In this chapter the topics for future research are presented. The areas for further research focus especially on the development ideas for the requirement risk anal-ysis and prioritization in IS development. The literature review revealed that ap-proaching requirements from risk management perspective is not common in IS development. However, methods and techniques for the purpose exist, but their practical adaptations require further work. The conclusion from the case study is that the requirement risk prioritization method was found to give valuable infor-mation to project team members in the case study arrangement about the require-ment risks. However, several issues for further research were brought up during the study.
One of further research items is associated with the case study observation about the potential need for context specific adaptations of the requirement risk analysis and prioritization method. The interviewees brought up that organiza-tion and project context specific adaptaorganiza-tion of the risk tables might be needed to increase reliability of the risk analysis and prioritization. Therefore, an interest-ing future research item would be to study what kind of industry, organization or technology dependent factors there are for requirements risks, and how they should they be represented in the risk item listings. It might be valuable to first construct a model for describing IS project contexts for requirement risk analysis purposes. The model would describe common IS project factors, which are rele-vant from the requirement risk analysis and prioritization perspective. The model could be utilized in adding context-adaptive requirements risk approach to the requirements risk analysis and prioritization method.
Also, practical application of the requirement risk prioritization method with different ISD approaches and in different project setups could be developed further. The method is intended to be independent of the ISD approach, but prac-tical adaptation must be done in the ISD context. In the example scenario pre-sented in this thesis (chapter 5.6.1), the requirements risk prioritization method is applied with agile framework, namely Scrum. In the example, it is proposed that the method is applied as part of iteration planning sessions, when the back-log items are groomed and prepared for implementation (e.g. in Scrum terminol-ogy, in sprint planning sessions). The example is superficial and mostly illustra-tive. Practically applicable way of implementation of the method is worth more study: for example, which risk item lists should be actually be applied in sprint planning and sprint review sessions, or how to deal with different types of risk requirement risk profiles in agile environment.
Also the limitations of the case study arrangement pointed out in the chap-ter 8.3 leave several open issues for further research efforts. Testing the method in different ISD development scenarios would be worthwhile. For instance, de-veloping the requirement risk control in continuous development environment of a mass-market software or service is worthwhile. The case study of this thesis did not give input in this questions, and further research on the topic would be interesting to evaluate applicability of the method for this purpose. In addition, certain steps of the method, especially the requirement analysis technique selec-tion step, require further analysis, since its applicability was challenged in the case study.
As described earlier, the case study had its limitations, which limit the reli-ability and generalizreli-ability of the results. Additional empirical research would be valuable to study the method in alternative contexts. Further on, in this thesis case study the interviews were conducted in the early phase of the case project.
Therefore the interviews did not provide sufficient information to reliably eval-uate the impact of the method on organization level performance, because the project outcome is not known. Based on the case study, the method shows prom-ise, but proper impact analysis would be also worth further research for instance in a longitudinal study arrangement.
8.5 Summary
In this chapter the findings of the study are summarized, and the conclusions are presented. The chapter also highlighted the limitations of this study and further research items identified during the work.
REFERENCES
Barki, H., Rivard, S., and Talbot, J. (1993). Toward an Assessment of Software Development Risk. Journal of Management Information Systems (10:2), pp 203-225.
Boehm, B.W. (1991). Software risk management: principles and practices, IEEE Software 8 (1), 1991, pp. 32–41.
Chen, L. (2015). Continuous Delivery: Huge Benefits, but Challenges Too. IEEE Software (32:2), pp. 50-54.
Claps, G.G., Berntsson-Svensson, R., and Aurum, A. (2015). On the Journey to Continuous Deployment: Technical and Social Challenges along the Way. Infor-mation and Software Technology, vol. 57, 2015, pp. 21–31.
Delone, W.H. & McLean, E.R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of mation Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management Infor-mation Systems Vol. 19, Issue 4, 2003.
Ebert, C. (2014). Software Product Management. IEEE Software, vol. 31, no. 3, May-June 2014, 21-24
Google Ventures. (2017) Design Sprint Kit https://designsprintkit.with-google.com/, accessed 15.10.2017.
Hooks, I.F. & Farry, K.A. (2001). Customer-centered products: Creating success-ful products through smart requirements management. AMACOM, New York, USA, 2001.
ISO/IEC 24765 (2010). Systems and software engineering — Vocabulary.
ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2010(E), 1st edition. 15 December 2010. Online publication, available: http://www.iso.org. Accessed: 22nd December 2016.
