Ask the Engineers: Exploring Repertory Grids and Personal Constructs for Software Data Analysis

L. Layman, C. Seaman, D. Falessi, Madeline Diep
{"title":"Ask the Engineers: Exploring Repertory Grids and Personal Constructs for Software Data Analysis","authors":"L. Layman, C. Seaman, D. Falessi, Madeline Diep","doi":"10.1109/CHASE.2015.25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Maturity in software projects is often equated with data-driven predictability. However, data collection is expensive and measuring all variables that may correlate with project outcome is neither practical nor feasible. In contrast, a project engineer can identify a handful of factors that he or she believes influence the success of a project. The challenge is to quantify engineers' insights in a way that is useful for data analysis. In this exploratory study, we investigate the repertory grid technique for this purpose. The repertory grid technique is an interview-based procedure for eliciting \"constructs\" (e.g., Adhering to coding standards) that individuals believe influence a worldly phenomenon (e.g., What makes a high-quality software project) by comparing example elements from their past (e.g., Projects they have worked on). We investigate the relationship between objective metrics of project performance and repertory grid constructs elicited from eight software engineers. Our results show correlations between the engineers' subjective constructs and the objective project outcome measures. This suggests that repertory grids may be of benefit in developing models of project outcomes, particularly when project data is limited.","PeriodicalId":300965,"journal":{"name":"2015 IEEE/ACM 8th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2015 IEEE/ACM 8th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/CHASE.2015.25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Maturity in software projects is often equated with data-driven predictability. However, data collection is expensive and measuring all variables that may correlate with project outcome is neither practical nor feasible. In contrast, a project engineer can identify a handful of factors that he or she believes influence the success of a project. The challenge is to quantify engineers' insights in a way that is useful for data analysis. In this exploratory study, we investigate the repertory grid technique for this purpose. The repertory grid technique is an interview-based procedure for eliciting "constructs" (e.g., Adhering to coding standards) that individuals believe influence a worldly phenomenon (e.g., What makes a high-quality software project) by comparing example elements from their past (e.g., Projects they have worked on). We investigate the relationship between objective metrics of project performance and repertory grid constructs elicited from eight software engineers. Our results show correlations between the engineers' subjective constructs and the objective project outcome measures. This suggests that repertory grids may be of benefit in developing models of project outcomes, particularly when project data is limited.
问工程师:探索存储网格和个人结构的软件数据分析
软件项目的成熟度通常等同于数据驱动的可预测性。然而,数据收集是昂贵的,测量可能与项目结果相关的所有变量既不实际也不可行。相比之下,项目工程师可以确定他或她认为影响项目成功的少数因素。挑战在于如何以一种对数据分析有用的方式量化工程师的见解。在这项探索性研究中,我们为此目的研究了存储网格技术。库存网格技术是一种基于访谈的程序,用于通过比较他们过去的示例元素(例如,他们参与的项目)来引出个人认为影响世俗现象(例如,是什么造就了高质量的软件项目)的“构造”(例如,遵守编码标准)。我们调查了项目绩效的客观指标和从八个软件工程师引出的库存网格结构之间的关系。我们的结果显示了工程师的主观构建和客观项目结果度量之间的相关性。这表明储备网格可能有利于开发项目结果模型,特别是在项目数据有限的情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书