@inproceedings {SE.5.Moloekken-Oestvold.2004.b,
	title = {Does Use of Development Model Affect Estimation Accuracy and Bias?},
	journal = {Product Focused Software Process Improvement: 5th International Conference (PROFES 2004)},
	year = {2004},
	note = {ISBN: 3-540-21421-6},
	month = {April 5-8},
	pages = {17-29},
	publisher = {Springer-Verlag},
	type = {1},
	address = {Kansai Science City, Japan},
	abstract = {Objective. To investigate how the use of incremental and evolutionary development models affects the accuracy and bias of effort and schedule estimates of software projects. Rationale. Advocates of incremental and evolutionary development models often claim that use of these models results in improved estimation accuracy. Design of study. We conducted an in-depth survey, where information was collected through structured interviews with 22 software project managers in 10 different companies. We collected and analyzed information about estimation approach, effort estimation accuracy and bias, schedule estimation accuracy and bias, completeness of delivered functionality and other estimation related information. Results. We found no impact from the development model on the estimation approach. However, we found that incremental and evolutionary projects were less prone to effort overruns. The degree of delivered functionality and schedule estimation accuracy, on the other hand, were seemingly independent of development model. Conclusion. The use of incremental and evolutionary development models may reduce the chance of effort overruns.},
	author = {Kjetil Johan {Mol{\o}kken-{\O}stvold} and A. C. {Lien} and J{\o}rgensen, Magne and Sinan Sigurd {Tanilkan} and Gallis, H. and S. E. {Hove}}
}
@techreport {SE.7.Moloekken-Oestvold.2004,
	title = {Project Estimation in the Norwegian Software Industry - a Summary},
	number = {2004-03},
	year = {2004},
	note = {Results from the BEST-Pro (Better Estimation of Software Tasks and Process Improvement) survey},
	publisher = {Simula Research Laboratory},
	abstract = {This report provides an overview of the results obtained from a survey on project estimation in Norwegian software companies. The survey was conducted between February and November 2003. The main results are: {\textbullet} We observed that 76\% of the projects used more effort than estimated, while 19\% used less. The average effort overrun was 41\%. {\textbullet} Average effort overrun was 67\% in projects with a public client, compared to an average effort overrun of 21\% for projects with a private client. {\textbullet} Projects that used an incremental or evolutionary development approach had an average effort overrun of 24\%, as opposed to the average 55\% overrun for projects that used a waterfall-based development approach. The frequency and magnitude of effort overruns found in this survey seems to be similar to results reported from surveys conducted in other countries in the past 20 years. The observed differences in effort overruns between private and public projects may be caused by differences in bidding procedures, level of client involvement or acceptance procedures. In order to reduce the risk of effort overruns, software companies should: {\textbullet} Focus on analyzing their own estimation performance, and invest in estimation improvement (for instance through experience databases or work breakdown structures). {\textbullet} Differentiate risk buffers based on the type of the customer, development approach and the size of the project. {\textbullet} Try to establish an {\textquotedblleft}as close as possible{\textquotedblright} dialogue with the customers (e.g. through an incremental development approach). All companies should analyse completed projects, in order to benchmark their performance. This allows for improvement efforts to be identified.},
	author = {Kjetil Johan {Mol{\o}kken-{\O}stvold} and J{\o}rgensen, Magne and Sinan Sigurd {Tanilkan} and Gallis, H. and A. C. {Lien} and S. E. {Hove}}
}
@inproceedings {SE.5.Moloekken-Oestvold.2004.a,
	title = {A Survey on Software Estimation in the Norwegian Industry},
	journal = {10th International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS 2004)},
	year = {2004},
	month = {September 16-18},
	pages = {208-219},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society Press},
	type = {1},
	address = {Chicago, USA},
	abstract = {This paper seeks to provide an overview of the estimation methods that software companies apply to estimate their projects, why those methods are chosen, and how accurate they are. In order to improve software estimation accuracy, such knowledge is essential. We conducted an in-depth survey, where information was collected through structured interviews with senior managers from 18 different companies and project managers of 52 different projects. We collected and analyzed information about estimation approach, effort estimation accuracy and bias, schedule estimation accuracy and bias, completeness of delivered functionality and other estimation related information. Our results suggest, for example, that average effort overruns are 41\%, that the software estimation performance has not changed much the last 10-20 years, that expert estimation is the dominating estimation method, that estimation accuracy is not much impacted by use of formal estimation models, and that software managers tend to believe that the estimation accuracy of their company is better than it actually is.},
	author = {Kjetil Johan {Mol{\o}kken-{\O}stvold} and J{\o}rgensen, Magne and Sinan Sigurd {Tanilkan} and Gallis, H. and A. C. {Lien} and S. E. {Hove}}
}
@inproceedings {SE.5.Gallis.2003.b,
	title = {Collaboration on Software Tasks},
	journal = {Fourth International Conference on eXtreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering (XP 2003)},
	year = {2003},
	month = {May 25-29},
	pages = {423-424},
	publisher = {-},
	type = {1},
	address = {Genova, Italy},
