Charting a Path to Efficient Onboarding: The Role of Software Visualization
Pages 133 - 143
Abstract
Background. Within the software industry, it is commonly estimated that software professionals invest a substantial portion of their work hours in the process of understanding existing systems. In this context, an ineffective technical onboarding process, which introduces newcomers to software under development, can result in a prolonged period for them to absorb the necessary knowledge required to become productive in their roles. Goal. The present study aims to explore the familiarity of managers, leaders, and developers with software visualization tools and how these tools are employed to facilitate the technical onboarding of new team members. Method. To address the research problem, we built upon the insights gained through the literature and embraced a sequential exploratory approach. This approach incorporated quantitative and qualitative analyses of data collected from practitioners using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Findings. Our findings demonstrate a gap between the concept of software visualization and the practical use of onboarding tools and techniques. Overall, practitioners do not systematically incorporate software visualization tools into their technical onboarding processes due to a lack of conceptual understanding and awareness of their potential benefits. Conclusion. The software industry could benefit from standardized and evolving onboarding models, improved by incorporating software visualization techniques and tools to support program comprehension of newcomers in the software projects.
References
[1]
Sebastian Baltes and Paul Ralph. 2022. Sampling in software engineering research: A critical review and guidelines. Empirical Software Engineering 27, 4 (2022), 1--31.
[2]
Talya N Bauer. 2010. Onboarding new employees: Maximizing success. SHRM Foundation's Effective practice guidelines series (2010).
[3]
Talya N Bauer and Berrin Erdogan. 2011. Organizational socialization: The effective onboarding of new employees. (2011).
[4]
Finn Olav Bjørnson and Torgeir Dingsøyr. 2008. Knowledge management in software engineering: A systematic review of studied concepts, findings and research methods used. Information and software technology 50, 11 (2008), 1055--1068.
[5]
Ricardo Britto, Daniela S Cruzes, Darja Smite, and Aivars Sablis. 2018. Onboarding software developers and teams in three globally distributed legacy projects: A multi-case study. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 30, 4 (2018), e1921.
[6]
Ricardo Britto, Darja Smite, Lars-Ola Damm, and Jürgen Börstler. 2019. Performance evolution of newcomers in large-scale distributed software projects: An industrial case study. In 2019 ACM/IEEE 14th International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE). IEEE, 1--11.
[7]
Michael Burch, Tanja Munz, Fabian Beck, and Daniel Weiskopf. 2015. Visualizing work processes in software engineering with developer rivers. In 2015 IEEE 3rd working conference on software visualization (VISSOFT). IEEE, 116--124.
[8]
Andrei Chiş, Tudor Gîrba, Juraj Kubelka, Oscar Nierstrasz, Stefan Reichhart, and Aliaksei Syrel. 2017. Moldable tools for object-oriented development. Present and Ulterior Software Engineering (2017), 77--101.
[9]
Daniela S Cruzes and Tore Dyba. 2011. Recommended steps for thematic synthesis in software engineering. In 2011 international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement. IEEE, 275--284.
[10]
Stephan Diehl. 2007. Software visualization: visualizing the structure, behaviour, and evolution of software. Springer Science & Business Media.
[11]
Stephan Diehl. 2015. Past, Present, and Future of and in Software Visualization. In Computer Vision, Imaging and Computer Graphics-Theory and Applications: International Joint Conference, VISIGRAPP 2014, Lisbon, Portugal, January 5--8, 2014, Revised Selected Papers 9. Springer, 3--11.
[12]
James Dominic, Charles Ritter, and Paige Rodeghero. 2020. Onboarding bot for newcomers to software engineering. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software and System Processes. 91--94.
[13]
David L Driscoll, Afua Appiah-Yeboah, Philip Salib, and Douglas J Rupert. 2007. Merging qualitative and quantitative data in mixed methods research: How to and why not. (2007).
[14]
Steve Easterbrook, Janice Singer, Margaret-Anne Storey, and Daniela Damian. 2008. Selecting empirical methods for software engineering research. Guide to advanced empirical software engineering (2008), 285--311.
[15]
Nicole Forsgren, Margaret-Anne Storey, Chandra Maddila, Thomas Zimmermann, Brian Houck, and Jenna Butler. 2021. The SPACE of Developer Productivity: There's more to it than you think. Queue 19, 1 (2021), 20--48.
[16]
Darren George and Paul Mallery. 2018. Descriptive statistics. In IBM SPSS Statistics 25 Step by Step. Routledge, 126--134.
[17]
Denis Gračanin, Krešimir Matković, and Mohamed Eltoweissy. 2005. Software Visualization. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering 1, 2 (2005), 221--230.
[18]
Danny Holten. 2006. Hierarchical edge bundles: Visualization of adjacency relations in hierarchical data. IEEE Transactions on visualization and computer graphics 12, 5 (2006), 741--748.
[19]
Siw Elisabeth Hove and Bente Anda. 2005. Experiences from conducting semi-structured interviews in empirical software engineering research. In 11th IEEE International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS'05). IEEE, 10--pp.
[20]
Johan Linaker, Sardar Muhammad Sulaman, Martin Höst, and Rafael Maiani de Mello. 2015. Guidelines for conducting surveys in software engineering v. 1.1. Lund University 50 (2015).
[21]
Roberto Erick Lopez-Herrejon, Sheny Illescas, and Alexander Egyed. 2018. A systematic mapping study of information visualization for software product line engineering. Journal of software: evolution and process 30, 2 (2018), e1912.
[22]
Leonel Merino, Mohammad Ghafari, and Oscar Nierstrasz. 2016. Towards actionable visualisation in software development. In 2016 IEEE Working Conference on Software Visualization (VISSOFT). IEEE, 61--70.
[23]
Leonel Merino, Mircea Lungu, and Christoph Seidl. 2020. Unleashing the potentials of immersive augmented reality for software engineering. In 2020 IEEE 27th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER). IEEE, 517--521.
[24]
Sharan B Merriam and Elizabeth J Tisdell. 2015. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
[25]
Jefferson Seide Molléri, Kai Petersen, and Emilia Mendes. 2016. Survey guidelines in software engineering: An annotated review. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement. 1--6.
[26]
Jefferson Seide Molléri, Kai Petersen, and Emilia Mendes. 2020. An empirically evaluated checklist for surveys in software engineering. Information and Software Technology 119 (2020), 106240.
[27]
Brad A Myers. 1986. Visual programming, programming by example, and program visualization: a taxonomy. ACM sigchi bulletin 17, 4 (1986), 59--66.
[28]
Brad A Myers. 1990. Taxonomies of Visual Programming and Program Visualization. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 1, 1 (1990), 97--123.
[29]
Jakob Nielsen. 1994. Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 152--158.
[30]
Kamruddin Md Nur and Hasan Sarwar. 2010. Software visualization tools for software comprehension. SKIMA 2010 (2010), 185.
[31]
Paige Rodeghero, Thomas Zimmermann, Brian Houck, and Denae Ford. 2021. Please turn your cameras on: Remote onboarding of software developers during a pandemic. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP). IEEE, 41--50.
[32]
James Stanier. 2022. Effective Remote Work. Pragmatic Bookshelf.
[33]
Frank Steinbrückner and Claus Lewerentz. 2013. Understanding Software Evolution with Software Cities. Information Visualization 12, 2 (2013), 200--216.
[34]
Igor Steinmacher, Marco Aurélio Gerosa, and David Redmiles. 2014. Attracting, onboarding, and retaining newcomer developers in open source software projects. In Workshop on Global Software Development in a CSCW Perspective, Vol. 16. 20.
[35]
Margaret-Anne Storey. 2006. Theories, tools and research methods in program comprehension: past, present and future. Software Quality Journal 14 (2006), 187--208.
[36]
Margaret-Anne Storey, Chris Bennett, R Ian Bull, and Daniel M German. 2008. Remixing visualization to support collaboration in software maintenance. In 2008 Frontiers of Software Maintenance. IEEE, 139--148.
[37]
Scott Tilley and Shihong Huang. 2002. On selecting software visualization tools for program understanding in an industrial context. In Proceedings 10th International Workshop on Program Comprehension. IEEE, 285--288.
[38]
Bret Victor. 2012. Learnable programming: Designing a programming system for understanding programs. URL: http://worrydream.com/LearnableProgramming (2012).
[39]
Giovanni Viviani and Gail C Murphy. 2019. Reflections on Onboarding Practices in Mid-Sized Companies. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 12th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE). IEEE, 83--84.
[40]
Xin Xia, Lingfeng Bao, David Lo, Zhenchang Xing, Ahmed E Hassan, and Shanping Li. 2017. Measuring program comprehension: A large-scale field study with professionals. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 44, 10 (2017), 951--976.
[41]
Rebecca Yates, Norah Power, and Jim Buckley. 2020. Characterizing the transfer of program comprehension in onboarding: an information-push perspective. Empirical Software Engineering 25 (2020), 940--995.
[42]
Mansooreh Zahedi, Mojtaba Shahin, and Muhammad Ali Babar. 2016. A systematic review of knowledge sharing challenges and practices in global software development. International Journal of Information Management 36, 6 (2016), 995--1019.
Recommendations
Towards empirically validated software architecture visualization
SoftVis '06: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM symposium on Software visualizationVisualization is a sound means to facilitate understanding of complex correlations and offers a broad variety of concepts. A problem with the visualization of software architectures is that there are almost no empirical evidences of the benefits of ...
Software visualization in software maintenance, reverse engineering, and re-engineering: a research survey
Software visualization is concerned with the static visualization as well as the animation of software artifacts, such as source code, executable programs, and the data they manipulate, and their attributes, such as size, complexity, or dependencies. ...
MetricAttitude++: enhancing polymetric views with information retrieval
ICPC '17: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Program ComprehensionMetricAttitude is a visualization tool based on static analysis that provides a mental picture by viewing an object-oriented software by means of polymetric views. In this tool demonstration paper, we integrate an information retrieval engine in ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
April 2024
210 pages
ISBN:9798400705335
DOI:10.1145/3641822
- General Chair:
- Daniel Graziotin,
- Program Chairs:
- Alexander Nolte,
- Birgit Penzenstadler,
- Klaas-Jan Stol,
- Giuseppe Destefanis,
- Adriana Meza Soria,
- Silvia Abrahão
Copyright © 2024 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to 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 the author(s) 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].
Sponsors
In-Cooperation
- Faculty of Engineering of University of Porto
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 12 June 2024
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
CHASE '24
Sponsor:
CHASE '24: 2024 IEEE/ACM 17th International Conference on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering
April 14 - 15, 2024
Lisbon, Portugal
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 47 of 70 submissions, 67%
Upcoming Conference
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 23Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)23
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7
Reflects downloads up to 14 Aug 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Get Access
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in