This study employs a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) approach, inspired by the methodology outlined by (Kitchenham et al., 2009), The purpose of our SLR is to aggregate, synthesize, and analyze existing research findings related to RCM in GSD environments, thereby providing a comprehensive overview of the challenges, activities, technologies, and improvement areas within this domain.
Planning the Review
The initial phase of our SLR involved detailed planning, which included the formulation of specific research questions aimed at exploring the multifaceted aspects of RCM in GSD. These questions were designed to uncover critical challenges and issues (RQ1), identify the range of activities proposed for RCM implementation (RQ2), evaluate the technologies and tools that support RCM processes (RQ3), and highlight the areas significantly enhanced by proposed solutions (RQ4).
Research questions:
| Research questions | Motivation |
| RQ1: What are the most critical challenges and issues identified in the literature concerning RCM in GSD environments? | Understanding the challenges and issues is crucial for developing effective strategies and solutions to manage requirement changes efficiently in the context of GSD. This foundational knowledge informs both the academic and practical approaches to tackling these challenges. |
| RQ2: What activities have scholarly works proposed and examined for the implementation of Requirement Change Management RCM processes in the context of GSD environments? | Highlighting these activities helps to comprehend the wide range of strategies that have been researched and tested in academic circles. T Combining these activities with the obstacles discussed in the first question can result in a better grasp of the situation and more realistic solutions. This can help practitioners pick or adjust RCM techniques based on scholarly research, increasing the likelihood of successful adoption. |
| RQ3: What technologies and tools have been investigated in the literature for implementing and supporting RCM processes in GSD environments, and how do they contribute to the effectiveness of the framework? | Technology plays a pivotal role in facilitating RCM in dispersed teams inherent in GSD. By understanding which technologies and tools have been evaluated and deemed beneficial, this question aims to provide a reference for selecting appropriate technological solutions to enhance RCM process effectiveness. |
| RQ4: What are the Areas Addressed and Improved by Proposed Solutions | This question seeks to pinpoint the areas within RCM that have been effectively addressed by existing solutions, thereby highlighting progress in the field and identifying where future research might still be needed. It aims to paint a picture of how far we have come in solving the challenges of RCM in GSD and what gaps might still exist. |
Developing the Review Protocol
A review protocol was established to guide the review process, ensuring a systematic and unbiased approach. The protocol outlined the search strategy, including the selection of databases and the criteria for study inclusion and exclusion. The databases searched were ACM, ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore And Scopus, chosen for their comprehensive coverage of software engineering and information system literature.
Search Term
A search term constitutes a crucial keyword utilized for locating pertinent studies associated with the research inquiries. In this examination, the search term was formulated based on the search strategy, accounting for synonyms, as delineated in Table 2. To ensure alignment with the research objectives, a Boolean operator, specifically 'AND,' was employed in the selection of search terms. Furthermore, the identification of search terms was grounded in the scrutiny of titles, abstracts, and keywords of relevant articles. The primary keywords encompassed in this scrutiny were:
Table 1
| Keywords | Alternatives |
| Software requirements change management (A1) | (“RCM” OR “requirement change management” OR “requirement management” OR “requirement changes” OR “requirements volatility” |
| Global Software Development (A2) | (“Global software development” OR “GSD” OR “Distributed software development” OR “Offshore software development” OR “Outsourcing” OR “Multisite software development” OR “Global software teams” OR “Collaborative software development” OR “Collaborative software engineering”) OR ``Information Systems Outsourcing'' OR ``IT Outsourcing'' |
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Studies were selected based on their relevance to RCM in GSD, their contribution to the understanding of challenges, activities, technologies, tools, and improvement areas. We excluded studies not written in English, those not directly related to RCM in GSD, and literature reviews that did not follow a systematic approach.
Table 2
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
| Inclusion criteria | Every paper should be in a journal or conference . |
| Papers that define RCM and Requirement Engineering process (REP) in the context of GSD. |
| Papers that define the components, practices and factors having optimistic impacts of the RCM activities in GSD. |
| Papers that describe the affiliation between RCM and project quality, minimize failure risk, and customer satisfaction. |
| Studies that are published between (January 2018 and December 2023). |
| The research publications that provide empirical evaluation carried with case studies certainly have more importance. |
| Papers should be in English. |
| Exclusion criteria | Papers that are not related research objective. |
| Papers that do not highlight an RCM method in detail. |
| In the case of duplicate papers, the most complete version is published. |
Data Extraction
Various information categories were discerned from the chosen articles for the purpose of addressing the research inquiries. As delineated in Table 4, these categories encompassed authors, publication year, suggested solutions, research methodology, target population, proposed process models, challenges, software development methodology, technological aspects, primary activities, best practices, and evaluation methodology.
