Causes and Mitigation Practices of Requirement Volatility in Agile Software Development
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
One of the main obstacles in software development projects is requirement volatility (RV), which is defined as uncertainty or changes in software requirements during the development process. Therefore, this research tries to understand the underlying factors behind the RV and the best practices to reduce it. The methodology used for this research is based upon qualitative research using interviews with 12 participants with experience in agile software development projects. The participants hailed from Austria, Nigeria, the USA, the Philippines, Armenia, Sri Lanka, Germany, Egypt, Canada, and Turkey and held roles such as project managers, software developers, Scrum Masters, testers, business analysts, and product owners. Our findings based on our empirical data revealed six primary factors that cause RV and three main agile practices that help to mitigate it. Theoretically, this study contributes to the body of knowledge relating to RV management. Practically, this research is expected to aid software development teams in comprehending the reasons behind RV and the best practices to effectively minimize it.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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