![](bg7.png)
A major limitation of the catalogue as presented
is, of course, a lack of formal evaluation of its con-
tents. Rather, we have made a case based on argu-
ment and illustrative example. However, the cata-
logue is part of a larger model that is currently sub-
ject to refinement as part of an accepted process for
developing models, i.e. where an initial model is cre-
ated based in a pragmatic way and then undergoes
ongoing evaluation and refinement until stabilisation
occurs (Routio, 2007). We are currently implement-
ing an industry-focused project to deepen our under-
standing of software development context and would
expect both framework and catalogue to be modified
and/or extended according to findings.
6 SUMMARY
Software developers do not implement software pro-
cesses as-is, but rather adapt these according to spe-
cific project circumstances. This means we must un-
derstand the relationships between specific practices
and contextual factors. Earlier investigations revealed
that a large number of contextual factors claimed as
being relevant for tailoring are unhelpful in that the
terms applied cannot be used as-is, but must be under-
stood more deeply. Some terms represent high level
factors that affect decisions about operational strat-
egy and objectives but only indirectly affect practice
efficacy at the project level. Others are vague in that
they can be split into several more basic factors or
are ambiguous in meaning. For example, the use of
vague terminology in the software engineering liter-
ature has been observed in the area of Global Soft-
ware Engineering (GSE), where a lack of definition
of terms such as ‘outsourcing’ and ‘offshoring’ causes
confusion in meaning which results in an “inability to
judge the applicability and thus transferability of the
research into practice” (
˘
Smite et al., 2014).
In this paper, we have catalogued an example set
of these unhelpful terms and suggested some reasons
for their requiring further attention before use. The
main contribution is to expose the plethora of unhelp-
ful terms commonly stated as ‘contextual factors’.
The objective is to support discussion by providing
an illustrative set of terms that we suggest cannot be
directly applied for understanding situated software
practices. We hope the outcome will be increased
clarity. This study is part of a set of studies in which
we will evaluate and refine the model presented in
Section 4. We would expect the catalogue presented
in this paper will be modified and/or extended as new
terms and understandings arise.
REFERENCES
Avison, D. and Pries-Heje, J. (2008). Flexible informa-
tion systems development: Designing an appropriate
methodology for different situations. In Filipe, J.,
Cordeiro, J., and Cardoso, J., editors, Enterprise infor-
mation systems : 9th International Conference, ICEIS
2007, pages 212–224, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer.
B
¨
orstler, J., St
¨
orrle, H., Toll, D., van Assema, J., Duran, R.,
Hooshangi, S., Jeuring, J., Keuning, H., Kleiner, C.,
and MacKellar, B. (2018). ”i know it when i see it”
perceptions of code quality: Iticse ’17 working group
report. In Proceedings of the 2017 ITiCSE Conference
on Working Group Reports, ITiCSE-WGR ’17, page
70?85, New York, NY, USA. Association for Com-
puting Machinery.
Clarke, P., Mesquida, A.-L., Ekert, D., Ekstrom, J., Gornos-
taja, T., Jovanovic, M., Johansen, J., Mas, A., Mess-
narz, R., Villar, B. N., O’Connor, A., O’Connor, R. V.,
Reiner, M., Sauberer, G., Schmitz, K.-D., and Yilmaz,
M. (2016). An Investigation of Software Development
Process Terminology. volume 609 of Communications
in Computer and Information Science (CCIS), pages
351–361. Springer International Publishing, Switzer-
land.
Clarke, P. and O’Connor, R. V. (2012). The situational fac-
tors that affect the software development process: To-
wards a comprehensive reference framework. Infor-
mation and Software Technology, 54:433–447.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). The Selection of a Research Ap-
proach, pages 31–55. Sage Publications Inc.
de Azevedo Santos, M., de Souza Bermejo, P. H.,
de Oliveira, M. S., and Tonelli, A. O. (2011). Ag-
ile practices: An assessment of perception of value of
professionals on the quality criteria in performance of
projects. Journal of Software Engineering and Appli-
cations, 4:700–709.
Dingsøyr, T. and Lassenius, C. (2016). Emerging themes in
agile software development: Introduction to the spe-
cial section on continuous value delivery. Information
and Software Technology, 77:56–60.
Dyb
˚
a, T., Sjøberg, D. I., and Cruzes, D. S. (2012). What
Works for Whom, Where, When and Why? On the
Role of Context in Empirical Software Engineering.
In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium
on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement
(ESEM 2012), pages 19–28, Lund, Sweden.
Easterbrook, S., Singer, J., Storey, M., and Damian, D.
(2008). Selecting empirical methods for software en-
gineering research. In F. Shull and J. Singer and D.I.K
Sjøberg, editor, Guide to Advanced Empirical Soft-
ware Engineering, pages 285–311. Springer Interna-
tional Publishing, London, UK.
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. (1990). Std
610.12-1990: IEEE Standard Glossary of Software
Engineering Terminology. In IEEE Standards Collec-
tion - Software Engineering. The Institute of Electrical
and Electronic Engineers, Inc., New York, USA.
Kirk, D. and MacDonell, S. G. (2016). An Ontological
Analysis of a Proposed Theory for Software Devel-
opment. In et al., P. L., editor, Software Technologies
ENASE 2021 - 16th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering
346