Your browser does not support JavaScript!
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

Software process fusion by combining pair and solo programming

Software process fusion by combining pair and solo programming

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
£12.50
(plus tax if applicable)
Add to cart
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for £75.00
(plus taxes if applicable)
Add to cart

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Name:*
Email:*
Your details
Name:*
Email:*
Department:*
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
 
 
 
 
 
IET Software — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology
Published

The role of pair programming in software development is controversial. This is due partly to the relatively unclear benefit of pair programming over solo programming. There have been arguments either way and there have been studies to show that one is more cost-effective than the others. Rather than investigating into pair vs. solo programming here, we present a new process model combining both together. This paper argues and shows, with two case studies, that the fusing of pair and solo programming processes may actually be better than adopting either alone. In the proposed model called Software Process Fusion (SPF), a donor and a recipient process can be defined and if some transfer conditions are met, one process can be converted into another to achieve tasks with minimal costs. The transfer conditions we define is related to a Software Fusion Ratio (SFR). SFR can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of an SPF model. In our case studies, we observed that, with SPF, programmers would design solution patterns of their own in pairs and then use these patterns to build sub-modules in solos. We conclude that SPF can be a more effective approach to increase productivity of less experienced programmers.

Inspec keywords: programming; software engineering

Other keywords: recipient process; software development; software process fusion; donor process; solo programming; pair programming

Subjects: Software engineering techniques

References

    1. 1)
      • Bonwell, C.C., Eison, J.A.: `Active learning: creating excitement in the classroom', ASHE-ERIC higher education report, 1991.
    2. 2)
      • L. Williams , R. Kessler . (2002) Pair programming illuminated.
    3. 3)
      • K.M. Lui , K.C.C. Chan . (2006) Software process fusion: uniting pair programming and solo programming processes.
    4. 4)
      • Müller, M.M., Tichy, W.F.: `Case study: extreme programming in a university environment', Proc. 23rd Int. Conf. Software Engineering, 2001, p. 537–544.
    5. 5)
      • V. Roth , E. Goldstein , G. Marcus . (2001) Peer lead team learning: a handbook for team leaders.
    6. 6)
    7. 7)
      • McDowell, C., Hanks, B., Werner, L.: `Experimenting with pair programming in the classroom', Proc. 8th Annual Conf. Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 2003, Thessaloniki, Greece.
    8. 8)
      • Gallis, H., Arisholm, E., Dyba, T.: `An initial framework for research on pair programming', Proc. 2003 ACM-IEEE Int. Symp. Empirical Software Eng. (ISESE ‘03), 2003, p. 132–142.
    9. 9)
      • A. Cockburn . (2005) Crystal clear: a human-powered methodology for small teams.
    10. 10)
      • K.M. Lui , K.C.C. Chan , J.T. Nosek . The effect of pairs in program design tasks. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. , 1 , 197 - 211
    11. 11)
      • Keefer, G.: `Extreme programming considered harmful for reliable software', Proc. 6th Conf. Quality Engineering in Software Technology, 2002, Germany, p. 129–141.
    12. 12)
      • Warnakulasooriya, R., Pritchard, D.: `Learning and problem-solving transfer between physics problems using web-based homework tutor', Proc. World Conf. Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2005, Chesapeake, VA, p. 2976–2983.
    13. 13)
      • K. Beck . (2005) Extreme programming explained: embraced change.
    14. 14)
    15. 15)
    16. 16)
      • E. Gamma , R. Helm , R. Johnson , J.M. Vlissides . (1994) Design patterns: elements of reusable object-oriented software.
    17. 17)
    18. 18)
      • D. Carnegie . (1998) How to win friends and influence people.
    19. 19)
      • van der Putten, P., Kok, J.N., A, Gupta: `Why the information explosion can be bad for data mining, and how data fusion provides a way out', Proc. 2nd SIAM Int. Conf, 2002.
    20. 20)
    21. 21)
      • L. Madeyski , K. Zielinski , T. Szmuc . Preliminary analysis of the effects of pair programming and test-driven development on the external code quality, Software engineering: evolution and emerging technologies vol. 130 of Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications.
    22. 22)
      • Ciolkowski, M., Schlemmer, M.: `Experiences with a case study on pair programming', Proc. Workshop on Empirical Studies in Software Engineering, 2002, Rovaniemi, Finland.
    23. 23)
      • C.M. Keeler , R.K. Steinhorst . Using small groups to promote active learning in the introductory statistics course. J. Stat. Educ. , 2
    24. 24)
      • Müller, M.M., Padberg, F.: `Extreme programming from an engineering economics viewpoint', Proc. 4th Int. Workshop on Economics-Driven Software Engineering Research, 2002.
    25. 25)
      • Nawrocki, J., Wojciechowski, A.: `Experimental evaluation of pair programming', Proc. 12th European Software Control and Metrics Conf, 2001, England, p. 269–276.
    26. 26)
      • Williams, L.: `The collaborative software process', 2000, PhD, University of Utah.
    27. 27)
    28. 28)
      • Poff, M.A.: `Pair programming to facilitate the training of newly-hired programmers', 2003, M.Sc., Florida Institute of Technology, available at: http://www.cs.fit.edu/~tr/tr2003.html.
    29. 29)
      • Hulkko, H., Abrahamsson, P.: `A multiple case study on the impact of pair programming on product quality', Proc. 27th Int. Conf. Software Engineering, 2005, St Louis, MO, USA, p. 495–504.
    30. 30)
      • M. Stephens , D. Rosenberg . (2003) Extreme programming refactored: the case against XP.
    31. 31)
      • Cao, L., Xu, P.: `Activity patterns of pair programming', Proc. 38th Hawaii Int. Conf. System Sciences, 2005.
    32. 32)
      • M.S. Jones , M.E. Levin , J.R. Levin , B.D. Beitzel . Can vocabulary-learning strategies and pair-learning formats be profitably combined?. J. Educational Psychology , 2 , 256 - 262
    33. 33)
      • G. Barnett . XP: it's about how, not Tao. Appl. Dev. Advis.
    34. 34)
    35. 35)
      • Madeyski, L.: `The impact of pair programming and test-driven development on package dependencies in object-oriented design-an experiment', PROFES, 2006, p. 278–289, LNCS 4034.
    36. 36)
      • Nawrocki, J., Jasiñski, M., Olek, L., Lange, B.: `Pair programming vs. side-by-side programming', Proc. EuroSPI, November 2005, Budapest, p. 28–38.
    37. 37)
      • K.M. Lui , K.C.C. Chan . Productivity of pair programming: novice-novice and expert-expert. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. , 915 - 925
    38. 38)
    39. 39)
      • J.T. Nosek . The case for collaborative programming. Commun. ACM , 3 , 105 - 108
    40. 40)
      • Keefer, G.: `Mutual programming: a practice to improve software development productivity', Int. Conf. Practical Software Quality and Testing, 2003.
    41. 41)
      • T.D. Cook , D.T. Campbell , M.D. Dunnette . (1976) The design and conduct of quasi-experiments and true experiments in field settings, Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology.
    42. 42)
      • McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., Fernald, J.: `The impact of pair programming on student performance, perception and persistence', Proc. 25th Int. Conf. Software Engineering, 2003, p. 602–607.
    43. 43)
      • N. Flor , E. Hutchins , J. Koenemann-Belliveau , T. Moher , S. Robertson . Analyzing distributed cognition in software teams: a case study of team programming during perfective software maintenance, Empirical studies of programmers: fourth workshop.
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-sen_20070035
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-sen_20070035
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
Print this page
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address