article

When Plans do not Work Out: How Plans are Used in Software Development Projects

Authors:

Kari Rönkkö,

Yvonne Dittrich,

Dave RandallAuthors Info & Claims

Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Volume 14, Issue 5

Pages 433 - 468

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-005-9004-x

Published: 01 October 2005 Publication History

Abstract

Based on empirical material from the area of software engineering, this article discusses the issue of plans and planning as an integral part of and prerequisite for software development work. It relates observed practices to literature produced by the Computer Supported Cooperative Work community. Empirical studies of software development practice seldom address re-planning. By analyzing the empirical material from one project we are able to show how certain kinds of co-ordination problems arise and how they may be dealt with. The empirical research does not focus primarily on the character of plans; instead, it raises the question `what means are necessary and should be provided in order to cope with situations when plans do not work out__ __ In relation to plans, especial emphasis is on "due process", i.e. how the project plan and the company wide project model are maintained to enable the identification and articulation of deviations from it. On the basis of our empirical analysis we propose to support the articulation and coordination work necessary in situations where plans do not adequately work out.

References

[1]

Bardram, J.E. (1997): Plans as Situated Action: An Activity Theory Approach to Workflow Systems. In J.A. Hughes, W. Prinz, T. Rodden and K. Schmidt (eds.): ECSCW '97. Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work , Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 17-32.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[2]

Boehm, B.W. (1988): A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement, In IEEE Computer , May, pp. 61-72.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[3]

Boehm, B., P. Bose, E. Horowitz and M. Lee, (1995): Requirements Negotiations and Renegotiations Aids: A Theory-W Based Spiral Approach, Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE-17), Seattle, U.S.A., 23-30 April, pp. 243-254.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[4]

Bowers, J., G. Button and W. Sharrock (1995) Workflow from Within and Without: Technology and Cooperative Work on the Print Industry Shop Floor. In H. Marmolin, Y. Sungblad and K. Schmidt (eds.): Proceedings of European Computer Supported Cooperative Work '95 , Amsterdam: Kluwer.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[5]

Button, G. and W. Sharrock (1994): Occasioned Practices in the Work of Software Engineers. In M. Jirotka and J. Goguen (eds.): Requirements Engineering: Social and Technical Issues . London: Academic Press, pp. 217-240.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[6]

Carstensen, P.H. and C. Sørensen (1996): From the Social to the Systematic. Mechanisms Supporting Coordination in Design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing , vol. 5, pp. 387-413.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[7]

Conklin E. (1993): Capturing Organisational Memory. In R. Baecker (ed.): Groupware and CSCW: Assisting Human-Human Collaboration . Readings San Francisco, Morgan Kaufmann (originally in D. Coleman editor, Groupware '92, San Francisco, Morgan Kaufmann).

Google Scholar

[8]

Coulon, A. (1995): Ethnomethodology , Sage series Qualitative Research Methods 36th volume, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.

Google Scholar

[9]

Curtis, B., M.I. Kellner and J. Over (1992): Process Modeling, Communications of the ACM vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 75-90.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[10]

Dittrich, Y. and O. Lindeberg (2004): How Use-Orientated Development can Take Place, Information and Software Technology , vol. 46, pp. 603-617.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[11]

Finkelstein, A. (2000): (ed.) Proceedings of the Future of Software Engineering , New York: ACM.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[12]

Floyd, C. (1987): Outline of a Paradigm Change in Software Engineering. In G. Bjerknes, P. Ehn and M. Kyng (eds.): Computers and Democracy . Aldershot, pp. 192-210.

Google Scholar

[13]

Floyd, C., F-M. Reisin G. Schmidt (1989): STEPS to Software Development with Users. In G. Ghezzi and J.A. McDermid (eds.): Proceedings of European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ESEC '89), Lecture Notes in Science, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, vol. 387, pp. 48-64.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[14]

Fuggetta, A. (2000): Software Process: A Roadmap. In A. Finkelstein (ed.): The Future of Software Engineering , New York: ACM, pp. 25-34.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[15]

Gerson, E. and S. Star (1986): Analyzing Due Process in the Workplace. Proceedings of the third ACM-SIGOIS conference on Office automation systems , December, Providence, Rhode Island, United States, vol. 7, no. 2-3, pp. 70-78.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[16]

Grinter, R. (1996): Supporting Articulation Work Using Software Configuration Management Systems. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing , vol. 5, pp. 447-465.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[17]

Groth, K. and J. Bowers (2001): On Finding Things Out: Situating Organisational Knowledge. Proceedings of European Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW), 2001, Amsterdam: Kluwer.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[18]