Table 3
|
Categories
|
Description
|
Research Question
|
|
Authors
|
Names of the authors
|
|
|
Publication Year
|
Year of the publication
|
|
|
Research Methodology
|
The Process of executing research activities.
|
|
|
Evaluation Methodology
|
Methods for assessing the Proposed Solution.
|
|
|
Solutions
|
Proposed Framework, Model or Methodology to address the RCM in GSD
|
4
|
|
Technological Aspects
|
Technological considerations and components involved.
|
3
|
|
Activities
|
Specific tasks and actions within RCM processes.
|
2
|
|
Challenges
|
Identified difficulties and obstacles in RCM in GSD.
|
1
|
In conducting the Systematic Literature Review SLR for this research, the search process systematically extracted 1,224 primary studies from databases using predefined keywords. To select relevant studies, rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The Rayann.ai program facilitated a blind review, initiated by the first researcher who applied the initial four criteria, resulting in 389 studies being retained. Subsequently, additional researchers participated in the blind review, ultimately retaining only 73 studies through a comprehensive process of review, application, and examination.
The extraction and classification process, a crucial component of the SLR approach, comprised several interconnected steps:
Conducting the Review
The review process involved an extensive search of the selected databases, using a combination of keywords related to RCM, GSD, and systematic literature review. The search strategy was iteratively refined to ensure a comprehensive collection of relevant studies. Each identified study underwent a screening process where it was evaluated against the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
The Rayyan.ai(Rayyan, n.d.) software was utilized to independently browse through the papers collected from the databases for each researcher. The purpose was to assess and evaluate their inclusion or exclusion based on pre-established criteria. The study team reached a consensus on 73 papers that were included in our systematic review. Subsequently, we utilized the scispace.com ( SciSpace, n.d.)program to categorize the studies and streamline the process of extracting information from them.
Quality Assessment
To ensure the reliability and validity of the included studies, a quality assessment was performed. This assessment evaluated the studies based on their methodological rigor, relevance to the research questions, and contribution to the field. Only studies that met a predetermined quality threshold were included in the final analysis.
Data Extraction and Synthesis
Data from the included studies were systematically extracted and synthesized. This process involved summarizing the findings related to each research question, identifying patterns and discrepancies among the studies, and drawing conclusions based on the aggregated evidence.
Reporting the Findings
The findings of the SLR are reported in a manner that addresses each research question, providing a comprehensive overview of RCM in GSD environments. The report highlights the critical challenges faced, the range of activities proposed for RCM implementation, the effectiveness of various technologies and tools, and the areas where significant improvements have been observed.
1. RQ1: What are the most critical challenges and issues identified in the literature concerning RCM in GSD environments?
In GSD, RCM faces numerous challenges, as identified in the relevant literature. These challenges primarily revolve around risks in communication and coordination, exacerbated by geographical, socio-cultural, and temporal differences inherent in GSD contexts.
Communication problems are the main issue that came up, as they are responsible for 53% of the problems that were reported. Language barriers and different time zones can make this problem even harder to solve, which makes time, cost, and resource management in RCM more difficult. A big problem is also coordination inefficiency, which makes up 26% of the problem. Other problems include cultural differences, problems with knowledge management, and "scope creep."
These problems are shown by statistics, which show that they have financial and time-related effects, with 29% of projects going over budget and 28% falling behind schedule. Also, the fact that time zone differences make up 28% of the sample shows how hard it is to manage global teams that work in different time zones. In 26% of cases, cultural differences were reported. This shows how important it is to understand and adapt to different work cultures. The high rate of scope creep (25%) and differences in corporate culture (24%), makes it even more important to have strong change control systems and make sure that organizational cultures are aligned.
Overall, these findings stress the need for effective strategies and models to improve communication and coordination in RCM within GSD environments. The emphasis on proactive and tailored approaches is crucial to address the unique challenges posed by the distributed nature of GSD.
