research and practice. The findings of our SLR will be beneficial in three
ways. First, we now have an overview of the positive and negative impacts of
human aspects on the interactions between developers and users as well as SE
in general. Second, our findings will help to identify ways to leverage the
positive effects in developer-user interactions as well as address the
negative effects of these human aspects by following the mitigation
strategies. These insights will be useful for software practitioners to bridge
the gap between developers and users. These will also be helpful in having
effective interactions with users. Finally the proposed recommendations will
be helpful for the research community for conducting further research on human
aspects or research involving human participants.

## Acknowledgements

Gunatilake, Grundy and Mueller are supported by ARC Laureate Fellowship
FL190100035.

##  Appendix A List of Included Papers

##

  * [1] U. Abelein, B. Paech, A descriptive classification for end user-relevant decisions of large-scale it projects, in: 2013 6th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE), IEEE, 2013, pp. 137–140.
  * [2] G. A. O. Abusamhadana, N. F. Elias, M. Mukhtar, U. Asma’ Mokhtar, Items for measuring user engagement success in information systems development, in: 2019 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics (ICEEI), 2019, pp. 596–601.  doi:10.1109/ICEEI47359.2019.8988816.
  * [3] M. Hoffmann, D. Mendez, F. Fagerholm, A. Luckhardt, The human side of software engineering teams: an investigation of contemporary challenges, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 49 (1) (2022) 211–225.  doi:10.1109/TSE.2022.3148539.
  * [4] A. Marnewick, J.-H. Pretorius, L. Pretorius, A perspective on human factors contributing to quality requirements: A cross-case analysis, in: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 2011, pp. 389–393.  doi:10.1109/IEEM.2011.6117945.
  * [5] M. Ortu, T. Hall, M. Marchesi, R. Tonelli, D. Bowes, G. Destefanis, Mining communication patterns in software development: A github analysis, in: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering, PROMISE’18, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2018, p. 70–79.  doi:10.1145/3273934.3273943.
URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3273934.3273943

  * [6] M. A. Almomani, S. Basri, A. R. Gilal, Empirical study of software process improvement in malaysian small and medium enterprises: The human aspects, Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 30 (10) (2018) e1953, e1953 JSME-17-0101.R2.  arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/smr.1953, doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/smr.1953.
URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/smr.1953

  * [7] J. Niès, S. Pelayo, From users involvement to users’ needs understanding: A case study, International Journal of Medical Informatics 79 (4) (2010) e76–e82, human Factors Engineering for Healthcare Applications Special Issue.  doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.06.007.
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138650560900104X

  * [8] J. Jia, L. F. Capretz, Direct and mediating influences of user-developer perception gaps in requirements understanding on user participation, Requirements Engineering 23 (2018) 277–290.
  * [9] U. Abelein, B. Paech, State of practice of user-developer communication in large-scale it projects: Results of an expert interview series, in: Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality: 20th International Working Conference, REFSQ 2014, Essen, Germany, April 7-10, 2014. Proceedings 20, Springer, 2014, pp. 95–111.
  * [10] F. Lizano, J. Stage, Improvement of novice software developers’ understanding about usability: The role of empathy toward users as a case of emotional contagion, in: Human-Computer Interaction. Theories, Methods, and Tools: 16th International Conference, HCI International 2014, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, June 22-27, 2014, Proceedings, Part I 16, Springer, 2014, pp. 207–218.
  * [11] J. Fisher, The design of on-line user information: the technical communicator’s contribution, in: IPCC 98. Contemporary Renaissance: Changing the Way we Communicate. Proceedings 1998 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (Cat. No. 98CH36332), Vol. 2, IEEE, 1998, pp. 1–8.  doi:10.1109/IPCC.1998.722072.
  * [12] O. Cico, L. Jaccheri, A. N. Duc, Seeing the voice of the student: A pilot study of customer-driven courses, in: 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2021, pp. 1–8.  doi:10.1109/FIE49875.2021.9637481.
  * [13] C. Dörner, J. Heß, V. Pipek, Fostering user-developer collaboration with infrastructure probes, in: Proceedings of the 2008 International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, CHASE ’08, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2008, p. 48–44.  doi:10.1145/1370114.1370126.
URL https://doi.org/10.1145/1370114.1370126

