Developer experience · Peer-reviewed empirical study or research synthesis
Software developers' perceptions of productivity
Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE 2014) · 2014
Summary
Developers perceive days as productive when completing many or large tasks without significant interruptions/context switches, although substantial task/activity switching can coexist with feeling productive. Founder-use interpretation: Useful for product/engineering workflow hypotheses and user research, not proof that a tool improves delivery metrics; pair perceived productivity with cycle time, quality, and wellbeing measures.
For your marketing
Possible founder application
Useful for product/engineering workflow hypotheses and user research, not proof that a tool improves delivery metrics; pair perceived productivity with cycle time, quality, and wellbeing measures.
Reported result
What the study found
Developers perceive days as productive when completing many or large tasks without significant interruptions/context switches, although substantial task/activity switching can coexist with feeling productive.
Research question
What the authors investigated
How do professional software developers perceive productive and unproductive work?
Design
Two studies, including a survey and an observational study, examining professional developers' perceptions of productive and unproductive work.
Sample and setting
Two studies, including a survey and an observational study, examining professional developers' perceptions of productive and unproductive work.
Scope and transfer
Limitations to keep in view
Perceived rather than objective productivity; observational/self-report bias; developer and workplace context may not represent all teams.
Research sources
Publisher article page directly retrieved with Firecrawl (reference 01a122bc-2599-72ce-b1ae-8d126dcda4a4). The annotation follows the retrieved title/abstract or landing-page record; full methods and correction notices were not independently reviewed.