Summarizing software engineering communication artifacts from different sources

Käfer, Verena

doi:10.1145/3106237.3119877

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[21,48]. Other studies within the topic software analytics are about a variety of methods, tools, and techniques [2,3,11,14,15,27,38,47,55,[71][72][73]. Many of the studies that cite the Microsoft studyand which are often quoted themselves-relate to testing or test automation.…”

Section: Impact Of the Microsoft 2014 Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Questions for data scientists in software engineering: a replication

Huijgens

Rastogi

Mulders

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Softw

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2014, a Microsoft study investigated the sort of questions that data science applied to software engineering should answer. This resulted in 145 questions that developers considered relevant for data scientists to answer, thus providing a research agenda to the community. Fast forward to five years, no further studies investigated whether the questions from the software engineers at Microsoft hold for other software companies, including software-intensive companies with different primary focus (to which we refer as software-defined enterprises). Furthermore, it is not evident that the problems identified five years ago are still applicable, given the technological advances in software engineering.This paper presents a study at ING, a software-defined enterprise in banking in which over 15,000 IT staff provides in-house software solutions. This paper presents a comprehensive guide of questions for data scientists selected from the previous study at Microsoft along with our current work at ING. We replicated the original Microsoft study at ING, looking for questions that impact both software companies and software-defined enterprises and continue to impact software engineering. We also add new questions that emerged from differences in the context of the two companies and the five years gap in between. Our results show that software engineering questions for data scientists in the software-defined enterprise are largely similar to the software company, albeit with exceptions. We hope that the software engineering research community builds on the new list of questions to create a useful body of knowledge. CCS CONCEPTS• General and reference → Surveys and overviews.

show abstract

Section: Impact Of the Microsoft 2014 Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Questions for data scientists in software engineering: a replication

Huijgens

Rastogi

Mulders

et al. 2020

Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Softw

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Communication is considered an important factor in software development, since miscommunication in software teams causes low productivity and software failures (Käfer, 2017). Miscommunication via artifact occurs, for example, when consumers (who take the information they see in the models for the development of another artifact) have different interpretations from the ones intended by the producers (who conceive the modeling of the software).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards to Transfer the Directives of Communicability to Software Projects: Qualitative Studies

Lopes

Canedo

Souza

et al. 2021

JSERD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The software artifacts developed in the early stages of the development process describe the proposed solutions for the software. For this reason, these artifacts are commonly used to support communication among members of the development team. Miscommunication through software artifacts occurs because practitioners typically focus on their modeling, without reflecting on how other software development team members interpret them. In this context, we proposed the Directives of Communicability (DCs) to support practitioners analyzing characteristics that affect the artifact’s content on communication via artifact. We conducted preliminary studies in a controlled environment with our proposal. However, we noticed that new studies are necessary to evaluate the DCs concerning practitioners’ perceptions before transferring them to the industry. In this paper, we present two studies performed aiming to transfer the DCs to the software industry. In the first study, we evaluated the practitioners’ perception about the DCs. In the second study, we evaluated the feasibility of the DCs in a software development team. The studies’ results indicated that DCs have the potential to support improvements in artifacts’ content to reduce miscommunication via artifact. To facilitate the use of our proposal in the software industry, we created procedures that support the adoption of the DCs and checklists for the application of each directive in the software artifacts. We noticed positive perceptions of practitioners about the application of DCs in software artifacts. We hope that our contribution support software development teams that use artifacts in your projects.

show abstract

“…According to Reed and Knight [1], effective communication is one of the most critical components of working in software teams. In software development, the communication is carried out through face-to-face discussions in co-located or distributed teams [2], besides the support offered by tools [3]. Software models are also used as means of communication in software development teams [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ComD2: Family of Techniques for Inspecting Defects in Models that Affect Team Communication

Lopes

Campos

Conte

et al. 2018

International Conferences on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communication failures in software development teams can compromise the software quality. Therefore, identifying and mitigating risks for effective team communication are important activities in software development. Software models are one of the means of communication in development teams, because it communicates other members of the development team about the software. Thus, our research focuses on inspection techniques for identifying defects that affect the team communication through the software models. This paper presents a family of techniques for inspecting defects that affect team communication, called ComD2 (Communication between Designers and Developers). The ComD2 family was developed based on theories that investigate different ways of communication. For the time being, the ComD2 family has three specific inspection techniques for UML models, such as class diagrams, activity diagrams, and state machine diagrams. We performed a feasibility study and the results showed that the ComD2 family was considered useful for the identification of defects that affect the team communication through the software models.

show abstract

Summarizing software engineering communication artifacts from different sources

Cited by 10 publications

References 12 publications

Questions for data scientists in software engineering: a replication

Questions for data scientists in software engineering: a replication

Towards to Transfer the Directives of Communicability to Software Projects: Qualitative Studies

ComD2: Family of Techniques for Inspecting Defects in Models that Affect Team Communication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About