BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Daniel Graziotin

Daniel Graziotin contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software Engineeringcs.CYGeneral LiteratureHuman-Computer Interaction

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
6works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

6 published item(s)

preprint2024arXiv

Overwhelmed software developers: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

In this paper, we report on an Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) study on experiencing overwhelm in a software development context. The objectives of our study are, hence, to understand the experiences developers have when being overwhelmed, how this impacts their productivity and which role stress plays in the process. To this end, we interviewed two software developers who have experienced overwhelm recently. Throughout a qualitative analysis of the shared experiences, we uncover seven categories of overwhelm (communication, disturbance, organizational, variety, technical, temporal, and positive overwhelm). While the first six themes all are related to negative outcomes, including low productivity and stress, the participants reported that overwhelm can sometimes be experienced to be positive and pleasant, and it can increase their mental focus, self ambition, and productivity. Stress was the most mentioned feeling experienced when overwhelmed. Our findings, for the most, are along the same direction of similar studies from other disciplines and with other participants. However, there may be unique attributes to software developers that mitigate the negative experiences of overwhelm.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Empirical Standards for Software Engineering Research

Empirical Standards are natural-language models of a scientific community's expectations for a specific kind of study (e.g. a questionnaire survey). The ACM SIGSOFT Paper and Peer Review Quality Initiative generated empirical standards for research methods commonly used in software engineering. These living documents, which should be continuously revised to reflect evolving consensus around research best practices, will improve research quality and make peer review more effective, reliable, transparent and fair.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Quantitative Exploration of the 9-Factor Theory: Distribution of Leadership Roles between Scrum Master and Agile Team

A number of qualitative studies find that team leadership is one essential success factor for evolving into a mature agile team. One such qualitative study suggests the 9-Factor Theory of Scrum Master roles, which claims that the Scrum Master performs a set of 9 leadership roles which are transferred to the team over time (Spiegler et al., 2019). We aimed at conducting a quantitative exploration that examines the presence and change of the 9-Factory Theory in relation to team maturity. We conducted an online survey with 67 individuals at the conglomerate Robert Bosch GmbH. Descriptive statistics reveal that the Scrum Master and the agile team score differently on the 9 factors and that the Scrum Master role is most often distributed in teams that had been working between 3 and 5 months in an agile manner. Yet, we also find that the leadership roles predominantly remain with one dedicated Scrum Master. Based on our results we suggest to group the 9-Factor Theory into three clusters: the Scrum Master is rather linked to psychological team factors (1), while the team tends to be linked to rather product-related factors (2). Organizational factors (3) are less often present. Our practical implications suggest an extension of the Scrum Master description. Furthermore, our study lays groundwork for future quantitative testing of leadership in agile teams.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Challenges in Survey Research

While being an important and often used research method, survey research has been less often discussed on a methodological level in empirical software engineering than other types of research. This chapter compiles a set of important and challenging issues in survey research based on experiences with several large-scale international surveys. The chapter covers theory building, sampling, invitation and follow-up, statistical as well as qualitative analysis of survey data and the usage of psychometrics in software engineering surveys.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Open Science in Software Engineering

Open science describes the movement of making any research artefact available to the public and includes, but is not limited to, open access, open data, and open source. While open science is becoming generally accepted as a norm in other scientific disciplines, in software engineering, we are still struggling in adapting open science to the particularities of our discipline, rendering progress in our scientific community cumbersome. In this chapter, we reflect upon the essentials in open science for software engineering including what open science is, why we should engage in it, and how we should do it. We particularly draw from our experiences made as conference chairs implementing open science initiatives and as researchers actively engaging in open science to critically discuss challenges and pitfalls, and to address more advanced topics such as how and under which conditions to share preprints, what infrastructure and licence model to cover, or how do it within the limitations of different reviewing models, such as double-blind reviewing. Our hope is to help establishing a common ground and to contribute to make open science a norm also in software engineering.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2018arXiv

Motivations, Classification and Model Trial of Conversational Agents for Insurance Companies

Advances in artificial intelligence have renewed interest in conversational agents. So-called chatbots have reached maturity for industrial applications. German insurance companies are interested in improving their customer service and digitizing their business processes. In this work we investigate the potential use of conversational agents in insurance companies by determining which classes of agents are of interest to insurance companies, finding relevant use cases and requirements, and developing a prototype for an exemplary insurance scenario. Based on this approach, we derive key findings for conversational agent implementation in insurance companies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access