skip to main content
10.1145/3555228.3555239acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbesConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Use Cases for Software Development Analytics: A Case Study

Published:05 October 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Context Software engineering activities provide practitioners with large volumes of data that software analytics tools can use for many purposes, including defect prediction and effort estimation. However, the adoption of such tools depends on the information they provide and the real needs of practitioners. While existing research has focused on what developers need, the needs of managers are not well understood. Aims This study provides an in-depth analysis of the information needs of software practitioners from one organization that performs research, development, and innovation projects with industry partners. Understanding these practitioners’ needs enables the development of better analytics solutions to support managerial decision-making. Method We interviewed practitioners in leadership positions and analyzed the collected data using Grounded Theory coding techniques, i.e., open and selective coding. Results We identified 19 software analytics use cases and classified them into four dimensions: quality, people, project management, and knowledge management. We also elicited several indicators to meet the identified use cases and captured key aspects concerning the organization’s analytics scenario. Conclusions Although our results are particularly relevant to organizations similar to the one in which we conducted the study, they aim to serve as input for implementing new analytics solutions by practitioners and researchers in general.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Abdullah Al-Nayeem, Krzysztof Ostrowski, Sebastian Pueblas, Christophe Restif, and Sai Zhang. 2017. Information needs for validating evolving software systems: An exploratory study at google. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST). IEEE, 544–545.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Andrew Begel and Thomas Zimmermann. 2014. Analyze this! 145 questions for data scientists in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering. 12–23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Jacob T Biehl, Mary Czerwinski, Greg Smith, and George G Robertson. 2007. FASTDash: a visual dashboard for fostering awareness in software teams. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 1313–1322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Katarzyna Biesialska, Xavier Franch, and Victor Muntés-Mulero. 2021. Big Data analytics in Agile software development: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology 132 (2021), 106448.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Lionel Briand, Domenico Bianculli, Shiva Nejati, Fabrizio Pastore, and Mehrdad Sabetzadeh. 2017. The case for context-driven software engineering research: generalizability is overrated. IEEE Software 34, 5 (2017), 72–75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Raymond PL Buse and Thomas Zimmermann. 2010. Analytics for software development. In Proceedings of the FSE/SDP workshop on Future of software engineering research. 77–80.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Raymond PL Buse and Thomas Zimmermann. 2012. Information needs for software development analytics. In 2012 34th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 987–996.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Joelma Choma, Eduardo Martins Guerra, and Tiago Silva Da Silva. 2017. Patterns for implementing software analytics in development teams. In Proceedings of the 24th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs. 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Iris Figalist, Christoph Elsner, Jan Bosch, and Helena Holmström Olsson. 2020. Breaking the Vicious Circle: Why AI for software analytics and business intelligence does not take off in practice. In 2020 46th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA). IEEE, 5–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Latifa Guerrouj, Olga Baysal, David Lo, and Foutse Khomh. 2016. Software analytics: challenges and opportunities. In 2016 IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE-C). IEEE, 902–903.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Mohammad Ibraigheeth and Syed Abdullah Fadzli. 2019. Core factors for software projects success. JOIV: International Journal on Informatics Visualization 3, 1(2019), 69–74.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Silverio Martínez-Fernández, Anna Maria Vollmer, Andreas Jedlitschka, Xavier Franch, Lidia López, Prabhat Ram, Pilar Rodríguez, Sanja Aaramaa, Alessandra Bagnato, Michał Choraś, 2019. Continuously assessing and improving software quality with software analytics tools: a case study. IEEE access 7(2019), 68219–68239.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Mohd Hairul Nizam Nasir and Shamsul Sahibuddin. 2011. Critical success factors for software projects: A comparative study. Scientific research and essays 6, 10 (2011), 2174–2186.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Ali Nizam. 2022. Software Project Failure Process Definition. IEEE Access (2022).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Luca Pascarella, Davide Spadini, Fabio Palomba, Magiel Bruntink, and Alberto Bacchelli. 2018. Information needs in contemporary code review. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW(2018), 1–27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Mirko Perkusich, Lenardo Chaves e Silva, Alexandre Costa, Felipe Ramos, Renata Saraiva, Arthur Freire, Ednaldo Dilorenzo, Emanuel Dantas, Danilo Santos, Kyller Gorgônio, 2020. Intelligent software engineering in the context of agile software development: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology 119 (2020), 106241.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kai Petersen and Claes Wohlin. 2009. Context in industrial software engineering research. In 2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. IEEE, 401–404.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Shaun Phillips, Guenther Ruhe, and Jonathan Sillito. 2012. Information needs for integration decisions in the release process of large-scale parallel development. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 1371–1380.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Pilar Rodríguez, Emilia Mendes, and Burak Turhan. 2018. Key stakeholders’ value propositions for feature selection in software-intensive products: An industrial case study. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 46, 12 (2018), 1340–1363.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Per Runeson and Martin Höst. 2009. Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical software engineering 14, 2 (2009), 131–164.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Mali Senapathi, Jim Buchan, and Hady Osman. 2018. DevOps capabilities, practices, and challenges: Insights from a case study. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering 2018. 57–67.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Mojtaba Shahin and M Ali Babar. 2020. On the role of software architecture in DevOps Transformation: An industrial case study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and System Processes. 175–184.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Miroslaw Staron and Wilhelm Meding. 2018. Software Development Measurement Programs. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-91836-5 10 (2018), 3281333.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Christoph Treude, Fernando Figueira Filho, and Uirá Kulesza. 2015. Summarizing and measuring development activity. In Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering. 625–636.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Cathy Urquhart. 2012. Grounded theory for qualitative research: A practical guide. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Cathy Urquhart and Walter Fernández. 2016. Using grounded theory method in information systems: The researcher as blank slate and other myths. In Enacting research methods in information systems: Volume 1. Springer, 129–156.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Claes Wohlin and Aybüke Aurum. 2015. Towards a decision-making structure for selecting a research design in empirical software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering 20, 6 (2015), 1427–1455.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Dongmei Zhang, Shi Han, Yingnong Dang, Jian-Guang Lou, Haidong Zhang, and Tao Xie. 2013. Software analytics in practice. IEEE software 30, 5 (2013), 30–37.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Use Cases for Software Development Analytics: A Case Study

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      SBES '22: Proceedings of the XXXVI Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering
      October 2022
      457 pages
      ISBN:9781450397353
      DOI:10.1145/3555228

      Copyright © 2022 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 5 October 2022

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate147of427submissions,34%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format