Supporting Reflection in Software Development with Everyday Working Tools

  • Birgit KrogstieEmail author
  • Monica Divitini
Conference paper


Through their day-to-day usage collaboration tools collect data on the work process. These data can be used to aid participants’ retrospective reflection on the process. The paper shows how this can be done in software development project work. Through a case study we demonstrate how retrospective reflection was conducted by use of an industry approach to project retrospectives combined with the examination of historical data in Trac, an issue tracker. The data helped the team reconstruct the project trajectory by aiding the recall of significant events, leading to a shift in the team’s perspective on the project. The success of the tool-aided retrospective reflection is attributed to its organization as well as the type of historical data examined through the tool and the tool features for navigating the data. These insights can be used to help project teams determine the potential of their tools to aid retrospective reflection.


  1. 1.
    Carstensen, P.H. and K. Schmidt, Computer Supported Cooperative Work: New Challenges to Systems Design, in Handbook of Human Factors/Ergonomics, K. Itoh, Editor. 2002 (1999), Asakura: Tokyo.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grinter, R. Doing Software Development: Occasions for Automation and Formalisation. in ECSCW’97. 1997. Lancaster, UK: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herbsleb, J.D., et al. Distance, dependencies, and delay in a global collaboration. in CSCW’00. 2000. Philadelphia, PA: ACM.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keil, M., J. Mann, and A. Rai, Why Software Projects Escalate: An Empirical Analysis and Test of Four Theoretical Models. MIS Quarterly, 2000. 24(4), pp. 631–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lyytinen, K. and D. Robey, Learning failure in information systems development. Information Systems Journal, 1999. 9: p. 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Basili, V.R. and G. Caldiera, Improving Software Quality by Reusing Knowledge and Experience. Sloan Management Review, 1995, pp. 55–64. Fall 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dybå, T. and T. Dingsøyr, Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review. Information and Software Technology, 2008. 2008(50): pp. 833–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Derby, E., D. Larsen, and K. Schwaber, Agile Retrospectives. Making Good Teams Great. 2006: Pragmatic Bookshelf. Raleigh, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kerth, N., Project Retrospectives: A Handbook for Team Reviews 2001: Dorset House, New York.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schindler, M. and M.J. Eppler, Harvesting project knowledge: a review of project learning methods and success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 2003. 21: p. 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bjørnson, F.O., A.I. Wang, and E. Arisholm, Improving the effectiveness of root cause analysis in post mortem analysis: A controlled experiment. Information and Software Technology, 2009. 51: pp. 150–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schön, D., The Reflective Practitioner. 1983: Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kasi, V., et al., The post mortem paradox: a Delphi study of IT specialist perceptions. European Journal of Information Systems, 2008. 17: pp. 62–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Churchill, E.F. and S. Bly. It’s all in the words: Supporting work activities with lightweight tools. in GROUP ‘99. 1999. Phoenix, AZ: ACM.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gutwin, C., R. Penner, and K. Schneider. Knowledge sharing in software engineering: Group awareness in distributed software development in CSCW’04. 2004. Chicago, IL: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Handel, M. and J.D. Herbsleb. What is Chat Doing in the Workplace? in CSCW’02. 2002. New Orleans, LA: ACM.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krogstie, B.R. The wiki as an integrative tool in project work. in COOP. 2008. Carry-le-Rouet, Provence, France: Institut d’Etudes Politiques d’Aix-en-Provence.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krogstie, B.R. A model of retrospective reflection in project based learning utilizing historical data in collaborative tools. in EC-TEL 2009. 2009. Nice, France: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hutchins, E., Cognition in the Wild. 1995, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rogers, Y. and J. Ellis, Distributed Cognition: an alternative framework for analyzing and explaining collaborative working. Journal of Information Technology, 1994. 9: pp. 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Daradoumis, T. and M. Marques, Distributed Cognition in the Context of Virtual Collaborative Learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 2002. 13(1/2): pp. 135–148.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Flor, N.V. and E.L. Hutchins. Analyzing Distributed Cognition in Software Teams: A Case Study of Team Programming during Perfective Software Maintenance. in Empirical Studies of Programmers: Fourth Workshop. 1991: Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sharp, H. and H. Robinson, Collaboration and co-ordination in mature eXtreme programming teams. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 2008. 66(7): pp. 506–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ackerman, M.S. and C. Halverson, Organizational Memory as Objects, Process, and Trajectories: An Examination of Organizational Memory in Use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2004. 