Miscommunication in Software Projects: Early Recognition Through Tendency Forecasts

  • Fabian Kortum
  • Jil Klünder
  • Kurt Schneider
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10027)


Efficient team communication is essential for software project success. Misunderstood or underestimated demands on customer requirements and insufficient information sharing within a team can rapidly cause the delay of software releases, hamper customer satisfaction or even endanger the project succeed. The challenges remain to quantify the right amount of communication according to durations, necessary effort, and the ambitions to avoid firefighting situations. Especially newly build or less experienced teams often struggle with their information flow. To improve team communication performances for these teams, we build an experience based classifier model that interpolates tendency forecasts with five approved team communication metrics from related work. The model matches archival project communications with present team conditions and computes tendency forecasts for the ongoing project. These future trends can indicate critical communication conditions right from early phases. Hence, they can reduce risks of miscommunication during a project.


Machine learning Team communication Experience-base 


  1. 1.
    Beyer, K., Goldstein, J., Ramakrishnan, R., Shaft, U.: When is “Nearest Neighbor” meaningful? In: Beeri, C., Buneman, P. (eds.) ICDT 1999. LNCS, vol. 1540, pp. 217–235. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). doi: 10.1007/3-540-49257-7_15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Flory, J.D., Manuck, S.B., Matthews, K.A., Muldoon, M.F.: Serotonergic function in the central nervous system is associated with daily ratings of positive mood. Psychiatry Res. 129(1), 11–19 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Graziotin, D., Wang, X., Abrahamsson, P.: Happy software developers solve problems better: psychological measurements in empirical software engineering. CoRR abs/1505.00922 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jørgensen, M., Gruschke, T.M.: The impact of lessons-learned sessions on effort estimation and uncertainty assessments. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(3), 368–383 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kauffeld, S., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N.: Meetings matter effects of team meetings on team and organizational success. Small Group Res. 43(2), 130–158 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Klünder, J., Karras, O., Kortum, F., Schneider, K.: Forecasting communication behavior in student software projects. In: Proceedings of the The 12th International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering, PROMISE 2016, pp. 1–8. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klünder, J., Schneider, K., Kortum, F., Straube, J., Handke, L., Kauffeld, S.: Communication in teams - an expression of social conflicts. In: Bogdan, C., Gulliksen, J., Sauer, S., Forbrig, P., Winckler, M., Johnson, C., Palanque, P., Bernhaupt, R., Kis, F. (eds.) HCSE/HESSD -2016. LNCS, vol. 9856, pp. 111–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-44902-9_8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kohavi, R., et al.: A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In: IJCAI, vol. 14, pp. 1137–1145 (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kortum, F., Klünder, J.: Early diagnostics on team communication - experience-based forecasts on student software projects. In: 10th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology (Quatic). IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kumar, S., Wallace, C.: A tale of two projects: a pattern based comparison of communication strategies in student software development. In: 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), pp. 1844–1850. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liskin, O., Schneider, K., Kiesling, S., Kauffeld, S.: Meeting intensity as an indicator for project pressure: exploring meeting profiles. In: 2013 6th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE), pp. 153–156. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schneider, K., Liskin, O., Paulsen, H., Kauffeld, S.: Media, mood, and meetings: related to project success? ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE) 15(4), 21 (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sharma, M., Bedi, P., Chaturvedi, K., Singh, V.: Predicting the priority of a reported bug using machine learning techniques and cross project validation. In: 2012 12th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications (ISDA), pp. 539–545. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sudhakar, G.P.: Software Development Teams: Performance, Productivity and Innovation. Prentice-Hall India, Delhi (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tuckman, B.W., Jensen, M.A.C.: Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Management 2(4), 419–427 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Software Engineering GroupLeibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations