Requirements Engineering Tools for Global Software Engineering

A Feature Analysis Study

Somnoup Yos and Caslon Chua

Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

Keywords:

Requirements Engineering, Global Software Engineering.

Abstract:

The demand in Global Software Engineering (GSE) is increasing every year. GSE helps the software deve-

lopment industry reduce development cost and provide access to resources pool; however, GSE practitioners

also need to deal with numerous challenges. This impacts Requirements Engineering (RE) process in terms of

teamwork, collaboration, knowledge management, time and cultural differences. RE is considered to be one

of the important processes in the software development, and several studies have pointed out the need of a new

RE process that supports GSE environment. We acknowledged the importance of RE tools in supporting RE

process and conducted a study to discover the best way to use RE tools to solve the challenges in GSE. The

study used the Feature Analysis Screening Mode approach and generated a list of features with four categories

that would address these challenges, namely: (1) Shared Knowledge Management, (2) Workﬂow and Change

Management, (3) Traceability, and (4) System and Data Integration. Four RE tools on the market are selected

for investigation. We found out how these tools best support three of the categories, but have limited capabi-

lity for the ﬁrst category. Some suggestions were given for future development to provide the support for RE

process in GSE environment.

1 INTRODUCTION

Global software engineering (GSE) refers to distri-

buted software development that are located in vari-

ous geographical locations around the world (Niazi

et al., 2016b). The concept originated from Contract

Programming Outsourcing in 1970s. In 1990s, many

companies started setting up globally distributed te-

ams to low-cost countries for development (Smite

et al., 2010). GSE has become more popular in re-

cent years because it helps the software development

industry reduce cost of development, achieve ﬂexible

development time, and gain access to global talents

and resources (Ebert et al., 2016).

The GSE trend has projected the growth rate of

10% to 20% every year, and will become a standard

engineering management method (Ebert et al., 2016).

However, along with beneﬁts and opportunities, GSE

practitioners also need to deal with geographical, cul-

tural, and temporal challenges (Niazi et al., 2016a).

Several studies on GSE have tried to address those

challenges. The recommendations presented soluti-

ons in communication, knowledge transfer, tools, and

project management (Richardson et al., 2010).

The term virtual teams refers to the distributed te-

ams in GSE that operate in different locations. In GSE

distributed life cycle, the processes in different sta-

ges such as System Analysis, Design, Coding, and

Testing can be shared between different virtual te-

ams (Richardson et al., 2010). This distributed virtual

structure affects the Requirements Engineering pro-

cess in many ways. For this reason, GSE has cast new

challenges in RE process in team coordination, know-

ledge management, temporal differences, and cultural

differences (Zowghi, 2007).

Requirements engineering (RE) is one of the main

processes that can inﬂuence the success or failure of

software development (Li et al., 2015). When it co-

mes to working in a globally distributed environment,

RE process becomes more challenging compared to

the process done by co-located teams. Achieving

success in RE for GSE is another challenging work

(Damian, 2002). There are several studies that point

out the need for new RE process in GSE environment

(Zowghi, 2007). To cope with the increasing demand

in GSE, it is more important to look into how we can

make RE process become more effective (Damian,

2002).

Our study aims to achieve the evaluation on

RE tools that will help software development teams

Yos, S. and Chua, C.

Requirements Engineering Tools for Global Software Engineering.

DOI: 10.5220/0006760102910298

In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE 2018), pages 291-298

ISBN: 978-989-758-300-1

291

handle RE process more effectively in GSE environ-

ment. The study is inspired by previous studies on

RE tools. Those works have produced a good un-

derstanding about RE tools capabilities which based

on the standard for evaluating RE tools ISO/IEC RE

24766:2009 (Carrillo De Gea et al., 2012). However,

all previous works focused on the study of the tools

general capabilities, and has not pointed out how tools

could address the challenges of GSE.

The objective of this study is to ﬁll the gaps of

existing studies on RE tools more speciﬁcally on RE

tools capabilities that address GSE challenges.

The remainder of the paper is structured as fol-

lows: Section 2 discusses related works on RE and

GSE. Section 3 describes the methodology used in the

study. Section 4 presents the results derived from the

evaluation. Section 5 discusses the ﬁndings. In ﬁ-

nally, Section 6 presents conclusion of the study and

future work.

2 RELATED WORKS

This section presents the related works done on RE

in GSE, the study on RE Tools, and the international

standards that support our study objectives.