Harper, R., D. Randall and M. Rouncefield (2000): Organisational Change and Retail Finance: An Ethnographic Perspective . London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

[19]

Jirotka M. and Goguen J. (eds.) (1994): Requirements Engineering: Social and Technical Issues , London, UK: Academic Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[20]

Kovitz, B. (1999): Practical Software Requirements: A Manual of Contents & Style , Manning.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[21]

Lehman, M. (1980): Programs, Life Cycles, and Laws of Software Evolution, Proceedings of the IEEE 68 , pp. 1060-1076.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[22]

Lehman, M. (1987): Process Modelling - Where Next, Most Influential Paper of ICSE 9 Award. Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Engineering , March 1987, Monterey, California, U.S.A., pp. 549-552.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[23]

Mathiassen, L., J. Pries-Heje and O. Ngwenyama (2002): Improving Software Organizations. From Principles to Practices . Addison Wesley.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[24]

McDonald, D. and M. Ackermann (1998): Just Talk to Me: A Field Study of Expertise Location. Proceedings of Computer Supported Cooperative Work '98 , New York: ACM Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[25]

Mi, P. and Scacchi, W., (1990) A Knowledge Based Environment for Modelling and simulating Software Engineering Processes, IEEE Transaction on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 2(3), pp. 283-294.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[26]

Mi, P. and W. Scacchi (1991): Modelling Articulation Work in Software Engineering Processes. Proceeding of the 1st International Conference on the Software Process , pp. 188- 201.

Google Scholar

[27]

Nardi, B. (1996): Studying Context A Comparison of Activity Theory, Situated Action Models, and Distributed Cognition. In B. Nardi (ed.): Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. , Cambridge: IT Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[28]

Nuseibeh, B. and S. Easterbrook (2000): Requirements Engineering: A Roadmap. In A. Finkelstein (ed.): The Future of Software Engineering . New York: ACM, pp. 37-46.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[29]

Osterweil, L. (1987): Software Processes are Software too, Most Influential Paper of ICSE 9 Award, Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Software Engineering. March , Monterey, California, U.S.A., pp. 2-13.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[30]

Paulk, M.C., B. Curtis, M.B. Chrissis and C.V. Weber (1993): Capability Maturity Model, Version 1.1, In IEEE Software , July, pp. 18-23.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[31]

Randall, D., M. Rouncefield, J. O'Brien and J. Hughes (1996): Organisational Memory: Supporting the Mavis' phenomenon, Proceedings of OzChi '96 , Hamilton, New Zealand.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[32]

Rönkkö, K. (2005): Making Methods Work in Software Engineering: Method Deployment - as a social Achievement , Blekinge Institute of Technology, School of Engineering, Doctoral Dissertation Series No. 2005:04.

Google Scholar

[33]

Rönkkö, K., O. Lindeberg and Y. Dittrich (2002): Bad Practice or Bad Methods: Are Software Engineering and Ethnographic Discourses Incompatible?. Proceedings of The International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering , 3-4 October, Nara, Japan, pp. 204-210.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[34]

Schmidt, K. (1997): Of Maps and Scripts: The Status of Formal Constructs in Cooperative Work, GROUP'97. In Hayne and W. Prinz (eds.): Proceedings of the ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work , New York: ACM Press, pp. 138-147.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[35]

Schmidt, K. (2002): Remarks on the Complexity of Cooperative Work. In Pascal Salembier and Tahar Hakim Benchekroun (eds.): Cooperation and Complexity in Sociotechnical Systems, {special issue of} Revue des sciences et technologies de l'information, {série} Revue d'intelligence artificielle (RSTI-RAI), Hermes/Lavoisier, Paris 2002, vol. 16, no. 4-5, pp. 443-483.

Google Scholar

[36]

Seaman, C. (1999): Qualitative Methods in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 557-572.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[37]

Suchman, L. (1987): Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Digital Library

Google Scholar

[38]

Wittgenstein, L. (1968): Philosophical Investigations . New York, U.S.A: Macmillan Publishing Co.

