Abstract
Software engineering is human intensive. Thus, it is important to understand and evaluate the value of different types of experiences, and their relation to the quality of the developed software. Many job advertisements focus on requiring knowledge of, for example, specific programming languages. This may seem sensible at first sight, but is it really possible to capture software development performance using this kind of simple measure? On the other hand, maybe it is sufficient to have general knowledge in programming and then it is enough to learn a specific language within the new job. Two key questions are (1) whether prior knowledge of a specific language actually does improve software quality and (2) whether it is possible to capture performance using simple quantitative measures? This paper presents an empirical study where the experience, for example with respect to a specific programming language, of students is assessed using a quantitative survey at the beginning of a course on the personal software process (PSP), and the outcome of the course is evaluated, for example, using the number of defects and development time. Statistical tests are used to analyze the relationship between experience/background and the performance of the students in terms of software quality. The results are mostly unexpected, for example, we are unable to show any significant relation between experience in the programming language used and the number of defects detected.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boehm, B. W., 1981. Software Engineering Economics. Englewood, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.
Briand, L. C., El Emam, K., and Morasca, S. 1996. On the application of measurement theory in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering: An International Journal 1(1): 61–88.
Brooks, F. 1980. Studying programmer behavior experimentally: The problems of proper methodology. Communications of the ACM 23(4): 207–213.
Brooks, F. 1987. No silver bullet: Essence and accidents of software engineering. IEEE Computer 20(4): 10–20.
Curtis, B. 1980. Measurement and experimentation in software engineering. Proceedings of IEEE 68(9), 1144–1157.
Ferguson, P., Humphrey, W. S., Khajenoori, S., Macke, S. and Matvya, A. 1997. Results of applying the personal software process. IEEE Computer 30(5): 24–31.
Höst, M., Regnell, B., and Wohlin, C. 2000. Using students as subjects-a comparative study of students and professionals in lead-time impact assessment. Empirical Software Engineering: An International Journal 5(3): 201–214.
Humphrey, W. S. 1995. A Discipline for Software Engineering. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Humphrey, W. S. 1997. Introduction to the Personal Software Process. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Humphrey, W. S. 1996. Using a defined and measured personal software process. IEEE Software, 77-88, May.
Kachigan, S. K. 1986. Statistical Analysis: An Introduction to Univariate &; Multivariate Methods. New York: Radius Press.
Montgomery, D. C. 1997. Design and Analysis of Experiments. 4th edition, New York, NY: John Wiley &; Sons.
Robson, C. 1993Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioners-Researchers. Blackwell.
Wesslén, A. 2000. A replicated empirical study of the impact of the methods in the PSP on individual engineers. Empirical Software Engineering: An International Journal 5(2): 93–123.
Wohlin, C. 1998. The personal software process as a context for empirical studies. IEEE TCSE Software Process Newsletter 12, pp. 7–12, Spring.
Wohlin, C., and Wesslén, A. 1998. Understanding software defect detection in the personal software process. Proceedings IEEE 8th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, pp. 49-58, Paderborn, Germany.
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., and Wesslén, A. Experimentation in Software Engineering?An Introduction. Boston, USA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wohlin, C. Are Individual Differences in Software Development Performance Possible to Capture Using a Quantitative Survey?. Empirical Software Engineering 9, 211–228 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EMSE.0000027780.08194.b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EMSE.0000027780.08194.b0