In the study of requirements engineering in glo-

bal software development, Damian (Damian, 2002)

presented several challenges in RE work in GSE envi-

ronment. The top four challenges included inadequate

communication, knowledge management, cultural di-

versity, and time difference. The study also pointed

out that despite the challenging work for RE in GSE,

it is important that more studies are conducted on RE

in regards to GSE to support the increasing demand

of GSE in the industry (Damian, 2002).

In the study of the need of a different RE process

for GSE, Zowghi addressed the importance of RE role

in software development and the impacts of GSE on

RE process (Zowghi, 2007). He claimed that GSE has

brought challenges to RE in 4 main areas: (1) Team

Coordination and Control, (2) Knowledge Manage-

ment, (3) Time differences, and (4) Cultural Differen-

ces. The suggestion was raised during the develop-

ment of a new RE process that would address these

challenges impacted by GSE with the model which

can deal with distance, communication, and collabo-

ration.

With regards to RE tools, several studies have

been done on the capabilities of the tools that sup-

port RE process in general, following the industry

standard ISO/IEC TR 24766:2009. The results of the

study on RE Tools (de Gea et al., 2011) showed that

the RE tools market are facing the increasing change

in demand to support the developments of technology

and market. However, that study only aimed to pro-

vide the information on veriﬁcation when selecting

the RE tools for the development. It also stated that

parts of current RE tools need to evolve to support

GSE environment through the improvement of tools

that support distributed virtual team and collaborative

work (de Gea et al., 2011).

The work done in another study (Carrillo De Gea

et al., 2012) provided a detailed capabilities study

of RE tools that are currently available on the mar-

ket. The work started with the list of 100 RE tools

vendors with 38 respondents agreeing to participate

in the study. The classiﬁcation framework used for

evaluation was based on the standard ISO/IEC TR

24766:2009 with some restructuring of categories.

The results of the study presented the scores for all the

evaluated tools in regard to all categories in the clas-

siﬁcation framework. The classiﬁcation framework

presented in this study added Traceability as a new

category for the study of RE tools capabilities (Car-

rillo De Gea et al., 2012). The outcome of the study

presented a good start for us to identify tools for our

work.

Another quantitative study of RE tools (Carrillo de

Gea et al., 2015) addressed the commonalities and

differences between RE tools and put them into three

groups. The study modiﬁed the classiﬁcation in stan-

dard ISO/IEC TR 24766:2009 and added three ot-

her categories to the classiﬁcation framework namely,

Modeling, Traceability, and Collaboration & GSD.

The methodology used in the study adopted the Fea-

ture Analysis method in DESMET report. The feature

analysis study, qualitative or subjective, is a good way

for us to conduct our study.

Our study is also inspired by the international

standard that manages the RE process. The standard

ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148:2011 provides the standard gui-

deline for the process and activities for RE work. One

of the 5 main processes in the standard presents the

importance of requirements management as the chan-

ges of requirements in the development life cycle are

inevitable (ISO et al., 2011). To achieve effectiveness

in requirements management in GSE, we follow the

requirements change management process from the

standard which includes change proposal, review, ap-

proval, and change notiﬁcation.

Another technical guideline from the international

standard ISO/IEC TR24766:2009 is used as the foun-

dation for developing a classiﬁcation framework. We

also consolidated the standard classiﬁcation with the

study on the challenges in GSE in order to ﬁll the gaps

in the standard guideline for GSE.

ENASE 2018 - 13th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

292

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This section presents the design of the methodology

and procedures used in the study.

In order to achieve the objectives of our study, we

based our work on three research questions:

RQ1: What are the features of RE tools that would

address the challenges of GSE?

RQ2: To what extent do current RE tools conform

to the list of features that support GSE?

RQ3: What improvements could be made with

current RE tools in order to support RE process in

GSE?

The three studies on RE Tools presented in

Section 2 formed the basis for developing our met-

hodology in evaluating RE Tools using the DESMET

report about the methodology for evaluating software

engineering methods and tools.

Our study adopted the method presented in the

DESMET report called Feature Analysis Screening

Mode approach. The advantages of this approach are

ﬂexibility, simplicity, and quick process.

There are 6 steps included in conducting Fea-

ture Analysis Screening Mode approach (Kitchenham

et al., 1997):

• Selecting candidate tools for the study

• Deciding on the features list base on the objective

of the study

• Designing evaluation criteria

• Carry out evaluations

• Analyzing and interpreting results

• Presenting results.

