Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two main concepts in Agile software development are self-organized teams and direct contact with the customer or Product Owner. Additionally, constant feedback on different levels is considered to be of high importance. With constant feedback, transparency goes hand-in-hand. Compared to traditional software development, Agile approaches have much higher transparency, and this might be a problem for some people. What does it feel like to work in such an Agile team or organization for the individual? How do the software developers, testers or other team members experience this environment of high transparency and continuous feedback? In this paper we focus on a subset of the third Swiss Agile Study from 2016, a nationwide survey about software development, to shed some light on the sociological, cultural and cognitive aspects of Agile teams and their individual member. We found that despite the increased transparency, the majority of the participants reported working in an Agile environment, both on the individual and on the team level, as positive and satisfying. The analysis shows these positive influences have some strong correlations with certain Agile practices and with innovation and business aspects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".