【正文】 understanding cultural differences is the first step toward mitigating the disabling effe。 investment in education, knowledge, and training (Massey et al., 2020), which can itself be a significant source of mistrust. Any CRMP must address cultural differences, whether social, professional, anizational, or arising from differences in language and idioms. Management of Organizational and Social Cultural Differences. Management must act to tame the effect of these differences. Johnson et al. (2020) emphasize the importance of the culture39。 Qureshi and Zigurs, 2020). Lack of trust also leads to a lowered level of verbal munication (Infante et al., 1993). The establishment of trust also affects anizational learning. As trust increases, people exchange information in more detail and more freely。 capabilities and actions. Without a good relationship, all of the other systems ... cannot function effectively. (Handfield and Nichols, 1999) Trust can in part pensate for deficiencies of IT structure and partners39。 (4) drive incremental modification of policies, processes, and activities as needed。 (2) handle risks identified as introduced or intensified by CSD, including risks within a single anization, resulting from interfaces, munication, and collaboration。 others may bee less significant. (5) Source, driver, and type: Many risks are likely to arise at the interfaces between collaborating partners, rather than within a single anization. New alternatives must be added in each case to identify these new problems. Table 3 Dimensions for Classifying Risk Dimensions for Classifying Risk Dimension Group Dimension Key Question Categories Nature and cause of risk Form What factor is stressed? Resource, technical, business, environmental, platform View In which aspect of the process will the problem occur? Technical/product。 untrusted channels SD/technical resources Single set of resources One set of resources per partner plus shared resources Risk management plan Single risk management plan with clear management Multiple risk management plans No central authority for risk mitigation Work practices Known set of anizational and professional standards Some variation in anization and professional standards Social amp。 munication Technical platform amp。s software development has moved away from the single teamsingle locationsingle management structure paradigm to distributed, collaborating teams with flexible management relationships. In addition, recent experience with plex projects has shown that older development practices (Larman, 2020), with fully specified requirements and signoffs and pletely predetermined interfaces between major ponents, have substantial problems and are especially vulnerable both to schedule pressure and to unexpected changes and events. Finally, economic factors have encouraged interanizational development practices such as outsourcing and off shoring. For these reasons, less centralized approaches to development have been pursued. (1) In distributed software development, teams work at different, distributed sites, often with different specialties and background, with infrequent facetoface munication. (2) In multianizational development, participating teams work for different anizations. Multianizational development can be either: ? Contractual, with one central authority (either one of the developer anizations or, less frequently, a customer) and other teams working on specific ponents with carefully specified predefined interfaces and behavior, or ? Cooperative, with teams working on subsystems or lowcoupled ponents with iteratively specified interfaces and behavior, often without a clear, universally accepted central authority for resolving differences and conflicts. A typical characteristic of the projects utilizing the above lesscentralized development paradigm is diversity in corporate and social cultures. The overall project team is posed of teams and individuals who may e from very different social and/or corporate cultures with different nationalities, languages, and expectations for behavior, munication, and work rules. Collaborative development, of course, can take many different forms. In this article, the term collaborative software development (CSD) refers to work that is distributed, multianizational, and cooperative. Both management practices and risk management practices must be adjusted to each of these pressures simultaneously. Although not all collaborative projects will exhibit all of these features, any collaborative project will share some of the above characteristics, experience the challenges described here, and therefore benefit from some of the proposed risk management approaches described here, when suitably adapted to fit the individual development situation. Both distributed development (Beranek et al., 2020) and collaborative software development (Deek and McHugh, 2020) introduce a number of new risk management concerns and modify or intensify others. Collaborative software development entails a prehensive change in the software engineering practices, from business case and product vision through development processes to management policies. Cooperation and munication concerns are significantly different, not only in level but also in kind. Software development requires a mon product vision and architecture, extensive idea and design exchange, continuous munication, and active use of consultation, approval, and consensus constrained only by intellectual property, privacy, and security considerations. Some of the more important differences between traditional software development and CSD are highlighted in Table 2. Table 2 Differences between Traditional Software Development (SD) and MultiOrganizational CSD Differences between Traditional Software Development (SD) and M