Table 4
|
Challenge
|
appearances
|
%
|
Study #
|
|
Ineffective communication
|
38
|
53%
|
PS-57 PS-5 PS-1 PS-6 PS-8 PS-9 PS-10 PS-12 PS-13 PS-14 PS-17 PS-19 PS-20 PS-21 PS-22 PS-23 PS-24 PS-25 PS-27 PS-28 PS-33 PS-34 PS-39 PS-40 PS-42 PS-44 PS-46 PS-50 PS-53 PS-58 PS-62 PS-63 PS-65 PS-66 PS-67 PS-68 PS-71 PS-72
|
|
Cost overrun
|
21
|
29%
|
PS-6 PS-27 PS-28 PS-46 PS-50 PS-63 PS-71 PS-72 PS-1 PS-4 PS-8 PS-21 PS-22 PS-33 PS-41 PS-44 PS-40 PS-43 PS-53 PS-58 PS-11
|
|
Knowledge management
|
21
|
29%
|
PS-69 PS-69 PS-57 PS-6 PS-27 PS-46 PS-60 PS-63 PS-71 PS-72 PS-1 PS-10 PS-19 PS-20 PS-33 PS-36PS-38 PS-41PS-40 PS-54 PS-58 PS-66 PS-67
|
|
Schedule Slippage
|
20
|
28%
|
PS-1 PS-4 PS-6 PS-8 PS-15 PS-21 PS-22 PS-27 PS-28 PS-33 PS-40PS-43PS-40 PS-46 PS-50 PS-58 PS-63 PS-64 PS-71 PS-72
|
|
Time zone Difference
|
20
|
28%
|
PS-5 PS-5 PS-6 PS-27 PS-28 PS-46 PS-50 PS-63 PS-71 PS-72 PS-5 PS-57 PS-1 PS-12 PS-14 PS-17 PS-33 PS-35PS-40PS-40 PS-45PS-69
|
|
Cultural Differences
|
19
|
26%
|
PS-6 PS-27 PS-46 PS-63 PS-71 PS-72 PS-5 PS-1 PS-12 PS-14 PS-17 PS-19 PS-20 PS-23 PS-30 PS-45PS-40 PS-57 PS-61
|
|
Ineffectiveness of coordination
|
19
|
26%
|
PS-6 PS-27 PS-28 PS-46 PS-50 PS-54 PS-63 PS-68 PS-71 PS-72 PS-5 PS-1 PS-19 PS-20 PS-23 PS-24 PS-53 PS-58 PS-62
|
|
Scope creep
|
18
|
25%
|
PS-50 PS-6 PS-27 PS-46 PS-63 PS-71 PS-72 PS-1 PS-4 PS-8 PS-15 PS-21 PS-22 PS-33 PS-39PS-42PS-40 PS-58
|
|
Corporate Culture Difference
|
17
|
24%
|
PS-6 PS-27 PS-46 PS-60 PS-63 PS-71 PS-72 PS-1 PS-10 PS-12 PS-14 PS-18 PS-19 PS-20 PS-23 PS-58 PS-61
|
|
language differences
|
16
|
22%
|
PS-69 PS-5 PS-27 PS-46 PS-63 PS-71 PS-72 PS-6 PS-1 PS-12 PS-14 PS-19 PS-20 PS-23 PS-60 PS-17
|
|
Lack of team cohesion
|
10
|
14%
|
PS-6 PS-27 PS-28 PS-46 PS-50 PS-63 PS-71 PS-72 PS-1 PS-58
|
|
Lack of trust
|
10
|
14%
|
PS-1 PS-6 PS-19 PS-27 PS-28 PS-46 PS-61 PS-63 PS-71 PS-72
|
|
Damages and poor quality of end product
|
8
|
11%
|
PS-6 PS-27 PS-28 PS-46 PS-50 PS-63 PS-71 PS-72
|
|
traceability issues
|
6
|
8%
|
PS-8 PS-11 PS-12 PS-15 PS-42 PS-51
|
|
Damages and poor quality
|
3
|
4%
|
PS-21 PS-22 PS-1
|
|
Increased complexity
|
2
|
3%
|
PS-42 PS-51
|
|
Lack of Change Effort Estimation
|
2
|
3%
|
PS-2 PS-4
|
|
Weak requirement prioritization
|
2
|
3%
|
PS-15 PS-31
|
|
Weakness in project management
|
2
|
3%
|
PS-18 PS-25
|
|
High risk and uncertainty
|
1
|
1%
|
PS-12
|
|
Inexperienced staff
|
1
|
1%
|
PS-69
|
|
Lack of Traceability Models
|
1
|
1%
|
PS-2
|
|
Lack of coordination and collaboration
|
1
|
1%
|
PS-15
|
|
Lack of facetoface communication
|
1
|
1%
|
PS-5
|
|
Lack of Impact Analysis
|
1
|
1%
|
PS-2
|
|
language differences and
|
1
|
1%
|
PS-62
|
|
maintaining alignment of requirements and testing activities
|
1
|
1%
|
PS-62
|
|
Organizational changes
|
1
|
1%
|
PS-3
|
|
Technical infrastructure
|
1
|
1%
|
PS-5
|
|
Unavailability of resources
|
1
|
1%
|
PS-69
|
|
Unclear goals
|
1
|
1%
|
PS-69
|
|
Unrealistic expectations
|
1
|
1%
|
PS-69
|
To gain a deeper understanding of the challenges in RCM within GSD and to guide research and development towards identifying and addressing their root causes, researchers have classified these challenges into six main categories. This classification aims to facilitate the development of more effective solutions by targeting the underlying issues. The categories are as follows:
Communication and Coordination Challenges
This category encapsulates the difficulties faced in ensuring seamless communication and effective coordination across geographically dispersed teams. It addresses issues like language barriers, time zone differences, and the complexities of managing remote collaborations.
