More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Design and validation of precooked developer dashboards

Authors:

Vladimir Ivanov,

Vladislav Pischulin,

Giancarlo Succi,

Vasilii ZorinAuthors Info & Claims

ESEC/FSE 2018: Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering

Pages 821 - 826

https://doi.org/10.1145/3236024.3275530

Published: 26 October 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Despite increasing popularity of developer dashboards, the effectiveness of dashboards is still in question. In order to design a dashboard that is effective and useful for developers, it is important to know (a) what information developers need to see in a dashboard, and (b) how developers want to use a dashboard with that necessary information. To answer these questions, we conducted two series of face-to-face individual interviews with developers. In the first step we analyzed answers, build a Goal-Question-Metric model and designed a precooked developer dashboard. Then, during the second separate series of interviews, we validated the GQM and derived feedback on the designed dashboard. Given that the cost of dashboard customization prevents developers from utilizing dashboards, we believe that our findings can provide a solid starting point to build precooked developer dashboards that can be readily utilized by software companies.

References

[1]

Victor R Basili. 1992. Software modeling and measurement: the Goal/Question/-Metric paradigm. (1992).

[2]

Victor R. Basili, Gianluigi Caldiera, and H. Dieter Rombach. 1994. The Goal Question Metric Approach. In Encyclopedia of Software Engineering. Wiley.

[3]

Victor R. Basili and David M. Weiss. 1984. A Methodology for Collecting Valid Software Engineering Data. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 10, 6 (1984), 728–738.

Digital Library

[4]

Olga Baysal, Reid Holmes, and Michael W. Godfrey. 2013. Developer Dashboards: The Need for Qualitative Analytics. IEEE Software 30, 4 (2013), 46–52.

Digital Library

[5]

Patrik Berander and Per Jönsson. 2006. A goal question metric based approach for efficient measurement framework definition. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering. ACM, 316–325.

Digital Library

[6]

Jacob T Biehl, Mary Czerwinski, Greg Smith, and George G Robertson. 2007. FASTDash: a visual dashboard for fostering awareness in software teams. (2007), 1313–1322.

Digital Library

[7]

Trevor G Bond and Christine M Fox. 2013. Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Psychology Press.

[8]

Jan Bosch and Helena Olsson. 2017. Towards Evidence-Based Organizations: Learnings From Embedded Systems, Online Games And Internet of Things. IEEE Software PP, 99 (2017). Early Access Article.

[9]

Eric Bouwers, Arie van Deursen, and Joost Visser. 2013. Software Metrics: Pitfalls and Best Practices. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’13). IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1491–1492.

[10]

Stephan Few. 2006. Information Dashboard Design. (2006).

[11]

Adrian Furnham. 1986. Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and individual differences 7, 3 (1986), 385–400.

[12]

Vladimir Ivanov, Alan Rogers, Giancarlo Succi, Jooyong Yi, and Vasilii Zorin. 2017. What Do Software Engineers Care About? Gaps Between Research and Practice. In Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE 2017). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 890–895.

Digital Library

[13]

Mikkel R Jakobsen, Roland Fernandez, Mary Czerwinski, Kori Inkpen, Olga Kulyk, and George G Robertson. 2009. WIPDash: Work item and people dashboard for software development teams. (2009), 791–804.

Digital Library

[14]

Andrea Janes, Alberto Sillitti, and Giancarlo Succi. 2013. Effective dashboard design. Cutter IT Journal 26, 1 (2013).

[15]

Andrea Janes and Giancarlo Succi. 2014. Lean Software Development in Action. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.

Digital Library

[16]

Yasser Khazaal, Mathias van Singer, Anne Chatton, Sophia Achab, Daniele Zullino, Stephane Rothen, Riaz Khan, Joel Billieux, and Gabriel Thorens. 2014. Does Self-Selection Affect Samples’Representativeness in Online Surveys? An Investigation in Online Video Game Research. Journal of Medical Internet Research 16, 7 (july 2014), e164.

[17]

Walid Maalej, Rebecca Tiarks, Tobias Roehm, and Rainer Koschke. 2014. On the Comprehension of Program Comprehension. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 23, 4, Article 31 (Sept. 2014), 37 pages.

Digital Library

[18]

Wilhelm Meding. 2017. Effective monitoring of progress of agile software development teams in modern software companies: an industrial case study. In Proceedings of the 27th International Workshop on Software Measurement and 12th International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement. ACM, 23–32.

Digital Library

[19]

Philip M. Podsakoff, Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 5 (10 2003), 879–903.

[20]

Paul R. Rosenbaum. 2010. Design of Observational Studies. Springer, New York.

[21]

Alberto Sillitti, Giancarlo Succi, and Stefano De Panfilis. 2006. Managing noninvasive measurement tools. Journal of Systems Architecture 52, 11 (2006), 676– 683.

Digital Library

[22]

Prashanth Harish Southekal and Ginger Levin. 2011. Validation of a generic GQM based measurement framework for software projects from industry practitioners. In Cognitive Informatics & Cognitive Computing (ICCI* CC), 2011 10th IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 367–372.