13(2): pp. 155–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Salomon, G., No distribution without individuals’ cognition, in Distributed Cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations, G. Salomon, Editor. 1993, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Strauss, A., Continual permutations of action. 1993, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grudin, J. and T. Lovejoy. Messaging and Formality: Will IM Follow in the Footsteps of Email. in INTERACT 2003. 2003. Zurich: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Isaacs, E., et al. The Character, Functions, and Styles of Instant Messaging in the Workplace. in CSCW’02. 2002. New Orleans, LA: ACM.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dourish, P. and V. Bellotti. Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. in ACM CSCW. 1992. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gutwin, C. and S. Greenberg, A Descriptive Framework of Workspace Awareness for Real-Time Groupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 2002. 11(3–4): pp. 411–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gutwin, C., R. Penner, and K. Schneider. Group Awareness in Distributed Software Development. in CSCW’04. 2004. Chicago, IL: ACM.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bødker, S. and E. Christiansen, Computer Support for Social Awareness in Flexible Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2006. 15: pp. 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schmidt, K. and C. Simone, Coordination Mechanisms: Towards a Conceptual Foundation of CSCW Systems Design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1996. 5: pp. 155–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Johnson, J.N. and P.F. Dubois, Issue Tracking. Computing in Science and Engineering, 2003(November/December): pp. 71–77.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Prause, C.R., et al. Managing the Iterative Requirements Process in a Multi-National Project using an Issue Tracker. in IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering. 2008. Bangalore, India: IEEE.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Poole, W.G. The Softer Side of Custom Software Development: Working with the Other Players. in Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training. 2003. Madrid, Spain: IEEE.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kraut, R.E. and L.A. Streeter, Coordination in Software Development. Communications of the ACM, 1995. 38(3), pp. 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Whittaker, S., D. Frohlich, and D.-J. Owen. Informal Workplace Communication: What Is It Like and How Might We Support It? in Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1994. Boston, MA: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dekel, U. and J.D. Herbsleb. Pushing Relevant Artifact Annotationsin Collaborative Software Development. in CSCW’08. 2008. San Diego, CA: ACM.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Storey, M.-A., et al. Shared waypoints and social tagging to support collaboration in software development. in CSCW’06. 2006. Banff, Alberta, Canada: ACM.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fitzpatrick, G., P. Marshall, and A. Phillips. CVS integration with notification and chat: lightweight software team collaboration. in CSCW’06. 2006. Banff, Alberta, Canada: ACM.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cubranic, D., et al. Learning from project history: a case study for software development. in CSCW ‘04. 2004. Chicago, IL: ACM.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Burge, J. and D.C. Brown. SEURAT: integrated rationale management. in ICSE’08. 2008. Leipzig, Germany: ACM.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Burge, J. and J. Kiper. Capturing Collaborative Design Decisions and Rationale. in Design, Computing, and Cognition. 2008. Atlanta, GA, USA.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Aranda, J. and G. Venolia. The Secret Life Of Bugs: Going Past the Errors and Omssions in Software Repositories in International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’09). 2009. Vancouver, Canada: IEEE.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Trac home page,, Last accessed 10 September 2009.
  47. 47.
    Krogstie, B.R. and M. Divitini. Shared timeline and individual experience: Supporting retrospective reflection in student software engineering teams. in CSEE&T 2009. 2009. Hyderabad, India: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Klein, H.K. and M.M. Myers, A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 1999. 23(1): pp. 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wolf, C.G., J.R. Rhyne, and L.K. Briggs. Communication and Information Retrieval with a Pen-based Meeting Support Tool. In: CSCW 1992, Toronto, Canada, ACM.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Star, S.L., The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving, in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, M. Huhns and L. Gasser, Editors. 1990, Morgan Kaufmann, Menlo Park, CA. pp. 37–54.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Krogstie, B.R. Do’s and dont’s of instant messaging in students’ project work. in NOKOBIT 2009. 2009. Trondheim, Norway: Tapir.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Krogstie, B.R. Using Project Wiki History to Reflect on the Project Process in 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2009. Big Island, HI: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer London 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations