Managing and developing distributed research projects in software engineering by means of action-research
AbstractParticipation in software research projects involving several organizations (research groups, enterprises, etc) scattered all around the world is an increasingly frequent phenomenon. The geographical distribution of the organizations entails the research projects development and management taking suitable Software Engineering research methods which must satisfy the acquired commitments as well as the new coming challenges. In thatrespect, this paper discusses how the Action-research qualitative method can be suitable for managing and developing software engineering distributed research projects. Furthermore, we propose a strategy to guide the use of Action-research in the context of distributed research projects. The application of this strategy in a research project, in which more than 10 enterprises and 27 research groups from 13 countries from Latin-America plus Portugal and Spain took part, is also illustrated. We observed that the use of the proposed strategy was able to provide the research managers with: (i) a suitable research project centralized administration, and (ii) appropriate coordination and apportioning of the research responsibilities for the research products construction and validation. It is important to highlight that the proposed strategy is a new way of applying the Action-research method in Software Engineering.
C. Wagner, L. Staheli, R. Silberglitt, A. Wong, J. Kadtke. Linking Effectively: Learning Lessons from Successful Collaboration in Science and Technology (DB-345-OSTP). RAND’s Science & Technology Policy Institute. 2002. Available on: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/documented_ briefings/2005/DB345.pdf. Accessed on: August 2013.
M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, M. Trow. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. 1st ed. Ed. Sage Publications. London, England 1994. pp. 1-179
D. Smite, C. Wohlin, T. Gorschek, R. Feldt. “Empirical evidence in global software engineering: a systematic review”. Empirical Software Engineering. Vol. 15. 2010. pp. 91-118.
H. Oktaba, F. Garcia, M. Piattini, F. Pino, C. Alquicira, F. Ruiz. “Software Process Improvement: The COMPETISOFT Project”. IEEE Computer. Vol. 40. 2007. pp. 21-28.
R. Baskerville. “Investigating Information Systems with Action Research”. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. Vol. 2. 1999. pp. 1-32.
R. McTaggart. “Principles of Participatory Action Research”. Adult Education Quarterly. Vol. 41. 1991. pp. 168-187.
W. French, C. Bell. Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement. 6th ed. Ed. Prentice-Hall. London, England. 1999. pp. 1-343
Y. Wadsworth. “What is participatory Action Research?” Action Research International (Paper 2). 1998. Available on: http://www.aral.com.au/ari/pywadsworth98.html. Accessed on: August 2013.
N. Kock, F. Lau. “Information Systems Action Research: Serving Two Demanding Masters”. Information Technology & People (special issue on Action Research in Information Systems). Vol. 14. 2001. pp. 6-11.
D. Avison, F. Lan, M. Myers, A. Nielsen. “Action Research”. Communications of the ACM. Vol. 42. 1999. pp. 94-97.
F. Lau. A Review on the Use of Action Research in Information Systems Studies, in Information Systems Research: Information Systems and Qualitative Research. A. Lee, J. Liebenau, J. Degross (editors). Ed. Chapman & Hill. London, England. 1997. pp. 31- 68.
R. Baskerville, A. Wood. “A Critical Perspective on Action Research as a Method for Information Systems Research”. Journal of Information Technology. Vol. 3. 1996. pp. 235-246.
P. Medeiros, G. Travassos. Action research use in software engineering: An initial survey. In 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2009). Florida, USA. 2009. pp. 414-417.
M. Díaz. Measurement Framework for the Definition of Software Measurement Programs in SMEs: MIS-PyME. PhD Thesis. Technologies and Information Systems Division. University of Castilla-La Mancha. Ciudad Real, Spain. 2009. pp. 1-259
C. Seaman. “Qualitative Methods in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering”. IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering. Vol. 25. 1999. pp. 557-572.
M. Polo, M. Piattini, F. Ruiz. “Using a qualitative research method for building a software maintenance methodology”. Software Practice and Experience. Vol. 32. 2002. pp. 1239-1260.
I. Chein, S. Cook, J. Harding. “The field of action research”. American Psychologist. Vol. 3. 1948. pp. 43-50.
R. Baskerville, A. Wood. “Diversity in information systems action research methods”. European Journal of Information Systems. Vol. 7. 1998. pp. 90-107.
J. McKay, P. Marshall. “The dual imperatives of action research”. Information Technology & People (special issue on Action Research in Information Systems). Vol. 14. 2001. pp. 46-59.
Y. Dittrich, K. Rönkkö, J. Eriksson, C. Hansson, O. Lindeberg. “Cooperative method development. Combining qualitative empirical research with method, technique and process improvement”. Empirical Software Engineering. Vol. 13. 2008. pp. 231-260.
M. Chiasson, M. Germonprez, L. Mathiassen. “Pluralist action research: a review of the information systems literature”. Information Systems Journal. Vol. 19. 2009. pp. 31-54.
