Project Quality of Off-Shore Virtual Teams Engaged in Software Requirements Analysis: An Exploratory Comparative Study

The off-shore software development companies in countries such as India use a global delivery model in which initial requirement analysis phase of software projects get executed at client locations to leverage frequent and deep interaction between user and developer teams. Subsequent phases such as design, coding and testing are completed at off-shore locations. Emerging trends indicate an increasing interest in off-shoring even requirements analysis phase using computer mediated communication. We conducted an exploratory research study involving students from Management Development Institute (MDI), India and Marquette University (MU), U.S.A. to determine quality of such off-shored requirements analysis projects. Our findings suggest that project quality of teams engaged in pure off-shore mode is comparable to that of teams engaged in collocated mode. However, the effect of controls such as user project monitoring on the quality of off-shored projects needs to be studied further.

[1]  Christof Ebert,et al.  Surviving Global Software Development , 2001, IEEE Softw..

[2]  Amit Malik,et al.  Analysis of User Involvement and Participation on the Quality of IS Planning Projects: An Exploratory Study , 2009, J. Organ. End User Comput..

[3]  John Short,et al.  The social psychology of telecommunications , 1976 .

[4]  Russell L. Purvis,et al.  Controlling Information Systems Development Projects: The View from the Client , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[5]  Laku Chidambaram,et al.  How Much Bandwidth Is Enough? A Longitudinal Examination of Media Characteristics and Group Outcomes , 1999, MIS Q..

[6]  L. Kirsch.  The Management of Complex Tasks in Organizations: Controlling the Systems Development Process , 1996 .

[7]  Suprateek Sarker,et al.  Information systems development by US-Norwegian virtual teams: implications of time and space , 2002, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[8]  Mahesh S. Raisinghani,et al.  An empirical study of best practices in virtual teams , 2001, Inf. Manag..

[9]  Andreas Koskeris,et al.  Digital Divide and Rural Communities: Practical Solutions and Policies , 2010 .

[10]  Jesús Favela,et al.  An Experience in Collaborative Software Engineering Education , 2001, IEEE Softw..

[11]  Hester W. J. Meyer,et al.  Information Technology and Indigenous People , 2008 .

[12]  William Remus,et al.  Graduate students as surrogates for managers in experiments on business decision making , 1986 .

[13]  IvesBlake,et al.  Trust and the unintended effects of behavior control in virtual teams , 2003 .

[14]  H. Keith Edwards,et al.  Analysis of Software Requirements Engineering Exercises in a Global Virtual Team Setup , 2005, J. Glob. Inf. Manag..

[15]  Erran Carmel,et al.  Building Your Information Systems from the Other Side of the World: How Infosys Manages Time Zone Differences , 2006, MIS Q. Executive.

[16]  J. Walther.  Relational Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Observations over Time , 1995 .

[17]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1999, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[18]  Kregg Aytes,et al.  A longitudinal analysis of the effects of media richness on cohesion development and process satisfaction in computer-supported workgroups , 1998, Proceedings of the Thirty-First Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[19]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Is Anybody Out There? Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams , 1998, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Rajiv Sabherwal,et al.  Portfolios of Control in Outsourced Software Development Projects , 2003, Inf. Syst. Res..

[21]  Kirk St. Amant,et al.  IT Outsourcing: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications , 2009 .

[22]  Ita Richardson,et al.  Globalizing Software Development in the Local Classroom , 2007, 20th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training (CSEET'07).

[23]  E. McDonough,et al.  An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated new product development teams , 2001 .

[24]  Robert O. Briggs,et al.  Graduate business students as surrogates for executives in the evaluation of technology , 1996 .

[25]  Brian R. Gaines,et al.  Using Different Communication Media in Requirements Negotiation , 2000, IEEE Softw..

[26]  Henri Barki,et al.  Explaining the Role of User Participation in Information System Use , 1994 .

[27]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Generalizing From Laboratory to Field Settings. , 1987 .

[28]  C. Crisp.  Control enactment in global virtual teams , 2003 .

[29]  Anne P. Massey,et al.  New Product Development Decision-Making Effectiveness: Comparing Individuals, Face-To-Face Teams, and Virtual Teams , 2001, Decis. Sci..

[30]  Param Vir Singh,et al.  Is the Business Model Broken? A Model of the Difference Between Pay-Now and Pay-Later Contracts in IT Outsourcing , 2010 .

[31]  Kwok Lau,et al.  A Supplementary Framework for Evaluation of Integrated Logistics Service Provider , 2008, Int. J. Inf. Syst. Supply Chain Manag..

[32]  Walt Stevenson,et al.  Differences between on‐site and off‐site teams: manager perceptions , 2004 .

[33]  Anthony R. Hendrickson,et al.  Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future , 1998 .

[34]  Blake Ives,et al.  Trust and the Unintended Effects of Behavior Control in Virtual Teams , 2003, MIS Q..

[35]  R. Bostrom,et al.  Evolution of group performance over time: A repeated measures study of GDSS effects , 1993 .

[36]  Hayward P. Andres.  A comparison of face‐to‐face and virtual software development teams , 2002 .

[37]  Laku Chidambaram,et al.  Relational Development in Computer-Supported Groups , 1996, MIS Q..

[38]  S. T. Foster,et al.  User involvement during information systems development: a comparison of analyst and user perceptions of system acceptance , 1999 .

[39]  Sunil Hazari.  Perceptions of End-Users on the Requirements in Personal Firewall Software: An Exploratory Study , 2005, J. Organ. End User Comput..

[40]  E.,et al.  GROUPS : INTERACTION AND PERFORMANCE , 2001 .

[41]  John Fulcher,et al.  Draw-Talk-Write: Experiences and Learning with Indigenous Australians that are Driving the Evolution of Word Recognition Technology , 2007 .

[42]  Benjamin B. M. Shao,et al.  The relationship between user participation and system success: a simultaneous contingency approach , 2000, Inf. Manag..

[43]  K. Subramanian,et al.  Leveraging Resources in Global Software Development , 2001, IEEE Softw..

[44]  M. D. Wilkinson,et al.  Management science , 1989, British Dental Journal.

[45]  R. L. Dipboye,et al.  Research settings in industrial and organizational psychology: Are findings in the field more generalizable than in the laboratory? , 1979 .

[46]  R. Rice,et al.  Electronic Emotion , 1987 .

[47]  Daniela E. Damian,et al.  An insight into the interplay between culture, conflict and distance in globally distributed requirements negotiations , 2003, 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of the.

[48]  Yue Wang.  Strategic Management of International Subcontracting: A Transaction Cost Perspective , 2008, Int. J. Inf. Syst. Supply Chain Manag..

[49]  M. Lind.  The gender impact of temporary virtual work groups , 1999 .

[50]  Ramesh Sharda,et al.  Decision support system effectiveness: a review and an empirical test , 1988 .

[51]  Blake Ives,et al.  Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research , 2004, DATB.

[52]  N. Archer.  A comparison of computer conferences with face-to-face meetings for small group business decisions , 1990 .

[53]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings: Research Findings from Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Organizational Behavior, and Human Resource Management. , 1987 .

[54]  Joey F. George,et al.  Modern Systems Analysis and Design , 1996 .