The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Hipikat: a project memory for software development
Abstract
Sociological and technical difficulties, such as a lack of informal encounters, can make it difficult for new members of noncollocated software development teams to learn from their more experienced colleagues. To address this situation, we have developed a tool, named Hipikat that provides developers with efficient and effective access to the group memory for a software development project that is implicitly formed by all of the artifacts produced during the development. This project memory is built automatically with little or no change to existing work practices. After describing the Hipikat tool, we present two studies investigating Hipikat's usefulness in software modification tasks. One study evaluated the usefulness of Hipikat's recommendations on a sample of 20 modification tasks performed on the Eclipse Java IDE during the development of release 2.1 of the Eclipse software. We describe the study, present quantitative measures of Hipikat's performance, and describe in detail three cases that illustrate a range of issues that we have identified in the results. In the other study, we evaluated whether software developers who are new to a project can benefit from the artifacts that Hipikat recommends from the project memory. We describe the study, present qualitative observations, and suggest implications of using project memory as a learning aid for project newcomers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The entity-relationship model—toward a unified view of data
Chen, P. P.-S. (1976) · ACM Transactions on Database Systems · doi:10.1145/320434.320440 · Cited by 4,708
Cited by
The promises and perils of mining git
Bird, C., Rigby, P. C., Barr, E. T., Hamilton, D. J., German, D. M., & Devanbu, P. (2009) · 2009 6th IEEE International Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories · doi:10.1109/msr.2009.5069475 · Cited by 311
Using information fragments to answer the questions developers ask
Fritz, T., & Murphy, G. C. (2010) · Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 1 · doi:10.1145/1806799.1806828 · Cited by 163
Self-citationHow Programmers Debug, Revisited: An Information Foraging Theory Perspective
Lawrance, J., Bogart, C., Burnett, M., Bellamy, R., Rector, K., & Fleming, S. D. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2010.111 · Cited by 142
An Information Foraging Theory Perspective on Tools for Debugging, Refactoring, and Reuse Tasks
Fleming, S. D., Scaffidi, C., Piorkowski, D., Burnett, M., Bellamy, R., Lawrance, J., & Kwan, I. (2013) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/2430545.2430551 · Cited by 79
Using information scent to model the dynamic foraging behavior of programmers in maintenance tasks
Lawrance, J., Bellamy, R., Burnett, M., & Rector, K. (2008) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1357054.1357261 · Cited by 76
Metadata
- Authors
- Cubranic, D., Murphy, G. C., Singer, J., & Booth, K. S.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 446-465
- ISSN
- 0098-5589 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2125889680
- Cited by
- 324
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 67.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Hipikat: a project memory for software development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tse.2005.71
- The paper
- Cubranic, D., Murphy, G. C., Singer, J., & Booth, K. S. (2005). Hipikat: a project memory for software development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2005.71
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
