The Role of Informal Communication in Building Shared Understanding of Non-Functional Requirements in Remote Continuous Software Engineering
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<strong>Study Information</strong> We conducted an ethnography-informed case study of a remote software organization that adopts CSE practices to explore how the organization builds a shared understanding of NFRs. Our study uses semi-structured interviews with a period of observations to answer the following research questions: How does a remote software organization that adopts CSE practices reach a shared understanding of NFRs? What are the limitations to the shared understanding of NFRs in a remote software organization that adopts CSE practices? What organizational practices for remote collaboration supported a shared understanding of NFRs? In our study, we refer to our partner organization as Alpha. We used ethnography-informed methods to study Alpha's practices and processes and how they approach a shared understanding of NFRs in their product development. <strong>Data Analysis</strong> We performed a qualitative study through semi-structured interviews and observations. We use the open, axial and selective coding approach from grounded theory [1] to create our codebook, which informed the results and discussion of our study. Two independent coders held agreement sessions to discuss the codes, consolidate the codes and calculate the inter-rater reliability using the Cohen Kappa's coefficient for measuring observer agreement for categorical data [2]. <strong>Artifact Descriptions</strong> Our replication package contains three artifacts: 1. Codebook.csv: The codebook contains rows for the list of codes used, including the code name and the description of the codes. The codes are the final set of themes derived during the thematic analysis of the interview responses. For example, 'Gaps in communication' means when interview participants describe miscommunications due to team members making assumptions about a project/process or having unclear expectations for a project. 2. kappa-scores.csv: This contains the associated kappa values for each round of inter-rater agreement sessions. For each agreement session, the Cohen Kappa's coefficient was calculated from the number of agreements and disagreements of codes within one or two interview transcripts. The Kappa values represent the level of agreement ranging from 0 to 1, where > 0.6 represents substantial agreement. 3. Interview-questions.csv: This contains the interview questions used in the semi-structured interviews. Some of the interview questions varied depending on the interviewee’s role, experience and the flow of the interviews. <strong> </strong> <strong>Usefulness</strong> We recognize that the value and usefulness of our replication package are yet-to-be-determined. In the interest of transparency of open science, we published our artifacts. We hope that these artifacts are useful to either replicate our findings or to further analyze them to produce other enlightening results. <strong> </strong> <strong>References</strong> 1. Rashina Hoda, James Noble, and Stuart Marshall. "Grounded theory for geeks". In: Proceedings of the 18th conference on pattern languages of programs. 2011, pp. 1–17. 2. J Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. "The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data". In: biometrics (1977), pp. 159–174. <strong> </strong>
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».