3.1 Selected Candidate Tools

The tools selection techniques conducted in the 3 pre-

vious studies were based on the databases that contai-

ned the list of available RE tools on the market. To

simplify the process for our study, we utilized the list

of tools and their performance from the results of pre-

vious studies and selected the top 4 tools for our study

based on their performance and scoring. Moreover,

we replaced one of the 4 tools, Rational DOORS, with

the new upgraded version Rational DOORS Next Ge-

neration (RDNG).

The complete list of the 4 selected tools is presen-

ted in the below table (Table 1):

3.2 Classiﬁcation Framework

The foundation of the list of features for evaluating

RE tools is based on the guideline in the standard

Table 1: Selected Candidate Tools.

Tool Vendor

T1 Cognition Cockpit

Cognition

T2 Cradle-7 3SL

Rational DOORS Next

Generation (RDNG)

IBM Rational

Reqtify and Requirements

Central

Dassault

Systemes

ISO/IEC TR24677:2009 which is presented as fol-

lows (ISO and IEC, 2009) (Table 2):

Table 2: Features and Categories in TR Guideline.

Category(TR) No.

Requirements elicitation 37

Requirements analysis 36

Requirements speciﬁcation 16

Requirements veriﬁcation and validation 34

Requirements management 17

Other capabilities 17

Total

157

However, the standard ISO/IEC TR24677:2009

only focused on the general capabilities of RE tools

which does not speciﬁcally address GSE. The classi-

ﬁcation framework in our study is derived from the

list of the standard guideline combined with additio-

nal features that address the challenges in GSE, such

as Knowledge Management, Team Collaboration, and

Communication. The following 4 categories of featu-

res are identiﬁed which aim to provide support to RE

process in GSE (Table 3).

Table 3: Our Classiﬁcation Framework by Category of Fe-

atures.

Category No.

CF1 Shared knowledge management 8

CF2 Workﬂow management 5

CF3 Traceability 4

CF4 System and data integration 4

Total 21

CF1. Shared Knowledge Management: This

category of features focuses on managing the kno-

Requirements Engineering Tools for Global Software Engineering

293

wledge sharing among virtual teams in distributed

software development in various locations around the

world. We address knowledge sharing and reuse in

GSE as part of our work to improve collaboration in

a distributed environment (Gea et al., 2013). This ca-

tegory also introduces the importance of shared team

knowledge in virtual teams which cover the four dif-

ferent types of knowledge in F1 to F4 (Moe et al.,

2016). The details of these features in this category

are as follows:

• F1. Task-Related Knowledge: This feature allows

virtual team members to share their understanding

about tasks, how the tasks should be accomplis-

hed, and criteria used to determine if the tasks

were successfully completed.

• F2. Team Related Knowledge: The feature allows

virtual team members to share the information

about the team and members’ skills, experience,

strength, weakness, and knowledge about the

domain.

• F3. Process Related Knowledge: This feature al-

lows virtual team members to share the know-

ledge related to member interaction, communica-

tion process, collaboration, decision making, and

discussing work process.

• F4. Goal Related Knowledge: This feature allows

virtual team members to share the goal, vision,

overall agreements of the teamwork, and under-

standing about customer needs.

• F5. Architectural Knowledge Sharing: This fea-

ture provides the option to capture, share, and ma-

nage information about the architecture process,

problem domain, solution domain, and share kno-

wledge artifacts throughout the process.

• F6. Knowledge Transfer: This feature provides

the ability to capture and share knowledge across

tools throughout the development life cycle.

• F7. Shared Repository: This feature presents a

shared repository where it is easy for virtual team

members to have access to information.

• F8. Knowledge and Requirements Reuse: This

feature provides the option of reusing the require-

ments artifacts, and requirements information.

CF2. Workﬂow and Change Management:

This category of features focuses on providing full

workﬂow and change management to support colla-

boration and teamwork in GSE environment. The

study on the awareness needed in GSE (Damian

et al., 2003) provides the recommendation for impro-

ving collaboration in virtual teams through workﬂow

improvement and effective communication changes.

The details of these features in this category are as

follows:

• F9. Support Stakeholders Decision: This feature

provides support for decision making process

such as supporting information, recording deci-

sion, assigning responsibility, managing estima-

tion data, and impacts analysis.

• F10. Decision Notiﬁcation: This feature provides

notiﬁcation to virtual team members with all de-

cision activities and documenting the decision for

tracking.

