Evaluating the Effect of Developers’ Personality and Productivity on their Intention to Use Model-DrivenWeb Engineering Techniques: An Exploratory Observational Study
Keywords:MDWE, Personality, Productivity, Intention to Use, Technology Acceptance Model, EPQ-R, UMAM-Q
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.
Silvia T. Acu˜na and Natalia Juristo. Assigning people to roles
in software projects. Software: Practice and Experience, 34(7):
Silvia T. Acu˜na, Natalia Juristo, and Ana M. Moreno. Emphasizing
human capabilities in software development. IEEE software,
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.
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):
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
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,
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,
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
Hans J. Eysenck. The big five or giant three: Criteria for a
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,
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,
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,
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
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):
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):
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,
Steve McConnell. Problem programmers. IEEE Software,
John A. McDermid and Keith H. Bennett. Software engineering
research: a critical appraisal. IEE Proceedings-Software,
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,
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,
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.
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):
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.