[23]

StackOverflow. 2017. Developer Survey Result 2017. Technical Report. Available online at url: https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2017 and retrieved on August 16th, 2017.

[24]

Gergely Szolnoki and Dieter Hoffmann. 2013. Online, face-to-face and telephone surveys – Comparing different sampling methods in wine consumer research. Wine Economics and Policy 2, 2 (2013), 57 – 66.

[25]

Christoph Treude and Margaret-Anne Storey. 2010. Awareness 2.0: staying aware of projects, developers and tasks using dashboards and feeds. In ICSE. 365–374.

Digital Library

[26]

David L. Vannette and Jon A. Krosnick. 2014. Answering Questions: A Comparison of Survey Satisficing and Mindlessness. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 312–327.

Cited By

Razzaq ABuckley JLai QYu TBotterweck G(2024)A Systematic Literature Review on the Influence of Enhanced Developer Experience on Developers' Productivity: Factors, Practices, and RecommendationsACM Computing Surveys10.1145/368729957:1(1-46)Online publication date: 7-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3687299
Nurwidyantoro AShahin MChaudron MHussain WPerera HShams RWhittle J(2023)Integrating human values in software development using a human values dashboardEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-023-10305-y28:3Online publication date: 18-Apr-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-023-10305-y
Farina MGorb AKruglov ASucci G(2022)Technologies for GQM-Based Metrics Recommender Systems: A Systematic Literature ReviewIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2022.315239710(23098-23111)Online publication date: 2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3152397
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Design and validation of precooked developer dashboards
1. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
    1. Software development process management

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ESEC/FSE 2018: Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering

October 2018

987 pages

ISBN:9781450355735

DOI:10.1145/3236024

General Chair:
Gary T. Leavens
University of Central Florida, USA
,
Program Chairs:
Alessandro Garcia
PUC-Rio, Brazil
,
Corina S. Păsăreanu
NASA Ames Research Center, USA

Copyright © 2018 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]

Sponsors

SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 26 October 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

ESEC/FSE '18

Sponsor:

SIGSOFT

ESEC/FSE '18: 26th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering

November 4 - 9, 2018

FL, Lake Buena Vista, USA

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 112 of 543 submissions, 21%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

10
Total Citations
View Citations
289
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)29
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 21 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Razzaq ABuckley JLai QYu TBotterweck G(2024)A Systematic Literature Review on the Influence of Enhanced Developer Experience on Developers' Productivity: Factors, Practices, and RecommendationsACM Computing Surveys10.1145/368729957:1(1-46)Online publication date: 7-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3687299
Nurwidyantoro AShahin MChaudron MHussain WPerera HShams RWhittle J(2023)Integrating human values in software development using a human values dashboardEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-023-10305-y28:3Online publication date: 18-Apr-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-023-10305-y
Farina MGorb AKruglov ASucci G(2022)Technologies for GQM-Based Metrics Recommender Systems: A Systematic Literature ReviewIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2022.315239710(23098-23111)Online publication date: 2022
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3152397
Nurwidyantoro AShahin MChaudron MHussain WPerera HShams RWhittle JLanubile F(2021)Towards a Human Values Dashboard for Software DevelopmentProceedings of the 15th ACM / IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)10.1145/3475716.3475770(1-12)Online publication date: 11-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3475716.3475770
Ciancarini PErgasheva SKholmatova ZKruglov ASucci GVasquez XZuev E(2020)Analysis of Energy Consumption of Software Development Process EntitiesElectronics10.3390/electronics91016789:10(1678)Online publication date: 14-Oct-2020
https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics9101678
Strugar DDevanbu PCohen MZimmermann T(2020)Recommender systems: metric suggestion mechanisms applied to adaptable software dashboardsProceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3368089.3418779(1696-1698)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3368089.3418779
Alhamadi M(2020)Challenges, Strategies and Adaptations on Interactive DashboardsProceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization10.1145/3340631.3398678(368-371)Online publication date: 7-Jul-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3340631.3398678
Ergasheva SIvanov VKhomyakov IKruglov AStrugar DSucci G(2020)InnoMetrics Dashboard: The Design, and Implementation of the Adaptable Dashboard for Energy-Efficient Applications Using Open Source ToolsOpen Source Systems10.1007/978-3-030-47240-5_16(163-176)Online publication date: 5-May-2020
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47240-5_16
Strugar D(2019)Complex Systems: On Design and Architecture of Adaptable DashboardsSoftware Technology: Methods and Tools10.1007/978-3-030-29852-4_14(176-186)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2019
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29852-4_14
Ivanov VMasyagin SMingazov MSucci G(2019)Recruiting Software Developers a Survey of Current Russian PracticesAutomated Deduction—CADE-1410.1007/978-3-030-14687-0_10(110-127)Online publication date: 19-Mar-2019
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14687-0_10

View Options

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents