The impacts of software process improvement on developers: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results of a systematic review on the impacts of Software Process Improvement (SPI) on developers. This review selected 26 studies from the highest quality journals, conferences, and workshop in the field. The results were compiled and organized following the grounded theory approach. Results from the grounded theory were further categorized using the Ishikawa (or fishbone) diagram. The Ishikawa Diagram models all the factors potentially impacting software developers, and shows both the positive and negative impacts. Positive impacts include a reduction in the number of crises, and an increase in team communications and morale, as well as better requirements and documentation. Negative impacts include increased overhead on developers through the need to collect data and compile documentation, an undue focus on technical approaches, and the fact that SPI is oriented toward management and process quality, and not towards developers and product quality. This systematic review should support future practice through the identification of important obstacles and opportunities for achieving SPI success. Future research should also benefit from the problems and advantages of SPI identified by developers.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it