Cited by 37Software Engineering Techniques and PracticesPersona Design and ApplicationsPersonality Traits and Psychology

Characterizing Software Engineering Work with Personas Based on Knowledge Worker Actions

Ford, Denae, Zimmermann, Tom, Bird, Christian, Nagappan, Nachiappan·2017·2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)

Abstract

Mistaking versatility for universal skills, some companies tend to categorize all software engineers the same not knowing a difference exists. For example, a company may select one of many software engineers to complete a task, later finding that the engineer's skills and style do not match those needed to successfully complete that task. This can result in delayed task completion and demonstrates that a one-size fits all concept should not apply to how software engineers work. In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of different software engineers and their working styles we interviewed 21 participants and surveyed 868 software engineers at a large software company and asked them about their work in terms of knowledge worker actions. We identify how tasks, collaboration styles, and perspectives of autonomy can significantly effect different approaches to software engineering work. To characterize differences, we describe empirically informed personas on how they work. Our defined software engineering personas include those with focused debugging abilities, engineers with an active interest in learning, experienced advisors who serve as experts in their role, and more. Our study and results serve as a resource for building products, services, and tools around these software engineering personas.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/esem.2017.54

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 35 · Cited by 37

Authors
Ford, D., Zimmermann, T., Bird, C., & Nagappan, N.
Affiliations
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
Venue
2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2017-11
Pages
394-403
ISSN
1938-6451 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2774687736
Cited by
37
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.47
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Proceedings of the ... ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement/International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Persona Design and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
Keywords
collaboration style, autonomy, debugging, learning, expertise, task completion

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