<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<!-- This file was exported from BibSonomy, http://www.bibsonomy.org -->

<bibliography>

<biblioentry xreflabel="aranda07" id="aranda07">
   <authorgroup>
       <author><firstname>Aranda&#44;</firstname><surname>J.</surname></author>
       <author><firstname>Easterbrook&#44;</firstname><othername role="mi">S.</othername><surname>M.</surname></author>
       <author><firstname>Wilson&#44;</firstname><surname>G.</surname></author> 
   </authorgroup>
<citetitle pubwork="article">Requirements in the wild: How small companies do it</citetitle>





   <pubdate>2007</pubdate>  
   <abstract>
      <para>Small companies form a large part of the software&#13;&#10;industry&#44; but have mostly been overlooked by the&#13;&#10;requirements engineering research community. We&#13;&#10;know very little about the techniques these companies&#13;&#10;use to elicit and track requirements and about their&#13;&#10;contexts of operations. This paper presents preliminary&#13;&#10;results from an ongoing exploratory case study of&#13;&#10;requirements management in seven small companies&#44;&#13;&#10;which found that (a) successful small companies&#13;&#10;exhibit a huge diversity of requirements practices that&#13;&#10;work well enough for their contexts; (b) these&#13;&#10;companies display strong cultural cohesion; (c) the&#13;&#10;principal of the company tends to retain control of the&#13;&#10;requirements processes long after other tasks have&#13;&#10;been delegated; and (d) the evidence rejects the&#13;&#10;simplistic view of a current &#8220;software crisis&#8221;&#44; as&#13;&#10;requirements errors for these companies&#44; though&#13;&#10;problematic&#44; are rarely catastrophic. We develop a&#13;&#10;number of hypotheses to explain these findings.
      </para>
   </abstract>
</biblioentry>
</bibliography>

