Evaluating the Effect of Developers’ Personality and Productivity on their Intention to Use Model-DrivenWeb Engineering Techniques: An Exploratory Observational Study

  • Magister Glenda Toala Sánchez Universidad Central de Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador
  • Cristina Cachero Universidad de Alicante, Alicante, Spain
  • Santiago Melia Universidad de Alicante, Alicante, Spain
Keywords: MDWE, Personality, Productivity, Intention to Use, Technology Acceptance Model, EPQ-R, UMAM-Q

Abstract

Context: During the last decades, MDWE approaches have claimed important advantages in terms of short and long term productivity gains. However, the extent of such objective gains is still not clear. Moreover, despite such gains, they suffer from a low level of adoption. Being a complex socio-technical activity, not only productivity but also individual developer’s characteristics such as personality are potential explanatory factors of such situation. Objective:To study the relationship between (a) intention to useMDWE approaches and (b) individual personality and productivity factors. Method: We have proposed a conceptual model that has guided the design of an observational study with 77 subjects from the University of Alicante.After following anMDWEcourse, the subjects were measured in terms of their psychological profile, their productivity and their intention to use an MDWE approach in the future. Results: The study shows that higher levels of neuroticism relate with lower intention to use MDWE: subjects rating high in this dimension regard MDWE as significantly more difficult to use, and they show lower interest in using MDWE in future developments. Also, it shows how highly effective MDWE developers express a higher intention to use the approach. Conclusions: According to our data, in order to reach a wider audience, MDWE approaches need to improve their ease of use, and limit the amount of potential developer’s stressors. Also, our data suggest that the MDWE community should focus on improving the effectiveness of the developers, since it is the increased effectiveness rather than the efficiency what is significantly related with the intention to useMDWE in the future.

 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Silvia T. Acu˜na and Natalia Juristo. Assigning people to roles

in software projects. Software: Practice and Experience, 34(7):

–696, 2004.

Silvia T. Acu˜na, Natalia Juristo, and Ana M. Moreno. Emphasizing

human capabilities in software development. IEEE software,

(2):94–101, 2006.

Faheem Ahmed, Luiz Fernando Capretz, and Piers Campbell.

Evaluating the demand for soft skills in software development.

IT Professional, 14(1):44–49, 2012.

American Psychological Association (APA). Personality.

http://www.apa.org/topics/personality/, 2017. [Online; last

accessed 16 Oct 2017].

M. D. Avia, J. Sanz, M. L. S´anchez-Bernardos, M. R. Mart´ınez-

Arias, F Silva, and JL Gra˜na. The five-factor modelii. relations

of the neo-pi with other personality variables. Personality and

Individual Differences, 19(1):81–97, 1995.

VenuGopal Balijepally, RadhaKanta Mahapatra, and Sridhar P.

Nerur. Assessing personality profiles of software developers in

agile development teams. Communications of the Association for

Information Systems, 18(1):4, 2006.

Murray R. Barrick. Yes, personality matters: Moving on to more

important matters. Human performance, 18(4):359–372, 2005.

Victor R. Basili and David M.Weiss.Amethodology for collecting

valid software engineering data. IEEE Transactions on software

engineering, (6):728–738, 1984.

Allan G. Bluman. Elementary statistics: A step by step approach.

McGraw-Hill, 2012.

Melvin Blumberg and Charles D. Pringle. The missing opportunity

in organizational research: Some implications for a theory of work

performance. Academy of management Review, 7(4):560–569,

Luiz Fernando Capretz. Personality types in software engineering.

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(2):

–214, 2003.

Luiz Fernando Capretz. Bringing the human factor to software

engineering. IEEE software, 31(2):104–104, 2014.

Luiz Fernando Capretz and FaheemAhmed. Making sense of software

development and personality types. IT professional, 12(1),

Luiz Fernando Capretz, DanielVarona, andArif Raza. Influence of

personality types in software tasks choices. Computers in Human

Behavior, 52:373–378, 2015.

