Third Generation Industrial Co-production in Software Engineering

Gorschek, Tony; Wnuk, Krzysztof

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32489-6_18

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the level of software development companies, this view is echoed both by the systems dynamics modeling method proposed by Abdel-Hamid et al, [64], and Belady and Lehman's laws of system evolution [65]. Furthermore, software engineering research methods are increasingly focused on evaluations performed in industrial settings (e.g., [66]). Thus, we would expect the mixed-methods approaches recommended in the Cochrane Handbook [61] to be of particular value when synthesizing results from such studies.…”

Section: Prisma For Mixed-methods Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

SEGRESS: Software Engineering Guidelines for REporting Secondary Studies

Kitchenham

Madeyski

Budgen

2023

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Several tertiary studies have criticized the reporting of software engineering secondary studies. Objective: Our objective is to identify guidelines for reporting software engineering (SE) secondary studies which would address problems observed in the reporting of software engineering systematic reviews (SRs). Method: We review the criticisms of SE secondary studies and identify the major areas of concern. We assess the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement as a possible solution to the need for SR reporting guidelines, based on its status as the reporting guideline recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration whose SR guidelines were a major input to the guidelines developed for SE. We report its advantages and limitations in the context of SE secondary studies. We also assess reporting guidelines for mapping studies and qualitative reviews, and compare their structure and content with that of PRISMA 2020. Results: Previous tertiary studies confirm that reports of secondary studies are of variable quality. However, ad hoc recommendations that amend reporting standards may result in unnecessary duplication of text. We confirm that the PRISMA 2020 statement addresses SE reporting problems, but is mainly oriented to quantitative reviews, mixed-methods reviews and meta-analyses. However, we show that the PRISMA 2020 item definitions can be extended to cover the information needed to report mapping studies and qualitative reviews. Conclusions: In this paper and its Supplementary Material, we present and illustrate an integrated set of guidelines called SEGRESS (Software Engineering Guidelines for REporting Secondary Studies), suitable for quantitative systematic reviews (building upon PRISMA 2020), mapping studies (PRISMA-ScR), and qualitative reviews (ENTREQ and RAMESES), that addresses reporting problems found in current SE SRs.

show abstract

Section: Prisma For Mixed-methods Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

SEGRESS: Software Engineering Guidelines for REporting Secondary Studies

Kitchenham

Madeyski

Budgen

2023

IIEEE Trans. Software Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Joint innovation labs, digital innovation hubs, open innovation platforms, and demonstration platforms are proven facilitators for idea to impact. 4,5 Such initiatives allow research and data sharing, as well as the codesign and cocreation of products, along with their piloting and testing, which help organizations to reduce costs and accelerate development.…”

Section: Focus: Guest Editors' Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Idea to Impact: Survival Guide for Successful Products

Ebert,

Abrahão,

Mani

2024

IEEE Softw.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context factors perceived important when looking for similar experiences in decision‐making for software components: An interview study

Papatheocharous,

Wohlin,

Badampudi

et al. 2024

J Software Evolu Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During software evolution, decisions related to components' origin or source significantly impact the quality properties of the product and development metrics such as cost, time to market, ease of maintenance, and further evolution. Thus, such decisions should ideally be supported by evidence, i.e., using previous experiences and information from different sources, even own previous experiences. A hindering factor to such reuse of previous experiences is that these decisions are highly context‐dependent and it is difficult to identify when previous experiences come from sufficiently similar contexts to be useful in a current setting. Conversely, when documenting a decision (as a decision experience), it is difficult to know which context factors will be most beneficial when reusing the experience in the future. An interview study is performed to identify a list of context factors that are perceived to be most important by practitioners when using experiences to support decision‐making for component sourcing, using a specific scenario with alternative sources of experiences. We observed that the further away (from a company or an interviewee) the experience evidence is, as is the case for online experiences, the more context factors are perceived as important by practitioners to make use of the experience. Furthermore, we discuss and identify further research to make this type of decision‐making more evidence‐based.

show abstract

Third Generation Industrial Co-production in Software Engineering

Cited by 4 publications

References 20 publications

SEGRESS: Software Engineering Guidelines for REporting Secondary Studies

SEGRESS: Software Engineering Guidelines for REporting Secondary Studies

From Idea to Impact: Survival Guide for Successful Products

Context factors perceived important when looking for similar experiences in decision‐making for software components: An interview study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About