How interaction between roles shapes the communication structure in requirements-driven collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Requirements engineering involves collaboration among many project team members. Driven by coordination needs, this collaboration relies on communication and knowledge that members have of their colleagues and related activities. Ineffective coordination with those who work on requirements dependencies may result in project failure. In this paper, we report on a study of roles and communication structures in the collaboration driven by interdependent requirements in a software team. Through on-site observations, interviews with the developers and application of social network analysis, we found that there was significant communication between diverse roles in the project, and identified what were the reasons for communication between the different roles. We also found that these interactions typically involved a core of requirements analysts and testers in close communication, that most often they involved critical members whose absence, whether temporary or permanent, would disrupt the information flow if removed from the project, as well as that new hires were mostly isolated from the team collaboration. Most interestingly we found that the emergent communication structure between the different roles in the project did not conform to the planned communication structure prescribed by the organization. These findings further our knowledge about collaboration driven by requirements, and provide some useful implications for research and development of collaborative tools to support the effective coordination of cross-functional teams in software development.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".