Casey G. Cegielski and Dianne J. Hall. What makes a good

programmer? Communications of the ACM, 49(10):73–75, 2006.

Joseph Chao and Gulgunes Atli. Critical personality traits in

successful pair programming. In Agile Conference, 2006, pages

–pp. IEEE, 2006.

Thomas D. Cook, Donald Thomas Campbell, and Arles Day.

Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings,

volume 351. Houghton Mifflin Boston, 1979.

PaulT. Costa and Robert R. McCrae. Neo pi-r professional manual.

Odessa, FL: Psychological assessment resources, 396:653–65,

Paul T. Costa and Robert R. McCrae. The revised neo personality

inventory (neo-pi-r). The SAGE handbook of personality theory

and assessment, 2(2):179–198, 2008.

Shirley Cruz, Fabio QB da Silva, and Luiz Fernando Capretz.

Forty years of research on personality in software engineering: A

mapping study. Computers in Human Behavior, 46:94–113, 2015.

Bill Curtis, Herb Krasner, and Neil Iscoe. A field study of the

software design process for large systems. Communications of the

ACM, 31(11):1268–1287, 1988.

MODELWARE D5.3.1. Industrial roi, assessment, and feedbackmaster

document.revision 2.2, 2006.

D. Roy Davies, Gerald Matthews, Rob B. Stammers, and Steve J.

Westerman. Human performance: Cognition, stress and individual

differences. Psychology Press, 2013.

Fred D. Davis. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and

user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, pages

–340, 1989.

Sarv Devaraj, Robert F. Easley, and J. Michael Crant. Research

note: how does personality matter? relating the five-factor model

to technology acceptance and use. Information Systems Research,

(1):93–105, 2008.

Annamaria Di Fabio. Beyond fluid intelligence and personality

traits in social support: the role of ability based emotional

intelligence. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 2015.

OscarD´ıaz and Felipe M.Villoria. Generating blogs out of product

catalogues: An mde approach. Journal of Systems and Software,

(10):1970–1982, 2010.

Mauricio Di´eguez, Samuel Sep´ulveda, and Cristina Cachero.

Umam-q: An instrument to assess the intention to use software

development methodologies. In Information Systems and Technologies

(CISTI), 7th Iberian Conference on, pages 1–6. IEEE,

M. Brent Donnellan, Frederick L. Oswald, Brendan M. Baird,

and Richard E. Lucas. The mini-ipip scales: tiny-yet-effective

measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychological

assessment, 18(2):192, 2006.

Tore Dyba, Nils Brede Moe, and Edda M Mikkelsen. An empirical

investigation on factors affecting software developer acceptance

and utilization of electronic process guides. In Software

Metrics, 2004. Proceedings. 10th International Symposium on,

pages 220–231. IEEE, 2004.

Christof Ebert and Reiner Dumke. Software Measurement:

Establish-Extract-Evaluate-Execute. Springer Science & Business

Media, 2007.

Hans J. Eysenck. The big five or giant three: Criteria for a

paradigm. 1994.

Hans Jurgen Eysenck, Sybil Bianca Giuletta Eysenck,

Gener´os Ortet i Fabregat, Rosa Maria Rogl`a i Recatal`a,

and Manuel Ignacio Ib´a˜nez Ribes. EPQ-R: cuestionario revisado

de personalidad de Eysenck: versiones completa (EPQ-R) y

abreviada (EPQ-RS): manual. Tea, 2008.

Robert Feldt, Lefteris Angelis, Richard Torkar, and Maria

Samuelsson. Links between the personalities, views and attitudes

of software engineers. Information and Software Technology,

(6):611–624, 2010.

H. Fujita and I. Zualkernan. Evaluating software development

methodologies based on their practices and promises. New Trends

in Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques: Proceedings of

the Seventh Somet 08, 182:14, 2008.

