Systematic Literature Review of Knowledge Sharing Barriers and Facilitators in Global Software Development Organizations Using Concept Maps <s> 3) BUDGET <s> Purpose – The creation of offshore units allows companies to invest in countries that offer tax incentives, and provides global presence. Nevertheless, knowledge sharing in global teams may be challenger. The aim of this paper is to analyze the barriers of knowledge sharing in global teams.Design/methodology/approach – This is a qualitative research based on interviews in two firms.Findings – The interviewees confirmed the relevance of the barriers to knowledge sharing identified in the literature. The interviewees also cited other four barriers: technology, professional skills, cost and methodology of software development. Other results were: the relationship between the barriers, for example, cultural differences are negatively related to absorptive capacity; and, the barriers could also be enablers for knowledge sharing.Research limitations/implications – The limitations identified were: the use the interview as the only form of data collection, since the firms did not authorize the collection of docum... <s> BIB001 </s> Systematic Literature Review of Knowledge Sharing Barriers and Facilitators in Global Software Development Organizations Using Concept Maps <s> 3) BUDGET <s> Knowledge transfer is a critical factor in ensuring the success of offshore outsourcing software development projects and is, in many cases, neglected. Compared to in-house or co-located projects, however, such globally distributed projects feature far greater complexity. In addition to language barriers, factors such as cultural differences, time zone variance, distinct methods and practices, as well as unique equipment and infrastructure can all lead to problems that negatively impact knowledge transfer, and as a result, a project's overall success. In order to help minimise such risks to knowledge transfer, we conducted a research study based on expert interviews in six projects. Our study used German clients and focused on offshore outsourcing software development projects. We first identified known problems in knowledge transfer that can occur with offshore outsourcing projects. Then we collected best-practice solutions proven to overcome the types of problems described. Afterward, we conducted a follow-up study to evaluate our findings. In this subsequent stage, we presented our findings to a different group of experts in five projects and asked them to evaluate these solutions and recommendations in terms of our original goal, namely to find ways to minimise knowledge-transfer problems in offshore outsourcing software development projects. Thus, the result of our study is a catalog of evaluated solutions and associated recommendations mapped to the identified problem areas. <s> BIB002 </s> Systematic Literature Review of Knowledge Sharing Barriers and Facilitators in Global Software Development Organizations Using Concept Maps <s> 3) BUDGET <s> We present systematic literature review of 61 primary studies (2000September 2014) that empirically reported knowledge sharing challenges and practices in Global Software Development (GSD).We found knowledge sharing challenges and practices in GSD could be classified in 6 main themes: management, team structure, work processes/practices, team cognition, social attributes and technology.Regarding contextual settings, we found empirical studies were mainly conducted in offshore outsourcing collaboration model distributed between two sites. Most of the studied organizations were large enterprises. ContextGlobal Software Development (GSD) presents significant challenges to share and understand knowledge required for developing software. Organizations are expected to implement appropriate practices to address knowledge-sharing challenges in GSD. With the growing literature on GSD and its widespread adoption, it is important to build a body of knowledge to support future research and effective knowledge sharing practices. ObjectiveWe aimed at systematically identifying and synthesizing knowledge sharing challenges and practices. We also intended to classify the recurrent challenges and most frequently reported practices in different contextual settings. MethodWe used Systematic Literature Review (SLR) for reviewing 61 primary studies that were selected after searching the GSD literature published over the last 14 years (2000September 2014). We applied thematic analysis method for analysing the data extracted from the reviewed primary studies. ResultsOur findings revealed that knowledge sharing challenges and practices in GSD could be classified in 6 main themes: management, team structure, work processes/practices, team cognition, social attributes and technology. In regard to contextual settings, we found empirical studies were mainly conducted in an offshore outsourcing collaboration model distributed between two sites. Most of the studied organizations were large enterprises. Many of the studies did not report any information for several contextual attributes that made it difficult to analyse the reported challenges and practices with respect to their respective contexts. ConclusionWe can conclude: (a) there is a higher tendency among researchers to report practices than challenges of knowledge sharing in GSD. (b) Given our analysis, most of the reported knowledge sharing challenges and practices fall under the theme of work practices. (c) The technology related knowledge-sharing challenges are the least reported; we discussed the available technologies for supporting knowledge sharing needs in GSD. (d) The organizational contextual information is missing from a large number of studies; hence, it was not possible to investigate the potential relations between knowledge sharing challenges/practices and the contextual attributes of GSD teams. We assert the need of exploring knowledge sharing in the context of small/medium sized organizations to avoid the risk of findings being biased by specific empirical setting (e.g., large enterprises distributed between US and India). <s> BIB003 </s> Systematic Literature Review of Knowledge Sharing Barriers and Facilitators in Global Software Development Organizations Using Concept Maps <s> 3) BUDGET <s> While the literature offers several frameworks that explain barriers to knowledge sharing within software development teams, little is known about differences in how team members perceive these barriers. Based on an in-depth multi-case study of four software projects, we investigate how project managers, developers, testers and user representatives think about barriers to effective knowledge sharing in agile development. Adapting comparative causal mapping, we constructed causal maps for each of the four roles and identified overlap and divergence in map constructs and causal linkages. The results indicate that despite certain similarities, the four roles differ in how they perceive and emphasize knowledge-sharing barriers. The project managers put primary emphasis on project setting barriers, while the primary concern of developers, testers and user representatives were project communication, project organization and team capabilities barriers, respectively. Integrating the four causal maps and the agile literature, we propose a conceptual framework with seven types of knowledge-sharing barriers and 37 specific barriers. We argue that to bridge communication gaps and create shared understanding in software teams, it is critical to take the revealed concerns of different roles into account. We conclude by discussing our findings in relation to knowledge sharing in agile teams and software teams more generally. <s> BIB004
In distributed teams, KS is associated with high costs which are usually not predicted timely. At times proper KS does not take place due to lack of travel expenses and lack of virtual communication tools BIB003 . Small budg et al located for project acted as barrier for setting offshore project meetings BIB001 , BIB004 . Surprisingly even if the management was aware of the cost related to KS, still the budget allocated for visits was underestimated and none of the managers defined it before starting project BIB002 .