• F11. Multiple User Access: This feature provides

multiple users an access platform with real time

information update through browser-based inter-

face which improves the awareness of other mem-

bers in virtual team environment.

• F12. Collaborative Life Cycle Management: This

feature provides real-time update about the deve-

lopment life cycle of all virtual team members

to ensure awareness of all process updates across

project life cycle.

• F13. Global Stakeholders Collaboration: This

feature provides the management of all sta-

keholders based on their role and permission

to access the information. This is to support

collaborative workﬂow between all stakeholders

and the awareness of requirements and needs of

the customers.

CF3. Traceability: This category of features fo-

cuses on having full information about the life cycle

of the requirements which link information sources

that can support effective communication of require-

ments in globally distributed teams (Carrillo De Gea

et al., 2012).

• F14. Traceability: This feature provides the ma-

nagement of requirements and documentation

source, where the role and responsibility of sta-

keholders involved can be trace across the tools.

• F15. Flexible Tracing: This feature provides vari-

ous types of tracing, such as one-to-one, one-to-

many, or many-to-one tracing with the option of

tracing of text or graphics.

• F16. Bi-directional Tracing: This feature provi-

des the tracing between customer needs, require-

ments, source information, and element on ﬁnis-

hed product.

• F17. Traceability Analysis: This feature provides

analysis matrices, reporting, and exporting the

report of the requirements changes and require-

ments development throughout the life cycle.

CF4. System and Data Integration: This cate-

gory of features focuses on providing full integration

of data and system with the tools. In the standard gui-

deline of RE tools capability, the system and data in-

ENASE 2018 - 13th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

294

tegration is considered an important part of the tools

as it can help with the collaboration across different

parts of an organization that uses different tools and

technology (Carrillo De Gea et al., 2012). The detail

of the features in this category is as follows:

• F18. Data Import: This feature provides support

for importing data in different formats from other

tools or software.

• F19. Data Export: This feature provides support

for exporting data into different formats.

• F20. Tool Integration Vithin Vendor: This feature

provides the ability to integrate with other tools

provided by the same vendor.

• F21. Tool Integration Across Vendors: This fea-

ture provides the ability to integrate with the tools

provided by other vendors.

3.3 Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation scoring for the features included in our

classiﬁcation framework is based on the presence or

absence of the feature. We give the Yes/No value to

the feature represent by:

YES: circle with green tick

NO: empty white circle

The total value of each tools in each category re-

presents the supporting scale for the tools in the par-

ticular category.

Each value for the feature determines the availabi-

lity of the feature for particular tools.

3.4 Investigation Method

We adopted the Feature Analysis Screening Mode ap-

proach that is presented in DESMET report which

provides a quick and easy assessment of the tools eva-

luation. The investigation process is based entirely on

documentation provided by the vendors and then re-

cord into the list (Kitchenham et al., 1997).

The list of the accumulated values for the features

supported by each tool is done through the investiga-

tion of three types of documentation, namely: techni-

cal paper, data sheet, and product documents. These

documents are supplied by the vendors.

The study on all documentation from the vendor

was done alongside with the classiﬁcation of feature

categories. The value ”Yes” or ”No” is given to the

feature of each tool when the information on the do-

cuments provides support for the feature.

4 RESULTS

This section presents the results of the investigation

on all the tool documentation retrieved from the ven-

dor’s website. The ﬁndings are presented in four ta-

bles according to the categories of features in our clas-

siﬁcation and a ﬁgure showing how each of the tools

performs in the features evaluation.

4.1 Shared Knowledge Management

Shared Knowledge Management is a new concept that

we introduce into tools capability in order to address

the challenges in GSE on knowledge management

(Table 4). 5 of the 8 features in these categories are

not available in the current tools. Team knowledge

sharing and architectural knowledge sharing (F1 to

F5) are also not supported in any of the 4 tools we

investigated based on available technical documenta-

tion.

Knowledge transfer and requirements reuse (F6

and F8) are still not emphasized by the tools with only

one tool, T3, supporting these two features.

Table 4: Supported Features for Shared Knowledge Mana-

gement (CF1).

CF1 T1 T2 T3

4.2 Workﬂow and Change Management

The features in this category show good support from

all tools with most features supported by at least 2 out

of 4 tools in our study based on the documentation.

All the tools fully support decision notiﬁcation using

dashboard or email (F10), and provide full life cycle

management (F12) (Table 5).

3 out of 4 tools provide web access to support

multiple users access from different locations (F11).

However there are still limitations for the tools in the

Requirements Engineering Tools for Global Software Engineering

295

area of supporting stakeholder’s decision making (F9)

and providing global collaboration for all stakehol-

ders (F13).

Table 5: Supported Features for Workﬂow and Change Ma-

nagement (CF2).

CF2 T1 T2 T3 T4

F10

F11

F12

F13

4.3 Traceability

Traceability is presented as fully supported by all RE

tools in our study (Table 6). Documentation shows

full traceability option (F14, F15, F16) and provides

a full analysis feature for traceability reports (F17).

Table 6: Supported Features for Traceability (CF3).

CF3 T1 T2 T3 T4

F14

F15

F16

F17

4.4 System and Data Integration

The integration of system and data in the tools de-

monstrate full support for data integration (F18 and

F19) and good integration of the system within the

vendor applications (F20). The integration of the sy-

stem across to other vendors are supported by 2 of the

4 tools, with T2 and T4, showing some limitation on

this feature (Table 7).

4.5 Tools Evaluation

The total score of each tool presents the performance

in conformance to the features selected in our study

(Figure 1). T3 has the highest aggregate score in the

study which is 14/21, and the outstanding score is in

Shared Knowledge Management (CF1).

All tools have a total score between 11 to 14 out

of the maximum total score of 21. This shows that

Table 7: Supported Features for System and Data Integra-

tion.

CF4 T1 T2 T3 T4

F18

F19

F20

F21

just above half of the features are present. The gaps

between each tools are small with just 1 or 2 points.

T1 has the highest score in CF1, while T2 and T4 have

the highest score in CF4.

5 DISCUSSION

This section discusses how this study answers the

three research questions.

RQ1: What are the features of RE tools that would

address the challenges of GSE?

The list presented in section 3.2 identiﬁed 21 fe-

atures that address the challenges of the RE process

in GSE. The features are classiﬁed into 4 categories

based on the reviews of studies related to best practi-

ces in RE and GSE. The list of features used in this

study focused on the challenges with knowledge ma-

nagement, teamwork and collaboration, while future

work will look into temporal and cultural challenges

in GSE.

RQ2: To what extent do current RE tools conform

to the list of features that support GSE?

According to the summarized evaluation results in

section 4, it shows that among the 8 features in Shared

Knowledge Management, only 3 features (F6, F7, F8)

are supported by current RE tools. For Traceability

features, all tools provide full support to all the 4 fea-

tures (F14, F15, F16, F17). The tools also sufﬁciently

support the other 2 categories of features with at le-

ast half of the tools supporting each of the features in

these 2 categories.

The evaluations of the tools are conducted using

documentations provided by the vendors which con-

sist of features description from technical papers, data

sheets, and product documents. Future work will fo-

cus on looking at a more effective evaluation appro-

ach to improve accuracy.

RQ3: What improvements could be made with

current RE tools in order to support RE process in

GSE?

The results of the study suggested that RE tools

need to be able to provide features for Share Know-

ENASE 2018 - 13th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

296

Figure 1: RE Tools Aggregated Score for All Categories.

ledge Management. 8 features in CF1 described in

section 3.2 could serve as the initial suggestions for

the tools. The result also suggested improving sy-

stem integration feature that allows RE tools to in-

tegrate with Knowledge Management System within

the same vendor or across different vendors.

We propose the use of recommended practices

from studies of Knowledge Sharing in GSE. (Zahedi

et al., 2016). These practices include the use of group-

ware, knowledge repository, wiki, discussion forum,

shared repository, and blog in the virtual teams envi-

ronment.

6 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

WORK

This paper presents the outcomes of investigating RE

tools using Feature Analysis Screening Mode appro-

ach. The ﬁrst outcome is the list of features iden-

tiﬁed from studies conducted by researchers addres-

sing the challenges in GSE. The second outcome is

the result of examining four RE tools and how these

tools conformed to the list of identiﬁed features. The

result shows that all tools fully support features un-

der Traceability, and unsoundly support features in

Shared Knowledge Management. With the gaps iden-

tiﬁed, the third outcome suggests giving more atten-

tion in putting knowledge sharing and system integra-

tion into future development to improve current RE

tools.

Our future work aims to address the limitations

of the current study. As Feature Analysis Screening

Mode approach depends entirely on the documenta-

tion provided by vendors, future work will involve

comprehensive evaluation, using case study approach

that will focus on sharing knowledge in RE process

among globally distributed teams. It will also address

limitations of subjective evaluations. Finally, it will

study RE practices that look into temporal and cultu-

ral challenges of GSE.

