skip to main content
research-article

Context factors perceived important when looking for similar experiences in decision‐making for software components: : An interview study

Published: 16 September 2024 Publication History

Abstract

During software evolution, decisions related to components' origin or source significantly impact the quality properties of the product and development metrics such as cost, time to market, ease of maintenance, and further evolution. Thus, such decisions should ideally be supported by evidence, i.e., using previous experiences and information from different sources, even own previous experiences. A hindering factor to such reuse of previous experiences is that these decisions are highly context‐dependent and it is difficult to identify when previous experiences come from sufficiently similar contexts to be useful in a current setting. Conversely, when documenting a decision (as a decision experience), it is difficult to know which context factors will be most beneficial when reusing the experience in the future. An interview study is performed to identify a list of context factors that are perceived to be most important by practitioners when using experiences to support decision‐making for component sourcing, using a specific scenario with alternative sources of experiences. We observed that the further away (from a company or an interviewee) the experience evidence is, as is the case for online experiences, the more context factors are perceived as important by practitioners to make use of the experience. Furthermore, we discuss and identify further research to make this type of decision‐making more evidence‐based.

Graphical Abstract

With this interview study, which focuses on which context factors are perceived as important by practitioners when reusing previous knowledge on software component reuse, we contribute with a listing of factors perceived to be important when reusing experiences from other prior decision‐making cases of selecting among software components options.

