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

Jil Klünder

Jil Klünder contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Software Engineering

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
1topics
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

7 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

How Can We Develop Explainable Systems? Insights from a Literature Review and an Interview Study

Quality aspects such as ethics, fairness, and transparency have been proven to be essential for trustworthy software systems. Explainability has been identified not only as a means to achieve all these three aspects in systems, but also as a way to foster users' sentiments of trust. Despite this, research has only marginally focused on the activities and practices to develop explainable systems. To close this gap, we recommend six core activities and associated practices for the development of explainable systems based on the results of a literature review and an interview study. First, we identified and summarized activities and corresponding practices in the literature. To complement these findings, we conducted interviews with 19 industry professionals who provided recommendations for the development process of explainable systems and reviewed the activities and practices based on their expertise and knowledge. We compared and combined the findings of the interviews and the literature review to recommend the activities and assess their applicability in industry. Our findings demonstrate that the activities and practices are not only feasible, but can also be integrated in different development processes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Meetings and Mood -- Related or Not? Insights from Student Software Projects

Background: Teamwork, coordination, and communication are a prerequisite for the timely completion of a software project. Meetings as a facilitator for coordination and communication are an established medium for information exchange. Analyses of meetings in software projects have shown that certain interactions in these meetings, such as proactive statements followed by supportive ones, influence the mood and motivation of a team, which in turn affects its productivity. So far, however, research has focused only on certain interactions at a detailed level, requiring a complex and fine-grained analysis of a meeting itself. Aim: In this paper, we investigate meetings from a more abstract perspective, focusing on the polarity of the statements, i.e., whether they appear to be positive, negative, or neutral. Method: We analyze the relationship between the polarity of statements in meetings and different social aspects, including conflicts as well as the mood before and after a meeting. Results: Our results emerge from 21 student software project meetings and show some interesting insights: (1) Positive mood before a meeting is both related to the amount of positive statements in the beginning, as well as throughout the whole meeting, (2) negative mood before the meeting only influences the amount of negative statements in the first quarter of the meeting, but not the whole meeting, and (3) the amount of positive and negative statements during the meeting has no influence on the mood afterwards. Conclusions: We conclude that the behaviour in meetings might rather influence short-term emotional states (feelings) than long-term emotional states (mood), which are more important for the project.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

On the Subjectivity of Emotions in Software Projects: How Reliable are Pre-Labeled Data Sets for Sentiment Analysis?

Social aspects of software projects become increasingly important for research and practice. Different approaches analyze the sentiment of a development team, ranging from simply asking the team to so-called sentiment analysis on text-based communication. These sentiment analysis tools are trained using pre-labeled data sets from different sources, including GitHub and Stack Overflow. In this paper, we investigate if the labels of the statements in the data sets coincide with the perception of potential members of a software project team. Based on an international survey, we compare the median perception of 94 participants with the pre-labeled data sets as well as every single participant's agreement with the predefined labels. Our results point to three remarkable findings: (1) Although the median values coincide with the predefined labels of the data sets in 62.5% of the cases, we observe a huge difference between the single participant's ratings and the labels; (2) there is not a single participant who totally agrees with the predefined labels; and (3) the data set whose labels are based on guidelines performs better than the ad hoc labeled data set.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

SEnti-Analyzer: Joint Sentiment Analysis For Text-Based and Verbal Communication in Software Projects

Social aspects in software development teams are of particular importance for a successful project closure. To analyze sentiments in software projects, there are several tools and approaches available. These tools analyze text-based communication based on the used words to predict whether they appear to be positive, negative, or neutral for the receiver of the message. In the research project ComContA, we investigate so-called sentiment analysis striving to analyze the content of text-based communication in development teams with regard to the statement's polarity. That is, we analyze whether the communication appears to be adequate (i.e., positive or neutral) or negative. In a workshop paper, we presented a tool called SEnti-Analyzer that allows to apply sentiment analysis to verbal communication in meetings of software projects. In this technical report, we present the extended functionalities of the SEnti-Analyzer by also allowing the analysis of text-based communication, we improve the prediction of the tool by including established sentiment analysis tools, and we evaluate the tool with respect to its accuracy. We evaluate the tool by comparing the prediction of the SEnti-Analyzer to pre-labeled established data sets used for sentiment analysis in software engineering and to perceptions of computer scientists. Our results indicate that in almost all cases at least two of the three votes coincide, but in only about half of the cases all three votes coincide. Our results raise the question of the "ultimate truth" of sentiment analysis outcomes: What do we want to predict with sentiment analysis tools? The pre-defined labels of established data sets? The perception of computer scientists? Or the perception of single computer scientists which appears to be the most meaningful objective?

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Catching up with Method and Process Practice: An Industry-Informed Baseline for Researchers

Software development methods are usually not applied by the book. Companies are under pressure to continuously deploy software products that meet market needs and stakeholders' requests. To implement efficient and effective development processes, companies utilize multiple frameworks, methods and practices, and combine these into hybrid methods. A common combination contains a rich management framework to organize and steer projects complemented with a number of smaller practices providing the development teams with tools to complete their tasks. In this paper, based on 732 data points collected through an international survey, we study the software development process use in practice. Our results show that 76.8% of the companies implement hybrid methods. Company size as well as the strategy in devising and evolving hybrid methods affect the suitability of the chosen process to reach company or project goals. Our findings show that companies that combine planned improvement programs with process evolution can increase their process' suitability by up to 5%.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Walking Through the Method Zoo: Does Higher Education really meet Software Industry Demands?

Software engineering educators are continually challenged by rapidly evolving concepts, technologies, and industry demands. Due to the omnipresence of software in a digitalized society, higher education institutions (HEIs) have to educate the students such that they learn how to learn, and that they are equipped with a profound basic knowledge and with latest knowledge about modern software and system development. Since industry demands change constantly, HEIs are challenged in meeting such current and future demands in a timely manner. This paper analyzes the current state of practice in software engineering education. Specifically, we want to compare contemporary education with industrial practice to understand if frameworks, methods and practices for software and system development taught at HEIs reflect industrial practice. For this, we conducted an online survey and collected information about 67 software engineering courses. Our findings show that development approaches taught at HEIs quite closely reflect industrial practice. We also found that the choice of what process to teach is sometimes driven by the wish to make a course successful. Especially when this happens for project courses, it could be beneficial to put more emphasis on building learning sequences with other courses.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

What are Hybrid Development Methods Made Of? An Evidence-based Characterization

Among the multitude of software development processes available, hardly any is used by the book. Regardless of company size or industry sector, a majority of project teams and companies use customized processes that combine different development methods -- so-called hybrid development methods. Even though such hybrid development methods are highly individualized, a common understanding of how to systematically construct synergetic practices is missing. In this paper, we make a first step towards devising such guidelines. Grounded in 1,467 data points from a large-scale online survey among practitioners, we study the current state of practice in process use to answer the question: What are hybrid development methods made of? Our findings reveal that only eight methods and few practices build the core of modern software development. This small set allows for statistically constructing hybrid development methods. Using an 85% agreement level in the participants' selections, we provide two examples illustrating how hybrid development methods are characterized by the practices they are made of. Our evidence-based analysis approach lays the foundation for devising hybrid development methods.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access