Innovation: An Examination of Assimilation Gaps , 1999, Inf. Syst. Res..