Holistic B2X Mobile Application Development -- A Reference Model

Michael H. Breitner; Nadine Guhr; Oliver Werth

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 94 references

Holistic B2X Mobile Application Development -- A Reference Model

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Four-layer model maps how mobile apps actually get built

desk verdict REMOB is a well-executed qualitative study wrapped in an overclaimed framing; the interview data is solid but the model's mobile-specific novelty is thin and unvalidated. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07511 v1 pith:6AM3XMIN submitted 2026-07-08 cs.SE

Oliver Werth , Nadine Guhr , Michael H. Breitner This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.SE

keywords mobiledevelopmentprocessmodelsmodelvariouschallengesknowledge

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that existing academic process models for mobile app development are largely unknown and unused by practitioners, creating a research-practice divide. To close this gap, the authors propose REMOB, a reference model organized into four layers — management, requirements, process, and communication — that synthesizes what matters when developing business-to-X mobile applications. REMOB is built from two inputs: a taxonomy of 35 existing process models from the literature, and 28 expert interviews with developers, product owners, scrum masters, and team leads predominantly from European personal finance and lifestyle app domains. The interviews reveal that no process model is used in its pure academic form; Scrum dominates but is routinely adapted, hybridized with waterfall approaches, or stripped of key roles like the product owner depending on organizational constraints. The paper's central move is to theorize these practitioner adaptations and mobile-specific challenges — GUI testing on real hardware, short-notice requirement changes, role allocation, regulatory constraints — into a structured blueprint that organizations can use as a starting point rather than selecting from a catalog of models that practitioners largely ignore.

What carries the argument

REMOB is a four-layer reference model. The management layer covers organizational culture, risk management, and process model understanding. The requirements layer covers mobile-specific needs such as GUI/UX design, hardware-specific testing, and OS-specific considerations. The process layer covers the selection and hybridization of process models, including the finding that Scrum is dominant but almost always adapted. The communication layer covers internal team communication and external stakeholder communication, including the role of the product owner as a bridge between client and development team.

What would settle it

If a quantitative study across diverse industries and regions found that the four layers do not capture the majority of challenges faced by B2X mobile app development teams, or that a different layer structure better explains practice, REMOB's value as a reference model would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central contribution is REMOB itself, a four-layer reference model (management, requirements, process, communication) that consolidates mobile-app-specific development knowledge from both literature and practice into a single prescriptive blueprint. The underlying finding is that practitioners do not use academic process models as published; instead they adapt, hybridize, or abandon them, and the patterns of these adaptations can be systematically described across the four layers. The model also identifies that classical sequential models like waterfall retain legitimacy in highly regulated domains such as personal finance, while agile methods like Scrum are preferred for their通信

Load-bearing premise

The model's generality rests on 28 interviews drawn predominantly from European personal finance and lifestyle app domains. If the patterns observed — such as waterfall preference in finance or Scrum dominance — are artifacts of these specific domains and regions rather than universal mobile development truths, then REMOB's claim to be a general blueprint is overstated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Organizations starting a B2X mobile app project can use REMOB's four layers as a checklist to ensure they have addressed management buy-in, mobile-specific requirements, process model selection, and communication structures before development begins.
The finding that hybrid Scrum-waterfall approaches are common in regulated domains suggests that pure agile adoption guidance for mobile apps is insufficient for industries like finance and healthcare.
The identification of the product owner as a mandatory role in mobile app development, rather than optional as in standard Scrum, implies that small organizations without sufficient staffing may need alternative process structures.
The taxonomy of 35 process models, most of which are unknown to practitioners, suggests that academic effort in creating new mobile-specific process models may have diminishing returns compared to improving reference model adoption.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If REMOB is valid, it could be extended into a maturity model where organizations self-assess their readiness across the four layers before committing to a mobile app development project.
The four-layer structure could be tested quantitatively: organizations that score higher on REMOB's layer coverage should show fewer project failures or shorter time-to-market, which would distinguish REMOB from a descriptive framework into a predictive one.
The finding that domain-specific regulatory pressure drives process model selection suggests REMOB may need domain-specific variants — a finance-REMOB and a lifestyle-REMOB — rather than a single universal model.
The communication layer's emphasis on developer involvement from the start of design could be tested against outcomes: projects where developers join during requirements gathering rather than implementation may produce fewer GUI implementation failures.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this paper does legitimate qualitative work — 28 expert interviews, systematic coding, a useful taxonomy expansion from 16 to 35 process models — but the central claim that REMOB 'goes beyond existing process models' and 'closes the research-practice knowledge divide' is not supported by what's actually in the model. The stress-test concern lands hard here, and I agree with it more than with the reader's more generous assessment. The paper itself admits that two of REMOB's four layers (management, communication) contain content that is 'generally true for software development' and 'not mobile-specific.' The requirements layer's mobile-specific content reduces to GUI/UX testing on real hardware and OS-specific data handling — practices well-documented by Joorabchi et al. and Flora et al., both cited. The process layer synthesizes findings (Scrum dominance, hybridization, Waterfall in regulated domains) already in the literature. So three layers are generic or derivative, and the fourth contains known practices. That's the real problem, not the sample composition. What the paper does well: the taxonomy expansion is systematic and genuinely useful as a reference. The interview data is rich — the quotes from practitioners about Scrum adaptation, PO role gaps, and sprint-length tensions are valuable primary evidence. The coding follows Corbin/Strauss properly, and theoretical saturation at 28 interviews is defensible. The Gioia methodology is applied credibly. Where it falls short: no inter-coder reliability is reported, which matters for a paper whose entire contribution rests on coding quality. No validation study is conducted — the paper itself calls for one but doesn't do it. The claim to 'close the research-practice divide' is circular: practitioners don't use academic process models, so the authors propose another academic model without evidence that practitioners would adopt it. The sample is also domain-limited (European, predominantly personal finance and lifestyle), which the authors acknowledge but don't fully reckon with when claiming generalizability. This paper is for IS researchers interested in mobile development processes and practitioners looking for a structured overview. The taxonomy and interview findings have real value; the reference model framing oversells what's there. It deserves a serious referee — the qualitative work is sound enough to engage with, but the framing needs substantial revision to match the actual evidence. I'd push the authors to either strengthen the mobile-specific content in REMOB or significantly moderate the claims.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes REMOB, a four-layer reference model (management, requirements, process, communication) for B2X mobile application development. The study combines a literature-based taxonomy of 35 process models with 28 semi-structured expert interviews analyzed via Corbin and Strauss's grounded theory approach. The central claim is that REMOB serves as a holistic blueprint that goes beyond existing process models and closes the research-practice knowledge divide identified by Jabangwe et al. [3]. The interview sample reached theoretical saturation and covers multiple stakeholder roles, predominantly from European personal finance and lifestyle app domains.

