Characterizing Software Engineering Work with Personas Based on Knowledge Worker Actions
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
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?
Developers' ability to meet information needs contributes to their ability to acquire and build expertise.
“We also know that developers' ability to meet information needs contributes to their ability to acquire and build expertise [5,17].”
From The Evolution of Information Seeking in Software Development: Understanding the Role and Impact of AI Assistants (2025) · cites this paper as [17]
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