Cited by 159Software Engineering Techniques and PracticesSoftware System Performance and ReliabilitySoftware Engineering Research

DevOps: A Definition and Perceived Adoption Impediments

Smeds, Jens, Nybom, Kristian, Porres, Ivan·2015·Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-319-18612-2_14

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two common taxonomies used to identify DevSecOps are Smeds et al. (2015) (Capabilities, Cultural Enablers, Technological Enablers) and Humble and Molesky (2011) (Culture, Automation, Measurement, Sharing).

    “We discovered two common taxonomies used to identify DevSecOps. The first taxonomy by Smeds et al. (2015) identifies the following elements: Capabilities, Cultural Enablers, and Technological Enablers. A second taxonomy by Humble and Molesky (2011) identifies Culture, Automation, Measurement, and Sharing (CAMS) as key elements of DevSecOps.”

    From Identifying the primary dimensions of DevSecOps: A multi-vocal literature review (2024) · cites this paper as Smeds et al., 2015

  • Researchers had certain preconceived notions in this topic, e.g., the identified elements of DevOps/DevSecOps (Capabilities, Cultural Enablers, and Technological Enablers) and the CAMS model, that might have influenced the ways of coding and theming.

    “In this case, researchers had certain preconceived notions in this topic, e.g., the identified elements of DevOps/DevSecOps (Capabilities, Cultural Enablers, and Technological Enablers) (Smeds et al., 2015) and the CAMS (Culture, Automation, Measurement, and Sharing) model (Humble and Molesky, 2011), that might have influenced the ways of coding and theming.”

    From Identifying the primary dimensions of DevSecOps: A multi-vocal literature review (2024) · cites this paper as Smeds et al., 2015

  • The questionnaire was pilot-tested with three external experts from academia and industry to check understandability and suitability.

    “The pilot assessment of questionnaire was performed with aim to check the understandability and suitability of designed questionnaire [36].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smeds, J., Nybom, K., & Porres, I.
Affiliations
Åbo Akademi University (FI)
Corresponding author
  • Smeds, Jens
  • Nybom, Kristian
Venue
Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing
Published
2015
Pages
166-177
ISSN
  • 1865-1348 (ISSN-L)
  • 1865-1356
OpenAlex
W223200210
Cited by
158
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
7.53
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Lecture notes in business information processing (publishedVersion)
  • Åbo Akademi University Research Portal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
Keywords
DevOps, DevOps adoption, software development organizations, software delivery, organizational change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review