Significance. The paper makes a genuine effort to bridge academic process model research and practitioner experience through a mixed approach (taxonomy + qualitative interviews). The interview dataset of 28 experts is substantial, and the Gioia/Corbin-Strauss methodology is appropriately applied. The taxonomy expansion (Table 1) from 16 to 35 process models is a useful contribution. The paper is transparent about the European and domain-specific limitations of its sample. However, the significance is tempered by the fact that REMOB itself is not validated with practitioners, and the paper's own text acknowledges that several layers contain generic software engineering content rather than mobile-specific insights.

major comments (1)

§'A reference model for holistic B2X mobile application development (REMOB)' and Discussion: The paper's central claim that REMOB 'goes beyond questionable, already existing process models' and 'closes the research-practice knowledge divide' is not substantiated by evaluation. The authors themselves state in the Limitations section that 'an evaluation must include the different views of relevant stakeholders... and the usefulness of REMOB,' yet no such evaluation is conducted. Without any validation that practitioners would adopt or benefit from REMOB, the claim of closing the research-practice divide is circular: practitioners do not use academic process models, so the authors propose another academic model without evidence it would be adopted. This is load-bearing for the central contribution claim and needs to be addressed either by conducting a preliminary evaluation or by substanti—

minor comments (6)

Table 1 is referenced but the content is not legible in the manuscript as provided; the table appears to contain formatting issues that render it unreadable.
Table A-4 (appendix) is labeled 'Table A-4' but is referenced as 'Table A.2' in the main text (§Research design and methods). Consistency in table numbering is needed.
The abstract contains grammatical issues: 'Since hybrid process models are often advantageous for B2X mobile app development, technical backgrounds or communication processes, are also crucial' is a sentence fragment.
§'Requirements engineering in B2X application development': 'Intuitively they plan important, mobile-specific importance in the development process' appears to contain a typo or grammatical error.
The paper states 28 interviews with 29 experts (E3a/E3b), but Table 2 lists 28 entries. This should be clarified.
Inter-coder reliability is not reported. While the Corbin/Strauss approach does not strictly require it, reporting whether multiple coders were used and any reliability measures would strengthen the transparency of the coding process.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback. The referee's central concern—that REMOB is not validated with practitioners and that the claim of 'closing the research-practice divide' is therefore circular—is well taken. We address this below and describe concrete revisions to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The paper's central claim that REMOB 'goes beyond questionable, already existing process models' and 'closes the research-practice knowledge divide' is not substantiated by evaluation. The authors themselves state in the Limitations section that 'an evaluation must include the different views of relevant stakeholders... and the usefulness of REMOB,' yet no such evaluation is conducted. Without any validation that practitioners would adopt or benefit from REMOB, the claim of closing the research-practice divide is circular: practitioners do not use academic process models, so the authors propose another academic model without evidence it would be adopted.

Authors: The referee is correct that REMOB has not been validated with practitioners in a separate evaluation step, and we agree that this limitation weakens the claim of 'closing the research-practice divide' as currently stated. We cannot honestly claim that REMOB has been validated for adoption or usefulness, and we will not misrepresent the manuscript as having done so. We will make the following revisions: (1) We will soften the central claim from 'closes the research-practice knowledge divide' to a more accurate formulation, e.g., 'provides a theoretically grounded and empirically informed step toward bridging the research-practice divide.' (2) We will remove or qualify the phrase 'goes beyond questionable, already existing process models' to clarify that REMOB is a synthesis derived from practitioner experiences and literature, not a validated replacement. (3) We will add an explicit discussion in the Limitations section acknowledging the circularity risk the referee identifies and framing the practitioner evaluation as a necessary next step rather than a completed one. (4) We will add a brief paragraph in the Discussion clarifying that REMOB's contribution at this stage is descriptive and prescriptive-by-synthesis (derived from 28 expert interviews and a taxonomy of 35 process models), not yet evaluative. We respectfully note that the model is not 'another academic model' in the same sense as the 35 process models reviewed: REMOB was constructed inductively from practitioner data using grounded theory coding, and its four layers (management, requirements, process, communication) emerged from the interview material rather than being imposed from theory. This gives it a different epistemological status than the prescriptive process models that practitioners reported not to revision: no

