10.1109/ICSE.2007.45acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Information Needs in Collocated Software Development Teams

Published:24 May 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

Previous research has documented the fragmented nature of software development work. To explain this in more detail, we analyzed software developers' day-to-day information needs. We observed seventeen developers at a large software company and transcribed their activities in 90-minute sessions. We analyzed these logs for the information that developers sought, the sources that they used, and the situations that prevented information from being acquired. We identified twenty-one information types and cataloged the outcome and source when each type of information was sought. The most frequently sought information included awareness about artifacts and coworkers. The most often deferred searches included knowledge about design and program behavior, such as why code was written a particular way, what a program was supposed to do, and the cause of a program state. Developers often had to defer tasks because the only source of knowledge was unavailable coworkers.

References

  1. {1} Biehl, J. T., Czerwinski, M., Smith, G., Robertson, G. G., Bailey, B. (2007). FAST Dash: A Visual Dashboard for Fostering Awareness in Software Teams. To appear at CHI 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. {2} Brooks, F. P. Jr. (1975). The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. {3} Cataldo, M., P. Wagstrom, J. D. Herbsleb, K. Carley (2006). Identification of Coordination Requirements: Implications for the Design of Collaboration and Awareness Tools. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 2006, Banff, Alberta, 353-362. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. {4} Chong, J., Rosanne Siino. Interruptions on Software Teams: A Comparison of Paired and Solo Programmers. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 2006, Banff, Alberta. p. 28-39. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. {5} de Souza, C. R. B., D. F. Redmiles, G. Mark, J. Penix, M. Sierhuis (2003) Management of Interdependencies in Collaborative Software Development: A Field Study. ISESE, Rome, Italy, 294-303. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. {6} Eisenstadt, M. (1997). "My Hairiest Bug" War Stories. CACM, 40(4), 30-37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. {7} Gonzalez, V., G. Mark., J. Harris (2005). No Task Left Behind? Examining the Nature of Fragmented Work. CHI, Portland, OR, 321-330. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. {8} Gutwin, C., R. Penner, K. Schneider, K. (2004). Group Awareness in Distributed Software Development. CSCW, Chicago, IL, 72-81. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. {9} Hertzum, M. (2002). The Importance of Trust in Software Engineers' Assessment of Choice of Information Sources. Information and Organization, 12(1), 1-18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. {10} Ko, A. J., B. A. Myers, H. H. Aung (2004). Six Learning Barriers in End-User Programming Systems. VL/HCC, Rome, Italy, 199-206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. {11} Ko, A. J., B. A. Myers, M. J. Coblenz, H. H. Aung (2006). An Exploratory Study of How Developers Seek, Relate, and Collect Relevant Information during Software Maintenance Tasks. TSE, 971-987. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. {12} McDonald, D. W., M. S. Ackerman (1998). Just Talk to Me: A Field Study of Expertise Location. CSCW, Seattle, WA, 315-324. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. {13} LaToza, T. D., G. Venolia, R. DeLine. (2006). Maintaining Mental Models: A Study of Developer Work Habits. ICSE, Shanghai, China, 492-501. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. {14} Perlow, L. A. (1999). The Time Famine: Toward a Sociology of Work Time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 57-81.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. {15} Perry, D. E., N. A. Staudenmayer, L. G. Votta (1994). People, Organizations and Process Improvement. IEEE Software, July, 36-45. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. {16} Sandusky, R. J., L. Gasser (2005). Negotiation and Coordination of Information and Activity in Distributed Software Problem Management. GROUP, Sanibel Island, FL, 187-196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. {17} Sarma, A., Z. Noroozi, A. van der Hoek, Palantír: Raising Awareness among Configuration Management Workspaces. ICSE, 2003, Portland, OR, 444-454. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. {18} Seaman, C. B., V. R. Basili (1998). Communication and Organization: An Empirical Study of Discussion in Inspection Meetings. TSE. 24(7), 559-572. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. {19} Sridharan, M., S. J. Fink, R. Bodik. Thin Slicing. To appear at PLDI 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. {20} Sillito, J., G. Murphy, K. De Volder (2006). Questions Programmers Ask During Software Evolution Tasks. SIGSOFT/FSE, Portland, OR, 23-34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Information Needs in Collocated Software Development Teams

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            ICSE '07: Proceedings of the 29th international conference on Software Engineering
            May 2007
            784 pages
            ISBN:0769528287

            Publisher

            IEEE Computer Society

            United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 24 May 2007

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • Article

            Acceptance Rates

            Overall Acceptance Rate 332 of 2,150 submissions, 15%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader
          About Cookies On This Site

          We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

          Learn more

          Got it!