Brandt Braunschweig
ABSTRACT
[Context] Software engineering teams must have a shared understanding of the system design in order to work independently but successfully integrate their code. Success also depends on the differentiated skill and experience of the team members. These issues of understanding are important to project success but difficult to investigate with current approaches. [Goal] To investigate this problem, we developed and evaluated a technique to measure the degree of shared understanding and identify areas of similarity and difference. Adapted from the Pathfinder technique for evaluating Team Mental Models, this is a quantitative analysis of paired comparisons of design concepts as understood by the team. [Method] We performed an empirical, mixed-methods pilot study of the technique with 5 student teams developing a semester long project. We used questionnaires and interviews to evaluate the effectiveness of the technique in measuring areas of similarity and difference. We also investigated the association between differences in understanding and problems during development. [Results] Our results support the ability of the technique to identify and measure areas of similarity and difference. There is limited support for the association between differences and poor project outcomes. [Conclusions] We find these pilot results encouraging. We will use them to refine the technique and plan to re-evaluate it with a professional software development team.
- Aranda, J. 2010. A theory of shared understanding for software organizations. University of Toronto.Google Scholar
- Balijepally, V. et al. 2012. Effect of Task Mental Models on Software Developer's Performance: An Experimental Investigation. 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS) (2012), 5442--5451. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brehmer, B. 1991. Distributed Decision Making: Some Notes on the Literature. Distributed Decision making: Cognitive Models for Cooperative Work. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
- Cooke, N. J. et al. 2001. Comparing and Validating Measures of Team Knowledge. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 45, 4 (Oct. 2001), 361--365.Google Scholar
- Cooke, N. J. et al. 2000. Measuring Team Knowledge. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 42, 1 (Mar. 2000), 151--173.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cooke, N. J. 1990. Using Pathfinder as a Knowledge Elicitation Tool: Link Interpretation. Pathfinder associative networks. Ablex Publishing Corp. 227--239. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cooke, N. J. and Schvaneveldt, R. W. 1988. Effects of computer programming experience on network representations of abstract programming concepts. Int. J. Man-Machine Studies. 29, (1988), 407--427. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Curtis, B. et al. 1988. A Field Study of the Software Design Process for Large Systems. Commun. ACM. 31, 11 (Nov. 1988), 1268--1287. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Curtis, B. and Walz, D. 1990. The psychology of programming in the large: Team and organizational behaviour. Psychology of programming. J.-M. Hoc, ed. Academic. 253--270.Google Scholar
- Damian, D. et al. 2007. Awareness in the Wild: Why Communication Breakdowns Occur. Second IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering, 2007. ICGSE 2007 (2007), 81--90. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dearholt, D. W. and Schvaneveldt, R. W. 1990. Properties of Pathfinder Networks. Pathfinder Associative Networks: Studies in Knowledge Organization. R. W. Schvaneveldt, ed. Ablex Publishing Corp. 1--30. Google ScholarDigital Library
- DeChurch, L. A. and Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. 2010. Measuring shared team mental models: A meta-analysis. Group Dynamics. 14, 1 (2010), 1.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dong, A. et al. 2013. Investigating design cognition in the construction and enactment of team mental models. Design Studies. 34, 1 (Jan. 2013), 1--33.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Easterbrook, S. 1995. Coordination breakdowns: why groupware is so difficult to design. Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1995 (Hawaii, Jan. 1995), 191--199. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Espinosa, J. A. et al. 2004. Explicit versus implicit coordination mechanisms and task dependencies: One size does not fit all. Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance. E. Salas and S. M. Fiore, eds. American Psychological Association. 107--129.Google Scholar
- Espinosa, J. A. et al. 2002. Shared mental models, familiarity, and coordination: A multi-method study of distributed software teams. Intern. Conf. Information Systems (2002), 425--433.Google Scholar
- Espinosa, J. A. et al. 2007. Team knowledge and coordination in geographically distributed software development. Journal of Management Information Systems. 24, 1 (2007), 135--169. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Faraj, S. and Lee Sproull 2000. Coordinating Expertise in Software Development Teams. Management Science. 46, 12 (Dec. 2000), 1554. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Goldsmith, T. E. and Davenport, D. M. 1990. Assessing Structural Similarity of Graphs. Pathfinder Associative Networks: Studies in Knowledge Organization. R. W. Schvaneveldt, ed. Ablex Publishing Corp. 75--87. Google ScholarDigital Library