standing simulated objections not resolved

We cannot conduct a full practitioner validation of REMOB within the revision timeframe, as this would require a new round of expert interviews or a survey study with appropriate design, recruitment, and analysis. We will therefore honestly scope the contribution as a design-science artifact at the 'build' stage, with evaluation as future work, rather than claiming validation we have not performed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-citation of prior taxonomy as interview knowledge foundation; central REMOB model derived from independent qualitative interview data, not from the cited taxonomy.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution, REMOB, is derived from 28 independent expert interviews analyzed via grounded theory coding (Corbin and Strauss). The authors' prior taxonomy (Werth et al. [11]) is cited as a 'knowledge foundation' for the interview guideline and as an 'ignition to identify first-order codes,' but the paper explicitly states that new aggregated dimensions emerged from the interview data that were NOT in the taxonomy (e.g., 'team characteristics and roles in development processes'). The taxonomy informed the interview guide but did not predetermine the findings. The four-layer model (management, requirements, process, communication) was constructed from inductively coded interview data, not from the taxonomy's dimensions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. No uniqueness theorem is invoked. The self-citation is present but not load-bearing for the central claim. The paper is self-contained against its qualitative data, and the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The reader's skepticism about generality and lack of validation is a correctness concern, not a circularity concern. Score 2 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation of the prior taxonomy as a starting point for interview design, which is standard practice in qualitative research and does not constitute circular reasoning. The paper's claim that REMOB 'goes beyond existing process models' is an assertion about novelty and practical utility that remains unvalidated, but this is a gap in evaluation, not a circular derivation. The derivation from interview data to reference model is genuinely inductive and independent of the cited prior work in its content, even if the prior work shaped the interview questions. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to a fitted input or a self-cited result that is itself unverified. The paper is honest about its limitations and does not claim mathematical or formal derivation that would be susceptible to definitional circularity. The qualitative methodology, while subject to validity concerns, does not exhibit the structural circularity patterns (self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, uniqueness-imported, ansatz-smuggled, renaming-known-result) that this analysis targets. The self-citation is minor and the central claim has independent empirical content derived from the interview data. This is a normal, honest paper with no significant circularity. The reader's circularity sore

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted. The axioms are standard qualitative research assumptions (saturation, methodology choice) plus a generalizability assumption that the paper itself partially acknowledges as a limitation. REMOB is the single invented entity, and its independent evidence is absent within the paper.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Theoretical saturation was reached after 28 interviews
The paper claims no new concepts emerged after 28 interviews (p. 6). This is unverifiable without full transcripts and is load-bearing for the completeness of the reference model.
standard math The Gioia methodology is appropriate for reference model elaboration
The paper adopts the Gioia methodology's interpretivist paradigm (p. 5-6). This is a standard qualitative research assumption.
domain assumption European expert perspectives generalize to B2X mobile app development broadly
The sample is predominantly European and finance/lifestyle-focused (Table 2), but REMOB is presented as generally applicable (p. 4, p. 15).

invented entities (1)

REMOB
purpose: A four-layer reference model for B2X mobile app development
REMOB is the paper's main contribution. It is not validated through application or quantitative testing in this paper. The paper acknowledges evaluation as future work (p. 16).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Holistic B2X Mobile Application Development -- A Reference Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6AM3XMIN

@misc{pith2026260707511,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Holistic B2X Mobile Application Development -- A Reference Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6AM3XMIN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07511}
}

read the original abstract

Business-to-X (B2X, "X" for business, customer, etc.) mobile applications ("apps") show various mobile-specific chances and challenges that must be ad-dressed in the whole development process. Knowledge about mobile app devel-opment models' usage remains restricted, although various process models for B2X app development have been published already. This article first reviewed available process models for mobile app development. In addition, 28 expert in-terviews with various stakeholders involved in typical B2X mobile app develop-ment processes were conducted to examine this research-practice knowledge di-vide. Since hybrid process models are often advantageous for B2X mobile app development, technical backgrounds or communication processes, are also cru-cial. Since no process model can be used unadopted, this study theorizes mobile-specific characteristics and challenges of app development process models to a reference model generally valuable for management decision support. The find-ings create avenues for better theorizing toward successful B2X mobile app de-velopment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07511 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 94 canonical work pages

[3]

Software engineering process models for mo- bile app development: A systematic literature review,

R. Jabangwe, H. Edison, and A. N. Duc, "Software engineering process models for mo- bile app development: A systematic literature review," Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 145, pp. 98–111, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.08.028

work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2018.08.028 2018
[1]

A model-driven approach for the development of native mobile applications focusing on the data layer,

M. Núñez, D. Bonhaure, M. González, and L. Cernuzzi, "A model-driven approach for the development of native mobile applications focusing on the data layer," Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 161, p. 110489, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.110489

work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2019.110489 2020
[2]

Investigating end-users’ values in agriculture mobile applications de- velopment: An empirical study on Bangladeshi female farmers,

R. A. Shams et al., "Investigating end-users’ values in agriculture mobile applications de- velopment: An empirical study on Bangladeshi female farmers," Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 200, p. 111648, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2023.111648

work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2023.111648 2023
[4]

Wickens, Attention: Theory, principles, models and applications, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 37 (5) (2021) 403–417.doi:10.1080/ 10447318.2021.1874741

B. Richardson, M. Campbell-Yeo, and M. Smit, "Mobile Application User Experience Checklist: A Tool to Assess Attention to Core UX Principles," International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 37, no. 13, pp. 1283–1290, 2021, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2021.1876361

work page doi:10.1080/10447318.2021.1876361 2021
[5]

Software development processes for mobile systems: Is agile really taking over the business?,

L. Corral, A. Sillitti, and G. Succi, "Software development processes for mobile systems: Is agile really taking over the business?," in Proceedings of the 1st International Work- shop on the Engineering of Mobile-Enabled Systems, San Francisco, California, USA: IEEE, 2013, pp. 19–24

work page 2013
[6]

Preventing ac- cessibility barriers: Guidelines for using user interface design patterns in mobile applica- tions,

L. A. Zaina, R. P. Fortes, V. Casadei, L. S. Nozaki, and D. M. B. Paiva, "Preventing ac- cessibility barriers: Guidelines for using user interface design patterns in mobile applica- tions," Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 186, p. 111213, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2021.111213

work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2021.111213 2022
[7]

Real challenges in mobile app develop- ment.,

M. E. Joorabchi, A. Mesbah, and P. Kruchten, "Real challenges in mobile app develop- ment.," in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Soft- ware Engineering and Measurement., Baltimore, Maryland, USA: ACM, 2013, pp. 15–

work page 2013
[8]

Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber= 6681322

[Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber= 6681322

work page

Show all 94 references

[9]

An investigation into mobile application de- velopment processes: Challenges and best practices.,

H. K. Flora, X. Wang, and S. V. Chande, "An investigation into mobile application de- velopment processes: Challenges and best practices.," International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, no. 6, pp. 21–27, 2014, doi: 10.5815/ijmecs.2014.06.01

2014 doi
[10]

Evaluating a graphical model-driven approach to codeless business app de- velopment,

C. Rieger, "Evaluating a graphical model-driven approach to codeless business app de- velopment," in Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sci- ences, Maui, Hawaii, USA: IEEE, 2018, pp. 5725–5735

2018
[11]

Automating software development for mobile computing platforms,

K. P. Moran, "Automating software development for mobile computing platforms," in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolu- tion., Madrid: IEEE, 2018, pp. 749–755

2018
[12]

Successful mobile application development: To- wards a taxonomy of domain-specific process models and methodologies,

O. Werth, N. Guhr, and M. H. Breitner, "Successful mobile application development: To- wards a taxonomy of domain-specific process models and methodologies," in Proceed- ings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences., Maui, Hawaii, USA: IEEE, 2019, pp. 7461–7471

2019
[13]

Iterative process models for mobile application systems: A framework.,

H. G. Kemper and E. Wolff, "Iterative process models for mobile application systems: A framework.," in Proceedings of the 23th International Conference on Information Sys- tems., Barcelona: Association for Information Systems, 2002, pp. 401–413. 18

2002
[14]

V‐model with fuzzy quality function deployments for mobile application development,

C. H. Lim and J. F. Chin, "V‐model with fuzzy quality function deployments for mobile application development," J Software Evolu Process, vol. 35, no. 1, 2023, doi: 10.1002/smr.2518

2023 doi
[15]

Accumulating design knowledge with reference mod- els: Insights from 12 years' research into data management,

C. Legner, T. Pentek, and B. Otto, "Accumulating design knowledge with reference mod- els: Insights from 12 years' research into data management," Journal of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 735–770, 2020, doi: 10.17705/1jais.00618

2020 doi
[16]

Extending the adaptability of reference models,

I. Reinhartz-Berger, P. Soffer, and A. Sturm, "Extending the adaptability of reference models," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 1045–1056, 2010, doi: 10.1109/TSMCA.2010.2044408

2010 doi
[17]

Power relations inscribed in the enactment of systems devel- opment methods,

B. Rowlands and K. Kautz, "Power relations inscribed in the enactment of systems devel- opment methods," Information Systems Journal, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 278–309, 2022, doi: 10.1111/isj.12322

2022 doi
[18]

J. M. Corbin and A. Strauss, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, 2014

2014
[19]

Editor's comments: Seeing the forest for the trees.,

A. Rai, "Editor's comments: Seeing the forest for the trees.," Management Information Systems Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. iii–vii, 2017

2017
[20]

An agile-based integrated framework for mobile application development considering ilities,

D. Martinez, X. Ferre, G. Guerrero, and N. Juristo, "An agile-based integrated framework for mobile application development considering ilities," IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 72461– 72470, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2987882

2020 doi
[21]