Cultural and Organizational Challenges
This group focuses on the impact of cultural and organizational differences on RCM. It includes the challenges arising from diverse corporate cultures, different work ethics, and varied organizational structures and practices.
Technical and Infrastructure Challenges
This area deals with the technological aspects, including the challenges associated with ensuring appropriate technical infrastructure, software tool compatibility, and technical support for distributed teams.
Project Management Challenges
This category covers the difficulties in managing projects effectively in a GSD setup. It includes managing scope creep, adhering to schedules, cost overrun, and the complexities of distributed project management.
Risk and Quality Management
This section focuses on the identification, assessment, and mitigation of risks, along with maintaining the quality of the software product in a distributed environment.
Human Resource and Team Dynamics
This final category addresses challenges related to managing human resources and team dynamics, including issues like team cohesion, trust, motivation, and managing conflicts in a diverse team.
A mind map illustrating this classification provides a visual representation of these categories, helping to contextualize the challenges within these distinct yet interconnected domains. This systematic categorization serves as a foundational framework for further research and the development of targeted strategies to mitigate these challenges in RCM within GSD.
2. RQ 2. What activities have scholarly works proposed and examined for the implementation of RCM processes in the context of GSD environments?
The full framework for RCM in GSD environments is made up of a number of activities that work together. Change Identification (61%) is the most important part, focusing on the organized finding and recording of requested changes. Several people are involved in this process, which makes it easier for people to talk to each other. Continuous Monitoring (36%) is emphasized for its important part in showing how changing GSD environments are. The next step is Change Evaluation (33 percent), which makes sure that the effects, feasibility, and risks of the proposed changes are carefully looked at. Verification and Validation (28%) activities make sure that changes are correct and meet the requirements that were set. This stage, Change Implementation (25 percent), is very important because it's where changes that have been approved are put into action.
Communication (19%) is always emphasized as being important for teams that work in different places to share information effectively. Change Approval and Risk Management both play a part in making decisions and reducing risks, but Coordination (3%) stands out as an area that needs more attention. This makes it even more important to deal with coordination problems, which was one of the most important points made in the first question about the most difficult things about GSD.
This complex and interconnected approach, which also deals with setting priorities and using the right tools, shows how hard and changing it is to manage changing requirements across distributed teams. Continuous monitoring, thorough evaluation, and good communication are very important. This suggests that a model that changes and adapts is needed to make sure that change management works well in GSD projects.