Iversen, J. H., Mathiassen, L., & Nielsen, P. A. (2004). Managing risk in software process improvement: an action research approach. MIS Quarterly, 395-433.
Kauppinen, M., Savolainen, J., Lehtola, L., Komssi, M., Töhönen, H. & Davis, A.
(2009). From feature development to customer value creation. 17th International requirements engineering conference RE’09, 275–280.
Keil, M., Cule, P. E., Lyytinen, K., & Schmidt, R. C. (1998). A Framework for Iden-tifying Software Project Risks. Communications of the ACM, (41) 11, pp. 76-83.
Klein, H. K. and Myers, M.D. (1999). A Set of Principles for Conducting and Eval-uating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly, Special Issue on Intensive Research (23:1), 1999, pp. 67-93.
Komssi, M., Kauppinen, M., Töhönen, H. Lehtola, L. & Davis, A.M. (2015).
Roadmapping problems in practice: value creation from the perspective of the customers. Requirements Engineering (2015) 20: 45-69.
Leffingwell, D. (2017). Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe). Available online at www.
scaledagileframework.com. Accessed 28 September 2017.
Leikas, J. (2009). Life-Based Design - A holistic approach to designing human-technology interaction. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, VTT publica-tions 726, 2009.
Mathiassen, L., Saarinen T., Tuunanen T., and Rossi M. (2007). A Contingency Model for Requirements Development. Journal of the Association for Infor-mation Systems (8:11), 2007, pp. 569-597.
Measey, P. (2015). Agile Foundations: Principles, practices and frameworks. BCS Learning & Development Limited, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/jyvaskyla-ebooks/detail.action?do-cID=1759633.
Nemoto, Y., Uei, K., Sato, K. & Shimomura, Y. (2015). A Context-based Require-ments Analysis Method for PSS Design. Procedia CIRP 30, 42-47.
Patrício, L., Falcão e Cunha, J. & Fisk, R.P. (2009). Requirements engineering for multi-channel services: the SEB method and its application to a multi-channel bank. Requirements Engineering 14:3, 209-227.
Peffers, K., et al. (2003). Extending Critical Success Factors Methodology to Facil-itate Broadly Participative Information Systems Planning. Journal of Manage-ment Information Systems 20(1): 51-85.
Persson, J. S., Mathiassen, L., Boeg, J., Madsen, T. S., & Steinson, F. (2009). Man-aging risks in distributed software projects: an integrative framework. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 56: 3), pp. 508-532.
Pohl, K. (2010). Requirements Engineering: Fundamentals, Principles, and Tech-niques, 1st ed. Springer Publishing Company, Inc. 2010.
Smith, A., Bieg, D.P. & Cabrey, T.S. (2014) Requirements Management — A Core Competency for Project and Program Success. PMI’s Pulse of the Profession
In-Depth Report, August 2014. Online publication, available http://www.pmi.org/
Accessed 22nd December 2016.
Rodriguez, P., Haghighatkhah, A., Lwakatare, L.E., Teppola, S., Suomalainen, T.
Eskeli, J., Karvonen, T., Kuvaja, T., Verner, J.M. & Oivo, M. (2017). Continuous deployment of software intensive products and services: A systematic mapping study. Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 123, January 2017, Pages 263-291.
Ryynänen, T., Karvonen, I., Korhonen, H. & Jansson, K. (2016). Collaboration Driven Requirements for a Product-Service Engineering Platform. Collaboration in a Hyperconnected World. In the proceedings of 17th IFIP WG 5.5 Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, PRO-VE 2016, Porto, Portugal, October 3–5, 2016, 340-349.
Tuunanen, T. & Govindji, H. (2016). Understanding flow experience from users’
requirements. Behaviour & Information Technology 35:2, 134-150. Online publi-cation date: 27-Feb-2015.
Tuunanen, T. & Kuo, I-T. (2015). The effect of culture on requirements: a value-based view of prioritization. European Journal of Information Systems, May 2015, Vol. 24 (3) 295-313.
Tuunanen, T. & Peffers, K. (2016). Stakeholder Requirements Acquisition Meth-odology, submitted to an international peer-reviewed journal. 2016.
Tuunanen, T. & Vartiainen, T. (2016). Development of Requirements Risk Priori-tization Method, submitted to peer-reviewed journal. 2016.
Wallace, L., Keil, M. & Arun, R. (2004). Understanding software project risk; a cluster analysis. Information & Management, (42) 1, pp. 115-125, 2004.
Wiegers, K. & Beatty, J. (2013). Software Requirements. Microsoft Press. Red-mond, Washington, USA, 2013.