Criteria Based Evaluation of Cross-Platform Development Frameworks,

A. El Tom, C. Bogdan, T. A. Majchrzak, and T.-M. Grønli, "Criteria Based Evaluation of Cross-Platform Development Frameworks," in Proceedings of the 56th Hawaii Interna- tional Conference on System Sciences, 2023, pp. 6499–6509

2023
[22]

Mobile application usability: Conceptualization and in- strument development,

H. Hoehle and V. Venkatesh, "Mobile application usability: Conceptualization and in- strument development," Management Information Systems Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 435–472, 2015

2015
[23]

Mobile app analytics: A multiple discrete-continuous choice framework,

S. P. Han, S. Park, and W. Oh, "Mobile app analytics: A multiple discrete-continuous choice framework," Management Information Systems Quarterly, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 983– 1008, 2016

2016
[24]

Penetration frameworks and development issues in secure mobile application development: A systematic literature review,

I. U. Haq and T. A. Khan, "Penetration frameworks and development issues in secure mobile application development: A systematic literature review," IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 87806–87825, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3088229

2021 doi
[25]

Strategies for theorizing from process data,

A. Langley, "Strategies for theorizing from process data," Academy of Management Re- view, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 691–710, 1999, doi: 10.5465/amr.1999.2553248

1999 doi
[26]

Communication flow orienta- tion in business process modeling and its effect on redesign success: Results from a field study,

N. Kock, J. Verville, A. Danesh-Pajou, and D. DeLuca, "Communication flow orienta- tion in business process modeling and its effect on redesign success: Results from a field study," Decision Support Systems, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 562–575, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2008.10.002

2009 doi
[27]

Dumas, M

M. Dumas, M. LaRosa, J. Mendling, and H. Reijers, Fundamentals of Business Process Management. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2013

2013
[28]

Eliciting and modeling business process sto- ries,

D. Simões, P. Antunes, and L. M. Carriço, "Eliciting and modeling business process sto- ries," Business & Information Systems Engineering, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 115–132, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s12599-017-0475-3

2018 doi
[29]

Scacchi, Process Models in Software Engineering, Encyclopedia of Software Engi- neering

W. Scacchi, Process Models in Software Engineering, Encyclopedia of Software Engi- neering. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: Wiley & Sons, 2002. [Online]. Available: http:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/0471028959

2002 doi
[30]

A method for taxonomy develop- ment and its application in information systems,

R. C. Nickerson, U. Varshney, and J. Muntermann, "A method for taxonomy develop- ment and its application in information systems," European Journal of Information Sys- tems, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 336–359, 2013, doi: 10.1057/ejis.2012.26

2013 doi
[31]

Managing the development of large software systems: Concepts and techniques,

W. W. Royce, "Managing the development of large software systems: Concepts and techniques," in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineer- ing., Monterey: IEEE, 1987, pp. 328–338. 19

1987
[32]

A spiral model of software development and enhancement,

B. W. Boehm, "A spiral model of software development and enhancement," IEEE Com- puter, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 61–72, 1988

1988
[33]

Bucanac, The V-model

C. Bucanac, The V-model. [Online]. Available: www.bucanac.com/documents/The_V- Model.pdf (accessed: Nov. 30 2022)

2022
[34]

J. A. McDermid and P. Rook, Software Engineer's Reference Book. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann, 1993

1993
[35]

R. S. Pressman and B. R. Maxim, Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill, 2002

2002
[36]

Beck, Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, 2nd ed

K. Beck, Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Ad- dison-Wesley, 2005

2005
[37]

Schwaber and M

K. Schwaber and M. Beedle, Agile Software Development with SCRUM. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall, 2001

2001
[38]

Stapleton, DSDM-Dynamic Systems Development Method: The Method in Practice

J. Stapleton, DSDM-Dynamic Systems Development Method: The Method in Practice. Harlow: Addison-Wesley, 1997

1997
[39]

S. R. Palmer and M. A. Felsing, A Practical Guide to Feature-Driven Development. New York: Pearson Education, 2001

2001
[40]

Kruchten, The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, 3rd ed

P. Kruchten, The Rational Unified Process: An Introduction, 3rd ed. Boston: Addison- Wesley, 2004

2004
[41]

Mobile-D: An agile approach for mobile application develop- ment.,

P. Abrahamsson et al., "Mobile-D: An agile approach for mobile application develop- ment.," in Companion to the 19th Annual ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Ori- ented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications, Vancouver: ACM, 2004, pp. 174–175

2004
[42]

Poppendieck and T

M. Poppendieck and T. D. Poppendieck, Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Addison-Wesley, 2003

2003
[43]

Development process of mobile application SW based on agile methodology,

Y.-J. Jeong, J.-H. Lee, and G.-S. Shin, "Development process of mobile application SW based on agile methodology," in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology, Gangwon: IEEE, 2008, pp. 362–367

2008
[44]

MobiPDA: A systematic approach to mobile application development,

K. N. Tran and H. Q. Nguyen, "MobiPDA: A systematic approach to mobile application development," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science and its Applications., Ho Chi Minh City: Springer, 2013, pp. 232–247

2013
[45]

Lessons from early stages design of mobile applications,

M. De Sá and L. Carriço, "Lessons from early stages design of mobile applications," in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, Amsterdam: ACM, 2008, pp. 127–137

2008
[46]

An integrated product development process for mobile software,

C. Zeidler, C. Kittl, and O. Petrovic, "An integrated product development process for mobile software," International Journal of Mobile Communications, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 345, 2008, doi: 10.1504/IJMC.2008.017515

2008 doi arXiv
[47]

Development of mobile cloud applications using UML,

D. K. Kim, "Development of mobile cloud applications using UML," International Jour- nal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 596, 2018, doi: 10.11591/ijece.v8i1.pp596-604

2018 doi
[48]

Process of mobile application develop- ment from the security perspective,

A. Majchrzycka and A. Poniszewska-Maranda, "Process of mobile application develop- ment from the security perspective," in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Dependability and Complex Systems, Brunów: Springer, 2017, pp. 277–286

2017
[49]

Mobile application development on domain analysis and reuse-oriented software (ROS),

M. G. Zaragoza and H. K. Kim, "Mobile application development on domain analysis and reuse-oriented software (ROS)," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer and Information Science, Wuhan: Springer, 2018, pp. 187–194

2018
[50]

Proposal for an integrated framework for mobile applications development.,

D. Martínez, X. Ferré, and D. Marcillo, "Proposal for an integrated framework for mobile applications development.," in Proceedings of the International Conference on Infor- mation Theoretic Security., Libertad City: Springer, 2018, pp. 813–819

2018
[51]

Systems development methodology for mobile commerce applications,

M. Binsaleh and S. Hassan, "Systems development methodology for mobile commerce applications," International Journal of Online Marketing, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 33–47, 2011, doi: 10.4018/ijom.2011100103. 20

2011 doi
[52]

Implementation of delivery application using a development method for mobile applications,

J. Lee, S. Yang, R. Y. Lee, and B. Kang, "Implementation of delivery application using a development method for mobile applications," in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Applied Computing and Information Technology and 2nd International Conference on Computat...

2015
[53]

Designing an agile methodology for mobile software de- velopment: A hybrid method engineering approach.,

V. Rahimian and R. Ramsin, "Designing an agile methodology for mobile software de- velopment: A hybrid method engineering approach.," in Proceedings of the 2nd Interna- tional Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, Marrakech: IEEE, 2008, pp. 1–6

2008
[54]

A novel approach for mobile native app development using onto- logical design,

S. Pani and J. Mishra, "A novel approach for mobile native app development using onto- logical design," International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 105–124, 2016, doi: 10.14257/ijseia.2016.10.9.10

2016 doi
[55]

A development technique for mobile applica- tions program,

B. Kang, B. Song, S. Yang, and J. Lee, "A development technique for mobile applica- tions program," in Applied Computing and Information Technology, R. Lee, Ed., Cham: Springer, 2017, pp. 47–62

2017
[56]

Combining In- terMod agile methodology with usability engineering in a mobile application develop- ment,

B. Losada, M. Urretavizcaya, J. M. López-Gil, and I. Fernández-Castro, "Combining In- terMod agile methodology with usability engineering in a mobile application develop- ment," in Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Interaction, Elche: ACM, 2012, pp. 1–8

2012
[57]

Why modern mobile and web-based development need a lean agile web approach (LAWA),

J. Škrabálek and C. Böhm, "Why modern mobile and web-based development need a lean agile web approach (LAWA)," in Proceedings of the 21st Interdisciplinary Infor- mation Management Talks, Poznań: Springer, 2013, pp. 225–232

2013
[58]

Modeling the mobile application development lifecycle,

T. Vithani and A. Kumar, "Modeling the mobile application development lifecycle," in Proceedings of the International Multi Conference of Engineers and Computer Scien- tists, Hong Kong: IEEE, 2014, pp. 1–5

2014
[59]

Magni-A framework for developing context- aware mobile applications,

R. Queirós, F. Portela, and J. Machado, "Magni-A framework for developing context- aware mobile applications," in Proceedings of the World Conference on Information Sys- tems and Technologies., Madeira: IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–10

2017
[60]

Mass-market application development using agile techniques: How agile are we really?,

A. Heredia, R. Esteban-Santiago, J. Garcia-Guzman, and A. De Amescua, "Mass-market application development using agile techniques: How agile are we really?," in Proceed- ings of the European Conference on Software Process Improvement., Dundalk: Springer, 2013, pp. 259–269

2013
[61]

Mobile development process spiral,

A. Nosseir, D. Flood, R. Harrison, and O. Ibrahim, "Mobile development process spiral," in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Engineering & Systems, Shanghai: IEEE, 2012, pp. 281–287

2012
[62]

Augmented reality mobile app development for all,

J. M. Mota, I. Ruiz-Rube, J. M. Dodero, and I. Arnedillo-Sánchez, "Augmented reality mobile app development for all," Computers & Electrical Engineering, vol. 65, pp. 250– 260, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2017.08.025

2018 doi
[63]

An agile and lean process model for mobile app development: Case Study into Austrian Industry,

R. Vallon, L. Wenzel, M. E. Brüggemann, and T. Grechenig, "An agile and lean process model for mobile app development: Case Study into Austrian Industry," Journal of Soft- ware, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 1245–1264, 2015, doi: 10.17706/jsw.10.11.1245-1264

2015 doi
[64]

Processes, methods, and tools in model- based engineering—A qualitative multiple-case study,

J. Holtmann, G. Liebel, and J.-P. Steghöfer, "Processes, methods, and tools in model- based engineering—A qualitative multiple-case study," Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 210, p. 111943, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2023.111943

2024 doi
[65]

Dey, Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists

I. Dey, Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London: Routledge, 1993

1993
[66]

Qualitative studies in information systems: A criti- cal review and some guiding principles,

S. Sarker, X. Xiao, and T. Beaulieu, "Qualitative studies in information systems: A criti- cal review and some guiding principles," Management Information Systems Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. iii–xix, 2013

2013
[67]

Finding theory-method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory 21 building,

J. Gehman, V. L. Glaser, K. M. Eisenhardt, D. Gioia, A. Langley, and K. G. Corley, "Finding theory-method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory 21 building," Journal of Management Inquiry, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 284–300, 2018, doi: 10.1177/1056492617706029

2018 doi
[68]

Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy and management,

A. Langley and C. Abdallah, "Templates and turns in qualitative studies of strategy and management," in Building Methodological Bridges: Research Methodology in Strategy and Management., D. D. Bergh and D. J. Ketchen, Eds., Bingley: Emerald, 2011, pp. 105–140

2011
[69]

For the sake of nature: Identity work and meaningful experiences in environmental entrepreneurship,

P. Gregori, P. Holzmann, and M. A. Wdowiak, "For the sake of nature: Identity work and meaningful experiences in environmental entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Re- search, vol. 122, pp. 488–501, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.032

2021 doi
[70]

Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive re- search: Notes on the Gioia methodology,

D. A. Gioia, K. G. Corley, and A. L. Hamilton, "Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive re- search: Notes on the Gioia methodology," Organizational Research Methods, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 15–31, 2013

2013
[71]

Qualitative research in organizational and vocational psychology,

T. W. Lee, T. R. Mitchell, and C. L. Sablynski, "Qualitative research in organizational and vocational psychology," Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 161–187, 1999, doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1999.1707

1999 doi
[72]

The social processes of organizational sensemaking,

S. Maitlis, "The social processes of organizational sensemaking," Academy of Manage- ment Journal, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 21–49, 2005, doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.15993111

2005 doi
[73]

B. G. Glaser and A. L. Strauss, Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. London: Taylor and Francis, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.taylor- francis.com/books/e/9780203793206

2017
[74]

Silverman, Qualitative Research, 4th ed

D. Silverman, Qualitative Research, 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications, 2016

2016
[75]

Doing interpretive research,

G. Walsham, "Doing interpretive research," European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 320–330, 2006, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000589

2006 doi
[76]

Building theories from case study research.,

K. M. Eisenhardt, "Building theories from case study research.," Academy of Manage- ment Review, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 532–550, 1989, doi: 10.5465/amr.1989.4308385

1989 doi
[77]

Strauss and J

A. Strauss and J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications, 1990

1990
[78]

B. G. Glaser, Theoretical Sensitivity. San Francisco, California, USA: The Sociology Press, 1978

1978
[79]

A reference model for the design of service-dominant business models in the smart mobility domain,

R. Gilsing, O. Türetken, O. E. Adali, and P. Grefen, "A reference model for the design of service-dominant business models in the smart mobility domain," in Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, California, USA: Association for...

2018
[80]

Triangulation and mixed method,

U. Flick, "Triangulation and mixed method," in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, U. Flick, Ed., Los Angeles, California, USA: SAGE Publications, 2018, pp. 527–544

2018
[81]

DevOps approach and lean thinking in ag- ile software development: Opportunities, advantages, and challenges,

M. A. H. D. I. Mousaei and T. J. Gandomani, "DevOps approach and lean thinking in ag- ile software development: Opportunities, advantages, and challenges," Journal of Soft- ware Engineering & Intelligent Systems, vol. 5, pp. 1–10, 2020

2020
[82]

Easy come or easy go?: Empirical evidence on switching behaviors in mobile payment applications,

L. Wang, X. R. Luo, X. Yang, and Z. Qiao, "Easy come or easy go?: Empirical evidence on switching behaviors in mobile payment applications," Information & Management, vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 1–13, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2019.02.005

2019 doi
[83]

Visualized awareness support for col- laborative software development on mobile devices,

M.-Y. Chen, C. Chen, S.-Q. Liu, and K. Zhang, "Visualized awareness support for col- laborative software development on mobile devices," International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 253–275, 2015, doi: 10.1142/S0218194015400094

2015 doi
[84]

Platform desertion by app developers,

A. Tiwana, "Platform desertion by app developers," Journal of Management Information Systems, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 40–77, 2015, doi: 10.1080/07421222.2015.1138365

2015 doi
[85]

Organizational issues in modelling business processes: An activity-based inventory and directions for research.,

L. Jonnavithula, L., P. Antunes, J. Craneﬁeld, and J.-A. Pino, "Organizational issues in modelling business processes: An activity-based inventory and directions for research.," 22 in Proceedings of the 19th Paciﬁc Asia Conference on Information Systems, Singapore: Association...