  * [14] D. Woit, K. Bell, Do xp customer-developer interactions impact motivation? findings from an industrial case study, in: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, CHASE 2014, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2014, p. 79–86.  doi:10.1145/2593702.2593718.
URL https://doi.org/10.1145/2593702.2593718

  * [15] H. Antunes, A. Seffah, T. Radhakrishnan, S. Pestina, Improving and mediating software-to-usability engineering communication, in: People and Computers XV—Interaction without Frontiers: Joint Proceedings of HCI 2001 and IHM 2001, Springer, 2001, pp. 139–149.
  * [16] K. chung Chang, T. S. Sheu, G. Klein, J. J. Jiang, User commitment and collaboration: Motivational antecedents and project performance, Information and Software Technology 52 (6) (2010) 672–679.  doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2010.02.003.
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584910000169

  * [17] J. Y. Liu, J. C. Chiang, M.-H. Yang, G. Klein, Partnering effects on user–developer conflict and role ambiguity in information system projects, Information and Software Technology 53 (7) (2011) 722–729.  doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2011.01.002.
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584911000036

  * [18] J. Grudin, Obstacles to user involvement in software product development, with implications for cscw, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34 (3) (1991) 435–452, computer-supported Cooperative Work and Groupware. Part 2.  doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7373(91)90029-7.
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0020737391900297

  * [19] W. Al-Karaghouli, S. AlShawi, G. Fitzgerald, Negotiating and understanding information systems requirements: The use of set diagrams, Requirements Engineering 5 (2000) 93–102.
  * [20] H.-G. Chen, J. J. Jiang, G. Klein, J. V. Chen, Reducing software requirement perception gaps through coordination mechanisms, Journal of Systems and Software 82 (4) (2009) 650–655, special Issue: Selected papers from the 2008 IEEE Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET08).  doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2008.09.032.
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016412120800215X

  * [21] J. J. Jiang, G. Klein, S. P. Wu, T. Liang, The relation of requirements uncertainty and stakeholder perception gaps to project management performance, Journal of Systems and Software 82 (5) (2009) 801–808.  doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2008.11.833.
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016412120800263X

  * [22] S. Martikainen, M. Korpela, T. Tiihonen, User participation in healthcare it development: A developers’ viewpoint in finland, International Journal of Medical Informatics 83 (3) (2014) 189–200.  doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.12.003.
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1386505613002505

  * [23] L. Potter, Investigating the gap between it professionals and users, ACIS 2004 Proceedings (2004) 68.
  * [24] M. Korkala, P. Abrahamsson, P. Kyllonen, A case study on the impact of customer communication on defects in agile software development, in: AGILE 2006 (AGILE’06), 2006, pp. 11 pp.–88.  doi:10.1109/AGILE.2006.1.
  * [25] A. Takats, N. Brewer, Improving communication between customers and developers, in: Agile Development Conference (ADC’05), 2005, pp. 243–252.  doi:10.1109/ADC.2005.30.
  * [26] M. J. Gallivan, M. Keil, The user–developer communication process: a critical case study, Information Systems Journal 13 (1) (2003) 37–68.  arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1365-2575.2003.00138.x, doi:https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2575.2003.00138.x.
URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2575.2003.00138.x

  * [27] P. Lenberg, R. Feldt, L. G. Wallgren, Human factors related challenges in software engineering – an industrial perspective, in: 2015 IEEE/ACM 8th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, 2015, pp. 43–49.  doi:10.1109/CHASE.2015.13.
  * [28] R. P. Bostrom, Successful application of communication techniques to improve the systems development process, Information & Management 16 (5) (1989) 279–295.  doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7206(89)90005-0.
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378720689900050

