Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userEvolving a Model for Software Process Context: An Exploratory Study
114
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Stephen MacDonell
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In the domain of software engineering, our efforts as researchers to advise industry on which software practices might be applied most effectively are limited by our lack of evidence based information about the relationships between context and practice efficacy. In order to accumulate such evidence, a model for context is required. We are in the exploratory stage of evolving a model for context for situated software practices. In this paper, we overview the evolution of our proposed model. Our analysis has exposed a lack of clarity in the meanings of terms reported in the literature. Our base model dimensions are People, Place, Product and Process. Our contributions are a deepening of our understanding of how to scope contextual factors when considering software initiatives and the proposal of an initial theoretical construct for context. Study limitations relate to a possible subjectivity in the analysis and a restricted evaluation base. In the next stage in the research, we will collaborate with academics and practitioners to formally refine the model.
rate research
Read More
Many methods have been proposed to estimate how much effort is required to build and maintain software. Much of that research assumes a ``classic waterfall-based approach rather than contemporary projects (where the developing process may be more iterative than linear in nature). Also, much of that work tries to recommend a single method-- an approach that makes the dubious assumption that one method can handle the diversity of software project data. To address these drawbacks, we apply a configuration technique called ``ROME (Rapid Optimizing Methods for Estimation), which uses sequential model-based optimization (SMO) to find what combination of effort estimation techniques works best for a particular data set. We test this method using data from 1161 classic waterfall projects and 120 contemporary projects (from Github). In terms of magnitude of relative error and standardized accuracy, we find that ROME achieves better performance than existing state-of-the-art methods for both classic and contemporary problems. In addition, we conclude that we should not recommend one method for estimation. Rather, it is better to search through a wide range of different methods to find what works best for local data. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest effort estimation experiment yet attempted and the only one to test its methods on classic and contemporary projects.
A growing number of empirical software engineering researchers suggest that a complementary focus on theory is required if the discipline is to mature. A first step in theory-building involves the establishment of suitable theoretical constructs. For researchers studying software projects, the lack of a theoretical construct for context is problematic for both experimentation and effort estimation. For experiments, insufficiently understood contextual factors confound results, and for estimation, unstated contextual factors affect estimation reliability. We have earlier proposed a framework that we suggest may be suitable as a construct for context i.e. represents a minimal, spanning set for the space of software contexts. The framework has six dimensions, described as Who, Where, What, When, How and Why. In this paper, we report the outcomes of a pilot study to test its suitability by categorising contextual factors from the software engineering literature into the framework. We found that one of the dimensions, Why, does not represent context, but rather is associated with objectives. We also identified some factors that do not clearly fit into the framework and require further investigation. Our contributions are the pursuing of a theoretical approach to understanding software context, the initial establishment and evaluation of a construct for context and the exposure of a lack of clarity of meaning in many contexts currently applied as factors for estimating project outcomes.
Discussions is a new feature of GitHub for asking questions or discussing topics outside of specific Issues or Pull Requests. Before being available to all projects in December 2020, it had been tested on selected open source software projects. To understand how developers use this novel feature, how they perceive it, and how it impacts the development processes, we conducted a mixed-methods study based on early adopters of GitHub discussions from January until July 2020. We found that: (1) errors, unexpected behavior, and code reviews are prevalent discussion categories; (2) there is a positive relationship between project member involvement and discussion frequency; (3) developers consider GitHub Discussions useful but face the problem of topic duplication between Discussions and Issues; (4) Discussions play a crucial role in advancing the development of projects; and (5) positive sentiment in Discussions is more frequent than in Stack Overflow posts. Our findings are a first step towards data-informed guidance for using GitHub Discussions, opening up avenues for future work on this novel communication channel.
It is widely acknowledged by researchers and practitioners that software development methodologies are generally adapted to suit specific project contexts. Research into practices-as-implemented has been fragmented and has tended to focus either on the strength of adherence to a specific methodology or on how the efficacy of specific practices is affected by contextual factors. We submit the need for a more holistic, integrated approach to investigating context-related best practice. We propose a six-dimensional model of the problem-space, with dimensions organisational drivers (why), space and time (where), culture (who), product life-cycle stage (when), product constraints (what) and engagement constraints (how). We test our model by using it to describe and explain a reported implementation study. Our contributions are a novel approach to understanding situated software practices and a preliminary model for software contexts.
Context: Safety analysis is a predominant activity in developing safety-critical systems. It is a highly cooperative task among multiple functional departments due to increasingly sophisticated safety-critical systems and close-knit development processes. Communication occurs pervasively. Motivation: Effective communication channels among multiple functional departments influence safety analysis, quality as well as a safe product delivery. However, the use of communication channels during safety analysis is sometimes arbitrary and poses challenges. Objective: Investige the existing communication channels, their usage frequencies, their purposes and challenges during safety analysis in industry.. Method: Multiple case study of experts (survey: 39, interview: 21) in safety-critical companies including software developers, quality engineers and functional safety managers. Direct observations and documentation review were also conducted. Results: Popular communication channels during safety analysis include formal meetings, project coordination tools, documentation and telephone. Email, personal discussion, training, internal communication software and boards are also in use. Training involving safety analysis happens 1-4 times per year, while other aforementioned communication channels happen ranges from 1-4 times per day to 1-4 times per month. We summarise 28 purposes for these communication channels. Communication happens mostly for the purpose of clarifying safety requirements, fixing temporary problems, conflicts and obstacles and sharing safety knowledge. The top challenges are reported. Conclusion: During safety analysis, to use communication channels effectively and avoid challenges, a clear purpose of communication during safety analysis should be established at the beginning. To derive countermeasures of fixing the top 10 challenges are potential next steps.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
