skip to main content
10.1145/3629479.3629498acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbqsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

SwEDeL: Software Estimates’ Defense Lenses Designed from Negotiation Methods

Published: 06 December 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Software organizations face increasing pressure for higher productivity and faster delivery. In this context, technically sound software estimates created by competent software practitioners to account for software risks can be rejected, favoring too aggressive estimates and the unrealistic commitments that arise from them. Then, software teams work under constant time pressure, sacrificing product quality to keep up with the expectations created. Time pressure also leads software practitioners to exhibit emotional distress, decreasing productivity, which leads to more time pressure and delays: a vicious cycle. This work proposes an approach to support software estimators in defending their realistic estimates instead of yielding to pressure over them. We designed a set of defense lenses based on consolidated negotiation principles and presented them through a digital simulation. We evaluated the digital simulation through a controlled experiment with software professionals. We employed the Theory of Planned Behavior to understand the intentions of participants to defend their software estimates, also collecting data on the antecedents of intentions: attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Our results show that scores for the study variables improved among experimental group participants after participating in the digital simulation. They were more inclined to choose a defense action when facing pressure scenarios than the control group. The participants also perceived the lenses as useful, showing the relevance of the proposed approach. The original paper was published in Matsubara et al. [17].

References

[1]
Monalessa Barcellos, Gleison Santos, Tayana Conte, Bianca Trinkenreich, and Patricia Matsubara. 2023. Organizing Empirical Studies as Learning Iterations in Design Science Research Projects. In Proceedings of the XXI Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality(SBQS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3571473.3571474
[2]
Frederick Brooks. 1995. Mythical Man-Month, The: Essays on Software Engineering, Anniversary Edition (anniversary edition ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading, Mass.
[3]
Aldo Dagnino. 2013. Estimating software-intensive projects in the absence of historical data. In 2013 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, San Francisco, CA, USA, 941–950. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE.2013.6606643 ISSN: 1558-1225.
[4]
Rodrigo Rebouças De Almeida, Christoph Treude, and Uirá Kulesza. 2023. What’s behind tight deadlines? Business causes of technical debt. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE). IEEE, Melbourne, 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1109/CHASE58964.2023.00011 ISSN: 2574-1837.
[5]
Hakan Erdogmus. 2022. Bayesian Hypothesis Testing Illustrated: An Introduction for Software Engineering Researchers. Comput. Surveys 55, 6 (2022), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3533383
[6]
Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. 2011. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in (3rd revised ed.). Penguin Books, New York, NY, USA.
[7]
Daniela Girardi, Filippo Lanubile, Nicole Novielli, and Alexander Serebrenik. 2021. Emotions and Perceived Productivity of Software Developers at the Workplace. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 48, 9 (2021), 3326–3341. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2021.3087906 Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.
[8]
Daniel Graziotin, Fabian Fagerholm, Xiaofeng Wang, and Pekka Abrahamsson. 2018. What happens when software developers are (un)happy. Journal of Systems and Software 140 (June 2018), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.02.041
[9]
Alan R Hevner. 2007. A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19, 2 (2007), 7.
[10]
Capers Jones. 2006. Social and Technical Reasons for Software Project Failures. Crosstalk 19, 6 (2006).
[11]
Matthew P. H. Kan and Leandre R. Fabrigar. 2017. Theory of Planned Behavior. In Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences, Virgil Zeigler-Hill and Todd K. Shackelford (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 1–8.
[12]
Miikka Kuutila, Mika V Mantyla, Umar Farooq, and Maelick Claes. 2021. What Do We Know About Time Pressure in Software Development?IEEE Software 38, 5 (Sept. 2021), 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2020.3020784
[13]
Miikka Kuutila, Mika Mäntylä, Umar Farooq, and Maëlick Claes. 2020. Time pressure in software engineering: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology 121 (May 2020), 106257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106257
[14]
Patricia Matsubara, Bruno Gadelha, Igor Steinmacher, and Tayana Conte. 2022. SEXTAMT: A systematic map to navigate the wide seas of factors affecting expert judgment software estimates. The Journal of Systems and Software 185 (2022), 111148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2021.111148
[15]
Patricia Matsubara, Igor Steinmacher, Bruno Gadelha, and Tayana Conte. 2021. Buying time in software development: how estimates become commitments?. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering. IEEE, Madrid, Spain, 61–70.
[16]
Patricia Matsubara, Igor Steinmacher, Bruno Gadelha, and Tayana Conte. 2022. The best defense is a good defense: adapting negotiation methods for tackling pressure over software project estimates. In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference in Software Engineering. IEEE, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 91–95. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510455.3512775
[17]
Patrícia Matsubara, Igor Steinmacher, Bruno Gadelha, and Tayana Conte. 2023. Moving on from the software engineers’ gambit: an approach to support the defense of software effort estimates. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, Melbourne, 703–715. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE48619.2023.00068 arXiv:2302.07229 [cs].
[18]
Patricia Matsubara, Igor Steinmacher, Bruno Gadelha, and Tayana Conte. 2023. Moving on from the software engineers’ gambit-Supplementary Material. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20736844.v1 Publisher: figshare.
[19]
Patrícia G. F. Matsubara, Igor Steinmacher, Bruno Gadelha, and Tayana Conte. 2023. Much more than a prediction: Expert-based software effort estimation as a behavioral act. Empirical Software Engineering 28, 4 (July 2023), 98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-023-10332-9
[20]
Steve McConnell. 2006. Flow of Software Estimates on a Well-Estimated Project. In Software Estimation: Desmystifying the Black Art. Microsoft Press, Redmond, 171–180.
[21]
Steve McConnell. 2006. Politics, Negotiation, and Problem Solving. In Software Estimation: Demystifying the Black Art. Microsoft Press, Redmond, 259–270. Google-Books-ID: iXghAQAAIAAJ.
[22]
M. Storey, E. Engstrom, M. Höst, P. Runeson, and E. Bjarnason. 2017. Using a Visual Abstract as a Lens for Communicating and Promoting Design Science Research in Software Engineering. In 2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM). IEEE, Toronto, 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1109/ESEM.2017.28
[23]
William Ury. 2007. Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations (revised ed.). Bantam, New York, NY, USA.
[24]
William Ury. 2012. The Power of A Positive No. Hodder & Stoughton, London.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
SBQS '23: Proceedings of the XXII Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality
November 2023
391 pages
ISBN:9798400707865
DOI:10.1145/3629479
Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 06 December 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Behavioral Software Engineering
  2. Defense of Estimates
  3. Negotiation
  4. Software Effort Estimation

Qualifiers

  • Short-paper
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Conference

SBQS '23
SBQS '23: XXII Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality
November 7 - 10, 2023
Bras\'{\i}lia, Brazil

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 35 of 99 submissions, 35%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 16
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)8
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 03 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media