A theory of organizational structures for development and infrastructure professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DevOps and continuous delivery have impacted the organizational structures of development and infrastructure groups in software-producing organizations. Our research aims at revealing the different options adopted by the software industry to organize such groups, understanding why different organizations adopt distinct structures, and discovering how organizations handle the drawbacks of each structure. We interviewed 68 carefully-selected IT professionals, 45 working in Brazil, 10 in the USA, 8 in Europe, 1 in Canada, and 4 in globally distributed teams. By analyzing these conversations through a Grounded Theory process, we identified conditions, causes, reasons to avoid, consequences, and contingencies related to each discovered structure (segregated departments, collaborative departments, API-mediated departments, and single department). In this way, we offer a theory to explain organizational structures for development and infrastructure professionals. This theory can support practitioners and researchers in comprehending and discussing the DevOps phenomenon and its related issues, and also provides valuable input to practitioners’ decision-making. Published as: L. Leite, N. Lago, C. Melo, F. Kon, and P. Meirelles, ”A theory of organizational structures for development and infrastructure professionals,” in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 1898-1911, 1 April 2023, doi: 10.1109/TSE.2022.3199169.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".