short-paper

Two Sides of the Same Coin: Software Developers' Perceptions of Task Switching and Task Interruption

Authors:

Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad,

Mohammad Noaeen,

Behrouz H. Far,

Ken BarkerAuthors Info & Claims

EASE '18: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering 2018

Pages 175 - 180

https://doi.org/10.1145/3210459.3214170

Published: 28 June 2018 Publication History

Abstract

In the constantly evolving world of software development, switching back and forth between tasks has become the norm. While task switching often allows developers to perform tasks effectively and may increase creativity via the flexible pathway, there are also consequences to frequent task-switching. For high-momentum tasks like software development, "flow", the highly productive state of concentration, is paramount. Each switch distracts the developers' flow, requiring them to switch mental state and an additional immersion period to get back into the flow. However, the wasted time due to time fragmentation caused by task switching is largely invisible and unnoticed by developers and managers. We conducted a survey with 141 software developers to investigate their perceptions of differences between task switching and task interruption and to explore whether they perceive task switchings as disruptive as interruptions. We found that practitioners perceive considerable similarities between the disruptiveness of task switching (either planned or unplanned) and random interruptions. The high level of cognitive cost and low performance are the main consequences of task switching articulated by our respondents. Our findings broaden the understanding of flow change among software practitioners in terms of the characteristics and categories of disruptive switches as well as the consequences of interruptions caused by daily meetings.

References

[1]

Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Oliver Karras, Kurt Schneider, Ken Barker, and Mike Bauer. 2018. Task Interruption in Software Development Projects: What Makes some Interruptions More Disruptive than Others?. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE'18). ACM.

Digital Library

[2]

Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Guenther Ruhe, and Mike Bauer. 2017. Task Interruptions in Requirements Engineering: Reality versus Perceptions!. In Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), 2017 IEEE 25th International. IEEE, 6--15.

[3]

Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Guenther Ruhe, and Mike Bauer. 2017. Understanding Task Interruptions in Service Oriented Software Development Projects: An Exploratory Study. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Software Engineering Research and Industrial Practice (SER&IP '17). IEEE Press, 34--40.

Digital Library

[4]

Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Alex Shymka, Jenny Le, Noor Hammad, and Guenther Ruhe. 2017. A Visual Narrative Path from Switching to Resuming a Requirements Engineering Task. In Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), 2017 IEEE 25th International. IEEE, 442--447.

[5]

Steve Adolph, Wendy Hall, and Philippe Kruchten. 2011. Using grounded theory to study the experience of software development. Empirical Software Engineering 16, 4 (2011), 487--513.

Digital Library

[6]

Erik M Altmann and J.Gregory Trafton. 2002. Memory for goals: an activation-based model. Cognitive Science 26, 1 (2002), 39--83.

[7]

Carey D Chisholm et al. 2000. Academic Emergency Medicine 7, 11 (2000), 1239--1243.

[8]

Jan Chong and Rosanne Siino. 2006. Interruptions on Software Teams: A Comparison of Paired and Solo Programmers. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 29--38.

Digital Library

[9]

Tom DeMarco and Tim Lister. 2013. Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams. Addison-Wesley.

Digital Library

[10]

Van Solingen et al. 1998. Interrupts: Just a Minute Never Is. IEEE software 15, 5 (1998), 97--103.

Digital Library

[11]

Graham R Gibbs. 2002. Qualitative data analysis: Explorations with NVivo. Open University.

[12]

Barbara Kitchenham et al. 2017. Robust Statistical Methods for Empirical Software Engineering", journal="Empirical Software Engineering. 22, 2 (2017), 579--630.

Digital Library

[13]

Chris Parnin and Spencer Rugaber. 2011. Resumption Strategies for Interrupted Programming Tasks. Software Quality Journal 19, 1 (2011), 5--34.

Digital Library

[14]

Dario D Salvucci and Niels A Taatgen. 2010. The multitasking mind. Oxford University Press.

[15]

David W Scott. 1979. On Optimal and Data-based Histograms. Biometrika 66, 3 (1979), 605--610.

[16]

Viktoria Stray, Dag IK Sjøberg, and Tore Dybå. 2016. The Daily Stand-up Meeting: A Grounded Theory Study. Journal of Systems and Software 114 (2016), 101--124.

