Blurring Boundaries: Toward the Collective Empathic Understanding of Product Requirements

Within the agile paradigm, many software product companies create cross-functional product development teams that own their product or a defined set of product features. In contrast to development teams operating within a heavily-disciplined software development process, these product teams often require a deeper and, importantly, a collective understanding of the product domain to serve as a rich context within which to understand the product requirements. Little is known about the factors that support or impede these teams in collectively achieving this deep understanding of the product domain. Using Constructivist Grounded Theory method, we study individuals and teams across seven software companies that create products for a diverse range of markets. The study found that certain organisational and planning process factors play a significant role in whether product development teams have the potential to collectively develop deep domain understanding. These factors also impact individual and development team dynamics. We identify two essential metaphorical dynamics of broadening the lens and blurring boundaries that cross-functional product teams employ in order to fully embrace product ownership, visioning, and planning towards achieving a deep collective domain understanding, creating a richer context in which to understand product requirements. We also conclude that the highly specialised nature of many organisational models and development processes is contraindicated for cross-functional product development teams in achieving this deep collective understanding and we call for a rethinking of conventional organisational and product planning practices for software product development.

[1]  B. Tuckman DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  Mike Cohn,et al.  User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development , 2004 .

[3]  Tareq Z. Ahram,et al.  Advances in usability and user experience : Proceedings of the AHFE 2017 International Conference on Usability and User Experience, July 17-21, 2017, The Westin Bonaventure Hotel, Los Angeles, California, USA , 2018 .

[4]  E. Eisner The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice , 1993 .

[5]  Gary Klein,et al.  Making Sense of Sensemaking 2: A Macrocognitive Model , 2006, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[6]  Rory V. O'Connor,et al.  Using grounded theory to understand software process improvement: A study of Irish software product companies , 2007, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[7]  P. Stappers,et al.  Achieving empathy with users: the effects of different sources of information , 2011 .

[8]  C. P. Goodman,et al.  The Tacit Dimension , 2003 .

[9]  Dominique Winter,et al.  Key Challenges in Agile Requirements Engineering , 2017, XP.

[10]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering , 2014, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[11]  Paul Ralph,et al.  Grounded Theory in Software Engineering Research: A Critical Review and Guidelines , 2016, 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[12]  Elke Daemen,et al.  Challenges of doing emphatic design: Experiences from industry , 2012 .

[13]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Status Quo in Requirements Engineering , 2018, ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol..

[14]  Jeff Sutherland,et al.  Manifesto for Agile Software Development , 2013 .

[15]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[16]  Krzysztof Czarnecki Generative Software Development , 2004, SPLC.

[17]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Requirements that Handle IKIWISI, COTS, and Rapid Change , 2000, Computer.

[18]  D. L. Gladstein Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. , 1984 .

[19]  C. Kurtz,et al.  The New Dynamics of Strategy sensemaking in a complex-complicated world , 2004 .

[20]  A. Hughes Oxford English Dictionary. , 2008, Isis; an international review devoted to the history of science and its cultural influences.

[21]  James Noble,et al.  Becoming Agile: A Grounded Theory of Agile Transitions in Practice , 2017, 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE).

[22]  K. Charmaz,et al.  Constructing Grounded Theory , 2014 .

[23]  Anthony I. Wasserman How the Internet transformed the software industry , 2011, Journal of Internet Services and Applications.

[24]  Daniel M. Berry,et al.  The importance of ignorance in requirements engineering , 1995, J. Syst. Softw..

[25]  Philippe Kruchten,et al.  Using grounded theory to study the experience of software development , 2011, Empirical Software Engineering.

[26]  Rachel K. E. Bellamy,et al.  Moving into a new software project landscape , 2010, 2010 ACM/IEEE 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering.

[27]  Tore Dybå,et al.  The daily stand-up meeting: A grounded theory study , 2016, J. Syst. Softw..

[28]  A. Edmondson,et al.  Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct , 2014 .

[29]  R. Hoffman Sensemaking and Framing: A Theoretical Reflection on Perspective in Design Synthesis , 2010 .

[30]  Patricia J. Guinan,et al.  Enabling Software Development Team Performance During Requirements Definition: A Behavioral Versus Technical Approach , 1998, Inf. Syst. Res..

[31]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Naming the pain in requirements engineering , 2016, Empirical Software Engineering.

[32]  J. H. Jaffe,et al.  Status quo , 2019, essentials.

[33]  D. Meyer,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Som Text Figs. S1 to S6 References Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups , 2022 .

[34]  Andrée Woodcock,et al.  Empathy, Design and Human Factors , 2017, AHFE.

[35]  Paul Ralph,et al.  Is Requirements Engineering Inherently Counterproductive? , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM 5th International Workshop on the Twin Peaks of Requirements and Architecture.

[36]  Rob Fuller,et al.  Blurring Boundaries - Towards the Collective Team Grokking of Product Requirements , 2019, CAiSE Forum.

[37]  Kent L. Beck,et al.  Extreme programming explained - embrace change , 1990 .

[38]  G. Ryan Techniques to Identify Themes in Qualitative Data , 2005 .

[39]  Frederik M. Fowler The Product Backlog , 2018, Navigating Hybrid Scrum Environments.

[40]  Triparna de Vreede,et al.  Team Creativity and Innovation: The Effect of Group Composition, Social Processes, and Cognition , 2012 .

[41]  Christoph Meinel,et al.  Knowing People: The Empathetic Designer , 2012 .

[42]  T. Kuhn The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd ed. , 1996 .

[43]  T. BUCHAN,et al.  Stranger in a Strange Land , 2021, Charles Boyer.

[44]  Merlijn Kouprie,et al.  A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out of the user's life , 2009 .

[45]  Rob Fuller,et al.  Functional Organization of Software Groups Considered Harmful , 2019, 2019 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software and System Processes (ICSSP).

[46]  Agile Manifesto,et al.  Manifesto for Agile Software Development , 2001 .

[47]  M. Hoegl,et al.  Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects , 2001 .

[48]  Kalu Idika Awa Functional structure and operational issues : An examination of core challenges and remedies , 2016 .

[49]  H. Bernard,et al.  Techniques to Identify Themes , 2003 .

[50]  Stephen Nicholas,et al.  The Impact of Goal Structure in Team Knowledge Creation , 2009 .

[51]  Paul Ralph,et al.  Requirements fixation , 2014, ICSE.

[52]  Angela Martin The Role of Customers in Extreme Programming Projects , 2009 .

[53]  Paul Ralph The illusion of requirements in software development , 2012, Requirements Engineering.

[54]  Eunice M. L. Soriano de Alencar Chapter 5 – Creativity in Organizations: Facilitators and Inhibitors , 2012 .

[55]  Eliot R. Smith,et al.  Can emotions be truly group level? Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria. , 2007, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[56]  Cynthia F. Kurtz,et al.  The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex and complicated world , 2003, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[57]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance , 1992 .

[58]  Hua Dong,et al.  Empathy in Design: A Historical and Cross-Disciplinary Perspective , 2017, AHFE.

[59]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Design science methodology: principles and practice , 2010, 2010 ACM/IEEE 32nd International Conference on Software Engineering.

[60]  Joseph A. Maxwell,et al.  Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach , 1996 .

[61]  G. G. Meyer,et al.  Lecture notes in business information processing , 2009 .

[62]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Naming the pain in requirements engineering , 2016, Empirical Software Engineering.