Developing machine learning products better and faster at startups
Abstract
There are many uncertainties in developing machine-learning (ML)-based products. Due to the gap between research and development, the overall progress becomes slow, and experiences many failures and learnings only to see an initial idea not working or generating no significant revenue. To minimize these drastic effects, there are continuing studies to make a balanced handshake between research and development to shorten the time span of ML-based products from idea generation to deployment. This paper demonstrates a three-phase ML product development workflow at OneClass. The workflow is a combination of multiple best-practices in the innovation-based startup industry. The first phase of the workflow considers the pivotal idea generation for products that involves data reliability assessment, idea prioritization, expectation setting, and building trust among users. The second phase concentrates on several state-of-the-art strategies for planning and future re-use of several product components. Finally, the actual research and development phase describes the fail-fast method practiced by OneClass to learn quickly from failures and act accordingly. The workflow is followed by the company to develop many sophisticated ML-based products successfully within a very short period of time.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Shams demonstrates a three-phase ML product development process to shorten the delivery time from idea generation to deployment.
“Shams (2018) demonstrates a threephase ML product development process to shorten the delivery time from idea generation to deployment.”
From A software engineering perspective on engineering machine learning systems: State of the art and challenges (2021) · cites this paper as Shams, 2018
There are many processes for ML lifecycle and traditional software development.
“While there are many processes for ML lifecycle (Hulten, 2018;Rao, 2019;Shams, 2018) and traditional software development (Klünder et al., 2019), a set of harmonized practices for developing ML systems is required (Alvarez-Rodríguez et al., 2019;Belani et al., 2019;de Souza Nascimento et al., 2019).”
From A software engineering perspective on engineering machine learning systems: State of the art and challenges (2021) · cites this paper as Shams, 2018
Cites
(2004) · Cited by 9,718 · see citing works
Khanna, R., Güler, I., & Nerkar, A. A. (2015) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2013.1109 · Cited by 314 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Giray, G. (2021) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2021.111031 · Cited by 187 · see citing works
- Authors
- Shams, R.
- Corresponding author
- Shams, Rushdi
- ORCID
- Shams, Rushdi
- Venue
- IEEE Engineering Management Review
- Published
- 2018-09-01
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 36-39
- ISSN
- 0360-8581 (ISSN-L)
- 1937-4178
- OpenAlex
- W2896627448
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 2.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Engineering Management Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Innovation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- startups, idea generation, data reliability assessment, idea prioritization, user trust, innovation management
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