Table 5
| Activity | count | % | Study repeated in |
| Change Identification | 44 | 61% | PS-11, PS-12, PS-13, PS-15, PS-16, PS-18, PS-21, PS-22, PS-23, PS-25, PS-26, PS-27, PS-3, PS-30, PS-33, PS-34, PS-35, PS-36, PS-37, PS-38, PS-39, PS-40, PS-41, PS-42, PS-43, PS-44, PS-45, PS-47, PS-5, PS-50, PS-51, PS-52, PS-53, PS-55, PS-56, PS-58, PS-59, PS-60, PS-64, PS-65, PS-67, PS-70, PS-71, PS-72 , |
| Continuous Monitoring | 26 | 36% | PS-12, PS-14, PS-19, PS-25, PS-26, PS-27, PS-28, PS-30, PS-33, PS-35, PS-37, PS-39, PS-42, PS-46, PS-53, PS-54, PS-56, PS-59, PS-63, PS-64, PS-67, PS-72, PS-8, PS-1, PS-29, PS-57 , |
| Change Evaluation | 24 | 33% | PS-13, PS-18, PS-25, PS-27, PS-3, PS-30, PS-33, PS-37, PS-38, PS-41, PS-42, PS-43, PS-45, PS-47, PS-5, PS-52, PS-55, PS-56, PS-58, PS-64, PS-65, PS-70, PS-71, PS-2 , |
| Verification and Validation | 20 | 28% | PS-13, PS-16, PS-18, PS-22, PS-23, PS-24, PS-34, PS-36, PS-38, PS-40, PS-47, PS-50, PS-51, PS-52, PS-55, PS-60, PS-65, PS-70, PS-71, PS-4 , |
| Change Implementation | 18 | 25% | PS-11, PS-12, PS-16, PS-22, PS-35, PS-41, PS-44, PS-50, PS-51, PS-58, PS-59, PS-60, PS-65, PS-67, PS-71, PS-72, PS-24, PS-54 , |
| Communication | 14 | 19% | PS-21, PS-24, PS-27, PS-30, PS-42, PS-67, PS-72, PS-8, PS-1, PS-14, PS-19, PS-28, PS-46, PS-63 , |
| Change Approval | 5 | 7% | PS-15, PS-21, PS-26, PS-41, PS-58, PS-71 , |
| Documentation | 5 | 7% | PS-11, PS-13, PS-22, PS-40, PS-8 , |
| Risk Management | 5 | 7% | PS-15, PS-2, PS-3, PS-12, PS-1 , |
| Coordination | 2 | 3% | PS-63, PS-72 , |
The scholarly works reveal a comprehensive framework for RCM processes in GSD environments. The key activities within this framework include:
Change Identification (61%): This is the most prominently featured activity across the studies. Scholars emphasize the critical importance of systematically identifying and documenting requested changes to requirements. This involves a meticulous process, often including stakeholders, to ensure a clear understanding of proposed modifications.
Continuous Monitoring (36%): A significant proportion of studies recognize the need for continuous monitoring throughout the RCM process. This involves ongoing surveillance and assessment of changes, reflecting the dynamic nature of GSD environments.
Change Evaluation (33%): Change evaluation activities are widespread, focusing on assessing the impact, feasibility, and risks associated with proposed changes. This stage ensures a thorough analysis before decisions are made.
Verification and Validation (28%): Ensuring the correctness and alignment of changes with specified requirements is a crucial aspect. This involves verification and validation activities to guarantee the quality of the implemented changes.
Change Implementation (25%): Once changes are approved, implementing them becomes a key activity. This stage focuses on the practical execution of modifications based on the approved requirements changes.
Communication (19%): Communication is consistently recognized as a pivotal element. Effective exchange of information among distributed teams and stakeholders is crucial for successful RCM in GSD.
Change Approval and Risk Management (7% each): While not as prominently featured, formal approval of changes and proactive risk management are acknowledged. These activities contribute to decision-making and mitigation strategies.
Coordination (3%): Coordination activities are comparatively less represented in the studies. This suggests a potential gap in addressing coordination challenges, which is critical in GSD environments.
These results highlight a nuanced and interconnected approach to RCM in GSD. The emphasis on continuous monitoring, thorough evaluation, and effective communication underscores the complexity and dynamic nature of managing requirement changes across distributed teams. Addressing coordination challenges, as identified in the first question, appears as an area where more attention may be warranted for comprehensive RCM frameworks in GSD.
3. RQ 3 What technologies and tools have been investigated in the literature for implementing and supporting RCM processes in GSD environments, and how do they contribute to the effectiveness of the framework?
In response to RQ3, what technologies and tools have been studied in the literature to assist RCM processes in GSD environments? How do they add to the framework's effectiveness?
