The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Architectures, coordination, and distance: Conway's law and beyond
Abstract
Geographically distributed development teams face extraordinary communication and coordination problems. The authors' case study clearly demonstrates how common but unanticipated events can stretch project communication to the breaking point. Project schedules can fall apart, particularly during integration. Modular design is necessary, but not sufficient to avoid this fate.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Splitting the organization and integrating the code: Conway's law revisited
Herbsleb, J. D., & Grinter, R. E. (1999) · Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Software engineering · doi:10.1145/302405.302455 · Cited by 425
Self-citationPeople, organizations, and process improvement
Perry, D. E., Staudenmayer, N. A., & Votta, L. G. (1994) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/52.300082 · Cited by 401
Cited by
An exploratory study of the pull-based software development model
Gousios, G., Pinzger, M., & Deursen, A. V. (2014) · Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2568225.2568260 · Cited by 628
Familiarity, complexity, and team performance in geographically distributed software development
Espinosa, J. A., Slaughter, S. A., Kraut, R. E., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2007) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0297 · Cited by 420
Self-citationThe mirroring hypothesis: theory, evidence, and exceptions
Colfer, L. J., & Baldwin, C. Y. (2016) · Industrial and Corporate Change · doi:10.1093/icc/dtw027 · Cited by 331
Leveraging resources in global software development
Battin, R. D., Crocker, R., Kreidler, J., & Subramanian, K. (2001) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/52.914750 · Cited by 274
The ABC of Software Engineering Research
Stol, K.-J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2018) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3241743 · Cited by 245
Metadata
- Authors
- Herbsleb, J. D., & Grinter, R. E.
- Venue
- IEEE Software
- Published
- 1999
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 63-70
- ISSN
- 0740-7459 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1996026009
- Cited by
- 365
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