  * [29] S. Hassan, C. Tantithamthavorn, C.-P. Bezemer, A. E. Hassan, Studying the dialogue between users and developers of free apps in the google play store, Empirical Software Engineering 23 (2018) 1275–1312.
  * [30] D. Pagano, W. Maalej, User feedback in the appstore: An empirical study, in: 2013 21st IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), 2013, pp. 125–134.  doi:10.1109/RE.2013.6636712.
  * [31] J. E. C. Mann, It education’s failure to deliver successful information systems: Now is the time to address the it-user gap, Journal of Information Technology Education. Research 1 (2002) 253.
  * [32] N. C. Pa, A. M. Zin, Requirement elicitation: identifying the communication challenges between developer and customer, International Journal of New Computer Architectures and their Applications (IJNCAA) 1 (2) (2011) 371–383.
  * [33] P. Guinan, R. P. Bostrom, Development of computer-based information systems: A communication framework, ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems 17 (3) (1986) 3–16.  doi:10.1145/15830.15831.
URL https://doi.org/10.1145/15830.15831

  * [34] H. U. Shah, S. Dingley, P. A. Golder, Bridging the culture gap between users and developers, Journal of Systems Management 45 (7) (1994) 18.
  * [35] U. Abelein, B. Paech, M. Kern, M. Woydich, Evaluation of the simulated application of the udc-lsi method: The ipeople case study, in: 2015 IEEE/ACM 8th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, 2015, pp. 22–28.  doi:10.1109/CHASE.2015.10.
  * [36] S. Alvarez, K. Duy, M. Zapata, J. Galarza, D. Martinez, C. Puco, The communication between client-developer in the process of requirements elicitation for a software project, in: Á. Rocha, H. Adeli, G. Dzemyda, F. Moreira, A. M. Ramalho Correia (Eds.), Trends and Applications in Information Systems and Technologies, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2021, pp. 36–45.
  * [37] A. Martin, R. Biddle, J. Noble, An Ideal Customer: A Grounded Theory of Requirements Elicitation, Communication and Acceptance on Agile Projects, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 111–141.  doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12575-1_6.
URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12575-1_6

  * [38] S. Franken, S. Kolvenbach, W. Prinz, I. Alvertis, S. Koussouris, Cloudteams: Bridging the gap between developers and customers during software development processes, Procedia Computer Science 68 (2015) 188–195, 1st International Conference on Cloud Forward: From Distributed to Complete Computing.  doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.09.234.
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050915030793

  * [39] E. Vanhala, J. Kasurinen, The role of the customer in an agile project: A multi-case study, in: S. Hyrynsalmi, M. Suoranta, A. Nguyen-Duc, P. Tyrväinen, P. Abrahamsson (Eds.), Software Business, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019, pp. 208–222.
  * [40] D. Ojastu, T. Robal, A. Kalja, Expectations of software development practitioners for non-technical clients., in: DB&IS, 2014, pp. 317–330.
  * [41] D. Tuffley, Exploring the it-user gap: towards developing communication strategies, in: QualIt: challenges for qualitative research, 2005.
  * [42] F. Lizano, J. Stage, Increasing empathy toward users’ needs by using usability evalulations: A field-experiment, in: Proceedings of the 37th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS 37), Vol. 2014, IRIS, 2014.
  * [43] M. I. Khattab, V. Vranić, Organizational patterns for improving the understanding between a customer and the development team, in: Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs, EuroPLop ’22, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2023, pp. 1–8.  doi:10.1145/3551902.3551988.
URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3551902.3551988

  * [44] S. Dingley, H. Shah, P. Colder, Tribes of users and system developers, Australasian Journal of Information Systems 7 (2) (May 2000).  doi:10.3127/ajis.v7i2.274.
URL https://journal.acs.org.au/index.php/ajis/article/view/274

  * [45] C. Serkan, C. Kursat, Bridging the gap between users and developers in software intensive projects of turkish defense industry, URL http://www. metu. edu. tr/~ kursat/Cak&Cagiltay. pdf (2005).
  * [46] K. Bailey, M. Nagappan, D. Dig, Examining user-developer feedback loops in the ios app store, in: Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2019.  doi:10.24251/HICSS.2019.892.

