Once we plan and take actions, we need to understand the impact of the action on the organization. Since we are part of the action, and our actions cause effects, we need objective data to analyze the impact of these actions. In this chapter, we describe a selection of data analysis techniques, which are used often as part of action research studies in software engineering. We provide a selection of data visualization methods, statistics, and machine learning to show how to assess the impact of our actions. We also discuss qualitative data analysis methods that can be helpful in analyzing data collected in our research logs or through interviews and workshops.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [ASM+14]Vard Antinyan, Miroslaw Staron, Wilhelm Meding, Per Österström, Erik Wikstrom, Johan Wranker, Anders Henriksson, and Jörgen Hansson. Identifying risky areas of software code in agile/lean software development: An industrial experience report. In Software Maintenance, Reengineering and Reverse Engineering (CSMR-WCRE), 2014 Software Evolution Week-IEEE Conference on, pages 154–163. IEEE, 2014.Google Scholar
- [BRE13]Tanja Blascheck, Michael Raschke, and Thomas Ertl. Circular heat map transition diagram. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Eye Tracking South Africa, pages 58–61. ACM, 2013.Google Scholar
- [ÇSM18]Gül Çalikli, Miroslaw Staron, and Wilhelm Meding. Measure early and decide fast: transforming quality management and measurement to continuous deployment. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Software and System Process, pages 51–60. ACM, 2018.Google Scholar
- [DS+11]David P Doane, Lori Welte Seward, et al. Applied statistics in business and economics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin,, 2011.Google Scholar
- [GUH16]Carlos A Gomez-Uribe and Neil Hunt. The Netflix recommender system: Algorithms, business value, and innovation. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS), 6(4):13, 2016.Google Scholar
- [Har12]Peter Harrington. Machine learning in action, volume 5. Manning Greenwich, CT, 2012.Google Scholar
- [Lan13]Brett Lantz. Machine learning with R. Packt Publishing Ltd, 2013.Google Scholar
- [Qui14]J Ross Quinlan. C4. 5: programs for machine learning. Elsevier, 2014.Google Scholar
- [RM16]Colin Robson and Kieran McCartan. Real world research. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.Google Scholar
- [SHF+13]Miroslaw Staron, Jorgen Hansson, Robert Feldt, Anders Henriksson, Wilhelm Meding, Sven Nilsson, and Christoffer Hoglund. Measuring and visualizing code stability–a case study at three companies. In Software Measurement and the 2013 Eighth International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement (IWSM-MENSURA), 2013 Joint Conference of the 23rd International Workshop on, pages 191–200. IEEE, 2013.Google Scholar
- [SMNA16]Miroslaw Staron, Wilhelm Meding, Kent Niesel, and Alain Abran. A key performance indicator quality model and its industrial evaluation. In Software Measurement and the International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement (IWSM-MENSURA), 2016 Joint Conference of the International Workshop on, pages 170–179. IEEE, 2016.Google Scholar
- [SNB18]Miroslaw Staron, Kent Niesel, and Niclas Bauman. Milestone-oriented usage of key performance indicators–an industrial case study. e-Informatica Software Engineering Journal, 12(1), 2018.Google Scholar
- [Tel07]Alexandru C Telea. Data visualization: principles and practice. AK Peters/CRC Press, 2007.Google Scholar
- [Tor15]Adam Tornhill. Your code as a crime scene. Pragmatic Bookshelf, 2015.Google Scholar