![](bg9.png)
form in a matrix organization reinforce this silo-
focused behavior.
Based on our findings, analysis, and reflections,
we suggest that testers should be involved even
earlier in the requirements gathering stage. Not only
to review the specification but to provide input,
awareness regarding testability, and their
knowledge. Further research should focus on a vali-
dation of our findings and possible effects of reor-
ganizing software testing in the overall process of
the production of software systems. The size of the
population is not representative of software testers in
the automotive industry and we suggest that further
research should be conducted in other suppliers.
Nevertheless, we are aware that the functional ma-
trix organization, the fixed start date of production,
the complex and missing requirements, and the late
inputs for the testers are common among other sup-
pliers. We believe this case study sets out a starting
point for how software testing practice is carried out
by a group of highly qualified professionals. Further
research should look into the relationship between
the lack of cooperation within the testing team and
the impact this has on the quality of safety critical
products like the ones analyzed in this case study.
REFERENCES
Bernard, H. R. and Ryan, G. W., 2010. Analyzing qualita-
tive data: Systematic approaches. Sage.
Broy, M., 2006. Challenges in automotive software engi-
neering. In ICSE’06 Proceedings of the 28th ACM In-
ternational Conference on Software Engineering, 33–
42.
Cohen, C. F., Birkin, S. J., Garfield, M. J., and Webb,
H.W., 2004. Managing conflict in software testing.
Communications of the ACM, 47(1), 76–81.
Creswell, J. W. and Clark, V. L. P., 2007. Designing and
conducting mixed methods research. Wiley Online.
Deak, A., 2012. Understanding socio-technical factors
influencing testers in software development organiza-
tions. In Computer Software and Applications Confer-
ence (COMPSAC), 2012 IEEE, 1–4.
Deci, E. L. and Ryan, R. M., 2012. Motivation, Personali-
ty, and Development Within Embedded Social Con-
texts: Overview of self-determination theory. In R. M.
Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motiva-
tion. 85–109. New York: Oxford University Press.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S., 2005. The Sage Hand-
book of Qualitative Research. Sage.
Engström, E. and Runeson, P., 2010. A qualitative survey
of regression testing practices. In M. Ali Babar, Matias
Vierimaa and Markku Oivo (Eds.), Product-Focused
Software Process Improvement (LNCS Vol. 6156), 3–
16. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Fernández-Sanz, L., Villalba, M., Hilera, J., and Lacuesta,
R., 2009. Factors with negative influence on software
testing practice in Spain: A survey. In R. O’Connor,
N. Baddoo, J. Cuadrago Gallego, R. Rejas Muslera, K.
Smolander, and R. Messnarz (Eds.), Software Process
Improvement (Vol. 42), 1–12. Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer.
Garousi, V., and Zhi, J., 2013. A survey of software test-
ing practices in Canada. Journal of Systems and Soft-
ware, 86(5), 1354–1376.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., and Johnson, L., 2006. How many
interviews are enough? An experiment with data satu-
ration and variability. Field methods, 18(1), 59–82.
Martin, D., Rooksby, J., Rouncefield, M., and Sommer-
ville, I., 2008. Cooperative work in software testing. In
Proceedings of the 2008 ACM international workshop
on Cooperative and human aspects of software engi-
neering, 93–96.
McLeod, L. and MacDonell, S. G. 2011. Factors that
affect software systems development project out-
comes: A survey of research. ACM Computing Surveys
(CSUR), 43(4), 24.
Oz, E. and Sosik, J. J. 2000. Why information systems
projects are abandoned: a leadership and communica-
tion theory and exploratory study.
Journal of Comput-
er Information Systems, 41(1), 66–78.
Patel, H., Pettitt, M., and Wilson, J. R. (2012). Factors of
collaborative working: A framework for a collabora-
tion model. Applied Ergonomics, 43(1), 1–26.
Shah, H., Nersessian, N. J., Harrold, M. J., and Newstetter,
W., 2012. Studying the influence of culture in global
software engineering: thinking in terms of cultural
models. In Proceedings of the ACM 4
th
International
Conference on Intercultural Collaboration, 77–86.
Shah, H. and Harrold, M. J., 2013. Culture and testing:
What is the relationship? In ICGSE’13, Proceedings of
the IEEE 8th International Conference on Global
Software Engineering, 51–60.
Sy, T. and D’Annunzio, L., 2005. Challenges and strate-
gies of matrix organizations. Human Resource Plan-
ning, 28–39.
Taipale, O. and Smolander, K., 2006. Improving software
testing by observing practice. In Proceedings of the
2006 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empiri-
cal Software Engineering, 262–271.
Whittaker, J. A., (2000). What is software testing? and
why is it so hard? Software, IEEE, 17(1),70–79.
Zhang, X., Dhaliwal, J., and Gillenson, M. L., 2010. Or-
ganizing software testing for improved quality and sat-
isfaction. Journal of Information Technology Man-
agement, 21(4),1-12.
APPENDIX
A: Interview Guide
1. What are the main challenges of your current
project?
UnderstandingSoftwareTestersintheAutomotiveIndustry-AMixed-methodCaseStudy
313