Two Sides of the Same Coin: Software Developers' Perceptions of Task Switching and Task Interruption

ABSTRACT

In the constantly evolving world of software development, switching back and forth between tasks has become the norm. While task switching often allows developers to perform tasks effectively and may increase creativity via the flexible pathway, there are also consequences to frequent task-switching. For high-momentum tasks like software development, "flow", the highly productive state of concentration, is paramount. Each switch distracts the developers' flow, requiring them to switch mental state and an additional immersion period to get back into the flow. However, the wasted time due to time fragmentation caused by task switching is largely invisible and unnoticed by developers and managers. We conducted a survey with 141 software developers to investigate their perceptions of differences between task switching and task interruption and to explore whether they perceive task switchings as disruptive as interruptions. We found that practitioners perceive considerable similarities between the disruptiveness of task switching (either planned or unplanned) and random interruptions. The high level of cognitive cost and low performance are the main consequences of task switching articulated by our respondents. Our findings broaden the understanding of flow change among software practitioners in terms of the characteristics and categories of disruptive switches as well as the consequences of interruptions caused by daily meetings.

References

1. Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Oliver Karras, Kurt Schneider, Ken Barker, and Mike Bauer. 2018. Task Interruption in Software Development Projects: What Makes some Interruptions More Disruptive than Others?. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE'18). ACM.
2. Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Guenther Ruhe, and Mike Bauer. 2017. Task Interruptions in Requirements Engineering: Reality versus Perceptions!. In Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), 2017 IEEE 25th International. IEEE, 6--15.
3. Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Guenther Ruhe, and Mike Bauer. 2017. Understanding Task Interruptions in Service Oriented Software Development Projects: An Exploratory Study. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Software Engineering Research and Industrial Practice (SER&IP '17). IEEE Press, 34--40.
4. Zahra Shakeri Hossein Abad, Alex Shymka, Jenny Le, Noor Hammad, and Guenther Ruhe. 2017. A Visual Narrative Path from Switching to Resuming a Requirements Engineering Task. In Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), 2017 IEEE 25th International. IEEE, 442--447.
5. Steve Adolph, Wendy Hall, and Philippe Kruchten. 2011. Using grounded theory to study the experience of software development. Empirical Software Engineering 16, 4 (2011), 487--513.
6. Erik M Altmann and J.Gregory Trafton. 2002. Memory for goals: an activation-based model. Cognitive Science 26, 1 (2002), 39--83.
7. Carey D Chisholm et al. 2000. Academic Emergency Medicine 7, 11 (2000), 1239--1243.
8. Jan Chong and Rosanne Siino. 2006. Interruptions on Software Teams: A Comparison of Paired and Solo Programmers. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 29--38.
9. Tom DeMarco and Tim Lister. 2013. Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams. Addison-Wesley.
10. Van Solingen et al. 1998. Interrupts: Just a Minute Never Is. IEEE software 15, 5 (1998), 97--103.
11. Graham R Gibbs. 2002. Qualitative data analysis: Explorations with NVivo. Open University.
12. Barbara Kitchenham et al. 2017. Robust Statistical Methods for Empirical Software Engineering", journal="Empirical Software Engineering. 22, 2 (2017), 579--630.
13. Chris Parnin and Spencer Rugaber. 2011. Resumption Strategies for Interrupted Programming Tasks. Software Quality Journal 19, 1 (2011), 5--34.
14. Dario D Salvucci and Niels A Taatgen. 2010. The multitasking mind. Oxford University Press.
15. David W Scott. 1979. On Optimal and Data-based Histograms. Biometrika 66, 3 (1979), 605--610.
16. Viktoria Stray, Dag IK Sjøberg, and Tore Dybå. 2016. The Daily Stand-up Meeting: A Grounded Theory Study. Journal of Systems and Software 114 (2016), 101--124.
17. Colin A. Terry, Punya Mishra, and Cary J. Roseth. 2016. Preference for multitasking, technological dependency, student metacognition, & pervasive technology use: An experimental intervention. Computers in Human Behavior 65 (2016), 241--251.
18. Bogdan et al. Vasilescu. 2016. The Sky is Not the Limit: Multitasking Across GitHub Projects. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering. 994--1005.