2015
[86]

Because your taxonomy is worth it: Towards a framework for taxonomy evaluation.,

D. Szopinksi, T. Schoormann, and D. Kundisch, "Because your taxonomy is worth it: Towards a framework for taxonomy evaluation.," in Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems., Stockholm: Association for Information Systems, 2019, pp. 1–19

2019
[87]

An update for taxonomy designers,

D. Kundisch et al., "An update for taxonomy designers," Business & Information Sys- tems Engineering, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 421–439, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s12599-021-00723-x

2022 doi
[88]

A comparative study of important risk factors in- volved in offshore and domestic outsourcing of software development projects: A two- panel Delphi study,

R. T. Nakatsu and C. L. Iacovou, "A comparative study of important risk factors in- volved in offshore and domestic outsourcing of software development projects: A two- panel Delphi study," Information & Management, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 57–68, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2008.11.005

2009 doi
[89]

Using Design Thinking to break social barriers: An experience report with former inmates,

E. Dias Canedo et al., "Using Design Thinking to break social barriers: An experience report with former inmates," J Software Evolu Process, vol. 36, no. 7, 2024, doi: 10.1002/smr.2648

2024 doi
[90]

Software development for mobile computing, the Internet of Things and wearable devices: Inspecting the past to under- stand the future,

T. M. Grønli, A. Biørn-Hansen, and T. A. Majchrzak, "Software development for mobile computing, the Internet of Things and wearable devices: Inspecting the past to under- stand the future," in Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences., Maui, H...

2019
[91]

From expert discipline to common practice: A vision and research agenda for extending the reach of enterprise modeling,

K. Sandkuhl et al., "From expert discipline to common practice: A vision and research agenda for extending the reach of enterprise modeling," Business & Information Systems Engineering, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 69–80, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s12599-017-0516-y

2018 doi
[92]

Evaluation of reference models,

U. Frank, "Evaluation of reference models," in Reference Modeling for Business Systems Analysis, P. Fettke and P. Loos, Eds., Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA: IGI Global, 2006, pp. 118–140

2006
[93]

Improving the quality of process reference models: A qual- ity function deployment-based approach,

S. Matook and M. Indulska, "Improving the quality of process reference models: A qual- ity function deployment-based approach," Decision Support Systems, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 60–71, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2008.12.006

2009 doi
[94]

Exploring privacy paradox in information- sensitive mobile app adoption: A cross-cultural comparison,

I. Pentina, L. Zhang, H. Bata, and Y. Chen, "Exploring privacy paradox in information- sensitive mobile app adoption: A cross-cultural comparison," Computers in Human Be- havior, vol. 65, pp. 409–419, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.005. 23 Appendix: Holistic B2X Mobile Appli...

2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

Software engineering process models for mo- bile app development: A systematic literature review,

R. Jabangwe, H. Edison, and A. N. Duc, "Software engineering process models for mo- bile app development: A systematic literature review," Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 145, pp. 98–111, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.08.028

work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2018.08.028 2018

[2] [1]

A model-driven approach for the development of native mobile applications focusing on the data layer,

M. Núñez, D. Bonhaure, M. González, and L. Cernuzzi, "A model-driven approach for the development of native mobile applications focusing on the data layer," Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 161, p. 110489, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.110489

work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2019.110489 2020

[3] [2]

Investigating end-users’ values in agriculture mobile applications de- velopment: An empirical study on Bangladeshi female farmers,

R. A. Shams et al., "Investigating end-users’ values in agriculture mobile applications de- velopment: An empirical study on Bangladeshi female farmers," Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 200, p. 111648, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2023.111648

work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2023.111648 2023

[4] [4]

Wickens, Attention: Theory, principles, models and applications, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 37 (5) (2021) 403–417.doi:10.1080/ 10447318.2021.1874741

B. Richardson, M. Campbell-Yeo, and M. Smit, "Mobile Application User Experience Checklist: A Tool to Assess Attention to Core UX Principles," International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, vol. 37, no. 13, pp. 1283–1290, 2021, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2021.1876361

work page doi:10.1080/10447318.2021.1876361 2021

[5] [5]

Software development processes for mobile systems: Is agile really taking over the business?,

L. Corral, A. Sillitti, and G. Succi, "Software development processes for mobile systems: Is agile really taking over the business?," in Proceedings of the 1st International Work- shop on the Engineering of Mobile-Enabled Systems, San Francisco, California, USA: IEEE, 2013, pp. 19–24

work page 2013

[6] [6]

Preventing ac- cessibility barriers: Guidelines for using user interface design patterns in mobile applica- tions,

L. A. Zaina, R. P. Fortes, V. Casadei, L. S. Nozaki, and D. M. B. Paiva, "Preventing ac- cessibility barriers: Guidelines for using user interface design patterns in mobile applica- tions," Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 186, p. 111213, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2021.111213

work page doi:10.1016/j.jss.2021.111213 2022

[7] [7]

Real challenges in mobile app develop- ment.,

M. E. Joorabchi, A. Mesbah, and P. Kruchten, "Real challenges in mobile app develop- ment.," in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Soft- ware Engineering and Measurement., Baltimore, Maryland, USA: ACM, 2013, pp. 15–

work page 2013

[8] [8]

Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber= 6681322

[Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/mostRecentIssue.jsp?punumber= 6681322

work page