skip to main content
10.1145/1852786.1852805acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesesemConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Are developers complying with the process: an XP study

Published: 16 September 2010 Publication History

Abstract

Adapting new software processes and practices in organizational and academic environments requires training the developers and validating the applicability of the newly introduced activities. Investigating process conformance during training and understanding if programmers are able and willing to follow the specific steps are crucial to evaluating whether the process improves various software product quality factors. In this paper we present a process model independent approach to detect process non-conformance. Our approach is based on non-intrusively collected data captured by a version control system and provides the project manager with timely updates. Further, we provide evidence of the applicability of our approach by investigating process conformance in a five day training class on eXtreme Programming (XP) practices at the Leibniz Universität Hannover. Our results show that the approach enabled researchers to formulate minimal intrusive methods to check for conformance and that for the majority of the investigated XP practices violations could be detected.

References

[1]
Roethlisberger, Fritz J., and W. J. Dickson. Management and the Worker. Harvard University Press, 1939.
[2]
Quality systems - Model for quality assurance in design, development, production, installation and servicing. International Organization for Standardization, 1993.
[3]
Information Technology - Software life cycle processes. International Organization for Standardization, 1995.
[4]
Lanubile, F. and Visaggio, G., "Evaluating Defect Detection Techniques for Software Requirements Inspections", ISERN Report no. 00--08, 2000.
[5]
Cook, J. E. and Wolf, A. L. 1998. Discovering models of software processes from event-based data. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 7, 3 (Jul. 1998), 215--249.
[6]
Cook, J. E. and Wolf, A. L. Software process validation: quantitatively measuring the correspondence of a process to a model. ACM Trans. S. E. Meth. 8, 2 (Apr. 1999), 147--176.
[7]
Huo, M., Zhang, H., and Jeffery, R. 2006. An exploratory study of process enactment as input to software process improvement. In Proceedings of the 2006 international Workshop on Software Quality. WoSQ '06. ACM, New York, NY, 39--44.
[8]
S. Sørumgård. "Verification of Process Conformance in Empirical Studies of Software Development". Ph.D. thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 1997.
[9]
Zazworka, N. Basili, V. R., and Shull. F. "Tool Supported Detection and Judgment of Nonconformance in Process Execution" in Proceedings of ESEM 2009, 312--223, October 16--15, 2009
[10]
Kent Beck, Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, Addison Wesley 1999
[11]
Ken Schwaber and Mike Beedle, Agile Software Development with Scrum, Pearson Education 2001
[12]
Mike Cohn, Agile Estimation and Planning, Prentice Hall 2007
[13]
Krebs, William (2002): Turning the Knobs: A Coaching Pattern for XP through Agile Metrics. Springer, Lecture Notes on Computer Science 2418, 60--69
[14]
Basili, V. R. 1992 Software Modeling and Measurement: the Goal/Question/Metric Paradigm. Technical Report. University of Maryland at College Park.
[15]
Basili, V., Caldiera, G., and Rombach, D. Experience Factory. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering Volume 1:469--476, Marciniak, J. ed. John Wiley & Sons, 1994
[16]
Stapel, K., D. Lübke, and E. Knauss: Best Practices in eXtreme Programming Course Design. in Proceedings of 30th International Conference on Software Engineering. 2008. Leipzig, Germany, 769--776.
[17]
Truck Factor Definition: http://www.agileadvice.com/archives/2005/05/truck_factor.html, retrieved June 26th, 2010
[18]
Tadao Murata, "Petri Nets: Properties, Analysis and Applications", in: Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 77, no. 4, April 1989
[19]
Knauss, Eric.; Lübke, Daniel; Meyer, Sebastian, "Feedback-Driven Requirements Engineering: The Heuristic Requirements Assistant", ICSE'09, Formal Research Demonstrations Track, 2009, 587--590
[20]
Cugola, G., Di Nitto, E., Ghezzi, C., and Mantione, M. 1995. How to deal with deviations during process model enactment. In Proceedings of the 17th international Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE '95. ACM, New York, NY, 265--273.
[21]
Sean Thompson, Torab Torabi, Purva Joshi, "A Framework to Detect Deviations During Process Enactment," Computer and Information Science, ACIS International Conference on, pp. 1066--1073, 6th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS 2007), 2007.
[22]
Marinescu, Radu; Lanza, Michelle (2006). Object-Oriented Metrics in Practice. Springer.
[23]
Anvik, J., Hiew, L., and Murphy, G. C. 2006. Who should fix this bug?. In Proceedings of the 28th international Conference on Software Engineering (Shanghai, China, May 20--28, 2006). ICSE '06. ACM, New York, NY, 361--370.
[24]
Hattori, L. and Lanza, M. 2009. Mining the history of synchronous changes to refine code ownership. In Proceedings of the 2009 6th IEEE international Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (May 16--17, 2009). MSR. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 141--150

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Does Treatment Adherence Impact Experiment Results in TDD?IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2024.349733251:1(135-152)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2025
  • (2024)Evaluating and Improving Projects’ Bus-Factor: A Network Analytical FrameworkSocial Networks Analysis and Mining10.1007/978-3-031-78541-2_16(255-270)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2024
  • (2023)BFSig: Leveraging File Significance in Bus Factor EstimationProceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3611643.3613877(1926-1936)Online publication date: 30-Nov-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ESEM '10: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement
September 2010
423 pages
ISBN:9781450300391
DOI:10.1145/1852786
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 16 September 2010

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. XP programming
  2. process conformance
  3. process improvement

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

Conference

ESEM '10
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

ESEM '10 Paper Acceptance Rate 30 of 102 submissions, 29%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 130 of 594 submissions, 22%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)15
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 16 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Does Treatment Adherence Impact Experiment Results in TDD?IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2024.349733251:1(135-152)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2025
  • (2024)Evaluating and Improving Projects’ Bus-Factor: A Network Analytical FrameworkSocial Networks Analysis and Mining10.1007/978-3-031-78541-2_16(255-270)Online publication date: 2-Sep-2024
  • (2023)BFSig: Leveraging File Significance in Bus Factor EstimationProceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3611643.3613877(1926-1936)Online publication date: 30-Nov-2023
  • (2023)Contribution-Based Firing of Developers?Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3611643.3613085(2062-2066)Online publication date: 30-Nov-2023
  • (2023)Bus Factor ExplorerProceedings of the 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering10.1109/ASE56229.2023.00015(2018-2021)Online publication date: 11-Nov-2023
  • (2022)Bus factor in practiceProceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice10.1145/3510457.3513082(97-106)Online publication date: 21-May-2022
  • (2022)Bus Factor in Practice2022 IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP)10.1109/ICSE-SEIP55303.2022.9793985(97-106)Online publication date: May-2022
  • (2021)Identifying Critical Projects via PageRank and Truck Factor2021 IEEE/ACM 18th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR)10.1109/MSR52588.2021.00017(41-45)Online publication date: May-2021
  • (2019)Attitudes, beliefs, and development data concerning agile software development practicesProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training10.1109/ICSE-SEET.2019.00025(158-169)Online publication date: 27-May-2019
  • (2019)On the abandonment and survival of open source projects: An empirical investigation2019 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)10.1109/ESEM.2019.8870181(1-12)Online publication date: Sep-2019
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media