Table 6
|
technologies and tools
|
COUNT
|
%
|
PS
|
|
AI - (genetic algorithm ,Intelligent agents ,Machine learning (ML), Game theoretical methods ,NLP )
|
12
|
0.004
|
PS-65, PS-39, PS-11, PS-2, PS-3, PS-33, PS-52, PS-62, PS-70, PS-8, PS-47, PS-40 ,
|
|
Communication And Coordination (cloud computing ,MoraySTF, Ontology ,Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration, Reactive Middleware (RM) ,video channels, )
|
11
|
0.0037
|
PS-6, PS-44, PS-26, PS-32, PS-33, PS-45, PS-50, PS-60, PS-58, PS-58, PS-5 ,
|
|
Data Management (data mining ,Information Retrieval (IR) ,Language Extended Lexicon (LEL), )
|
4
|
0.0013
|
PS-49, PS-49, PS-52, PS-51 ,
|
|
Documentation Tools (Block chain ,Smart contracts ,Stakeholders' Weight Vote Priority )
|
4
|
0.0013
|
PS-11, PS-22, PS-11, PS-27 ,
|
|
Development & Operation ( DevOps ,System dynamics simulation )
|
3
|
0.001
|
PS-25, PS-54, PS-4 ,
|
AI Technologies (Count: 12, Percentage: 0.0040): The most frequently investigated category involves Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, including genetic algorithms, intelligent agents, machine learning (ML), game theoretical methods, and natural language processing (NLP). Their significant representation suggests a strong interest in leveraging AI to automate, optimize, and enhance decision-making processes in RCM. These technologies contribute to the effectiveness of the RCM framework by potentially improving accuracy, speed, and adaptability in handling requirement changes across distributed teams. Communication and Coordination Tools (Count: 11, Percentage: 0.0037): This category encompasses tools like cloud computing, specific software like MoraySTF, ontologies, Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration, Reactive Middleware (RM), and video channels. The emphasis here indicates the critical role of communication and coordination in GSD environments for RCM. These tools facilitate better collaboration, information sharing, and synchronization among distributed teams, directly impacting the framework's efficiency and responsiveness.
Data Management (Count: 4, Percentage: 0.0013): Technologies such as data mining, Information Retrieval (IR), and Language Extended Lexicon (LEL) are less frequently studied but play a vital role in managing the vast amounts of data inherent in GSD projects. Effective data management aids in organizing, retrieving, and utilizing data to support decision-making in RCM, enhancing the framework's capability to handle changes accurately and efficiently. Development & Operation (DevOps) (Count: 3, Percentage: 0.0010): The inclusion of DevOps and system dynamics simulation highlights an interest in integrating RCM processes with continuous development and operational practices. This approach contributes to the framework's effectiveness by promoting agility, continuous feedback, and the ability to rapidly adapt to changes. Documentation Tools (Count: 4, Percentage: 0.0013): The focus on tools like blockchain, smart contracts, and Stakeholders' Weight Vote Priority indicates a growing interest in securing, automating, and democratically managing requirement changes. These tools can enhance transparency, trust, and efficiency in managing and documenting changes, contributing positively to the RCM framework's integrity and accountability.
Overall, the technologies and tools studied in the literature for RCM in GSD environments reflect a multifaceted approach to addressing the complexities of managing requirement changes across distributed teams. The effectiveness of the RCM framework is bolstered by leveraging AI for decision-making, enhancing communication and coordination, managing data efficiently, integrating with development and operational workflows, and ensuring secure and transparent documentation practices. Each category of technology and tool contributes uniquely to overcoming the challenges of GSD, thereby enhancing the RCM process's overall effectiveness.
4. RQ4: What are the Areas Addressed and Improved by Proposed Solutions
In response to the third question about the areas that the researchers attempted to improve and develop, the statistics extracted from previous literature were as follows:
Table 7
| Enhancements Area | Count | % | PS |
| Communication | 17 | 23.61% | PS-24, PS-25, PS-26, PS-28, PS-36, PS-37, PS-40, PS-44, PS-50, PS-57, PS-59, PS-60, PS-61, PS-63, PS-72, PS-1, PS-20, |
| Impact analysis | 8 | 11.11% | PS-6, PS-20, PS-29, PS-42, PS-47, PS-49, PS-4, PS-53 |
| Prioritization | 8 | 11.11% | PS-13, PS-27, PS-30, PS-58, PS-64, PS-67, PS-8, PS62 |
| Project management | 8 | 11.11% | PS-10, PS-35, PS-38, PS-41, PS-69, PS-71, PS-28, PS-29, |
| Agility | 5 | 6.94% | PS-39, PS-48, PS-53, PS-68, PS-38, |
| Coordination | 5 | 6.94% | PS-62, PS-61, PS-62, PS-11, PS-1, |
| Improve RCM process | 5 | 6.94% | PS-46, PS-70, PS-35, PS-37, PS-48, |
| Knowledge management | 4 | 5.56% | PS-52, PS-50, PS-60, PS-26, |
| Accuracy improvement | 3 | 4.17% | PS-4, PS-45, PS-2, |
| Risk management | 2 | 2.78% | PS-1, PS-21, |
| Traceability | 2 | 2.78% | PS-11, PS-51, |
| Effort prediction | 1 | 1.39% | PS-2, |
| Avoid repetition | 1 | 1.39% | PS-60, |
| Categorization | 1 | 1.39% | PS-8, |
| Conflict resolution | 1 | 1.39% | PS-13, |
| Cooperation | 1 | 1.39% | PS-26 |
| Decentralization | 1 | 1.39% | PS-22 |
| Decision improvement | 1 | 1.39% | PS-15 |
| Efficiency | 1 | 1.39% | PS-65 |
| Reduces complexity | 1 | 1.39% | PS-22, |
| Requirements validation | 1 | 1.39% | PS-34, |
| Response time | 1 | 1.39% | PS-54, |
| Standardization | 1 | 1.39% | PS-66, |
| Task allocation | 1 | 1.39% | PS-33, |
| Transparency | 1 | 1.39% | PS-22, |
| Trust-building | 1 | 1.39% | PS-56, |
The proposed solutions in academic literature have greatly enhanced the field of RCM in GSD. The statistical analysis shows the advanced methods that are used in many areas to make RCM processes better in a world-wide setting. A detailed look at predicting effort shows how important it is to make accurate guesses in both traditional and agile RCM settings. Trying to get more accurate results, which is supported by many studies, shows how important it is to use complex estimation models and methods. Also, the fact that agility has been given top priority in several investigations shows that the constantly changing needs in GSD are being taken into account, which means that adaptable methods and flexible management styles need to be used.
