Prioritization and transparency in software development: An action research in public administration
ResumoThe prioritization of requirements is a critical activity in quality assurance. However, in public institutions, prioritization faces conflicts with financial constraints. Problem: Increasing the complexity of requirements. Objective: Proposition of a Kanban method to improve the transparency of activities and facilitate prioritization. Method: An action research carried out in two cycles at the Attorney General's Office of the State of Pernambuco, involving the development team and public managers. Result: The presentation of the method's effectiveness as a mechanism facilitating transparency and as a support to management in prioritization.
Babar, M. I. Ramzan, M. and Ghayyur, S. A. K. (2011) “Challenges and future trends in software requirements prioritization,” in International Conference on Computer Networks and Information Technology, pp. 319–324.
Anderson, D. (2010) Kanban: Successful Evolutionary Change for Your Technology Business. Blue Hole Press. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.com.br/books?id=RJ0VUkfUWZkC
Petersen, K. e. a. (2014) “Early identification of bottlenecks in very large-scale system of systems software development”.
Taibi, D. e. a. (2017) “Comparing requirements decomposition within the scrum, scrum with Kanban,” International Conference on Agile Software Development, p. 68–83.
Lehtola, L. e. a. (2004) “Requirements prioritization challenges in practice,” Product focused software process improvement, pp. 497–508.
Karlsson, J. e. a. (1997) “A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements,” IEEE Software September/October, pp. 67–74.
Berander, P. e. a. (2005) “Requirements prioritization,” Engineering and managing software requirements, pp. 69–94.
Beck, K. (2000) Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley.
McIntyre, J. (2016) “MoSCoW or kano - how do you prioritize?” HotPMO.
Brad, L. (2006) “Prioritizing stakeholders for public relations,” Institute for Public Relations.
Post, J., e. a. (2002) “Managing the extended enterprise: The new stakeholder view,” California Management Review, pp. 6–28.
Carr, W. (2006) “Philosophy, methodology and action research,” Journal of philosophy of education, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 421–435.
Sjoberg, D. I. Dyba, T. and Jorgensen, M. (2007) “The future of empirical methods in software engineering research,” in 2007 Future of Software Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 358–378.
Ahmad, M. O. Dennehy, D. Conboy, K. and Oivo, M. (2018) “Kanban in software engineering: A systematic mapping study,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 137, pp. 96 – 113. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121217302820
Dos Santos, P. S. M. and Travassos, G. H. (2011) “Action research can swing the balance in experimental software engineering,” in Advances in computers. Elsevier, vol. 83, pp. 205–276.
Santos, P. and Travassos, G. (2011) “Action research can swing the balance in experimental software engineering,” Advances in computers, vol. 83, pp. 205–276.