Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Enginee 2022
DOI: 10.1145/3540250.3558961
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Workgraph: personal focus vs. interruption for engineers at Meta

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(3 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, while other behavioral methods have been able to begin to isolate states of flow [17,33,34], it is important to note that the current approach may represent the first approach to doing so unobtrusively and without requiring further self-report data. Similarly, prior work that has described patterns of fragmentation and focused behaviors have not included any type of quantitative measure for this phenomenon and relied solely on intuitions around what behaviors should and should not count as focus [2,24,35]. The current research introduces a behavioral metric that quantifies focus without requiring these assumptions and instead uses a data-driven approach to identify behaviors that are related, which, as we show through the validation analyses, reveals how focused these behaviors are.…”
Section: Discussion 61 Validating a Behavioral Metric Of Flow And Focusmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Additionally, while other behavioral methods have been able to begin to isolate states of flow [17,33,34], it is important to note that the current approach may represent the first approach to doing so unobtrusively and without requiring further self-report data. Similarly, prior work that has described patterns of fragmentation and focused behaviors have not included any type of quantitative measure for this phenomenon and relied solely on intuitions around what behaviors should and should not count as focus [2,24,35]. The current research introduces a behavioral metric that quantifies focus without requiring these assumptions and instead uses a data-driven approach to identify behaviors that are related, which, as we show through the validation analyses, reveals how focused these behaviors are.…”
Section: Discussion 61 Validating a Behavioral Metric Of Flow And Focusmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While leveraging fine-grained IDE data is useful to describe patterns of behavior that have been interpreted as "focus, " at no point were the research participants asked to characterize their actual experiences (i.e., we do not know if the patterns described in the IDE data actually felt like focus or flow). More recently, Chen et al [2] developed a measure of focus that leverages logs from a number of work tools (e.g., IDE, chat, internal wiki) by grouping together interactions that do not have interruptions (e.g., a chat message) and present descriptive statistics about how much time engineers spend in focus, as well as what factors impact this time. Similar to the work above, this approach describes focus based on assumptions about which behaviors characterize focus (e.g., using an IDE) and which behaviors do not (e.g., chatting with a colleague).…”
Section: Flow and Focused Work In Engineeringmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation