Cited by 2,076Software Engineering Techniques and PracticesAdvanced Software Engineering MethodologiesSoftware Engineering Research

A field study of the software design process for large systems

Open access
Curtis, Bill, Krasner, Herb, Iscoe, Neil·1988·Communications of the ACM

Abstract

The problems of designing large software systems were studied through interviewing personnel from 17 large projects. A layered behavioral model is used to analyze how three of these problems—the thin spread of application domain knowledge, fluctuating and conflicting requirements, and communication bottlenecks and breakdowns—affected software productivity and quality through their impact on cognitive, social, and organizational processes.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/50087.50089

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Groups in a virtual team may have different backgrounds that need reconciliation because organizations within a group can have different expertise and experience, creating incompatible views.

    “In addition to differences in technical language, various groups within a virtual team may have different backgrounds that need to be reconciled, as different organizations within a group may have different expertise and experience that create incompatible views [55].”

    From Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: a literature review (2020) · cites this paper as [55]

    The Business Milieu section reports that companies working together understood the application through their own product lines, clashed over differing assumptions, and needed extended coordination to resolve misunderstandings. The source supports the point about organizational backgrounds producing conflicting views, but the passage concerns multicompany software-design teams, not specifically virtual teams. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Creating a project-specific technical language is difficult, yet important enough for collaboration that technology should assist it.

    “The development of a project-specific technical language is not an easy task [17,55,172,252], but is important enough to collaboration to warrant assistance from technology.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. [1]1. Adams, J.S. The structure and dynamics of behavior in organi- zational boundary roles. In Handb. Ind. Organ. Psychol., Ed. M.D. Dunnette. Rand-McNally, Chicago, (1976}, pp. 1175-1199.
  2. [12]12. Bouchard, T.J. Field research methods. In Handb. Ind. Organ. Psy- chol., Ed. M.D. Dunnette. Rand-McNally, Chicago, (1976), pp. 363-413.
  3. [15]15. Brooks, F.P. No silver bullet. IEEE Comput. 20, 4 (Apr. 1987), 10-19.
  4. [16]16. Card, D.N., McGarry, F.E., and Page, G.T. Evaluating software engi- neering technologies. IEEE Trans. Soflw. Eng. 13, 7 (luly 1987}, 845- 851.
  5. [17]17. Christiansen, D. On good designers. IEEE Spectrum 24, 5 (May 1987), 25.
  6. [26]26. Fischer, B.A. Small Group Decision-Making. 2d ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
  7. [33]33. Hastie, R. Experimental evidence on group accuracy. In Information Processing and Group Decision-Making, Ed. G. Owen, and B. Grofman. JAI Press, Westport, Conn., 1987, 129-157.
  8. [35]35. Jones, T.C. The limits to programmer productivity. In Proceedings of the Joint SHARE/GUIDE/IBM Applications Symposium, SHARE/ GUIDE, Chicago, (1979), pp. 77-82.
  9. [43]43. McGarry, F.E. What have we learned in the last six years? In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Software Engineering Workshop (Greenbelt, Md., Dec. 1982}, NASA-GSFC, Greenbelt, Md., 1982.
  10. [55]55. Thamhain, H.J., and Wilemon, D.L. Building high performance engi- neering project teams. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 34, 3 (Mar. 1967), 130-137.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Curtis, B., Krasner, H., & Iscoe, N.
Affiliations
  • Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corp., Austin, TX
  • Lockheed (United States) (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Venue
Communications of the ACM
Published
1988-11
Volume
31
Issue
11
Pages
1268-1287
ISSN
  • 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7317
OpenAlex
W2045571829
Cited by
2,076
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 61 · 2014: 65 · 2013: 81 · 2012: 82
FWCI
100.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Communications of the ACM (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • University of Texas at Austin
  • Strong
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
Keywords
software design process, large software systems, software productivity, software quality, conflicting requirements, communication bottleneck, organizational processes, cognitive processes, social processes

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