	abstract = {In pair programming (PP), two developers work together on the same task using one computer and keyboard. PP involves not just coding, but many phases of the software development process such as design and testing. PP has been proposed by several authors since the 70{\textquoteright}s, but it is primarily during the last three to four years that some of the claimed benefits have been tested empirically. Initial results indicate many benefits in favour of PP. However, there are some studies that conflict with these benefits. One explanation of the apparently contradicting results may be differences in the context in which the studies were conducted. Existing studies on PP have so far compared PP with individual programming. However, PP is just one way in which programmers can collaborate on software development tasks. Partner programming and team collocation are examples of other levels of programmer collaboration. Furthermore, most studies have so far used students as subjects. There is a need for more realistic studies using professionals as subjects to ensure external validity.},
	author = {Gallis, H.}
}
@inproceedings {SE.5.Gallis.2003.a,
	title = {An Initial Framework for Research on Pair Programming},
	journal = {ISESE{\textquoteright}2003 (Second International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering)},
	year = {2003},
	month = {September 30 - October 1},
	pages = {132-142},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	type = {1},
	address = {Rome, Italy},
	abstract = {In recent years, several claims have been put forward in favour of pair programming, as opposed to individual programming. However, results from existing studies on pair programming contain apparent contradictions. The differences in the context in which the studies were conducted may be one explanation for such results. This paper presents an initial framework for research on pair programming. The aim is to support empirical studies and meta-analysis for developing theories about pair programming. The framework is based on (1) existing studies on pair programming, (2) ongoing studies by the authors, and (3) theories from group dynamics.},
	author = {Gallis, H. and Arisholm, Erik and Dyb{\r a}, Tore}
}
@inproceedings {SE.5.Gallis.2002,
	title = {A Transition From Partner Programming to Pair Programming - an Industrial Case Study},
	journal = {Workshop "Pair Programming Installed" in 17th Annual ACM Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), Position paper},
	year = {2002},
	month = {November 4-8},
	publisher = {-},
	type = {1},
	address = {Seattle USA},
	abstract = {Pair programming is believed to provide many benefits compared with individual programming. However, implementing pair programming in a development project may not be trivial. At present, we are studying a small, industrial development project with two distributed pairs. Data has been collected through daily diaries, task questionnaires, feedback meetings and observation of the pairs. The preliminary results show that the two pairs are struggling to convert from their usual {\textquotedblleft}partner programming{\textquotedblright} habits to pair programming. We believe the main reason is that they mostly are used to working on their own individual tasks, but in close cooperation with another programmer in the same physical room (i.e., {\textquotedblleft}partner programming{\textquotedblright}). They are not convinced that a more structured collaboration (i.e., pair programming) will provide additional benefits. There is also a great difference between the pairs in the degree of resistance to pair programming. It seems that the pair with more experience and more knowledge about the system as a whole is more resistant to pair programming than the inexperienced pair. We believe that future empirical studies need to compare pair programming with other kinds of programmer collaboration, such as partner programming and team collocation. Research on pair programming should address when and how the various types of programmer collaboration are beneficial.},
	author = {Gallis, H. and Arisholm, Erik and Dyb{\r a}, Tore}
}
@inproceedings {SE.5.Kasbo.2001,
	title = {Designing for a Multidevice Environment - a Descriptive Case},
	journal = {Proceedings of the 24th Information System Research Seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS24)},
	year = {2001},
	pages = {533-546},
	publisher = {-},
	type = {1},
	abstract = {In this paper we are focusing on designing for a multidevice environment. The paper presents preliminary results and describes topics from the Knowmobile project. The Knowmobile project is concerned with mobile opportunities for medical students at the University of Oslo. The multidevice paradigm in Knowmobile is enlighted, and the paper reports theoretical and empirical data on cross publishing. Cross publishing is a term that refers to one publication that is presented on various devices such as a book, a PDA, on the Internet and WAP and so on. The paper report Cross publishing on multiple devices is an approach to design for a multidevice environment.},
	author = {J. P. {Kasbo} and Gallis, H. and Herstad, J.},
	editor = {Bj{\o}rnestad, S. and Moe, R.E. and M{\o}rch, A.I. and Opdahl, A.L.}
}
@inproceedings {SE.5.Gallis.2001,
	title = {The Multidevice Paradigm in Knowmobile - Does One Size Fit All?},
	journal = {Proceedings of the 24th Information System Research in Scandinavia (IRIS24)},
	year = {2001},
	pages = {491-504},
	publisher = {-},
	type = {1},
	abstract = {This paper describes preliminary results and topics from the Knowmobile project. The Knowmobile project is concerned with mobile opportunities for medical students at the University of Oslo. The focus is on the students learning context at a local hospital and at a number of general practitioners offices. The paper reports theoretical data on the multidevice paradigm. The multidevice paradigm refers to interaction with many different devices in contrast to interaction with just one device. The multidevice paradigm leads to problems connected to the use, design, harmonization, standardization and synchronization of various devices, and this paper states that introducing artefacts in a multidevice environment, must concider all these problem areas. The paper concludes that there is no one size fit all and, that the use situation for the medical students points towards the multidevice paradigm.},
	author = {Gallis, H. and J. P. {Kasbo} and Herstad, J.},
	editor = {Bj{\o}rnestad, S. and Moe, R.E. and M{\o}rch, A.I. and Opdahl, A.L.}
}