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Wolf CBlomberg J(2019)Evaluating the Promise of Human-Algorithm Collaborations in Everyday Work PracticesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/33592453:CSCW(1-23)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3359245
Nurgalieva MDumas MPfahl DApel SRusso A(2019)The lessons software engineers can extract from painters to improve the software development processProceedings of the 2019 27th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3338906.3342492(1211-1213)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3338906.3342492
Redaelli ICarassa A(2018)New Perspectives on PlansComputer Supported Cooperative Work10.1007/s10606-017-9278-927:1(107-148)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10606-017-9278-9
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

When Plans do not Work Out: How Plans are Used in Software Development Projects

Recommendations

Planning in an Italian airport
CSCW '12: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Companion

This research focuses on the use and the characteristics of plans in the coordination centre which manages the allocation of the parking areas of an Italian airport. I assume that this situated, technologically mediated, socially distributed and time-...
Critical Decisions in Software Development: Updating the State of the Practice

This article focuses on how to choose the "right" software development process, how to structure global software design chains, how to manage the interaction of project structure and software design, and how to balance innovation and efficiency in a ...
Software Engineering Project Standards

Software Engineering Project Standards (SEPS) and their importance are presented in this paper by looking at standards in general, then progressively narrowing the view to software standards, to software engineering standards, and finally to SEPS. After ...

Reviews

Reviewer: James M. Perry

An empirical study of the effect of coordination problems on the execution of software development plans is presented in this paper. It builds on empirical behavioral science work on plans, replanning, and situated actions (informal actions) from the field of computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW), and relates it in novel ways to software engineering work on the use of formal process models for monitoring and controlling plan deviations. The paper presents two case studies from a software tool/method development project that illustrate the use of due process in the identification of deviations from plans, the resulting replanning, and corrective actions. The first case involves a deviation from the project plan and the company project process, caused by changes in the project scope. The second case involves deviations from requirements, caused by a lack of clarity and coherence in the requirements specification. The case studies summarize excerpts from project meetings and informal discussions with project stakeholders, and illustrate how due process was used and updated for corrective action. Software engineering research emphasizes aspects of technology and process; CSCW emphasizes process and people in cooperative work. The contribution of this paper lies in its leveraging of work in both fields to improve software planning. As such, its audience includes those interested in organizational structure and cooperative behavior within a project, those interested in software process improvement, and software project managers who want a deeper perspective on process to solve project problems. Online Computing Reviews Service

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Computer Supported Cooperative Work

Computer Supported Cooperative Work Volume 14, Issue 5

October 2005

105 pages

ISSN:0925-9724

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

Kluwer Academic Publishers

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 October 2005

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

19
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 30 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Wolf CBlomberg J(2019)Evaluating the Promise of Human-Algorithm Collaborations in Everyday Work PracticesProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/33592453:CSCW(1-23)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3359245
Nurgalieva MDumas MPfahl DApel SRusso A(2019)The lessons software engineers can extract from painters to improve the software development processProceedings of the 2019 27th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3338906.3342492(1211-1213)Online publication date: 12-Aug-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3338906.3342492
Redaelli ICarassa A(2018)New Perspectives on PlansComputer Supported Cooperative Work10.1007/s10606-017-9278-927:1(107-148)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10606-017-9278-9
Matthiesen SBjørn P(2017)When Distribution of Tasks and Skills are Fundamentally ProblematicProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/31393361:CSCW(1-16)Online publication date: 6-Dec-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3139336
Bossen CLeimbach T(2017)Project Management Practices as a Subject of Research for CSCWProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/31346601:CSCW(1-25)Online publication date: 6-Dec-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3134660
Kuksenok KAragon CFogarty JLee CNeff G(2017)Deliberate Individual Change Framework for Understanding Programming Practices in four Oceanography GroupsComputer Supported Cooperative Work10.1007/s10606-017-9285-x26:4-6(663-691)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10606-017-9285-x
Dittrich Y(2016)What does it mean to use a method? Towards a practice theory for software engineeringInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2015.07.00170:C(220-231)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.07.001
Redaelli ICarassa ACosley DForte ACiolfi LMcDonald D(2015)Coordination-Artifacts SuitingProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing10.1145/2675133.2675136(165-178)Online publication date: 28-Feb-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2675133.2675136
Giuffrida RDittrich YSharp HPrikladnicki RBegel Ade Souza C(2014)How social software supports cooperative practices in a globally distributed software projectProceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering10.1145/2593702.2593716(24-31)Online publication date: 2-Jun-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2593702.2593716
Phillips SRuhe GSillito JPoltrock SSimone CGrudin JMark GRiedl J(2012)Information needs for integration decisions in the release process of large-scale parallel developmentProceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work10.1145/2145204.2145408(1371-1380)Online publication date: 11-Feb-2012
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2145204.2145408
Show More Cited By

Abstract

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Planning in an Italian airport

Critical Decisions in Software Development: Updating the State of the Practice

Software Engineering Project Standards

Reviews

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Comments

Information

Published In

Publisher

Publication History

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View options

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

Affiliations