Buyer behavior · Comparative industrial case study

Comparison of release engineering practices in a large mature company and a startup

Empirical Software Engineering · 2018

Eero Laukkanen, Maria Paasivaara, Juha Itkonen, Casper Lassenius

Original paper ↗

Summary

Compares release-engineering practices across organizational scale and maturity.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Adapt release controls to company maturity; do not copy enterprise or startup practices without context.

Reported result

What the study found

Compares release-engineering practices across organizational scale and maturity.

Research question

What the authors investigated

How does the study’s stated design explain its reported outcome in this setting?

Design

Comparative industrial case study

Sample and setting

One large mature company and one startup; abstract-only

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Two organizational cases limit generalization.

Research sources

abstract_only

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.

Read the paper