P. Checkland. “From Framework through Experience to Learning: The Essential Nature of Action Research”. Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions. H. Nissen, H. Klein, R. Hirscheim (editors). Ed. Elsevier. Amsterdam, Netherlands. 1991. pp. 397-403.
R. Davison, M. Martinsons, N. Kock. “Principles of canonical action research”. Information Systems Journal. Vol. 14. 2004. pp. 65-86.
J. McNiff. Action Research. Principles and Practice. 3rd ed. Ed. Routledge. New York, USA. 2013. pp. 1-226
P. Runeson, M. Höst. “Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering”. Empirical Software Engineering. Vol. 14. 2009. pp. 131-164.
C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Höst, M. Ohlson, B. Regnell, A. Wesslén. Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. 1st ed. Ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Norwell, Massachusetts, USA. 2000. pp. 1-204
S. Pfleeger, B. Kitchenham. “Principles of survey research: part 1: turning lemons into lemonade”. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. Vol. 26. 2001. pp. 16-18.
B. Kitchenham, S. Pfleeger. “Principles of survey research part 2: designing a survey”. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. Vol. 27. 2002. pp. 18-20.
B. Kitchenham, S. Pfleeger. “Principles of survey research: part 3: constructing a survey instrument”. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. Vol. 27. 2002. pp. 20-24.
B. Kitchenham, S. Pfleeger. “Principles of survey research part 4: questionnaire evaluation”. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. Vol. 27. 2002. pp. 20-23.
B. Kitchenham, S. Pfleeger. “Principles of survey research: part 5: populations and samples”. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. Vol. 27. 2002. pp. 17-20.
B. Kitchenham, S. Pfleeger. “Principles of survey research part 6: data analysis”. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes. Vol. 28. 2003. pp. 24-27.
F. Pino, F. Garcia, M. Piattini. “Software Process Improvement in Small and Medium Software Enterprises: A Systematic Review”. Software Quality Journal. Vol. 16. 2008. pp. 237-261.
F. Pino, J. Hurtado, J. Vidal, F. García, M. Piattini. A process for driving process improvement in VSEs. In International Conference on Software Process. Vancouver, Canada. 2009. pp. 342-353.
F. Pino, F. Garcia, M. Piattini. Key processes to start software process improvement in small companies. In 24th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. 2009. pp. 509-516.
M. Hernández, A. Florez, F. Pino, F. Garcia, M. Piattini, G. Ibargüengoitia, H. Oktaba. Supporting the Improvement Process for Small Software Enterprises through a software tool. in Software Engineering Symposium during Ninth Mexican International Conference on Computer Science. Mexicali, México. 2008. pp. 1-8.
T. Martínez, F. Pino, E. León, F. García, M. Piattini. “Supporting the Process Assessment through a Flexible Software Environment”. Communications in Computer and Information Science. Vol. 47. 2009. pp. 187-199.
R. Cruz, M. Morales, M. Morgado, F. Pino, H. Oktaba, G. Ibargüengoitia, M. Piattini. Supporting the Software Process Improvement in Very Small Entities through E-learning: the HEPALE! Project. Mexican International Conference on Computer Science. Mexico City, Mexico. 2009. pp. 221-231.
F. Pino, F. García, M. Piattini. “An Integrated Framework to Guide Software Process Improvement in Small Organizations”. Communications in Computer and Information Science. Vol. 42. 2009. pp. 213-224.
Copyright (c) 2018 Revista Facultad de Ingeniería
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors can archive the pre-print version (i.e., the version prior to peer review) and post-print version (that is, the final version after peer review and layout process) on their personal website, institutional repository and / or thematic repository
- Upon acceptance of an article, it will be published online through the page https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/ingenieria/issue/archive in PDF version with its correspondent DOI identifier
The Revista Facultad de Ingeniería -redin- encourages the Political Constitution of Colombia, chapter IV
Chapter IV Sanctions 51
The following shall be liable to imprisonment for two to five years and a fine of five to 20 times the legal minimum monthly wage: (1) any person who publishes an unpublished literary or artistic work, or part thereof, by any means, without the express prior authorization of the owner of rights; (2) any person who enters in the National Register of Copyright a literary, scientific or artistic work in the name of a person other than the true author, or with its title altered or deleted, or with its text altered, deformed, amended or distorted, or with a false mention of the name of the publisher or phonogram, film, videogram or software producer; (3) any person who in any way or by any means reproduces, disposes of, condenses, mutilates or otherwise transforms a literary, scientific or artistic work without the express prior authorization of the owners thereof; (4) any person who reproduces phonograms, videograms, software or cinematographic works without the express prior authorization of the owner, or transports, stores, stocks, distributes, imports, sells, offers for sale, acquires for sale or distribution or in any way deals in such reproductions. Paragraph. If either the material embodiment or title page of or the introduction to the literary work, phonogram, videogram, software or cinematographic work uses the name, business style, logotype or distinctive mark of the lawful owner of rights, the foregoing sanctions shall be increased by up to half.