- He, J. et al. 2007. Team Cognition: Development and Evolution in Software Project Teams. Journal of Management Information Systems. 24, 2 (Oct. 2007), 261--292. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Heckman, R. et al. 2007. Emergent decision-making practices in free/libre open source software (FLOSS) development teams. Open Source Development, Adoption and Innovation. (2007), 71--84.Google Scholar
- Herbsleb, J. D. and Mockus, A. 2003. Formulation and preliminary test of an empirical theory of coordination in software engineering. Proceedings of the 9th European software engineering conference held jointly with 11th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering (New York, NY, USA, 2003), 138--137. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hsu, J. S. C. et al. 2011. Exploring the impact of team mental models on information utilization and project performance in system development. International Journal of Project Management. 29, 1 (Jan. 2011), 1--12.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Humayun, M. and Gang, C. 2013. An Empirical Study on Improving Shared Understanding of Requirements in GSD. International Journal of Software Engineering & Its Applications. 7, 1 (Jan. 2013), 79--92.Google Scholar
- Johnson, T. E. and O'Connor, D. L. 2008. Measuring team shared understanding using the analysis-constructed shared mental model methodology. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 21, 3 (2008), 113--134.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ko, A. J. and Myers, BA. 2005. A framework and methodology for studying the causes of software errors in programming systems. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing. 16, 1-2 (Apr. 2005), 41--84. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kudikyala, U. K. and Vaughn, R. B. 2005. Software requirement understanding using Pathfinder networks: discovering and evaluating mental models. Journal of Systems and Software. 74, 1 (Jan. 2005), 101--108. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Levesque, L. L. et al. 2001. Cognitive divergence and shared mental models in software development project teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 22, 2 (2001), 135--144.Google ScholarCross Ref
- LimeSurvey: An Open Source survey tool: 2012. http://www.limesurvey.org/. Accessed: 2014-03-18.Google Scholar
- Malone, T. W. and Crowston, K. 1994. The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Comput. Surv. 26, 1 (Mar. 1994), 87--119. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mancuso, V. et al. 2011. What's on "Their" Mind Evaluating Collaborative Systems Using Team Mental Models. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 55, 1 (Sep. 2011), 1284--1288.Google Scholar
- MAXQDA: Qualitative Data Analysis Software: 2013. http://www.maxqda.com/. Accessed: 2013-02-03.Google Scholar
- Mohammed, S. et al. 2010. Metaphor No More: A 15-Year Review of the Team Mental Model Construct. Journal of Management. 36, 4 (Jul. 2010), 876--910.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mohammed, S. et al. 2000. The Measurement of Team Mental Models: We Have No Shared Schema. Organizational Research Methods. 3, 2 (Apr. 2000), 123--165.Google ScholarCross Ref
- MySQL:: The world's most popular open source database: 2014. http://www.mysql.com/. Accessed: 2014-03-18.Google Scholar
- Ovaska, P. et al. 2003. Architecture as a coordination tool in multi-site software development. Software Process: Improvement & Practice. 8, 4 (2003), 233--247.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Parnas, D. L. 1971. Information distribution aspects of design methodology. Technical Report #1829. Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
- PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor: 2014. http://www.php.net/. Accessed: 2014-03-18.Google Scholar
- R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing: 2013. http://www.r-project.org/. Accessed: 2014-03-21.Google Scholar
- Schvaneveldt, R. W. et al. 1989. Network structures in proximity data. The psychology of learning and motivation. 24, (1989), 249--284.Google Scholar
- Taylor, R. N. and van der Hoek, A. 2007. Software Design and Architecture The once and future focus of software engineering. 2007 Future of Software Engineering (2007), 226--243. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Whitehead, J. 2007. Collaboration in Software Engineering: A Roadmap. 2007 Future of Software Engineering (Washington, DC, USA, 2007), 214--225. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Measuring shared understanding in software project teams using pathfinder networks
Recommendations
On shared understanding in software engineering: an essay
Shared understanding is essential for efficient software engineering when the risk of unsatisfactory out-come and rework of project results shall be low. Today, however, shared understanding is used mostly in an unreflected, ad-hoc way. This affects the ...
Chasing shared understanding in drilling operations
Lack of shared understanding is frequently found to be the main cause when accidents are investigated. Still, few studies explicitly explore and document the causal effects of shared understanding in successful work. Thus, the attribution of ...
Why Shared Understanding Matters -- Engineering a Collaboration Process for Shared Understanding to Improve Collaboration Effectiveness in Heterogeneous Teams
HICSS '13: Proceedings of the 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System SciencesSolving complex problems often requires experience and perspectives of various, often heterogeneous experts. Shared understanding of the task is an important determinant for the performance of collaborative groups [1, 2]. Surprisingly little attention ...
Comments