##  Appendix B Positive Effects of Human Aspects

*P: Positive, M: Mixed, UPI: User Participation and Involvement, Challenges: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Challenges

Table 18: Categorisation of Positive Effects by Human Aspects (summarised) |  |  |  |
---|---|---|---|---
Category |  Human Aspect |  Nature of Impact & Paper IDs |  Impact on User-Developer Interactions |  Impact on SE
Individual |  Empathy |  *P:SPR03, SBF08 |  Higher level of developer empathy towards users. |  Increased system usability, Enhanced understanding of usability, Resource savings.
|  Motivation |  P:IEEE02, SBB12, SBB01. M:CHASE02 |  Developer empowerment, Improved developer motivation. |  Improved project success, Improved user commitment to the project.
|  Perception |  P:SBF06. M:SBB05 |  Reduced perception gap, Improved client cooperation. |  Successful client involvement in software projects.
|  Emotions |  P:ACM01. M:IEEE04 |  Quality developer-user relationship, Increased customer satisfaction. |  Increasing productivity, Contributing to research of human factors, Improved requirement quality.
|  Personality |  P:SBB12 |  - |  Resolving complex SE problems by acknowledging individual personality and organisational culture.
|  Attitude |  P:IEEE02 |  - |  Better understanding on the impact of attitude on engagement.
|  Cognitive Style |  P:IEEE01, SBB04. M:IEEE04, WILEY01. |  Reduced understanding gap between customers & developers. |  Increased UPI, More democratic organisational culture, Improved understanding of problem domain, Quality requirements.
|  Competence |  P:IEEE02, SBB01 |  - |  Better understanding of the impact of competence on engagement, Improved user commitment to project team.
Skill, Experiential or Environmental- influenced |  Human Values |  P: ACM01, SBB12. M: IEEE04 |  Communication & trust relationships between users & developers. |  Enhanced understanding on developer thought process, Contributing to research of human factors, Improved customer relations.
|  Knowledge/ Education |  P: SBB04. M: IEEE04, WILEY01 |  Increased knowledge sharing between employees, Effective project requirements definition. |  Quality requirements, Increased customer satisfaction, Leading to better systems.
|  Skills |  M: WILEY01 |  - |  Supports successful implementation of the SPI efforts.
|  Performance |  P: SBB01. M: SBB02, SBB05 |  - |  Increased project performance.
Group Related |  Communication |  P: CHASE01, ACM01, SD01, SPR02, IEEE05, IEEE01, SBB09, SBB10, SBB13, SBB15, SBB14, SBB18, SBF01, SBF02 SBF04, SBF05, SBF10, IEEE02, SBB12 M: SBB05, SBF07, IEEE04 |  Enable a richer communication, Improved developer understanding on user needs, Promotes users’ positive attitude towards system, Enables effective use the systems, Facilitate better information flow for users, Increased efficiency of work, Improved opportunities for learning, Improved buy-in and ownership, Improved productivity. |  Improved SW & data quality, Increased system success, Increased user satisfaction, Increased team productivity & satisfaction, Better UX, Improved system usability, Increased project performance, Contributing to human factors research, Encouraging users to reflect on their technology usage, Reduced defect rate.
|  Collaboration |  P:SD01, IEEE06, SBB07, SBB10, SBF03, SBF04, SBF05, IEEE02, SBB12, SBB01 M:SBB02,SBB05, WILEY01 |  Increased collaboration, Improved Buy-in & ownership, Better developer-customer understanding, Reduced conflicts, Increased developer appreciation, Improved awareness on user participation & collaboration. |  Improved system usability, Assisting & guiding decision making, Increased project performance, Increased user satisfaction, Reduced defect rate, Efficient use of resources, Improved partnership, Encouraging startup formation.
|  Culture |  P:SBF10, IEEE02, SBB12, SBB04 M: SBF07 |  Improved understanding of developer-user cultural differences, Improved communication & interaction, Reduced difficulties, Quality requirements. |  Improved system success, Better understanding on cultural impact, Collaborative customer relationship, Leading to better systems, Improved awareness of communications strategies, Resolution of complex SE problems.
|  Coordination |  M:SBB05 |  Increased communication & coordination due to collaboration. |  Increased project performance.
|  *Challenges |  P:IEEE02 M:SBB02, SBB08 |  Reduced developer-user conflicts, Increased awareness of developer-user differences, Improved communication & understanding. |  Reduced developer-user conflicts, Increased project success, Better understanding of the impact of challenges on engagement.
|  Engagement |  P:IEEE02, SBB01 |  Increased UPI, Improved involvement of leadership & employees, Improved developer-user collaboration. |  Increased system success, Successful implementation of SPI efforts, Improved project performance.
|  |  |  |

##  Appendix C Negative Effects of Human Aspects

*N: Negative, M: Mixed, Challenges: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Challenges

Table 19: Categorisation of Negative Effects by Human Aspects (summarised) |  |  |  |
---|---|---|---|---
Category |  Human Aspect |  Nature of Impact & Paper IDs |  Impact on User-Developer Interactions |  Impact on SE
Individual |  Motivation |  *M:CHASE02 |  Developer distrust in customer interactions, Customers feeling a lack of control, Weakened developer-customer interactions. |  Customer frustration, Weakened developer - customer interactions.
|  Perception |  *N:SPR01, SBB06, SBB16. M:SBB05 |  Reduced user involvement, Reduced communication & collaboration, Increased perception gaps. |  Requirements uncertainty, Reduced project performance, Increased project failures.
|  Emotions |  N:SBB16. M:IEEE04 |  Limited interaction, Limited developer - user communication and trust. |  Poor quality requirements, Insufficient domain knowledge, Low customer satisfaction, Failed software projects.
|  Cognitive Style |  N:SBB16. M:IEEE04, WILEY01. |  Lack of trust, Strained developer - user relationship, Failed communication. |  Risks to project success, Failed software projects, Poorly coordinated development efforts.
Skill, Experiential or Environmental- influenced |  Human Values |  M: IEEE04 |  Limited user interaction, Limited developer - user communication, Lack of trust. |  Poor quality requirements, Insufficient domain knowledge, Low customer satisfaction.
|  Knowledge/ Education |  M: IEEE04, WILEY01 |  Limited user interaction, Limited developer-user communication, Lack of trust. |  Poor quality requirements, Risks to project success, Failed SPI efforts.
|  Skills |  M: WILEY01 |  - |  Failed SPI efforts.
|  Performance |  N: SBB06. M: SBB02, SBB05 |  Developer - user conflicts, Reduced user - developer communication & collaboration, Increased perception gaps, Lack of stakeholder understanding. |  Increased project failures, Requirements uncertainty, Project estimation difficulties.
Group Related |  Communication |  N: SPR04, SBB06, SBB11, SBB16, SBB19, SBB17, SBF09, SBF12 M: IEEE04, SBB05, SBF07 |  Lack of understanding among stakeholders, Strained developer - user relationship, Failed communication, Cultural gap between stakeholders, Misalignment of stakeholders’ objectives. |  Inability of systems to meet business needs, Failed software projects, Poorly coordinated development efforts, Customer resistance toward software projects.
|  Collaboration |  N:SBB16 M:WILEY01, SBB02,SBB05 |  Developer - user conflicts, Reduced user involvement, Reduced user - developer communication & collaboration, Increased perception gaps, Strained developer - user relationship. |  Failed SPI efforts, Increased project performance estimation difficulty, Reduced user - developer collaboration, Requirements uncertainty, Failed software projects.
|  Culture |  N: SBB16, SBB19 M: SBF07 |  Poor developer - user communication, Increased resistance, Strained developer - user relationship, Misalignment of stakeholders’ objectives. |  Inability of systems to meet business needs, Reduced usage of systems, Excessive maintenance, Failed software projects, Requirements uncertainty.
|  Coordination |  M:SBB05 |  Reduced user involvement, Reduced user - developer communication & collaboration, Increased developer - user perception gaps. |  Reduced project performance, Increased project failures, Requirements uncertainty.
|  *Challenges |  N:IEEE03, SBB03, SBB16, SBF11 M:SBB02, SBB08 |  Distant developer - user relationship, Developers’ unawareness about customer needs, Negative user attitude towards technology, Developer demotivation, Lack of Empathy between users and developers. |  Users feeling threatened by systems, Lack of user feedback, Obstacles in system development, Negating system success, Lack of confidence in system, Reduced team cohesion, Inadequate task analysis, Slow decision making, Reduced developer performance.
|  Engagement |  M:WILEY01 |  - |  Failed SPI efforts in SME software development companies.
|  |  |  |

## References

  * [1] L. Pirzadeh, Human factors in software development: A systematic literature review (2010).
URL https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12380/126748

  * [2] J. C. Grundy, Impact of end user human aspects on software engineering., in: In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering (ENASE2021),, SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, 2021, pp. 9–20.  doi:10.5220/0010531800090020.
  * [3] G. C. Murphy, Human-centric software engineering, in: Proceedings of the FSE/SDP workshop on Future of software engineering research, FoSER ’10, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2010, p. 251–254.  doi:10.1145/1882362.1882414.
URL https://doi.org/10.1145/1882362.1882414

  * [4] P. Brereton, B. A. Kitchenham, D. Budgen, M. Turner, M. Khalil, Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain, Journal of systems and software 80 (4) (2007) 571–583.
  * [5] O. Hazzan, J. Tomayko, Human aspects of software engineering: The case of extreme programming, in: J. Eckstein, H. Baumeister (Eds.), Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004, pp. 303–311.
  * [6] H. Shah, N. J. Nersessian, M. J. Harrold, W. Newstetter, Studying the influence of culture in global software engineering: thinking in terms of cultural models, Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Intercultural Collaboration, Association for Computing Machinery, Bengaluru, India, 2012.  doi:10.1145/2160881.2160894.
URL https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/10.1145/2160881.2160894

  * [7] H. d. Ribaupierre, K. Jones, F. Loizides, Y. Cherdantseva, Towards gender equality in software engineering: the NSA approach, Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering, Association for Computing Machinery, Gothenburg, Sweden, 2018.  doi:10.1145/3195570.3195579.
URL https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/10.1145/3195570.3195579

