skip to main content
10.1145/2145204.2145406acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Proximity: a measure to quantify the need for developers' coordination

Published:11 February 2012Publication History

ABSTRACT

We describe a method for determining coordination requirements in collaborative software development. Our method uses "live" data based on developer activity rather than relying on historical data such as source code commits which is prevalent in existing methods. We introduce proximity, a measure of the strength of the work dependencies that lead to coordination requirements among members of a software development organization. Our proximity measure relies on a tool which captures the interactions of a developer with her IDE. It quantifies the similarity between records of interactions of developers as they work on their assigned tasks. We describe an algorithm that measures proximity between pairs of tasks or pairs of developers. Through an empirical study on an open source project that routinely records environment interaction data, we show how proximity accurately determines coordination requirements. The proximity measure thus enables proactive detection of coordination requirements and makes possible real time intervention and coordination facilitation via management-, design- and team-related decisions.

References

  1. Begel, A., Phang, K. Y., and Zimmerman, T. 2010 Codebook: Discovering and Exploiting Relationships in Software Repositories. Proc. ICSE 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Brooks, F. P. 1995. The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering. Addison Wesley. Reading, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Cataldo, M., Bass, M., Herbsleb, J., and Bass, L. 2007. On Coordination Mechanisms in Global Software Development. Proc. ICGSE 2007, 71--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Cataldo, M., Herbsleb, J. D., and Carley, K. M. 2008. Socio-Technical Congruence: A Framework for Assessing the Impact of Technical and Work Dependencies on Software Development Productivity. Proc. ESEM 2008, 2--11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Cataldo, M., Mockus, A., Roberts, J. A., and Herbsleb, J. D. 2009. Software dependencies, work dependencies, and their impact on failures. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 35, 6, 864--878. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Cataldo, M., Wagstrom, P. A., Herbsleb, J. D., and Carley, K. M. 2006. Identification of Coordination Requirements: Implications for the Design of Collaboration and Awareness Tools. Proc. CSCW 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Conway, M. E. 1968. How do committees invent. Datamation. 14, 4, 28--31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. de Souza, C. R., Quirk, S., Trainer, E., and Redmiles, D. F. 2007. Supporting collaborative software development through the visualization of socio-technical dependencies. Proc. of the 2007 international ACM conference on Supporting group work. 147--156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Dewan, P. and R. Hegde. 2007. Semi-Synchronous Conflict Detection and Resolution in Asynchronous Software Development. Proc. E-CSCW 2007. p. 159--178.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Dourish, P., and Bellotti, V. Awareness and Coordination in Shared Workspaces. Proc. CSCW 1992: p. 107--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Ehrlich, K., Helander, M., Valetto, G., Davies, S., and Williams, C. 2008. An analysis of congruence gaps and their effect on distributed software development. Proc. STC 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Gall, H., Hajek, K., and Jazayeri, M. 1998. Detection of logical coupling based on product release history. Proc. ICSM 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Grinter, R. E., Herbsleb, J. D., and Perry, D. E. 1999. The geography of coordination: dealing with distance in R&D work. Proc. of the international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Herbsleb, J. D. and Grinter, R. E. 1999. Splitting the organization and integrating the code: Conway's law revisited. Proc. ICSE 1999, 85--95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Herbsleb, J. D., Mockus, A., and Roberts, J. A. 2006. Collaboration in software engineering projects: A theory of coordination. Proc. ICIS 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Kersten, M. and Murphy, G. C. 2005. Mylar: a degree-of-interest model for IDEs. Proc. AOSE 2005, 159--168. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kersten, M. and Murphy, G. C. 2006. Using task context to improve programmer productivity. Proc. FSE 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kraut, R. and Streeter, L. 1995. Coordination in software development. Communications of the ACM. 38, 3, 69--81. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Minto, S. and Murphy, G. C. 2007. Recommending emergent teams. Proc. MSR 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Parnas, D. L. 1972. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM. 15, 12, 1058. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Rothlisberger, D., Nierstrasz, O., Ducasse, S., Pollet, D., and Robbes, R. 2009. Supporting task-oriented navigation in IDEs with configurable heatmaps. Proc. ICPC 2009, pp. 253--257Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Sarma, A., Noroozi, Z., and van der Hoek, A. Palantír: raising awareness among configuration management workspaces. Proc. ICSE 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Sarma, A., Maccherone,L., Wagstrom, P., and Herbsleb, J. 2009. Tesseract: Interactive visual exploration of socio-technical relationships in software development. Proc ICSE 2009, 23--33. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Singer, J., Elves, R., and Storey, M.-A. 2005. Navtracks: Supporting navigation in software maintenance, Proc. ICSM 2005, pp. 325--335. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Sosa, M. E., Eppinger, S. D., and Rowles, C. M. 2004. The misalignment of product architecture and organizational structure in complex product development. Management Science. 50, 12, 1674--1689. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Sullivan, K. J., Griswold, W. G., Cai, Y., and Hallen, B. 2001. The structure and value of modularity in software design. Proc. FSE 2001, pp. 99--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Valetto, G., Chulani, S., and Williams, C. 2008. Balancing the value and risk of socio-technical congruence. Proc. STC 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Proximity: a measure to quantify the need for developers' coordination

    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 Conferences
      CSCW '12: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work
      February 2012
      1460 pages
      ISBN:9781450310864
      DOI:10.1145/2145204

      Copyright © 2012 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: 11 February 2012

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CSCW '12 Paper Acceptance Rate164of415submissions,40%Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

      Upcoming Conference

      CSCW '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader