the dynamics of creativity in software development
DESCRIPTION
The Dynamics of Creativity in Software Development. Daniel Graziotin. PROFES 2013 Doctoral Symposium 12 th June, Paphos , Cyprus. Introduction Background, Motivation, Purposes. 1. Literature Review Creativity, Affective States, Improvisation, Research Questions. 2. Research Methodology - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
The Dynamics of Creativityin Software DevelopmentDaniel GraziotinPROFES 2013 Doctoral Symposium12th June, Paphos, Cyprus
2
IntroductionBackground, Motivation, Purposes
Literature ReviewCreativity, Affective States, Improvisation, Research Questions
ConclusionWhat is next
Research MethodologyTheory Building, Data Analysis, Theory Representation
1234
3
Daniel Graziotin
‣ Researcher- Human Factors in SE
- Emotions / Moods- Creativity- Productivity
- Web Engineering- Open{Source, Access, Data}
Background
4
Daniel Graziotin
‣ Practitioner• Web Development• Open Source Software• Open Knowledge• task3.cc
Background
5
Daniel Graziotin
‣ Stuff• Singer• Electric Bass
Background
6
“Programming [..] gratifies creative longings [..] and delights sensibilities we have in common with all men.”
Frederick P. Brooks, Jr.The Mythical Man-Month, p.
8
7
Software is for People, by People
Human Factors must be studied
(Crawford et al. , 2012).
Process
8
People Trump Process?(Cockburn, 2001)
Picture Credits
9
Focus on People
Picture Credits
10
Focus on People
Picture Credits
11
Software Developmentis Cognitive(Khan et al., 2010)
‣ Creativity‣ Emotions / Moods‣ Improvisation
Picture Credits
12
Software Engineering
ignores
‣ Creativity misconception‣ Emotions/Moods ignored‣ Improvisation neglected
Picture Credits
Purposes of this Study
‣ Definition
‣ Dynamics
‣ Influence
13
Creativity
SoftwareDevelopment
‣ Generate a theory
14
IntroductionBackground, Motivation, Purposes
Literature ReviewCreativity, Affective States, Improvisation, Research Questions
ConclusionWhat is next
Research MethodologyTheory Building, Data Analysis, Theory Representation
1234
15
Literature Review
‣ Hundreds of Definitions in Psychology
‣ Product/Idea Generation (evaluation?)
• Novelty
• Usefulness
Defining Creativity
16
Literature Review
‣ Definitions limited for the context of Software Development• Pre-implementation phases• Final Product
Defining Creativity
17
Literature Review
‣ Gu and Tong, 2004, exploratory research.
‣ Software Project developed by students
‣ Measurements: Perceived creative time, perceived discipline-based time, and “other” time.
‣ Formulated Hypotheses: • Implementation phase most creative, Post-mortem analysis phase least creative;
• UML documentation promotes students to do more creative work in requirement specification and architecture design phases;
• more creative work does neither accelerate nor decelerate development speed compared with discipline-based work;
• developers prefer development phases including more creative work than discipline-based work
Creativity in Software Engineering
18
Literature Review
‣ Crawford et al., 2012
‣ Previous research on creativity focused on RE
‣ Techniques to foster creativity are rarely investigated
‣ Linkage between eXtreme Programming and Creative Thinking
Creativity in Software Engineering
19
Literature Review
‣ Several proposals to foster creativity in software requirements
‣ Evaluation is always in terms of the generated product
‣ Requirements look like ideas
Creativity in Software Engineering
20
Literature Review
‣ More than 60 years of studies‣ Angles
• Product, Process, Person, and Press‣ Majority of studies on Product (novelty and
value)‣ Affective States
Creativity in Psychology
21
Literature Review
‣ Affective States (Mood, Emotions, Feelings)‣ “one of the most widely studied and least
disputed predictors of creativity” (Davis, 2009)
‣ Several Studies • Tendency: extreme affective states indicate
higher creativity• No big consensus
Creativity and Affective States in Psychology
22
Literature Review
‣ “Making sense of incoming working events and developing ad-hoc solutions” (Ciborra, 1996)
• Problem-setting and problem-solving• Creative
‣ Do we always follow the process?• We report to follow the process• We improvise• Essential to IT firms
‣ Improvisation is a mood
Improvisation
23
Improvisation, Creativity, Affective States
?
Improvisation Creativity
Affective States
24
Research Questions
‣ Is there a misconception of creativity in the context of software development?
‣ What are the key components of creativity in software development at the individual, team, and organizational levels?
‣ What is the relationship between creativity, moods, and improvisation in software development?
25
IntroductionBackground, Motivation, Purposes
Literature ReviewCreativity, Affective States, Improvisation, Research Questions
ConclusionWhat is next
Research MethodologyTheory Building, Data Analysis, Theory Representation
1234
26
Research Methodology
‣ Explorative study‣ Generate a theory from empirical evidence.
• Define the steps of the theory building process• Select a strategy to analyze the data• Represent the theory in a meaningful way • Choose research methods
AIMS
27
Research Questions 1Case Selection 2Instruments & Protocols 3Field Entrance 4
Data Analysis 5Hypotheses Shaping 6Literature Enfolding 7Closure Reaching 8
Theory Building PhasesEisenhardt, 1989
28
Data Analysis PhasesMontoni & Rocha (2010), Charmaz (2006)
Context&
ScopeAuditData
Collection Coding
‣ Overlaps with Step 1of previous slide
‣ Surveys
‣ Literature Reviews
‣ Structured and semi-structured interviews
‣ Open
‣ Conceptualization
‣ Axial
‣ Relationships
‣ Selective
‣ Prioritization
‣ Validity
29
Theory Representation
Elements of a theory‣ Constructs‣ Propositions‣ Explanations‣ Scope
Sjøberg et al., 2008
Sjøberg et al., 2008, p. 324
30
IntroductionBackground, Motivation, Purposes
Literature ReviewCreativity, Affective States, Improvisation, Research Questions
ConclusionWhat is next
Research MethodologyTheory Building, Data Analysis, Theory Representation
1234
31
Conclusion
‣ Proposal: generate theory on creativity in software development
‣ Creativity, Affective States, Improvisation‣ Major issue: still no focus.
33
References
Brooks, F.P.: The Mythical Man-Month. Addison-Wesley, Philippines (1975)Ciborra, C.: Improvisation and information technology in organizations. ICIS 1996. p. 26 (1996).Charmaz, K.: Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications, London (2006).Crawford, B. et al.: Agile software teams must be creatives. 5th International Workshop on Co-operative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering. pp. 20–26 (2012).Davis, M.: Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 108, 1, 25–38 (2009).Dybå, T.: Improvisation in small software organizations. Software, IEEE. September/October, 82–87 (2000).Eisenhardt, K.: Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review. 14, 4, 532–550 (1989).Gu, M., Tong, X.: Towards Hypotheses on Creativity in Software Development. 5th International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement,. pp. 47–61, (2004).Khan, I.A. et al.: Do moods affect programmers’ debug performance? Cognition, Technology & Work. 13, 4, 245–258 (2010).Montoni, M.A., Rocha, A.R.: Applying Grounded Theory to Understand Software Process Improvement Implementation. 7th International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology. pp. 25–34 IEEE (2010).Sjøberg, D. et al.: Building theories in software engineering. Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering. 1, 1, 312–336 (2008).