Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3422392.3422441acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessbesConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How Office Layouts Influence Software Development?

Published: 21 December 2020 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Background: Organizations are constantly looking for performance improvements, and office layout has been widely studied because of its hypothetical influences on the social dynamics of software engineering projects. Aim: In this article, we investigate the perceived outcomes of different workspace characteristics, from the perspective of software engineering professionals. Methods: To achieve that, we conducted a survey with software engineering practitioners, and collected data on the perceptions about their current workspaces and performance from 47 participants. We used the results of a previous systematic review to design the survey questionnaire, and focused on the four human aspects known to be influenced by the office layout. Results: Different workspace settings exhibited similar perceptions in most of the investigated factors. However, we reveal 14 items that responsible for significant differences in the performance outcomes, such as communication quality, collaboration, team learning, privacy and others. In general, open spaces were the most effective office layout to enable all these factors. Conclusions: As a conclusion, our study demonstrates that there is not a generally accepted best model for software development workspace design, as all types of setting have positive and negative aspects. Organizations that are considering investing any budget in such things as radical workspace redesign should ponder the change very carefully. Also, there is still much room for investigation in this topic.

    References

    [1]
    M. C. Davis, D. J. Leach and, C. W. Clegg (2011). The Physical Environment of the Office: Contemporary and Emerging Issues. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 26, 193--235.
    [2]
    Paweλ Rola, Dorota Kuchta, and Dominika Kopczyk (2016). Conceptual model of working space for Agile (Scrum) project team. Journal of Systems and Software, Vol 118, 49--63.
    [3]
    Deepti Mishra, Alok Mishra, and Sofiya Ostrovska (2012). Impact of physical ambiance on communication, collaboration and coordination in agile software development: An empirical evaluation. Information and Software Technology, 54(10), 1067--1078.
    [4]
    Y. Hua, V. Loftness, R. Kraut, and K. M. Powell (2010). Workplace Collaborative Space Layout Typology and Occupant Perception of Collaboration Environment. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(3), 429--448.
    [5]
    C. B. Danielsson and L. Bodin (2008). Office Type in Relation to Job Satisfaction Among Employees. (2008), 636--668.
    [6]
    M. Q. Tran and Robert Biddle (2009). An Ethnographic Study of Collaboration in a Game Development Team.
    [7]
    Muhammad Ovais Ahmad, Valentina Lenarduzzi, Markku Oivo, and Davide Taibi (2018). Lessons Learned on Communication Channels and Practices. Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS '18), Poznan, 929--938.
    [8]
    Helen Sharp and Hugh Robinson (2008). Collaboration and coordination in mature eXtreme programming teams. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 66(7), 506--518.
    [9]
    Helen Sharp, Rosalba Giuffrida, and Grigori Melnik (2012). Information Flow within a Dispersed Agile Team: A Distributed Cognition Perspective. In Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming. XP (2012). Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol 111. Springer, Berlin.
    [10]
    Viviane Santos, Alfredo Goldman, Eduardo Guerra, Cleidson De Souza, and Helen Sharp (2013). A pattern language for interteam knowledge sharing in agile software development. Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs (PLoP '13), Art. 20, The Hillside Group, USA.
    [11]
    Trevor Keeling, Derek Clements-Croome, and Etienne Roesch (2015). The Effect of Agile Workspace and Remote Working on Experiences of Privacy, Crowding and Satisfaction. Buildings, 5(3), 880--898.
    [12]
    Zhu, L. (2013). Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services The physical office environment in technical services in ARL libraries. Library Collections, Acquisitions and Technical Services, 37(1-2), 42--55.
    [13]
    Markus Hummel, Christoph Rosenkranz, and Roland Holten (2015). The Role of Social Agile Practices for Direct and Indirect Communication in Information Systems Development Teams Information Systems Development Teams. Vol. 36, Art.15.
    [14]
    Stephanie D. Teasley, Lisa A. Covi, M. S. Krishnan, and Judith S. Olson (2002). Rapid Software Development Through Team Collocation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 28(7), 671--683.
    [15]
    Paul M. Clarke and Rory V. O'Connor (2012). The situational factors that affect the software development process: Towards a comprehensive reference framework. Information and Software Technology, 54(5), 433--447.
    [16]
    Görkem Giray, Murat Yilmaz, Rory V. O'Connor, and Paul M. Clarke (2018). The Impact of Situational Context on Software Process: A Case Study of a Very Small-Sized Company in the Online Advertising Domain. Systems, Software and Services Process Improvement. Proceedings of the 25th European Conference, (EuroSPI 2018), Bilbao, Spain, Vol. 896, 28--39, Bilbao, Spain.
    [17]
    J. M. Verner, M A Babar, N Cerpa, T Hall, and S Beecham (2014). The Journal of Systems and Software Factors that motivate software engineering teams: A four country empirical study. The Journal of Systems & Software 92, (2014), 115--127.
    [18]
    César França, Fabio Q. B. da Silva, and Helen Sharp 2018. Motivation and Satisfaction of Software Engineers. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2018).
    [19]
    Victor G. J. Costa and César França (2019). How Workspaces Influence Software Development? Preliminary Results of a Systematic Literature Review in Workshop on Software Visualization (VEM), 2019, Salvador. Anais do VII Workshop on Software Visualization, Evolution and Maintenance (VEM). Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação, sep. 2019. p. 53--60.
    [20]
    B. A. Kitchenham, T. Dyba, and M. Jorgensen. (2004). Evidence-based software engineering. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, (ICSE '04), IEEE Computer Society, Washington DC, USA, 273--281.
    [21]
    Barbara Kitchenham, Rialette Pretorius, David Budgen, O. Pearl Brereton, Mark Turner, Mahmood Niazi, and Stephen Linkman (2010). Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering - A Tertiary Study. Information and Software Technology. 52(8), 792--805.
    [22]
    A Rubin (2009). Statistics for Evidence-Based Practice and Evaluation. Cengage Learning.
    [23]
    Eva Ostertagova, Oskar Ostertag, and Jozef Kováč (2014). Methodology and Application of the Kruskal-Wallis Test. Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 611, 115--120.
    [24]
    Kris E. Berg and Richard Wayne Latin (2008). Essentials of research methods in health, physical education, exercise science, and recreation. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, USA
    [25]
    Mark Gardener (2012). Beginning R: the statistical programming language. John Wiley & Sons.
    [26]
    Jeffrey A. Livermore (2008). Factors that significantly impact the implementation of an agile software development methodology. Journal of Software, 3(4), 31--36.
    [27]
    Minna Hallikainen (2011). Experiences on Agile seating, facilities and solutions: Multisite environment. Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering, (ICGSE '11), 119--123.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    SBES '20: Proceedings of the XXXIV Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering
    October 2020
    901 pages
    ISBN:9781450387538
    DOI:10.1145/3422392
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    In-Cooperation

    • SBC: Brazilian Computer Society

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 21 December 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Office Layout
    2. Software Engineering
    3. Systematic Literature Review
    4. Work Environment

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    SBES '20

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 147 of 427 submissions, 34%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 100
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)17
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
    Reflects downloads up to 12 Aug 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media