Advertisement

Hearing the Voice of Software Practitioners on Causes, Effects, and Practices to Deal with Documentation Debt

  • Nicolli Rios
  • Leonardo Mendes
  • Cristina Cerdeiral
  • Ana Patrícia F. Magalhães
  • Boris Perez
  • Darío Correal
  • Hernán Astudillo
  • Carolyn Seaman
  • Clemente Izurieta
  • Gleison Santos
  • Rodrigo Oliveira SpínolaEmail author
Conference paper
  • 34 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 12045)

Abstract

[Context and Motivation] It is common for teams to take shortcuts during software development that, in the future, will lead to maintainability issues and affect productivity and development cost. Different types of technical debt may affect software projects, including those associated with software documentation. Although there are many studies on technical debt, few focus on documentation debt in an industrial environment. [Question/Problem] We aimed to identify how software practitioners perceive the occurrence of documentation debt in their projects. We present a combined analysis of the results from two complementary studies: a survey (InsighTD) and an interview-based case study. [Principal Ideas/Results] We provide a list of causes and effects of documentation debt, along with practices that can be used to deal with it during software development projects. [Contribution] We find that documentation debt is strongly related to requirements issues. Moreover, we propose a theoretical framework, which provides a comprehensive depiction of the documentation debt phenomenon.

Keywords

Documentation debt Causes of documentation debt Effects of documentation debt Technical debt InsighTD 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel - Brazil (Capes), under the Capes/IIASA Sandwich Doctoral Program, process nº 88881.189667/2018-01. This research was also supported in part by funds received from the David A. Wilson Award for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, which was created by the Laureate International Universities network to support research focused on teaching and learning. For more information on the award or Laureate, please visit www.laureate.net.

References

  1. 1.
    Kruchten, P., Nord, R., Ozkaya, I.: Technical debt: from metaphor to theory and practice. IEEE Softw. 29(6), 18–21 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2012.167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spínola, R.O., Zazworka, N., Vetro, A., Shull, F., Seaman, C.: Understanding automated and human-based technical debt identification approaches-a two-phase study. J. Braz. Comput. Soc. 25 (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13173-019-0087-5
  3. 3.
    Ernst, N.A., Bellomo, S., Ozkaya, I., Nord, R.L., Gorton, I.: Measure it? Manage it? Ignore it? Software practitioners and technical debt. In: Proceedings of the 2015 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering, ESEC/FSE 2015, pp. 50–60. ACM, New York (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2786805.2786848
  4. 4.
    Rios, N., Mendonça, M.G., Spínola, R.O.: A tertiary study on technical debt: types, management strategies, research trends, and base information for practitioners. Inf. Softw. Technol. 102, 117–145 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2018.05.010. ISSN 0950-5849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ampatzoglou, A., et al.: The perception of technical debt in the embedded systems domain: an industrial case study. In: 8th International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M.C., Regnell, B., Wesslén, A.: Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29044-2zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seaman, C., Guo, Y.: Measuring and monitoring technical debt. Adv. Comput. 82, 22 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li, Z., Avgeriou, P., Liang, P.: A systematic mapping study on technical debt and its management. J. Syst. Softw. 101, 193–220 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alves, N.S.R., Mendes, T.S., de Mendonça, M.G., Spínola, R.O., Shull, F., Seaman, C.: Identification and management of technical debt: a systematic mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 70, 100–121 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2015.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Avgeriou, P., Kruchten, P., Ozkaya, I., Seaman, C.: Managing technical debt in software engineering (dagstuhl seminar 16162). In: Dagstuhl Reports, vol. 6, no. 4. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yli-Huumo, J., Maglyas, A., Smolander, K.: How do software development teams manage technical debt? An empirical study. J. Syst. Soft. 120, 195–218 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rios, N., Spínola, R.O., Mendonça, M.G., Seaman, C.: The most common causes and effects of technical debt: first results from a global family of industrial surveys. In: The Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, Oulu, p. 10. ACM, New York (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1145/3239235.3268917. Article no. 39
  13. 13.
    Rios, N., Mendonça, M., Seaman, C., Spínola, R.O.: Causes and effects of the presence of technical debt in agile software projects. In: The Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), Cancun (2019)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rios, N., Spínola, R.O., Mendonça, M.G., Seaman, C.: Supporting analysis of technical debt causes and effects with cross-company probabilistic cause-effect diagrams. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technical Debt (TechDebt 2019), pp. 3–12. IEEE Press, Piscataway (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1109/techdebt.2019.00009
  15. 15.
    Seaman, C.: Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 25(4), 557–572 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1109/32.799955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Strauss, A., Corbin, J.M.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Freire, S., et al.: Actions and impediments for technical debt prevention: results from a global family of industrial surveys. To appear in the Proceedings of the 35th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied ComputingGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klotins, E., et al.: Exploration of technical debt in start-ups. In: Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP 2018), pp. 75–84. ACM, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nayebi, M., et al.: A longitudinal study of identifying and paying down architecture debt. In: Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice, pp. 171–180. IEEE Press (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSE-SEIP.2019.00026
  20. 20.
    Arkley, P., Riddle, S.: Overcoming the traceability benefit problem. In: The Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE 2005), Paris, France (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1109/re.2005.49
  21. 21.
    Berry, D.M., Czarnecki, K., Antkiewicz, M., Abdelrazik, M.: The problem of the lack of benefit of a document to its producer. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Science, Technology and Engineering, Beer-Sheva, Israel (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/swste.2016.14

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolli Rios
    • 1
  • Leonardo Mendes
    • 2
  • Cristina Cerdeiral
    • 2
  • Ana Patrícia F. Magalhães
    • 8
  • Boris Perez
    • 3
    • 4
  • Darío Correal
    • 3
  • Hernán Astudillo
    • 5
  • Carolyn Seaman
    • 6
  • Clemente Izurieta
    • 7
  • Gleison Santos
    • 2
  • Rodrigo Oliveira Spínola
    • 8
    Email author
  1. 1.Federal University of BahiaSalvadorBrazil
  2. 2.Federal University of the State of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.University of Los AndesBogotaColombia
  4. 4.University Francisco de Paula SantanderCúcutaColombia
  5. 5.Univ. Técnica Federico Santa MaríaValparaísoChile
  6. 6.University of Maryland Baltimore CountyBaltimoreUSA
  7. 7.Montana State UniversityBozemanUSA
  8. 8.Salvador UniversitySalvadorBrazil

Personalised recommendations