Hardware Reference
In-Depth Information
6 Case Study Limitations
The design of this case study is based upon the four criteria for judging the quality of
research design recommended by Yin [24]. Construct validity, which involves establish-
ing correct operational measures for the concepts being studied, was not a limitation in
our study. We developed a sufficient operational set of measures for data collection. As
our case study is exploratory in nature, not explanatory or causal, we need not consider
internal validity. Our study is also not concerned with external validity as our study
findings are not generalized to other GSD projects. Our single case study initiates an
exploration of the use of agile strategies in a GSD project. In this case study, we must
consider reliability; data was collected based on the risks identified in the literature that
impact the coordinating mechanisms, standardization, direct supervision and mutual
adjustment due to project stakeholder distribution. However we cannot exclude bias on
the part of our interviewees who reported what they thought happened. However, we
did use multiple sources of evidence (documentation, discussion, interaction etc) to help
us ensure sufficient reliability.
7 Conclusions and Future Research
Our initial case findings reveal that the use of some agile practices did help to reduce
some GSD risks and improve project coordination processes. In particular we found
that:
•
The
“Daily stand up meeting”
with participation by both the Sydney and Malay-
sian team members helped to minimize some risks that impact on the use of the
coordinating mechanisms direct supervision and mutual adjustment. Project coordi-
nation overhead was minimized as the project manager could discuss with both
teams what had been done, and what needed to be done; existing problems were
also covered. Daily stand up meetings with the aid of various communication tools
ensures a synchronous communication environment and helps to build mutual un-
derstanding among distributed project stakeholders.
•
Similarly, the
“Sprint planning meetings”
and
“Retrospective meetings”
with
participation by distributed project stakeholders helped to maintain project standards,
and better project coordination; communication among project stakeholders was also
facilitated.
The practice “
Sprint review meeting”
attended by team members from both sites
also helped to increase project visibility and helped the project manager to minimize
the challenges impacting on the coordinating mechanisms “direct supervision” and
“mutual adjustment”.
•
•
The practices
“Test driven development”
, “
Coding standards”,
and
“Refactoring”
also helped to maintain project standards and increased project communication as
these practices usually support communication through the code.
Our research provides only a single case study and we do not expect these findings to
be generalizable to all GSD projects as GSD projects have many forms as noted ear-
lier. A series of case studies can, however, provide insight into the use of agile prac-
tices that can help to reduce GSD risks and improve project co-ordination processes.
