@article {Simula.simula.2758,
	title = {Incorrect Results in Software Engineering Experiments: How to Improve Research Practices},
	journal = {Journal of Systems and Software},
	volume = {117},
	year = {2016},
	pages = {274-281},
	publisher = {Elsevier},
	abstract = {Context: The trustworthiness of research results is a growing concern in many empirical disciplines. Aim: The goals of this paper are to assess how much the trustworthiness of results reported in software engineering experiments is affected by researcher and publication bias and to suggest improved research practices. Method: First, we conducted a small-scale survey to document the presence of researcher and publication biases in software engineering experiments. Then, we built a model that estimates the proportion of correct results for different levels of researcher and publication bias. A review of 150 randomly selected software engineering experiments published in the period 2002-2012 was conducted to provide input to the model. Results: The survey indicates that researcher and publication bias is quite common. This finding is supported by the observation that the actual proportion of statistically significant results reported in the reviewed papers was about twice as high as the one expected assuming no researcher and publication bias. Our models suggest a high proportion of incorrect results even with quite conservative assumptions. Conclusion: Research practices must improve to increase the trustworthiness of software engineering experiments. A key to this improvement is to avoid conducting studies with unsatisfactory low statistical power.},
	author = {J{\o}rgensen, Magne and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Liest{\o}l, Knut and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup}
}
@article {Simula.simula.2934,
	title = {Construction and Validation of an Instrument for Measuring Programming Skill},
	journal = {IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering},
	year = {2014},
	publisher = {IEEE Transactions on Software},
	abstract = {Skilled workers are crucial to the success of software development. The current practice in research and industry for assessing programming skills is mostly to use proxy variables of skill, such as education, experience, and multiple-choice knowledge tests. There is as yet no valid and efficient way to measure programming skill. The aim of this research is to develop a valid instrument that measures programming skill by inferring skill directly from the performance on programming tasks. Over two days, 65 professional developers from eight countries solved 19 Java programming tasks. Based on the developers{\textquoteright} performance, the Rasch measurement model was used to construct the instrument. The instrument was found to have satisfactory (internal) psychometric properties and correlated with external variables in compliance with theoretical expectations. Such an instrument has many implications for practice, for example, in job recruitment and project allocation.},
	author = {Gunnar Rye {Bergersen} and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup and Dyb{\r a}, Tore}
}
@article {Simula.simula.1460,
	title = {Quantifying the Effect of Code Smells on Maintenance Effort},
	journal = {IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering},
	volume = {39},
	number = {8},
	year = {2012},
	pages = {1144-1156},
	abstract = {Context: Code smells are assumed to indicate bad design that leads to less maintainable code. However, this assumption has not been investigated in controlled studies with professional software developers. Aim: Our aim was to investigate the relationship between code smells and maintenance effort. Method: Six developers were hired to perform three maintenance tasks each on four functionally equivalent Java systems originally implemented by different companies. Each developer spent three to four weeks. In total, they modified 298 Java files in the four systems. An Eclipse IDE plug-in measured the exact amount of time a developer spent maintaining each file. A regression was used to explain the effort using file properties, including the number of smells. Results: None of the 12 investigated smells was significantly associated with increased effort after we adjusted for file size and the number of changes; Refused Bequest was significantly associated with decreased effort. File size and the number of changes explained most of the variation in effort. Conclusion: The effects of code smells on maintenance effort are limited. In general, to reduce maintenance effort, focusing on code size and the work practices that limit the number of changes may be more beneficial than refactoring code smells.},
	doi = {10.1109/TSE.2012.89},
	author = {Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup and Yamashita, Aiko and Anda, Bente Cecilie Dahlum and Mockus, Audris and Dyb{\r a}, Tore}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.prepare.14,
	title = {Inferring Skill From Tests of Programming Performance: Combining Time and Quality},
	journal = {Proc. 5th Int{\textquoteright}l Symp.Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM)},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {305-314},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	type = {Conference},