Improving communication is seen as important, and (23.61%) of studies that actively improve communication technologies and strategies do just that. Communication is very important in GSD, especially when it comes to RCM between team members who are in different places. Research focused on improving traceability, as demonstrated by the statistical emphasis on Impact Analysis (11.11%), highlights the importance of a thorough approach to comprehending and controlling the effects of requirement changes. The significance of prioritizing and ranking efforts (11.11%) underscores their importance in streamlining RCM processes, minimizing complexity, and improving efficiency in GSD. The comprehensive coverage of topics, such as knowledge management, decision improvement, project management, and risk management, offers a systematic and strategic approach to enhancing RCM in the complex realm of Global Software Development. Upon analyzing the results, it becomes evident that the significant focus on enhancements related to communication underscores its pivotal role in the context of global software development. Further analysis of particular communication challenges discussed could provide more refined observations. The wide-ranging areas addressed, including agility, coordination, decision optimization, efficiency, impact assessment, knowledge management, prioritization, and project management, demonstrate the varied difficulties in global software development. Further examination of these domains could enhance our comprehension of the complexities inherent in each. The presence of recurring patterns in categories, such as coordination, raises inquiries regarding the actual similarities in research objectives. Enhancing differentiation among various studies could prevent redundancy and provide more lucid insights. Ensuring equal attention to all aspects of global software development remains essential. Effort prediction, accuracy enhancement, and risk mitigation are crucial aspects that demand consistent focus, despite the prevalence of communication-related factors. The significant percentage (20.83%) of studies that do not clearly define areas for improvement raises concerns regarding the accuracy of research objectives. Examining the causes for this exclusion could improve the significance of their findings, as the level of clarity affects the comprehension of their appropriateness and importance.
Exploring Proposed Solutions for GSD Communication Enhancement
As we mentioned earlier, nearly one-fourth of the studies we reviewed are dedicated to bettering communication, offering up a range of solutions for us to consider. In this part of our discussion, we're taking a closer look at what researchers suggest for boosting communication, asking ourselves: Are these solutions doing enough, or do we need something more comprehensive? We're especially interested in how these proposed solutions can make communication smoother between teams working across the globe on software development, aiming to make handling changes in project requirements easier and more effective.
