Margaret-Anne D. Storey

Margaret-Anne Storey, Brian Houck, Thomas Zimmermann

In this paper, we present the findings from a survey study to investigate how developers and managers define and trade-off developer productivity and software quality (two related lenses into software development). We found that developers and managers, as cohorts, are not well aligned in their views of what it means to be productive (developers think of productivity in terms of activity, while more managers think of productivity in terms of performance). We also found that developers are not accurate at predicting their managers' views of productivity. In terms of quality, we found that individual developers and managers have quite varied views of what quality means to them, but as cohorts they are closely aligned in their different views, with the majority in both groups defining quality in terms of robustness. Over half of the developers and managers reported that quality can be traded for higher productivity and why this trade-off can be justified, while one third consider quality as a necessary part of productivity that cannot be traded. We also present a new descriptive framework for quality, TRUCE, that we synthesize from the survey responses. We call for more discussion between developers and managers about what they each consider as important software quality attributes, and to have open debate about how software quality relates to developer productivity and what trade-offs should or should not be made.

Matthieu Foucault, Xavier Blanc, Margaret-Anne Storey et al.

Context: Technical debt management is challenging for software engineers due to poor tool support and a lack of knowledge on how to prioritize technical debt repayment and prevention activities. Furthermore, when there is a large backlog of debt, developers often lack the motivation to address it. Objective: In this paper, we describe a design study to investigate how gamification can support Technical Debt Management in a large legacy software system of an industrial company. Our study leads to a novel tool (named Themis) that combines technical debt support, version control, and gamification features. In addition to gamification features, Themis provides suggestions for developers on where to focus their effort, and visualizations for managers to track technical debt activities. Method: We describe how Themis was refined and validated in an iterative deployment with the company, finally conducting a qualitative study to investigate how the features of Themis affect technical debt management behavior. We consider the impact on both developers and managers. Results: Our results show that it achieves increased developer motivation, and supports managers in monitoring and influencing developer behaviors. We show how our findings may be transferable to other contexts by proposing guidelines on how to apply gamification. Conclusions: With this case, gamification appears as a promising solution to help technical debt management, although it needs to be carefully designed and implemented to avoid its possible negative effects.

Carlene Lebeuf, Margaret-Anne Storey, Alexey Zagalsky

Modern software developers rely on an extensive set of social media tools and communication channels. The adoption of team communication platforms has led to the emergence of conversation-based tools and integrations, many of which are chatbots. Understanding how software developers manage their complex constellation of collaborators in conjunction with the practices and tools they use can bring valuable insights into socio-technical collaborative work in software development and other knowledge work domains. In this paper, we explore how chatbots can help reduce the friction points software developers face when working collaboratively. Using a socio-technical model for collaborative work, we identify three main areas for conflict: friction stemming from team interactions with each other, an individual's interactions with technology, and team interactions with technology. Finally, we provide a set of open questions for discussion within the research community.