The impact of inadequate customer collaboration on self-organizing Agile teams
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sixteen articles provide a comprehensive presentation of their research method, of which five articles present extensive documentation about the GT research process.
“Sixteen articles (Boxes 2.3.1, 2.3.2) provide a comprehensive presentation of their research method, of which five articles present extensive documentation about the GT research process [2, 18, 45, 47, 49].”
From Grounded theory in software engineering research: a critical review and guidelines (2016) · cites this paper as [45]
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789 · see citing works
Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review
Dybå, T., & Dingsøyr, T. (2008) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2008.01.006 · Cited by 2,668 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Unlike the product owner [7,13], the story owner was only responsible for one story at a time.”
BackgroundInfluentialGlaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2004) · Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research · doi:10.17169/fqs-5.2.607 · Cited by 783 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Selective coding Once the core category is established, the researcher ceases open coding and moves into Selective Coding, a process which involves selectively coding for the core variable by delimiting the coding to ‘‘only those variables that relate to the core variable in sufficiently significant ways as to produce…”
BackgroundColeman, G., & O’Connor, R. (2007) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2007.02.011 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Grounded theory in software engineering research: a critical review and guidelines
Stol, K.-J., Ralph, P., & Fitzgerald, B. (2016) · Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2884781.2884833 · Cited by 470 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hoda, R., Noble, J., & Marshall, S.
- Affiliations
- Victoria University of Wellington (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Hoda, Rashina
- Venue
- Information and Software Technology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-05
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 521-534
- ISSN
- 0950-5849 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2058847904
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 17.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Information and Software Technology (publishedVersion)
- ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Agile Alliance academic grant
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- customer collaboration, agile software development, self-organizing teams, customer involvement, agile practitioners, software development organizations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
