Context Empirical research in software engineering contributes towards developing scientific knowledge in this field, which in turn is relevant to inform decision-making in industry. A number of empirical studies have been carried out to date in software engineering, and the need for guidelines for conducting and evaluating such research has been stressed. Objective: The main goal of this mapping study is to identify and summarize the body of knowledge on research guidelines, assessment instruments and knowledge organization systems on how to conduct and evaluate empirical research in software engineering. Method: A systematic mapping study employing manual search and snowballing techniques was carried out to identify the suitable papers. To build up the catalog, we extracted and categorized information provided by the identified papers. Results: The mapping study comprises a list of 341 methodological papers, classified according to research methods, research phases covered, and type of instrument provided. Later, we derived a brief explanatory review of the instruments provided for each of the research methods. Conclusion: We provide: an aggregated body of knowledge on the state of the art relating to guidelines, assessment instruments and knowledge organization systems for carrying out empirical software engineering research; an exemplary usage scenario that can be used to guide those carrying out such studies is also provided. Finally, we discuss the catalog's implications for research practice and the needs for further research. © 2018 Elsevier B.V.

Background: Previous studies investigated key characteristics of software engineers and factors influencing the performance of individuals, productivity of teams and project success within agile software development (ASD). They aided in the active investigation of human aspects in ASD. However, capability measurement and prediction with respect to agile workforce, owing to its importance, is an area that needs spotlight. Objective: The objective of this paper is to present the state of the art relating to capability measurement of software engineers and teams working in ASD projects. Method: We carried out a systematic literature review (SLR) focused on identifying attributes used for measuring and predicting the capabilities of individual software engineers and teams. Results: Evidence from 16 studies showed attributes that can measure capabilities of engineers and teams, and also attributes that can be used as capability predictors. Further, different instruments used to measure those attributes were presented. Conclusions: The SLR presented a wide list of attributes that were grouped into various categories. This information can be used by project managers as, for example, a checklist to consider when allocating software engineers to teams and in turn teams to a project. Further, this study indicated the necessity for an investigation into capability prediction models. © 2018 Association for Computing Machinery.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake in Figs. 1 and 21. © 2018, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

A significant number of studies reported models for competence profiling, measuring capabilities of professionals and recommendation systems for roles within agile software development (ASD). These models coordinated in human resource management within ASD. However, in the light of swift, incremental and iterative nature of ASD practices, designing solutions that easily integrate capability measurements with ongoing project management routines, is an important area for investigation. With the support of interviews, grounded theory procedure and workshops, we identified the aspects valued by our industrial collaborator while allocating professionals to tasks. This information was further utilized towards devising a framework for capability-centric Web tool. This tool provides a one-stop solution for project managers to create projects, keep track of capabilities and execute allocation routines. © 2018 ACM.

Numerous software companies are adopting value-based decision making. However, what does value mean for key stakeholders making decisions? How do different stakeholder groups understand value? Without an explicit understanding of what value means, decisions are subject to ambiguity and vagueness, which are likely to bias them. This case study provides an in-depth analysis of key stakeholders' value propositions when selecting features for a large telecommunications company's software-intensive product. Stakeholder' value propositions were elicited via interviews, which were analyzed using Grounded Theory coding techniques (open and selective coding). Thirty-six value propositions were identified and classified into six dimensions: customer value, market competitiveness, economic value/profitability, cost efficiency, technology & architecture, and company strategy. Our results show that although propositions in the customer value dimension were those mentioned the most, the concept of value for feature selection encompasses a wide range of value propositions. Moreover, stakeholder groups focused on different and complementary value dimensions, calling to the importance of involving all key stakeholders in the decision making process. Although our results are particularly relevant to companies similar to the one described herein, they aim to generate a learning process on value-based feature selection for practitioners and researchers in general. IEEE

Several studies have shown that both individual and team capability can affect software development performance and project success; a deeper understating of such phenomena is crucial within the context of Agile Software Development (ASD), given that its workforce is a key source of agility. This paper contributes towards such understanding by means of a case study that uses data from 14 interviews carried out at a large telecommunications company, within the context of a mobile money transfer system developed in Sweden and India, to identify individual and team capability measures used to form productive teams. Our results identified 10 individual and five team capability measures, of which, respectively, five and four have not been previously characterised by a systematic literature review (SLR) on this same topic. Such review aggregated evidence for a total of 133 individual and 28 team capability measures. Further work entails extending our findings via interviewing other software/software-intensive industries practicing ASD.

To sustain growth, maintain competitive advantage and to innovate, companies must make a paradigm shift in which both short- and long-term value aspects are employed to guide their decision-making. Such need is clearly pressing in innovative industries, such as ICT, and is also the core of Value-based Software Engineering (VBSE). The goal of this paper is to detail a framework called VALUE—improving decision-making relating to software-intensive products and services development—and to show its application in practice to a large ICT company in Finland. The VALUE framework includes a mixed-methods approach, as follows: to elicit key stakeholders’ tacit knowledge regarding factors used during a decision-making process, either transcripts from interviews with key stakeholders are analysed and validated in focus group meetings or focus-group meeting(s) are directly applied. These value factors are later used as input to a Web-based tool (Value tool) employed to support decision making. This tool was co-created with four industrial partners in this research via a design science approach that includes several case studies and focus-group meetings. Later, data on key stakeholders’ decisions gathered using the Value tool, plus additional input from key stakeholders, are used, in combination with the Expert-based Knowledge Engineering of Bayesian Network (EKEBN) process, coupled with the weighed sum algorithm (WSA) method, to build and validate a company-specific value estimation model. The application of our proposed framework to a real case, as part of an ongoing collaboration with a large software company (company A), is presented herein. Further, we also provide a detailed example, partially using real data on decisions, of a value estimation Bayesian network (BN) model for company A. This paper presents some empirical results from applying the VALUE Framework to a large ICT company; those relate to eliciting key stakeholders’ tacit knowledge, which is later used as input to a pilot study where these stakeholders employ the Value tool to select features for one of their company’s chief products. The data on decisions obtained from this pilot study is later applied to a detailed example on building a value estimation BN model for company A. We detail a framework—VALUE framework—to be used to help companies improve their value-based decisions and to go a step further and also estimate the overall value of each decision. © 2017 The Author(s)

The importance of achieving high quality in research practice has been highlighted in different disciplines. At the same time, citations are utilized to measure the impact of academic researchers and institutions. One open question is whether the quality in the reporting of research is related to scientific impact, which would be desired. In this exploratory study we aim to: (1) Investigate how consistently a scoring rubric for rigor and relevance has been used to assess research quality of software engineering studies; (2) Explore the relationship between rigor, relevance and citation count. Through backward snowball sampling we identified 718 primary studies assessed through the scoring rubric. We utilized cluster analysis and conditional inference tree to explore the relationship between quality in the reporting of research (represented by rigor and relevance) and scientiometrics (represented by normalized citations). The results show that only rigor is related to studies’ normalized citations. Besides that, confounding factors are likely to influence the number of citations. The results also suggest that the scoring rubric is not applied the same way by all studies, and one of the likely reasons is because it was found to be too abstract and in need to be further refined. Our findings could be used as a basis to further understand the relation between the quality in the reporting of research and scientific impact, and foster new discussions on how to fairly acknowledge studies for performing well with respect to the emphasized research quality. Furthermore, we highlighted the need to further improve the scoring rubric. © 2018, The Author(s).