Abstract

Although Agile teams supposedly value individuals and interactions over processes and tools, tools still represent an important support for developers’ work. Existing studies investigate only partially tool usage in non-Agile teams. Moreover, it is not clear to which extent their findings are valid also for Agile teams. This study takes the first steps towards understanding tool usage in Agile teams by investigating the types and variety of tools used and the actual purpose for which they are employed. As expected, we found that communication accounts for an increased amount of time, but, surprisingly, a large share of it is represented by instant messaging or email rather than face-to-face communication. Other findings show that developers’ toolbox contains only a very small number of tools and a relevant amount of time is spent on browsing the Internet and navigating through the file system.

Keywords

Agile Methods Agile teams work practices tool usage 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bruckhaus, T., Madhavji, N.H., Janssen, I., Henshaw, J.: The Impact of Tools on Software Productivity. IEEE Software, 29–38 (September 1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Poston, R., Sexton, M.: Evaluating and Selecting Testing Tools. IEEE Software, 33–42 (May 1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkins, D.L., Ball, T., Graves, T.L., Mockus, A.: Using Version Control Data to Evaluate the Impact of Software Tools: A Case Study of the Version Editor. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 625–637 (July 2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Von Mayrhauser, A., Vans, A.: From Program Comprehension to Tool Requirements for an Industrial Environment. In: Workshop on Program Comprehension, pp. 78–86 (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Von Mayrhauser, A., Vans, A.: From Code Understanding Needs to Reverse Engineering Tool Capabilities. In: Proc. Workshop on Computer-Aided Software Engineering, pp. 230–239 (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Singer, J., Lethbridge, T., Vinson, N., Anquetil, N.: An Examination of Software Engineering Work Practices. In: Proc. CASCON, pp. 209–223 (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    LaToza, T.D., Venolia, G., DeLine, R.: Maintaining Mental Models: A Study of Developer Work Habits. In: Proc. of ICSE (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., Wilhite, S.: A Diary Study of Task Switching and Interruptions. In: Proc. ACM Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Perry, D.E., Staudenmayer, N.A., Votta, L.G.: People, Organizations and Process Improvement. IEEE Software, 36–45 (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lethbridge, T.C., Singer, J.: Understanding Software Maintenance Tools: Some Empirical Research. In: Proc. Workshop on Empirical Studies in Software Maintenance (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sillitti, A., Janes, A., Succi, G., Vernazza, T.: Collecting, Integrating and Analyzing Software Metrics and Personal Software Process Data. In: Proc. of EUROMICRO, pp. 336–342 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Beck, K.: Extreme Programming Explained. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beck, K., Andres, C.: Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beck, K., Fowler, M.: Planning Extreme Programming. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gross, H.-G., Melideo, M., Sillitti, A.: Self-certification and Trust in Component Procurement. Science of Computer Programming 56(1-2), 141–156 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irina Diana Coman
    • 1
  • Giancarlo Succi
    • 1
  1. 1.Free University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations