Investigating Collaboration Driven by Requirements in Cross-Functional Software Teams
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Achieving effective collaboration is an ongoing challenge in software development, and requirements engineering inherits this challenge. By taking a requirements perspective on collaboration we can better understand how cross-functional teams coordinate work throughout the project life-cycle. In this paper we report on a case study of a global IT company that investigated requirements-driven collaboration in a cross-functional team. We studied collaboration by examining the congruence between the technical dimension of work and social relationships team members establish. We calculated the mismatch between the social and technical dimensions. Based on the results, we critically analyzed the applicability of congruence to the study of cross-functional software teams as well as the limitations of current socio-technical congruence measures, which have been applied to only study developer teams. Based on this work, methods to investigate congruence between the social and technical dimensions of work have to be extended to incorporate information about pre-defined structures in the organization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it