Patricia Gomes Fernandes Matsubara
Igor Steinmacher
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].
- 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/10.1145/3571473.3571474Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Frederick Brooks. 1995. Mythical Man-Month, The: Essays on Software Engineering, Anniversary Edition (anniversary edition ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading, Mass.Google Scholar
- 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.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hakan Erdogmus. 2022. Bayesian Hypothesis Testing Illustrated: An Introduction for Software Engineering Researchers. Comput. Surveys 55, 6 (2022), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3533383Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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.2018.02.041Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alan R Hevner. 2007. A Three Cycle View of Design Science Research. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 19, 2 (2007), 7.Google Scholar
- Capers Jones. 2006. Social and Technical Reasons for Software Project Failures. Crosstalk 19, 6 (2006).Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.2020.3020784Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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.2020.106257Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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.2021.111148Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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/10.1145/3510455.3512775Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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].Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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/s10664-023-10332-9Google ScholarDigital Library
- Steve McConnell. 2006. Flow of Software Estimates on a Well-Estimated Project. In Software Estimation: Desmystifying the Black Art. Microsoft Press, Redmond, 171–180.Google Scholar
- Steve McConnell. 2006. Politics, Negotiation, and Problem Solving. In Software Estimation: Demystifying the Black Art. Microsoft Press, Redmond, 259–270. Google-Books-ID: iXghAQAAIAAJ.Google Scholar
- 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.2017.28Google ScholarDigital Library
- William Ury. 2007. Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations (revised ed.). Bantam, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
- William Ury. 2012. The Power of A Positive No. Hodder & Stoughton, London.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- SwEDeL: Software Estimates’ Defense Lenses Designed from Negotiation Methods
Recommendations
Moving on from the Software Engineers' Gambit: An Approach to Support the Defense of Software Effort Estimates
ICSE '23: Proceedings of the 45th International Conference on Software EngineeringPressure for higher productivity and faster delivery is increasingly pervading software organizations. This can lead software engineers to act like chess players playing a gambit---making sacrifices of their technically sound estimates, thus ...
Much more than a prediction: Expert-based software effort estimation as a behavioral act
AbstractTraditionally, Software Effort Estimation (SEE) has been portrayed as a technical prediction task, for which we seek accuracy through improved estimation methods and a thorough consideration of effort predictors. In this article, our objective to ...
The best defense is a good defense: adapting negotiation methods for tackling pressure over software project estimates
ICSE-NIER '22: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 44th International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging ResultsSoftware estimation is critical for a software project's success and a challenging activity. We argue that estimation problems are not restricted to the generation of estimates but also their use for commitment establishment: project stakeholders ...
Comments