@article {28159,
	title = {Benefits management in software development: A systematic review of empirical studies},
	journal = {IET Software},
	volume = {15},
	year = {2021},
	pages = {1-24},
	publisher = {IET},
	abstract = {Considerable resources are wasted on software projects delivering less than the planned benefits. Herein, the objective is to synthesize empirical evidence of the adoption and impact of benefits management (BM) in software development, and to suggest directions for future research. A systematic review of the literature is performed and identified 4836 scientific papers of which the authors found 47 to include relevant research. While most organizations identify and structure benefits at the outset of a project, fewer organizations report implementing BM as a continuous process throughout the project lifecycle. Empirical evidence gives support for positive impact on project outcome from the following BM practices: identifying and structuring benefits, planning benefits realization, BM during project execution, benefits evaluation and the practice of having people responsible for benefits realization. The authors suggest four research directions to understand (1) why BM practices sometimes not are adopted, (2) BM in relation to other management practices, (3) BM in agile software development and (4) BM in the context of organizations{\textquoteright} value creation logics.},
	author = {Holgeid, Kjetil and J{\o}rgensen, Magne and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup and Krogstie, John}
}
@inproceedings {bpmds2013,
	title = {On the Use of Goal Models and Business Process Models for Elicitation of System Requirements},
	journal = {Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling (BPMDS/EMMSAD 2013)},
	volume = {LNBIP 147},
	year = {2013},
	pages = {168-183},
	publisher = {Springer},
	type = {Conference},
	abstract = {Goal modelling and business process modelling are two techniques that can be used for elicitation of system requirements of an information system. In general, goal-based approaches aim at supporting the objectives that an organization needs to achieve, whereas business process-based approaches aim at supporting the activity of an organization. Consequently, it could be assumed that these two types of approaches represent completely different perspectives for elicitation of system requirements. In this paper we argue that a correspondence exists between the perspectives and that they can be considered equivalent in some operational aspects. Therefore, the use of a perspective also implies support for the other. This argument is based on the definition of a set of guidelines that shows how a goal model can be derived from a business process model. As a result, we discuss when selection of one of the perspectives or their combination would be more suitable for requirements elicitation.},
	keywords = {Conference},
	author = {Jose Luis {de la Vara} and Sanchez, Juan and Pastor, Oscar},
	editor = {Nurcan, Selmin and Proper, Erik and Soffer, Pnina and Krogstie, John and Schmidt, Rainer and Halpin, Terry and Bider, Ilia}
}
@article {Krogstie.2006.1,
	title = {A Longitudinal Study of General and Functional Maintenance in Norway},
	journal = {Information and Software Technology},
	volume = {48},
	number = {11},
	year = {2006},
	month = {November},
	pages = {993-1005},
	author = {Krogstie, John and Jahr, Arthur and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup}
}
@article {SE.4.Holgeid.2000,
	title = {A Study of Development and Maintenance in Norway: Assessing the Efficiency of Information Systems Support Using Functional Maintenance},
	journal = {Information and Software Technology},
	volume = {42},
	number = {10},
	year = {2000},
	pages = {687-700,},
	author = {K. K. {Holgeid} and Krogstie, John and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup}
}
@inproceedings {SE.5.Holgeid.1999,
	title = {A Longitudinal Study of Software Maintenance in Norway},
	journal = {International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM{\textquoteright}99)},
	year = {1999},
	note = {Poster session},
	month = {09/1999},
	type = {Workshop},
	address = {Oxford, England},
	author = {K. K. {Holgeid} and Krogstie, John and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup}
}