References

[1]
Oxford University Press . Oxford Dictionary. Accessed: 2022‐02‐15; 2020.
[2]
Petersen K, Carlson J, Papatheocharous E, Wnuk K. Context checklist for industrial software engineering research and practice. Comput Stand Interf. 2021;78:103541.
[3]
Kitchenham BA, Dybå T, Jørgensen M. Evidence‐based software engineering. In: Proceedings 26th International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE; 2004:273‐281.
[4]
Dybå T, Kitchenham BA, Jørgensen M. Evidence‐based software engineering for practitioners. IEEE Softw. 2005;22(1):58‐65.
[5]
Petersen K, Wohlin C. Context in industrial software engineering research. In: Proceedings 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. IEEE; 2009:401‐404.
[6]
Clarke P, O'Connor RV. The situational factors that affect the software development process: towards a comprehensive reference framework. Inform Softw Technol. 2012;54(5):433‐447.
[7]
Dybå T, Sjøberg DIK, Cruzes DS. What works for whom, where, when, and why? On the role of context in empirical software engineering. In: Proceedings 6th International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. ACM; 2012:19‐28.
[8]
Dybå T. Contextualizing empirical evidence. IEEE Softw. 2013;30(1):81‐83.
[9]
Wohlin C, Rainer A. Challenges and recommendations to publishing and using credible evidence in software engineering. Inform Softw Technol. 2021;134:106555.
[10]
Wohlin C, Papatheocharous E, Carlson J, et al. Towards evidence‐based decision‐making for identification and usage of assets in composite software: a research roadmap. J Softw: Evol Process. 2021;134:106555.
[11]
Briand L, Bianculli D, Nejati S, Pastore F, Sabetzadeh M. The case for context‐driven software engineering research: generalizability is overrated. IEEE Softw. 2017;34(5):72‐75.
[12]
Basili V, Briand L, Bianculli D, Nejati S, Pastore F, Sabetzadeh M. Software engineering research and industry: a symbiotic relationship to foster impact. IEEE Softw. 2018;35(5):44‐49.
[13]
Tang A, Lau MF. Software architecture review by association. J Syst Software. 2014;88:87‐101.
[14]
Basili VR, Caldiera G, Rombach HD. Experience factory. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering: American Cancer Society; 2002. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/0471028959.sof110
[15]
Shrikanth NC, Menzies T. Assessing practitioner beliefs about software defect prediction. In: 2020 IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE‐SEIP). ACM; 2020:182‐190.
[16]
Passos C, Braun AP, Cruzes DS, Mendonca M. Analyzing the impact of beliefs in software project practices. In: Proceedings International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. IEEE; 2011:444‐452.
[17]
Wohlin C, Aurum A, Angelis L, et al. The success factors powering industry‐academia collaboration. IEEE Softw. 2012;29(2):67‐73.
[18]
Gorschek T, Garre P, Larsson S, Wohlin C. A model for technology transfer in practice. IEEE Softw. 2006;23(6):88‐95.
[19]
Gorschek T, Wnuk K. Third generation industrial co‐production in software engineering. In: Felderer M, Travassos GH, eds. Contemporary Empirical Methods in Software Engineering: Springer International Publishing; 2020:503‐525.
[20]
Badampudi D, Wohlin C, Petersen K. Software component decision‐making: in‐house, OSS, COTS or outsourcing—a systematic literature review. J Syst Softw. 2016;121:105‐124.
[21]
Li J, Bjørnson FO, Conradi R, Kampenes VB. An empirical study of variations in COTS‐based software development processes in the Norwegian IT industry. Empir Softw Eng. 2006;11(3):433‐461.
[22]
Li J, Conradi R, Bunse C, Torchiano M, Slyngstad OPN, Morisio M. Development with off‐the‐shelf components: 10 facts. IEEE Softw. 2009;26(2):80‐87.
[23]
Li X, Moreschini S, Zhang Z, Taibi D. Exploring factors and metrics to select open source software components for integration: an empirical study. J Syst Softw. 2022;188:111255.
[24]
Kirk D, MacDonell S. Categorising software contexts. In: Proceedings 20th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS). Association for Information Systems; 2014.
[25]
Bi T, Liang P, Tang A. Architecture patterns, quality attributes, and design contexts: How developers design with them. In: 2018 25th Asia‐Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC). IEEE; 2018:49‐58.
[26]
Bedjeti A, Lago P, Lewis GA, De Boer RD, Hilliard R. Modeling context with an architecture viewpoint. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture (ICSA). IEEE; 2017:117‐120.
[27]
Harper KE, Zheng J. Exploring software architecture context. In: 2015 12th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture. IEEE; 2015:123‐126.
[28]
Cartaxo B, Saraiva J, Almeida A, Barreiros E, Neto WPF, Soares S. Mechanisms to characterize context of empirical studies in software engineering. In: Proceedings 18th Ibero‐Americal Conference on Software Engineering. Curran Associates, Inc.; 2015:281.
[29]
Carlson J, Papatheocharous E, Petersen K. A context model for architectural decision support. In: Proceedings 1st International Workshop on Decision Making in Software ARCHitecture (MARCH). IEEE; 2016:9‐15.
[30]
Hertzum M. The importance of trust in software engineers' assessment and choice of information sources. Inform Org. 2002;12(1):1‐18.
[31]
Jansen BJ, Rieh SY. The seventeen theoretical constructs of information searching and information retrieval. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol. 2010;61(8):1517‐1534.
[32]
Freund L. Contextualizing the information‐seeking behavior of software engineers. J Assoc Inform Sci Technol. 2015;66(8):1594‐1605.
[33]
Borg M, Alégroth E, Runeson P. Software engineers' information seeking behavior in change impact analysis—an interview study. In: 2017 IEEE/ACM 25th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC). IEEE; 2017:12‐22.
[34]
Baltes S, Ralph P. Sampling in software engineering research: a critical review and guidelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:200207764; 2020.
[35]
Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107‐115.
[36]
Aghajani E. Context‐aware software documentation. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). IEEE; 2018:727‐731.
[37]
Devanbu P, Zimmermann T, Bird C. Belief and evidence: how software engineers form their opinions. IEEE Softw. 2018;35(6):72‐76. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2018.4321246
[38]
Bjørnson FO, Dingsøyr T. Knowledge management in software engineering: a systematic review of studied concepts, findings and research methods used. Inform Softw Technol. 2008;50(11):1055‐1068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.03.006
[39]
Petersen K, Gencel C. Worldviews, research methods, and their relationship to validity in empirical software engineering research. In: 2013 Joint Conference of the 23rd International Workshop on Software Measurement and the 8th International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement. IEEE; 2013:81‐89.
[40]
Flyvbjerg B. Five misunderstandings about case‐study research. Qual Inq. 2006;12(2):219‐245.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of Software: Evolution and Process
Journal of Software: Evolution and Process  Volume 36, Issue 9
September 2024
240 pages
EISSN:2047-7481
DOI:10.1002/smr.v36.9
Issue’s Table of Contents
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Publisher

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

United States

Publication History

Published: 16 September 2024

Author Tags

  1. components off‐the‐shelf
  2. context factors
  3. decision experience
  4. decision‐making
  5. experience source
  6. in‐house
  7. open‐source software

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 0
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 21 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media