Digital Library

[17]

Colin A. Terry, Punya Mishra, and Cary J. Roseth. 2016. Preference for multitasking, technological dependency, student metacognition, & pervasive technology use: An experimental intervention. Computers in Human Behavior 65 (2016), 241--251.

Digital Library

[18]

Bogdan et al. Vasilescu. 2016. The Sky is Not the Limit: Multitasking Across GitHub Projects. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering. 994--1005.

Digital Library

Cited By

Kreamer LRogelberg S(2024)Starting Your Day with Dread or Excitement? The Effects of Meeting Scheduling Cadences on Anticipated Daily OutcomesGroup & Organization Management10.1177/10596011231223263Online publication date: 7-Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011231223263
Sato TJackson AYamani Y(2024)Number of Interrupting Events Influences Response Time in Multitasking, but not Trust in AutomationThe International Journal of Aerospace Psychology10.1080/24721840.2024.231170634:4(208-224)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/24721840.2024.2311706
Levy ERafaeli SAriel Y(2024)The effects of online interruption pace and richness on task performanceAtlantic Journal of Communication10.1080/15456870.2024.231743432:5(844-858)Online publication date: 15-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2024.2317434
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Task Interruption in Software Development Projects: What Makes some Interruptions More Disruptive than Others?
EASE '18: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering 2018

Multitasking has always been an inherent part of software development and is known as the primary source of interruptions due to task switching in software development teams. Developing software involves a mix of analytical and creative work, and ...
A diary study of task switching and interruptions
CHI '04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

We report on a diary study of the activities of information workers aimed at characterizing how people interleave multiple tasks amidst interruptions. The week-long study revealed the type and complexity of activities performed, the nature of the ...
Preparing to resume an interrupted task: effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal
Notification user interfaces

We examine people's strategic cognitive responses to being interrupted while performing a task. Based on memory theory, we propose that resumption of a task after interruption is facilitated by preparation during the interruption lag, or the interval ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

EASE '18: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering 2018

June 2018

223 pages

ISBN:9781450364034

DOI:10.1145/3210459

General Chair:
Austen Rainer,
Program Chairs:
Stephen G. MacDonell,
Jacky Keung

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]

In-Cooperation

The University of Canterbury

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 28 June 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Short-paper
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

EASE'18

EASE'18: 22nd International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering 2018

June 28 - 29, 2018

Christchurch, New Zealand

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 71 of 232 submissions, 31%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

7
Total Citations
View Citations
234
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)47
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 27 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Kreamer LRogelberg S(2024)Starting Your Day with Dread or Excitement? The Effects of Meeting Scheduling Cadences on Anticipated Daily OutcomesGroup & Organization Management10.1177/10596011231223263Online publication date: 7-Jan-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011231223263
Sato TJackson AYamani Y(2024)Number of Interrupting Events Influences Response Time in Multitasking, but not Trust in AutomationThe International Journal of Aerospace Psychology10.1080/24721840.2024.231170634:4(208-224)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/24721840.2024.2311706
Levy ERafaeli SAriel Y(2024)The effects of online interruption pace and richness on task performanceAtlantic Journal of Communication10.1080/15456870.2024.231743432:5(844-858)Online publication date: 15-Feb-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2024.2317434
Ritonummi SSiitonen VSalo MPirkkalainen HSivunen AChandra SBlincoe KTonella P(2023)Flow Experience in Software EngineeringProceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3611643.3616263(618-630)Online publication date: 30-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3611643.3616263
Lunesu MTonelli RMarchesi LMarchesi M(2021)Assessing the Risk of Software Development in Agile Methodologies Using SimulationIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2021.31159419(134240-134258)Online publication date: 2021
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3115941
Abad ZGervasi VZowghi DFar BAtlee JBultan TWhittle J(2019)Supporting analysts by dynamic extraction and classification of requirements-related knowledgeProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering10.1109/ICSE.2019.00057(442-453)Online publication date: 25-May-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/ICSE.2019.00057
Abad ZKarras OSchneider KBarker KBauer MRainer AMacDonell SKeung J(2018)Task Interruption in Software Development ProjectsProceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering 201810.1145/3210459.3210471(122-132)Online publication date: 28-Jun-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3210459.3210471

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