  * [8] K. Madampe, R. Hoda, J. Grundy, The emotional roller coaster of responding to requirements changes in software engineering, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2022).
  * [9] H. Perera, R. Hoda, R. A. Shams, A. Nurwidyantoro, M. Shahin, W. Hussain, J. Whittle, The impact of considering human values during requirements engineering activities, arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.15293 (2021).
  * [10] A. S. Barroso, J. S. Madureira, M. S. Soares, R. P. do Nascimento, Influence of human personality in software engineering-a systematic literature review, in: International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Vol. 2, SciTePress, 2017, pp. 53–62.
  * [11] D. Hidellaarachchi, J. Grundy, R. Hoda, I. Mueller, Does personality impact requirements engineering activities?, arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.07807 (2022).
  * [12] N. Unkelos-Shpigel, I. Hadar, Leveraging motivational theories for designing gamification for re, in: 2018 IEEE/ACM 11th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE), pp. 69–72.
  * [13] C. J. Davis, R. M. Fuller, M. C. Tremblay, D. J. Berndt, Communication challenges in requirements elicitation and the use of the repertory grid technique, Journal of Computer Information Systems 46 (5) (2006) 78–86.
  * [14] F. Anwar, R. Razali, K. Ahmad, Achieving effective communication during requirements elicitation-a conceptual framework, in: Software Engineering and Computer Systems: Second International Conference, ICSECS 2011, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia, June 27-29, 2011, Proceedings, Part III 2, Springer, 2011, pp. 600–610.
  * [15] M. Levy, I. Hadar, The importance of empathy for analyzing privacy requirements, in: 2018 IEEE 5th International Workshop on Evolving Security & Privacy Requirements Engineering (ESPRE), IEEE, 2018, pp. 9–13.
  * [16] J. Grundy, I. Mueller, A. Madugalla, H. Khalajzadeh, H. O. Obie, J. McIntosh, T. Kanij, Addressing the influence of end user human aspects on software engineering, in: International Conference on Evaluation of Novel Approaches to Software Engineering, Springer, 2021, pp. 241–264.
  * [17] L. F. Capretz, Bringing the human factor to software engineering, IEEE Software 31 (2) (2014) 104–104.  doi:10.1109/MS.2014.30.
  * [18] U. Abelein, H. Sharp, B. Paech, Does involving users in software development really influence system success?, IEEE Software 30 (6) (2013) 17–23.  doi:10.1109/MS.2013.124.
  * [19] U. Abelein, B. Paech, Understanding the influence of user participation and involvement on system success–a systematic mapping study, Empirical Software Engineering 20 (2015) 28–81.
  * [20] A. L. Cavaye, User participation in system development revisited, Information & Management 28 (5) (1995) 311–323.
  * [21] H. Barki, J. Hartwick, User participation, conflict, and conflict resolution: the mediating roles of influence, Information Systems Research 5 (4) (1994) 422–438.
  * [22] R. Zeffane, B. Cheek, P. Meredith, Does user involvement during information systems development improve data quality?, Human Systems Management 17 (2) (1998) 115–121.
  * [23] K. Amoako-Gyampah, K. B. White, User involvement and user satisfaction: An exploratory contingency model, Information & Management 25 (1) (1993) 1–10.
  * [24] K. Amoako-Gyampah, Perceived usefulness, user involvement and behavioral intention: an empirical study of erp implementation, Computers in human behavior 23 (3) (2007) 1232–1248.
  * [25] K. Ba, S. Charters, Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering, Tech. rep., Technical report, EBSE Technical Report EBSE-2007-01 (2007).
  * [26] B. Kitchenham, Procedures for performing systematic reviews, Tech. rep., Keele University Technical Report TR/SE-0401 (2004).
  * [27] F. Fazli, E. A. C. Bittner, Cultural influences on collaborative work in software engineering teams, in: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 2017.
  * [28] T. Alsanoosy, M. Spichkova, J. Harland, Cultural influence on requirements engineering activities: a systematic literature review and analysis, Requirements Engineering 25 (3) (2020) 339–362.
  * [29] S. S. J. O. Cruz, F. Q. B. d. Silva, C. V. F. Monteiro, P. Santos, I. Rossilei, M. T. d. Santos, Personality in software engineering: Preliminary findings from a systematic literature review, in: 15th Annual Conference on Evaluation & Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2011), pp. 1–10.  doi:10.1049/ic.2011.0001.
  * [30] S. Beecham, N. Baddoo, T. Hall, H. Robinson, H. Sharp, Motivation in software engineering: A systematic literature review, Information and software technology 50 (9-10) (2008) 860–878.
  * [31] T. Hall, N. Baddoo, S. Beecham, H. Robinson, H. Sharp, A systematic review of theory use in studies investigating the motivations of software engineers, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 18 (3) (2009) 1–29.
  * [32] R. Mohanani, I. Salman, B. Turhan, P. Rodríguez, P. Ralph, Cognitive biases in software engineering: A systematic mapping study, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 46 (12) (2020) 1318–1339.  doi:10.1109/TSE.2018.2877759.
  * [33] E. Guveyi, M. S. Aktas, O. Kalipsiz, Human factor on software quality: a systematic literature review, in: Computational Science and Its Applications–ICCSA 2020: 20th International Conference, Cagliari, Italy, July 1–4, 2020, Proceedings, Part IV 20, Springer, 2020, pp. 918–930.
  * [34] S. Wagner, M. Ruhe, A systematic review of productivity factors in software development, arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.06475 (2018).
  * [35] U. Abelein, B. Paech, Understanding the influence of user participation and involvement on system success–a systematic mapping study, Empirical Software Engineering 20 (2015) 28–81.
  * [36] M. Bano, D. Zowghi, User involvement in software development and system success: a systematic literature review, in: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, 2013, pp. 125–130.
  * [37] A. Marcus, E. W. Gould, Crosscurrents: cultural dimensions and global web user-interface design, interactions 7 (4) (2000) 32–46.
  * [38] C. Casado-Lumbreras, R. Colomo-Palacios, P. Soto-Acosta, S. Misra, Culture dimensions in software development industry: The effects of mentoring (2011).
  * [39] R. Sach, H. Sharp, M. Petre, Continued involvement in software development: Motivational factors, in: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM ’10, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2010.  doi:10.1145/1852786.1852843.
URL https://doi.org/10.1145/1852786.1852843

  * [40] A. Deak, T. Stålhane, G. Sindre, Challenges and strategies for motivating software testing personnel, Information and Software Technology 73 (2016) 1–15.  doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2016.01.002.
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584916000045

  * [41] H. Saiedian, R. Dale, Requirements engineering: making the connection between the software developer and customer, Information and software technology 42 (6) (2000) 419–428.
  * [42] J. Whitehead, Collaboration in software engineering: A roadmap, in: Future of Software Engineering (FOSE’07), IEEE, 2007, pp. 214–225.
  * [43] T. Sauvola, L. E. Lwakatare, T. Karvonen, P. Kuvaja, H. H. Olsson, J. Bosch, M. Oivo, Towards customer-centric software development: a multiple-case study, in: 2015 41st Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, IEEE, 2015, pp. 9–17.
  * [44] A. Fabijan, H. H. Olsson, J. Bosch, Customer feedback and data collection techniques in software r&d: a literature review, in: Software Business: 6th International Conference, ICSOB 2015, Braga, Portugal, June 10-12, 2015, Proceedings 6, Springer, 2015, pp. 139–153.
  * [45] T. D. Pigott, J. R. Polanin, Methodological guidance paper: High-quality meta-analysis in a systematic review, Review of Educational Research 90 (1) (2020) 24–46.  arXiv:https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319877153, doi:10.3102/0034654319877153.
URL https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319877153

  * [46] M. Petticrew, H. Roberts, Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide, John Wiley and Sons, 2008.
  * [47] C. Wohlin, Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering, in: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, EASE ’14, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2014, pp. 1–10.  doi:10.1145/2601248.2601268.
  * [48] L. B. Shelby, J. J. Vaske, Understanding meta-analysis: A review of the methodological literature, Leisure Sciences 30 (2) (2008) 96–110.
  * [49] E. Ahn, H. Kang, Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis, Korean journal of anesthesiology 71 (2) (2018) 103–112.
  * [50] L. Busetto, W. Wick, C. Gumbinger, How to use and assess qualitative research methods, Neurological Research and practice 2 (1) (2020) 14.
  * [51] M. Hojat, Empathy in health professions education and patient care, Springer, Switzerland, 2016.  doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27625-0.
  * [52] S. Cruz, F. Q. Da Silva, L. F. Capretz, Forty years of research on personality in software engineering: A mapping study, Computers in Human Behavior 46 (2015) 94–113.
  * [53] D. Hidellaarachchi, J. Grundy, R. Hoda, K. Madampe, The effects of human aspects on the requirements engineering process: A systematic literature review, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 48 (6) (2021) 2105–2127.
  * [54] A. B. Soomro, N. Salleh, E. Mendes, J. Grundy, G. Burch, A. Nordin, The effect of software engineers’ personality traits on team climate and performance: A systematic literature review, Information and Software Technology 73 (2016) 52–65.  doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2016.01.006.
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950584916000082