Task dependencies drive the need to coordinate work activities. We describe a technique for using automatically generated archival data to compute coordination requirements, i.e., who must coordinate with whom to get the work done. Analysis of data from a large software development project revealed that coordination requirements were highly volatile, and frequently extended beyond team boundaries. Congruence between coordination requirements and coordination activities shortened development time. Developers, particularly the most productive ones, changed their use of electronic communication media over time, achieving higher congruence. We discuss practical implications of our technique for the design of collaborative and awareness tools. Categories and Subject Descriptors H.5.3 [Information Interfaces and Presentation]: Groups and Organization Interfaces – collaborative computing, computersupported

The identification and management of work dependencies is a fundamental challenge in software development organizations. This paper argues that modularization, the traditional technique intended to reduce interdependencies among components of a system, has serious limitations in the context of software development. We build on the idea of congruence, proposed in our prior work, to examine the relationship between the structure of technical and work dependencies and the impact of dependencies on software development productivity. Our empirical evaluation of the congruence framework showed that when developers’ coordination patterns are congruent with their coordination needs, the resolution time of modification requests was significantly reduced. Furthermore, our analysis highlights the importance of identifying the “right” set of technical dependencies that drive the coordination requirements among software developers. Call and data dependencies appear to have far less impact than logical dependencies. Categories and Subject Descriptors

Abstract. Software engineering is an intensely people-oriented activity, yet too little is known about how designers, maintainers, requirements analysts and all other types of software engineers perform their work. In order to improve software engineering tools and practice, it is therefore essential to conduct field studies, i.e., to study real practitioners as they solve real problems. To do so effectively, however, requires an understanding of the techniques most suited to each type of field study task. In this paper, we provide a taxonomy of techniques, focusing on those for data collection. The taxonomy is organized according to the degree of human intervention each requires. For each technique, we provide examples from the literature, an analysis of some of its advantages and disadvantages, and a discussion of how to use it effectively. We also briefly talk about field study design in general, and data analysis.

Every bug has a story behind it. The people that discover and resolve it need to coordinate, to get information from documents, tools, or other people, and to navigate through issues of accountability, ownership, and organizational structure. This paper reports on a field study of coordination activities around bug fixing that used a combination of case study research and a survey of software professionals. Results show that the histories of even simple bugs are strongly dependent on social, organizational, and technical knowledge that cannot be solely extracted through automation of electronic repositories, and that such automation provides incomplete and often erroneous accounts of coordination. The paper uses rich bug histories and survey results to identify common bug fixing coordination patterns and to provide implications for tool designers and researchers of coordination in software development. 1.

It is widely believed that distributed software development is riskier and more challenging than collocated development. Prior literature on distributed development in software engineering and other fields discuss various challenges, including cultural barriers, expertise transfer difficulties, and communication and coordination overhead. We evaluate this conventional belief by examining the overall development of Windows Vista and comparing the postrelease failures of components that were developed in a distributed fashion with those that were developed by collocated teams. We found a negligible difference in failures. This difference becomes even less significant when controlling for the number of developers working on a binary. We also examine component characteristics such as code churn, complexity, dependency information, and test code coverage and find very little difference between distributed and collocated components. Further, we examine the software process and phenomena that occurred during the Vista development cycle and present ways in which the development process utilized may be insensitive to geography by mitigating the difficulties introduced in prior work in this area. 1.

Abstract—Prior research has shown that customer-reported software faults are often the result of violated dependencies that are not recognized by developers implementing software. Many types of dependencies and corresponding measures have been proposed to help address this problem. The objective of this research is to compare the relative performance of several of these dependency measures as they relate to customer-reported defects. Our analysis is based on data collected from two projects from two independent companies. Combined, our data set encompasses eight years of development activity involving 154 developers. The principal contribution of this study is the examination of the relative impact that syntactic, logical, and work dependencies have on the failure proneness of a software system. While all dependencies increase the fault proneness, the logical dependencies explained most of the variance in fault proneness, while workflow dependencies had more impact than syntactic dependencies. These results suggest that practices such as rearchitecting, guided by the network structure of logical dependencies, hold promise for reducing defects. Index Terms—Distribution/maintenance/enhancement, metrics/measurement, organizational management and coordination, quality analysis and evaluation. Ç 1

The ability of an organization to successfully carry out its tasks depends on the appropriate combination of organizational structure, processes, and communication and coordination mechanisms. In this paper, we present four case studies that exemplify coordination breakdown problems in global software development. Our analysis showed those problems took place even in the presence of a collection of processes, organizational mechanisms and communication tools established to increases the ability of the teams to perform their tasks. Finally, we discuss possible solutions to overcome the identified problems. 1.

We performed an empirical study to characterize factors that affect which bugs get fixed in Windows Vista and Windows 7, focusing on factors related to bug report edits and relationships between people involved in handling the bug. We found that bugs reported by people with better reputations were more likely to get fixed, as were bugs handled by people on the same team and working in geographical proximity. We reinforce these quantitative results with survey feedback from 358 Microsoft employees who were involved in Windows bugs. Survey respondents also mentioned additional qualitative influences on bug fixing, such as the importance of seniority and interpersonal skills of the bug reporter. Informed by these findings, we built a statistical model to predict the probability that a new bug will be fixed (the first known one, to the best of our knowledge). We trained it on Windows Vista bugs and got a precision of 68 % and recall of 64 % when predicting Windows 7 bug fixes. Engineers could use such a model to prioritize bugs during triage, to estimate developer workloads, and to decide which bugs should be closed or migrated to future product versions. Categories and Subject Descriptors:

doi 10.1287/orsc.1070.0297

Abstract. Handshaking between product management and R&D is key to the success of product development projects. Traditional requirements engineering processes build on good quality requirements specifications, which typically are not achievable in practical circumstances, especially not in distributed development where daily communication cannot easily be achieved to support the understanding of the specification and tacit knowledge cannot easily be spread. Projects thus risk misunderstanding requirements and are likely to deliver inadequate solutions. This paper presents an approach that uses downstream engineering artifacts, design decisions, to improve upstream information, a project’s requirements. During its preliminary validation, the approach yielded promising results. It is well suited for distributed software projects, where the negotiation on requirements and solution design need to be made explicit and potential problems and misunderstandings caught at early stages. 1