|
| Guideline | Description |
|
| (1) Design as an artefact | A viable construct, model, method, or instantiation must be produced.
In this study, a TET session approach was to be defined and further refined in a software project. |
| (2) Problem relevance | An unsolved, important, and relevant business problem must be addressed.
The value of the ET is recognized, but companies do not know how to conduct the ET approach using teams in a controlled way and what the benefits and obstacles of the TET session approach are. |
| (3) Design evaluation | The quality of the artefact must be demonstrated.
In this study, the TET session approach has been used in a real software project, and research data was collected in the form of interviews, questionnaire answers, a research diary, and approach utilization results. |
| (4) Research contributions | Clear and verifiable contributions must be identified.
This study introduces the TET session approach, which merges team and ET and provides a solution to improvement areas exposed in the testing process of the target project. |
| (5) Research rigor | Construction and evaluation of the design artefact must be carried out scientifically.
In this study, three research cycles were conducted, following the action research method. During each cycle, research data was collected and, based on the analysis, new refinements of the approach were introduced. |
| (6) Design as a search process | The artefact is created in an iterative process until it satisfies the problem environment.
During the research, feedback for the TET session approach was gathered from the target project in three research cycles, and the approach was refined in accordance with the feedback. |
|