Within the domain of GSD, effective communication poses a significant obstacle, requiring creative approaches to guarantee the achievement of project objectives. Recent studies have explored this matter, suggesting different frameworks and approaches with the goal of improving communication across dispersed teams. Conceptual models have become an important contribution by providing organized methods to address the communication and coordination difficulties that are inherent in GSD. These models are created to simplify processes, improve clarity, and enable smooth project transitions, hence creating a favorable atmosphere for successful communication(Qureshi et al., 2021); (S. Qureshi et al., 2021).. In addition, the study examines and puts into practice more than a hundred ways to reduce the impact of communication barriers in distant teams. This demonstrates a strong dedication to finding effective and feasible solutions that may handle the complex nature of these barriers (Qureshi et al., 2021);
The effectiveness of agile approaches, specifically distributed agile patterns, has been promoted for their ability to close communication gaps. The implementation of online collaboration tools, as recommended by these principles, is essential for overcoming geographical and temporal barriers, thereby improving team unity and project synchronization(M. Kausar et al., 2022) .Moreover, the implementation of structured domain ontologies and the creation of a standardized language among teams are recognized as crucial actions. The purpose of these tactics is to eradicate semantic obstacles and establish a mutual comprehension, which is crucial for reducing misunderstandings and guaranteeing that all team members, irrespective of their geographical location, are in sync. (A. A. Alsanad et al., 2019; AlSanad et al., 2019; Rocha et al., 2018; Sakhrawi et al., 2021) These frameworks are carefully designed to prioritize communication, so reducing the difficulties that come with changing methods and ensuring that the major goals of GSD initiatives are not compromised(Singh et al., 2019). Multiple studies recommend improving current frameworks by emphasizing particular aspects of communication and coordination. Examples include the creation of thorough communication strategies, the building of effective methods for exchanging information, and the adoption of tools and platforms specifically designed to enable immediate cooperation among individuals in different geographic areas. These approaches aim to establish a cohesive environment in which smooth contact is not just promoted but deeply ingrained in the team's operations (M. A. Akbar et al., 2022; Hotomski & Glinz, 2018; Rocha et al., 2018) Domain-specific ontologies and agile techniques are often discussed topics. The objective of these studies is to minimize the difficulties that commonly arise while managing requirements and carrying out activities in a distributed context, by promoting a mutual understanding and utilizing adaptable, iterative methods. The flexibility provided by these techniques is suggested as a means by which teams can better adapt to the changing requirements of projects, thereby improving communication and project results (M. A. Akbar, 2019, 2019; Iqbal et al., 2020; M. Umair et al., 2019). Transitioning frameworks are the focus of significant attention, as research outlines the routes that organizations take while shifting from traditional to agile or distributed agile models. These frameworks encompass not only the practical and technological components of such transitions but also the necessary cultural and communicational changes needed to enable a seamless progression. The significance of upholding an open and transparent communication channel throughout this process is underscored as a fundamental element for achieving success(Gonçalves et al., 2020; Mahmood et al., 2016). Furthermore, the examination of measures to reduce the impact, such as the recognition and classification of difficulties in communication and coordination, offers a thorough understanding of the barriers faced in GSD. The suggested remedies, which encompass the utilization of technology instruments and the development of strategic frameworks, demonstrate the need for a comprehensive strategy to effectively tackle these difficulties(A. A. Alsanad et al., 2019; Ali & Lai, 2017, 2017; Singh et al., 2019). Upon combining the findings from all the studies, it becomes clear that a comprehensive strategy is necessary for the development of communication within individuals with GSD. This includes the implementation of customized frameworks, the incorporation of agile methodologies, the deliberate utilization of technology, and the promotion of a culture that encourages transparent and efficient communication. Together, these studies provide a detailed plan for organizations aiming to negotiate the intricacies of GSD. They give practical insights and tactics to improve communication and, consequently, increase project performance among distant teams. Together, these research shed information on how to overcome the communication difficulties in GSD, emphasizing the importance of using diverse and integrated methods. The paper proposes a detailed plan for improving communication effectiveness in distant software development settings by emphasizing the use of structured frameworks, agile approaches, and technology solutions such as ontologies. The following Table 8 shows a summary of the solutions that are proposed in the 17 studies that suggested developing communication improvement in the proposed frameworks.
Table 8
Summary of what PS has proposed to improve communications
| PS | Basic Proposal to Improve Communication |
| PS − 1 | Incorporate communication as a continuous process in the risk management framework |
| PS − 20 | Use both formal and informal communication strategies to handle requirements volatility |
| PS − 24 | Use Gudgeon to automatically generate guidelines for keeping requirements aligned |
| PS − 25 | Develop a DevOps requirement change management standard to streamline communication |
| PS − 26 | Proposes DiDonato, a knowledge base for supporting distributed teams |
| PS − 28 | Improve face-to-face communication and minimize the impact of language barriers |
| PS − 36 | Use a structured hierarchy of pre-elicitation processes to improve communication |
| PS − 37 | Explore and report 107 mitigation strategies for communication and coordination challenges |
| PS − 40 | Use an autonomous decentralized system to improve communication efficiency |
| PS − 44 | Development of a web application called MoraySTF for better requirement definition |
| PS − 50 | Adding a querying module to allow stakeholders to retrieve information easily |
| PS − 57 | Effective communication and collaboration between distributed teams |
| PS − 59 | Transition from traditional software development to agile practices to enhance communication |
| PS − 60 | Using RCO to unify language and improve communication |
| PS − 61 | Use online tools for collaboration between offshore and onshore teams |
| PS − 63 | Proposes a conceptual model to overcome communication barriers |
| PS − 72 | Explore and report 107 mitigation strategies for communication and coordination challenges |