Abstract
In this paper we use a case study of a project to create a Web 2.0-based, Virtual Research Environment (VRE) for researchers to share digital resources in order to reflect on the principles and practices for embedding eResearch applications within user communities. In particular, we focus on the software development methodologies and project management techniques adopted by the project team in order to ensure that the project remained responsive to changing user requirements without compromising their capacity to keep the project ‘on track’, i.e. meeting the goals declared in the project proposal within budget and on time. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork, we describe how the project team, whose members are distributed across multiple sites (and often mobile), exploit a repertoire of coordination mechanisms, communication modes and tools, artefacts and structuring devices as they seek to establish the orderly running of the project while following an agile, user-centred development approach.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The UK Office of Science and Technology e-Infrastructure Working Group defines a VRE as “a set of online tools, systems and processes interoperating to facilitate or enhance the research process within and without institutional boundaries.” See Borda et al. (2006).
A scientific workflow is a digital artefact that enables the composition of multiple, individual steps in a research process into a single computational entity. In this form, research processes can be automated and, just as importantly, easily shared with and re-used by others.
http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html?page=5 (Retrieved on December 4, 2010)
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x83pzMMw7lk (Retrieved on December 4, 2010)
The myGrid project is home to a range of individual projects, including myExperiment and Taverna, that share a focus of developing tools to “help e-Scientists get on with science and get on with scientists.” See http://wiki.myexperiment.org/index.php/Main_Pageww.mygrid.org.uk/
CVS (Concurrent Versioning System) is a tool that allows software project teams to keep track of changes in program files.
The term ‘hackfest’ refers to an intensive, collaborative coding session, designed to accelerate development. The myExperiment hackfests take place every month, last between 2 and 3 days, and focus on getting key requirements translated into code.
A perception voiced by many developers of e-Research applications is that grid technical standards are too complex and difficult to use (see, e.g. Chin and Coveney 2004).
References
Abrahamsson, P., Warsta, J., Siponen, M. and Ronkainen, J. (2003). New directions on agile methods: A comparative analysis. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, Portland, May. IEEE.
Beck, K. (2000). Extreme programming explained: Embracing change. Addison Wesley.
Boehm, B. W. (1988). A spiral model of software development and enhancement. IEEE Computer, 21, 61–72.
Borda, A., Careless, J., Dimitrova, M., Fraser, M., Frey, J., Hubbard, P., et al. (2006). Report of the Working Group on Virtual Research Communities for the OST e-Infrastructure Steering Group. London, UK: Office of Science and Technology.
Button, G., & Sharrock, W. (1994). Occasioned practices in the work of software engineers. In M. Jirotka & J. Goguen (Eds.), Requirements engineering: Social and technical issues. London: Academic.
Button, G., & Sharrock, W. (1996). Project work: The organisation of collaborative design and development in software engineering. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, 5, 369–386.
Chin, J. and Coveney, P. (2004). Towards tractable toolkits for the Grid: a plea for lightweight, usable middleware. UK e-Science Technical Report Series, National e-Science Centre. Available at http://www.nesc.ac.uk/technical_papers/UKeS-2004-01.pdf (Retrieved on December 1, 2010).
Crabtree, A., Nichols, D., O’Brien, J., Rouncefield, M., & Twidale, M. (2000). Ethnomethodologically informed ethnography and information system design. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(7), 666–682.
De Roure, D., & Goble, C. (2008). Six principles of software design to empower scientists. IEEE Software, 26(1), 88–95.
De Roure, D., Goble, C. and Stevens, R. (2007). Designing the myExperiment virtual research environment for the social sharing of workflows. In: Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on e-Science and Grid Computing (pp. 603–610), Bangalore, India, 10–13 December.
Dyba, T., & Dingsoyr, T. (2008). Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 50(9–10), 833–859.
Fowler, M. and Highsmith, J. (2001). The agile manifesto. Software Development Magazine. August. Available at http://www.sdmagazine.com/documents/s=844/sdm0108a/0108a.htm (Retrieved May 8, 2009).
Gil, Y., Deelman, E., Ellisman, M., Fahringer, T., Fox, G., Gannon, D., et al. (2007). Examining the challenges of scientific workflows. IEEE Computer, 40(12), 24–32.
Glaser B. and Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory. strategies for qualitative research. Sociology Press.
Hey, T and Trefethen, A. (2003). The data deluge: An e-Science perspective. In: Berman. F., Fox. G. and Hey, A. (Eds.), Grid computing—making the global infrastructure a reality. Wiley.
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. Sage.
Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialisation of human feeling. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hole, S., & Moe, N. B. (2008). A case study of coordination in distributed agile software development. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 16(5), 189–200.
Hughes, J. A., King, V., Rodden, T. and Andersen, H. (1994). Moving out from the control room: Ethnography in system design, In: Proceedings of CSCW’94. Chapel Hill: ACM.
Mackenzie, A. and Rouncefield, M. (2002). How ‘hacking’ hides a project: from software engineering to open source and back again. Appendix C. Dependability Issues in Open Source Software DIRC Project Activity 5 Final Report. University of Newcastle on Tyne.
Morris, J. (2006). Software product management and the endless beta. Available at http://jimmorris.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_jimmorris_archive.html (Retrieved April 9, 2008).
Procter, R., Williams, R., Stewart, J., Poschen, M., Snee, H., Voss, A., et al. (2010). Adoption and use of Web 2.0 in scholarly communications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, special issue on e-Science, 368(1926), 4039–4056.
Ramesh, B., Cao, L., Mohan, K., & Xu, P. (2006). Can distributed software development be agile? Communications of the ACM, 49(10), 41–46.
Randall, D., Harper, R. and Rouncefield, M. (2007). Fieldwork for Design: Theory and practice. Kluwer.
Royce, W.W. (1987 [1970]). Managing the development of large software systems: Concepts and techniques. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering (pp. 328–338). Monterey, CA.
Russo, N. L., & Stolterman, E. (2000). Exploring the assumptions underlying information systems methodologies: Their impact on past, present and future ISM research. Information Technology & People, 13(4), 313–327.
Schwaber, K., & Beedle, M. (2002). Agile software development with scrum. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Segal, J. (2005). Two principles of end-user software engineering research. In: Proceedings of the first workshop on end-user software engineering. St Louis: ACM.
Sharp, H., Robinson, H., & Petre, M. (2009). The role of physical artefacts in agile software development: Two complementary perspectives. Interacting with Computers, 21(1–2), 108–116.
Sharrock, W., & Anderson, B. (1993). Working towards agreement. In G. Button (Ed.), Technology in working order (pp. 149–161). London: Routledge.
Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138.
Simon, H. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT.
Sommerville, I. (2001). Software engineering (6th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education & Addison Wesley.
Suchman, L. (1994). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work Journal, 2(1–2), 21–39.
Suchman, L. (1995). Making work visible. Communications of the ACM, 38(9), 33–35.
Voss, A., & Procter, R. (2009). Virtual research environments in scholarly work and communications. Special issue on Virtual Research Environments. Library Hi Tech Journal, 27(2), 174–190.
Wastell, D. G. (1996). The fetish of technique: Methodology as a social defence. Information Systems Journal, 6, 25–40.
Woolgar, S. (1991). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters. Essays on power technology and domination (pp. 58–100). London: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Procter, R., Rouncefield, M., Poschen, M. et al. Agile Project Management: A Case Study of a Virtual Research Environment Development Project. Comput Supported Coop Work 20, 197–225 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-011-9137-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-011-9137-z