Specifying Learning

  • Miroslaw Staron


In this chapter, we describe methods used to increase the learning in the organization. We focus on the role of the researchers in this process and the need to reduce the bias introduced by them. We base this chapter on the theories and practices from the software process improvement field. However, we focus on identifying learning outcomes from studies, organizing them in categories, and packaging for the next action research cycle.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Dic97]
    Bob Dick. Action learning and action research. 1997.Google Scholar
  2. [DW15]
    Stephen Duffield and S Jonathan Whitty. Developing a systemic lessons learned knowledge model for organisational learning through projects. International journal of project management, 33(2):311–324, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [DW16]
    Stephen M Duffield and S Jonathan Whitty. Application of the systemic lessons learned knowledge model for organisational learning through projects. International journal of project management, 34(7):1280–1293, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [Goo82]
    Paul S Goodman. Creating long-term organizational change. Technical report, CARNEGIE-MELLON UNIV PITTSBURGH PA GRADUATE SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL ADMINISTRATION, 1982.Google Scholar
  5. [KS05]
    Ludwik Kuzniarz and Miroslaw Staron. Best practices for teaching UML based software development. In International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pages 320–332. Springer, 2005.Google Scholar
  6. [McC02]
    Steve McConnell. From the editor: How to write a good technical article. IEEE Software, (5):5–7, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. [PBG03]
    Thomas Panas, Rebecca Berrigan, and John Grundy. A 3d metaphor for software production visualization. In Proceedings on Seventh International Conference on Information Visualization, 2003. IV 2003., pages 314–319. IEEE, 2003.Google Scholar
  8. [PL14]
    Maria Paasivaara and Casper Lassenius. Communities of practice in a large distributed agile software development organization–case Ericsson. Information and Software Technology, 56(12):1556–1577, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [PR10]
    Marian Petre and Gordon Rugg. The unwritten rules of PhD research (open up study skills), 2010.Google Scholar
  10. [RHRR12]
    Per Runeson, Martin Host, Austen Rainer, and Bjorn Regnell. Case study research in software engineering: Guidelines and examples. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [SDDS16]
    Helen Sharp, Yvonne Dittrich, and Cleidson RB De Souza. The role of ethnographic studies in empirical software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 42(8):786–804, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [SHF+13]
    Miroslaw Staron, Jörgen Hansson, Robert Feldt, Anders Henriksson, Wilhelm Meding, Sven Nilsson, and Christoffer Höglund. Measuring and visualizing code stability–a case study at three companies. In 2013 Joint Conference of the 23rd International Workshop on Software Measurement and the 8th International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement, pages 191–200. IEEE, 2013.Google Scholar
  13. [SM18]
    Miroslaw Staron and Wilhelm Meding. Software Development Measurement Programs: Development, Management and Evolution. Springer, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [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
  15. [Tsa97]
    Eric WK Tsang. Organizational learning and the learning organization: a dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research. Human relations, 50(1):73–89, 1997.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