REFERENCES

Carrillo De Gea, J. M., Nicol

as, J., Fern

andez Alem

an, J. L.,

Toval, A., Ebert, C., and Vizca

ıno, A. (2012). Requi-

rements engineering tools: Capabilities, survey and

assessment. Information and Software Technology,

54(10):1142–1157.

Carrillo de Gea, J. M., Nicol

as, J., Fern

andez-Alem

an, J. L.,

Toval, A., Ebert, C., and Vizca

ıno, A. (2015). Com-

monalities and differences between requirements en-

gineering tools: A quantitative approach. Computer

Science and Information Systems, 12(1):257–288.

Damian, D. (2002). The study of requirements engineer-

ing in global software development: as challenging as

important. In Proceedings of Global Software Deve-

lopment, Workshop, volume 4, pages 7–10.

Damian, D., Chisan, J., Allen, P., and Corrie, B. (2003).

Awareness meets requirements management: aware-

ness needs in global software development. Procee-

dings of the International Workshop on Global Soft-

ware Development, International Conference on Soft-

ware Engineering, GSD/ICSE, Portland, OR, USA,

May 3-10, 2003, pages 7–11.

de Gea, J. M. C., Nicol

as, J., Alem

an, J. L. F., Toval, A.,

Ebert, C., and Vizca

ıno, A. (2011). Requirements en-

gineering tools. IEEE software, 28(4):86–91.

Requirements Engineering Tools for Global Software Engineering

297

Ebert, C., Kuhrmann, M., and Prikladnicki, R. (2016).

Global software engineering: Evolution and trends.

Proceedings - 11th IEEE International Conference

on Global Software Engineering, ICGSE 2016, pages

144–153.

Gea, J. M. C. d., Nicol

as, J., Alem

an, J. L. F., Toval, A.,

Vizca

ıno, A., and Ebert, C. (2013). Reusing Requi-

rements in Global Software Engineering. pages 171–

197.

ISO and IEC (2009). ISO/IEC TR 24766 - Information

technology Systems and software engineering Guide

for requirements engineering tool capabilities. 2009,

1:1–23.

ISO, IEC, and IEE (2011). ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148: Systems

and software engineering Life cycle processes Re-

quirements engineering. Iso/ Iec/ Ieee, pages 1–83.

Kitchenham, B., Linkman, S., and Law, D. (1997).

DESMET: a methodology for evaluating software en-

gineering methods and tools. Computing & Con-

trol Engineering Journal, 8(3):120–126.

Li, Y., Guzman, E., and Bruegge, B. (2015). Effective

requirements engineering for CSE projects: A light-

weight tool. Proceedings - IEEE 18th International

Conference on Computational Science and Engineer-

ing, CSE 2015, pages 253–261.

Moe, N. B., Faegri, T. E., Cruzes, D. S., and Faugstad, J. E.

(2016). Enabling knowledge sharing in agile virtual

teams. Proceedings - 11th IEEE International Confe-

rence on Global Software Engineering, ICGSE 2016,

pages 29–33.

Niazi, M., Mahmood, S., Alshayeb, M., Qureshi, A. M.,

Faisal, K., and Cerpa, N. (2016a). Toward success-

ful project management in global software develop-

ment. International Journal of Project Management,

34(8):1553–1567.

Niazi, M., Mahmood, S., Alshayeb, M., Riaz, M. R., Fai-

sal, K., Cerpa, N., Khan, S. U., and Richardson, I.

(2016b). Challenges of project management in glo-

bal software development: A client-vendor analysis.

Information and Software Technology, 80:1–19.

Richardson, I., Casey, V., Burton, J., and McCaffery, F.

(2010). Global software engineering: A software pro-

cess approach. In Collaborative Software Engineer-

ing, pages 35–56. Springer.

Smite, D., Wohlin, C., Gorschek, T., and Feldt, R. (2010).

Empirical evidence in global software engineering: A

systematic review. Empirical Software Engineering,

15(1):91–118.

Zahedi, M., Shahin, M., and Ali Babar, M. (2016). A sy-

stematic review of knowledge sharing challenges and

practices in global software development. Internatio-

nal Journal of Information Management, 36(6):995–

1019.

Zowghi, D. (2007). Does Global Software Development

Need a Different Requirements Engineering Process ?

Requirements Engineering, (August).

ENASE 2018 - 13th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering

298