Michael J. Gallivan. Examining it professionals’ adaptation to

technological change: the influence of gender and personal

attributes. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances

in Information Systems, 35(3):28–49, 2004.

Taghi Javdani Gandomani, Hazura Zulzalil,AAAbdul Ghani,Abu

Bakar Md Sultan, and KhaironiYatim Sharif. How human aspects

impress agile software development transition and adoption. International

Journal of Software Engineering and its Applications,

(1):129–148, 2014.

Lewis R. Goldberg, John A. Johnson, Herbert W. Eber, Robert

Hogan, Michael C. Ashton, C. Robert Cloninger, and Harrison G.

Gough. The international personality item pool and the future

of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in

personality, 40(1):84–96, 2006.

Jaime G´omez, Cristina Cachero, and Oscar Pastor. Conceptual

modeling of device-independent web applications. Ieee multimedia,

(2):26–39, 2001.

Denise Gramß and Birgit Vogel-Heuser. Contribution of personal

factors for a better understanding of the gender effects of freshmen

in mechanical engineering. In Industrial Technology (ICIT), 2015

IEEE International Conference on, pages 3258–3263. IEEE, 2015.

Thomas R.G. Green, Marian Petre, and R. K. E. Bellamy. Comprehensibility

of visual and textual programs:Atest of superlativism

against the match-mismatch conjecture. ESP, 91(743):121–146,

Jayati Gulati, Priya Bhardwaj, and Bharti Suri. Comparative study

of personality models in software engineering. In Proceedings of

the Third International Symposium on Women in Computing and

Informatics, pages 209–216. ACM, 2015.

H. Gustavsson, B. Lings, B. Lundell, A. Mattsson and

M. Beekveld. Integrating proprietary and open-source tool chains

through horizontal interchange of XMI models. In IEEE International

Conference in Software Maintenance, pages 521–522,

Jo E. Hannay, Dag I. K. Sjoberg, and Tore Dyba. A systematic

review of theory use in software engineering experiments. IEEE

Transactions on Software Engineering, 33(2):87–107, 2007.

Bill C. Hardgrave, Fred D. Davis, and Cynthia K.

Riemenschneider. Investigating determinants of software

developers’ intentions to follow methodologies. Journal of

Management Information Systems, 20(1):123–151, 2003.

W. Heijstek and M. R. V. Chaudron. Empirical investigations of

model size, complexity and effort in a large scale, distributed

model driven development process. In Software Engineering

and Advanced Applications, 2009. SEAA’09. 35th Euromicro

Conference on, pages 113–120. IEEE, 2009.

Joe Hoffert, Douglas C. Schmidt, and Aniruddha Gokhale. Quantitative

productivity analysis of a domain-specific modeling language.

In Handbook of Research on Innovations in Systems and

Software Engineering, pages 313–344. IGI Global, 2015.

Romana Vajde Horvat, Ivan Rozman, and J´ozsef Gy¨ork¨os. Managing

the complexity of spi in small companies. Software Process:

Improvement and Practice, 5(1):45–54, 2000.

John Hutchinson, Jon Whittle, Mark Rouncefield, and Steinar

Kristoffersen. Empirical assessment of mde in industry. In

Proceedings of the 33rd international conference on software

engineering, pages 471–480. ACM, 2011.

ISO. Iso 9000: Quality management systems–fundamentals and

vocabulary, 2055.

Perla I. Jarillo-Nieto, Carlos Enr´ıquez-Ram´ırez, and Roberto A.

S´anchez-Herrera. Identificaci´on del factor humano en el

seguimiento de procesos de software en un medio ambiente

universitario. Computaci´on y Sistemas, 19(3):577–588, 2015.

Jingdong Jia, Pengnan Zhang, and Rong Zhang. A comparative

study of three personality assessment models in software engineering

field. In Software Engineering and Service Science (ICSESS),

6th IEEE International Conference on, pages 7–10. IEEE,

Oliver P. John, Laura P. Naumann, and Christopher J. Soto.

Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy. Handbook

of personality: Theory and research, 3:114–158, 2008.

Timothy A. Judge, Chad A. Higgins, Carl J. Thoresen, and

Murray R. Barrick. The big five personality traits, general mental

ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel

psychology, 52(3):621–652, 1999.

Carl Gustav Jung. Psychological types. Routledge, 2014.

Dona M. Kagan and John M. Douthat. Personality and learning

fortran. International journal of man-machine studies, 22(4):

–402, 1985.

Makrina Viola Kosti, Robert Feldt, and Lefteris Angelis. Personality,

emotional intelligence and work preferences in software

engineering: An empirical study. Information and Software

Technology, 56(8):973–990, 2014.

Christian F. J. Lange and Michel R.V. Chaudron. Interactive views

to improve the comprehension of uml models-an experimental

validation. In Program Comprehension, 2007. ICPC’07. 15th

IEEE International Conference on, pages 221–230. IEEE, 2007.

Marino Linaje, Juan Carlos Preciado, Roberto Rodriguez-

Echeverria, Jos´e Mar´ıa Conejero, and Fernando Sanchez-

Figueroa. An smil-timesheets based temporal behavior model for

the visual development of web user interfaces. Journal of Web

Engineering, 16(7&8):371–394, 2017.

E. D. L´opez, M. Gonz´alez, M. L´opez, and E.L. Idu˜nate. Proceso

de Desarrollo de Software Mediante Herramientas MDA. Revista

Iberoamericana de Sistemas, Cibern´etica e Inform´atica, 3(2):

–10, 2006.

Anthony MacDonald, Danny Russell, and Brenton Atchison.

Model-driven development within a legacy system: an industry

experience report. In Software Engineering Conference, 2005.

Proceedings. 2005 Australian, pages 14–22. IEEE, 2005.

Yulkeidi Mart´ınez, Cristina Cachero, and Santiago Meli´a. Evaluating

the impact of a model-driven web engineering approach

on the productivity and the satisfaction of software development

teams. In International Conference on Web Engineering, pages

–237. Springer, 2012.

Yulkeidi Mart´ınez, Cristina Cachero, and Santiago Meli´a. Mdd vs.

traditional software development: A practitioners subjective perspective.

Information and Software Technology, 55(2):189–200,

Yulkeidi Mart´ınez, Cristina Cachero, and Santiago Meli´a. Empirical

study on the maintainability of web applications: Model-driven

engineering vs code-centric. Empirical Software Engineering,

(6):1887–1920, 2014.

Steve McConnell. Problem programmers. IEEE Software,

(2):128, 1998.

John A. McDermid and Keith H. Bennett. Software engineering

research: a critical appraisal. IEE Proceedings-Software,

(4):179–186, 1999.

Santiago Meli´a, Jose-Javier Mart´ınez, Sergio Mira, Juan Antonio

Osuna, and Jaime G´omez. An eclipse plug-in for modeldriven

development of rich internet applications. In International

Conference on Web Engineering, pages 514–517. Springer, 2010.

Claudia Melo, Daniela S Cruzes, Fabio Kon, and Reidar Conradi.

Agile team perceptions of productivity factors. In 2011 Agile

Conference, pages 57–66. IEEE, 2011.

Parastoo Mohagheghi. An approach for empirical evaluation

of model-driven engineering in multiple dimensions. In

C2M:EEMDD Workshop at ECMFA, pages 6–17, 2010.

Parastoo Mohagheghi and Vegard Dehlen. Where is the proof?–a

review of experiences from applying made in industry. Lecture

Notes in Computer Science, 5095(2008):432–443, 2008.

RoryV. O’Connor and MuratYilmaz. Exploring the belief systems

of software development professionals. Cybernetics and Systems,

(6-7): 528–542, 2015.

Alan R. Peslak. The impact of personality on information technology

team projects. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMIS

CPRconference on computer personnel research: Forty four years

of computer personnel research: achievements, challenges & the

future, pages 273–279. ACM, 2006.

Juan Carlos Preciado, Roberto Rodriguez-Echeverria, Jos´e Mar´ıa

Conejero, Fernando Sanchez-Figueroa, and Alvaro E Prieto. An

approach for guesstimating the deployment cost. Journal of Web

Engineering, 17(3&4):224–240, 2018.

Naomi L. Quenk. Essentials of Myers-Briggs type indicator

assessment, volume 66. JohnWiley & Sons, 2009.

Nornadiah Mohd Razali, Yap BeeWah, et al. Power comparisons

of shapiro-wilk, kolmogorov-smirnov, lilliefors and andersondarling

tests. Journal of statistical modeling and analytics,

(1):21–33, 2011.

Cynthia K. Riemenschneider, Bill C. Hardgrave, and Fred D.

Davis. Explaining software developer acceptance of methodologies:

a comparison of five theoretical models. IEEE transactions

on Software Engineering, (12):1135–1145, 2002.

Aristide Saggino. The big three or the big five? a replication study.

Personality and Individual Differences, 28(5):879–886, 2000.

Elmar Sauerwein, Franz Bailom, Kurt Matzler, and Hans H

Hinterhuber. The kano model: How to delight your customers.

In International Working Seminar on Production Economics,

volume 1, pages 313–327, 1996.

Shlomo S. Sawilowsky and R. Clifford Blair. A more realistic

look at the robustness and type ii error properties of the t test

to departures from population normality. Psychological bulletin,

(2):352, 1992.

Ron H. J. Scholte and Eric E. J. De Bruyn. Comparison of the

giant three and the big five in early adolescents. Personality and

Individual Differences, 36(6):1353–1371, 2004.

Adesina S. Sodiya,HODLonge, S.Adebukola Onashoga, Oludele

Awodele, and L. O. Omotosho. An improved assessment of personality

traits in software engineering. Interdisciplinary Journal

of Information, Knowledge & Management, 2:163–177, 2007.

Mohsen Tavakol and Reg Dennick. Making sense of cronbach’s

alpha. International journal of medical education, 2:53, 2011.

CMMI Product Team. Cmmi for development, version 1.2.

Technical Report CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008, Software Engineering

Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 2006.

Glenda Toala, Mauricio Di´eguez, Cristina Cachero, and Santiago

Meli´a. Evaluating the impact of developers personality on the

intention to adopt model-driven web engineering approaches:

An observational study. In International Conference on Web

Engineering, pages 3–16. Springer, 2018.

Adam Trendowicz and J¨urgen M¨unch. Factors influencing software

development productivity state-of-the-art and industrial

experiences. Advances in computers, 77:185–241, 2009.

Iris Vessey and Ron Weber. Research on structured programming:

An empiricist’s evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Software

Engineering, (4):397–407, 1984.

St°aleWalderhaug, Erlend Stav, and Marius Mikalsen. Experiences

from model-driven development of homecare services: Uml profiles

and domain models. In International Conference on Model

Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pages 199–212.

Springer, 2008.

Gerald M.Weinberg. The psychology of computer programming,

volume 932633420. Van Nostrand Reinhold New York, 1971.

Kirsten N. Whitley.Visual programming languages and the empirical

evidence for and against. Journal of Visual Languages &

Computing, 8(1):109–142, 1997.

Jon Whittle, John Hutchinson, and Mark Rouncefield. The state

of practice in model-driven engineering. IEEE software, 31(3):

–85, 2014.

Murat Yilmaz and Rory V. OConnor. Towards the understanding

and classification of the personality traits of software development

practitioners: Situational context cards approach. In Software

engineering and advanced applications (SEAA), 2012 38th

EUROMICRO conference on, pages 400–405. IEEE, 2012.

Published
2019-02-26
Section
Articles