Advertisement

Action Taking

  • Miroslaw Staron
Chapter
  • 441 Downloads

Abstract

Once we make a plan for the actions, we need to execute them, and we need to execute them correctly and efficiently and with a lot of respect to the host organization—our context. In this chapter, we explore the types of actions in action research in software engineering. We look deeper into what it means to execute these specific actions. We also describe how to prepare before action taking, e.g., what data to collect and how to collect the data for the later usage in the evaluation phase. We focus on actions taken in the company with the focus on company’s employees, and we explore customer experiment systems, i.e., when customer data is involved.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [ASSH16]
    Vard Antinyan, Miroslaw Staron, Anna Sandberg, and Jörgen Hansson. Validating software measures using action research a method and industrial experiences. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, page 23. ACM, 2016.Google Scholar
  2. [BE12]
    Jan Bosch and Ulrik Eklund. Eternal embedded software: Towards innovation experiment systems. In International Symposium On Leveraging Applications of Formal Methods, Verification and Validation, pages 19–31. Springer, 2012.Google Scholar
  3. [BLR+10]
    Victor R Basili, Mikael Lindvall, Myrna Regardie, Carolyn Seaman, Jens Heidrich, Jürgen Münch, Dieter Rombach, and Adam Trendowicz. Linking software development and business strategy through measurement. Computer, 43(4):57–65, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [CR94]
    Victor R Basili-Gianluigi Caldiera and H Dieter Rombach. Goal question metric paradigm. Encyclopedia of software engineering, 1:528–532, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. [DGKV17]
    Pavel Dmitriev, Somit Gupta, Dong Woo Kim, and Garnet Vaz. A dirty dozen: Twelve common metric interpretation pitfalls in online controlled experiments. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’17, pages 1427–1436, New York, NY, USA, 2017. ACM.Google Scholar
  6. [GKA+82]
    Paul S Goodman, Lance B Kurke, Chris Argyris, Barry M Staw, and Clayton P Alderfer. Change in organizations. Technical report, CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIV PITTSBURGH PA GRADUATE SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL ADMINISTRATION, 1982.Google Scholar
  7. [Hum95]
    Watts S Humphrey. A discipline for software engineering. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1995.Google Scholar
  8. [JKA+03]
    Philip M Johnson, Hongbing Kou, Joy Agustin, Christopher Chan, Carleton Moore, Jitender Miglani, Shenyan Zhen, and William EJ Doane. Beyond the personal software process: Metrics collection and analysis for the differently disciplined. In Software Engineering, 2003. Proceedings. 25th International Conference on, pages 641–646. IEEE, 2003.Google Scholar
  9. [Jor15]
    Danny L Jorgensen. Participant observation. Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource, pages 1–15, 2015.Google Scholar
  10. [KCL+09]
    Ronny Kohavi, Thomas Crook, Roger Longbotham, Brian Frasca, Randy Henne, Juan Lavista Ferres, and Tamir Melamed. Online experimentation at Microsoft. Data Mining Case Studies, 11:39, 2009.Google Scholar
  11. [LTF17]
    Per Lenberg, Lars Göran Wallgren Tengberg, and Robert Feldt. An initial analysis of software engineers’ attitudes towards organizational change. Empirical Software Engineering, 22(4):2179–2205, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [MBM+17]
    André N Meyer, Laura E Barton, Gail C Murphy, Thomas Zimmermann, and Thomas Fritz. The work life of developers: Activities, switches and perceived productivity. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 43(12):1178–1193, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [McN13]
    Jean McNiff. Action research: Principles and practice. Routledge, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [MS13]
    Lars Mathiassen and Anna Sandberg. How a professionally qualified doctoral student bridged the practice-research gap: a confessional account of collaborative practice research. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(4):475–492, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [SM15]
    Miroslaw Staron and Wilhelm Meding. Measurement-as-a-service–a new way of organizing measurement programs in large software development companies. In Software Measurement, pages 144–159. Springer, 2015.Google Scholar
  16. [SM18]
    Miroslaw Staron and Wilhelm Meding. Software Development Measurement Programs: Development, Management and Evolution. Springer, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [SME+15]
    Miroslaw Staron, Wilhelm Meding, Peter Eriksson, Jimmy Nilsson, Nils Lövgren, and Per Österström. Classifying obstructive and nonobstructive code clones of type I using simplified classification scheme: a case study. Advances in Software Engineering, 2015:5, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [Sta17]
    Miroslaw Staron. Automotive Software Architectures: An Introduction. Springer, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [WRH+12]
    Claes Wohlin, Per Runeson, Martin Höst, Magnus C Ohlsson, Björn Regnell, and Anders Wesslén. Experimentation in software engineering. Springer, 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miroslaw Staron
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations