Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Scot Kelly

dblp:287/4532 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 100%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Collaborative and social computing · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering
developer studies
0.512021
A Case Study of Onboarding in Software Teams: Tasks and Strategies · ICSE 2021
Empirical software engineering › developer studies › software teams
newcomer onboarding
0.512021
A Case Study of Onboarding in Software Teams: Tasks and Strategies · ICSE 2021
Collaborative and social computing › team collaboration
software development teams
0.112021
A Case Study of Onboarding in Software Teams: Tasks and Strategies · ICSE 2021

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

survey · 1.0interviews · 1.0case study · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 A Case Study of Onboarding in Software Teams: Tasks and Strategies
abstract
Developers frequently move into new teams or environments across software companies. Their onboarding experience is correlated with productivity, job satisfaction, and other short-term and long-term outcomes. The majority of the onboarding process comprises engineering tasks such as fixing bugs or implementing small features. Nevertheless, we do not have a systematic view of how tasks influence onboarding. In this paper, we present a case study of Microsoft, where we interviewed 32 developers moving into a new team and 15 engineering managers onboarding a new developer into their team - to understand and characterize developers' onboarding experience and expectations in relation to the tasks performed by them while onboarding. We present how tasks interact with new developers through three representative themes: learning, confidence building, and socialization. We also discuss three onboarding strategies as inferred from the interviews that managers commonly use unknowingly, and discuss their pros and cons and offer situational recommendations. Furthermore, we triangulate our interview findings with a developer survey (N = 189) and a manager survey (N = 37) and find that survey results suggest that our findings are representative and our recommendations are actionable. Practitioners could use our findings to improve their onboarding processes, while researchers could find new research directions from this study to advance the understanding of developer onboarding. Our research instruments and anonymous data are available at https://zenodo.org/record/4455937#.YCOQCs 0lFd.
An Ju, Hitesh Sajnani, Scot Kelly, Kim Herzig
ICSE3