	abstract = {The skills of software developers are crucial to the success of software projects. Also, controlling for individual differences is important when studying the general effect of a method or a tool. However, the way skill is determined in industry and research settings is often ad hoc or based on unvalidated methods. According to established test theory, validated tests of skill should infer skill levels from welldefined performance measures on multiple small, representative tasks. We show how time and quality can be meaningfully combined as task performance, and subsequently aggregated into an approximate measure of programming skill. Our results show significant and positive correlations between our proposed measures of skill and variables such as seniority, lines of code written, and self-evaluated expertise. The method for combining time and quality are a promising first step to measuring programming skill in industry and research settings.},
	isbn = {978-1-4577-2203-5},
	author = {Gunnar Rye {Bergersen} and Jo Erskine {Hannay} and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Karahasanovic, Amela}
}
@article {Simula.SE.309,
	title = {The Effectiveness of Pair-Programming: a Meta-Analysis},
	journal = {Information and Software Technology},
	volume = {55},
	number = {7},
	year = {2009},
	month = {June},
	pages = {1110-1122},
	abstract = {Several experiments on the effects of pair versus solo programming have been reported in the literature. We present a metaanalysis of these studies. The analysis shows a small significant positive overall effect of pair programming on quality, a medium significant positive overall effect on duration, and a medium significant negative overall effect on effort. However, between-study variance is significant, and there are signs of publication bias among published studies on pair programming. A more detailed examination of the evidence suggests that pair programming is faster than solo programming when programming task complexity is low and yields code solutions of higher quality when task complexity is high. The higher quality for complex tasks comes at a price of considerably greater effort, while the reduced completion time for the simpler tasks comes at a price of noticeably lower quality. We conclude that greater attention should be given to moderating factors on the effects of pair programming.},
	author = {Jo Erskine {Hannay} and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Arisholm, Erik and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup}
}
@article {Simula.SE.124,
	title = {A Systematic Review of Quasi-Experiments in Software Engineering},
	journal = {Information and Software Technology},
	volume = {51},
	number = {1},
	year = {2009},
	month = {January},
	pages = {71-82},
	author = {Vigdis By {Kampenes} and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Jo Erskine {Hannay} and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup}
}
@inbook {Sjoberg.2007.1,
	title = {Building Theories in Software Engineering},
	booktitle = {Advanced Topics in Empirical Software Engineering},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {312-336},
	publisher = {Springer},
	organization = {Springer},
	chapter = {12},
	abstract = {Empirical studies have become an integral element of software engineering research and practice. This unique text/reference includes chapters from some of the top international empirical software engineering researchers and focuses on the practical knowledge necessary for conducting, reporting and using empirical methods in software engineering.},
	author = {Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Anda, Bente Cecilie Dahlum and Jo Erskine {Hannay}},
	editor = {Shull, Forrest and Singer, Janice and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.275,
	title = {Flexibility in Research Designs in Empirical Software Engineering},
	journal = {Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2008)},
	year = {2008},
	publisher = {BCS},
	type = {Conference},
	abstract = {Problem outline:A common way of classifying empirical research designs is in qualitative and quantitative designs. Typically, particular research methods (e.g., case studies, action research, experiments and surveys) are associated to one or the other of these designs. Studies in empirical software engineering (ESE) are often exploratory and often involve software developers and development organizations. As a consequence, it may be difficult to pre-plan all aspects of the studies, and to be successful, ESE studies must often be designed to handle upcoming changes during the conduct of the study. A problem with the above classification is that it does not cater for the flexibility in the design. Position: This paper suggests viewing research in ESE along the axis of flexible and fixed designs, which is both orthogonal to the axis of quantitative and qualitative designs, and independent of the particular research method. According to the traditional view of ESE, changes to the research design in the course of a study are typically regarded as threats to the validity of the study results. However, by viewing the study designs as flexible, practical challenges can be turned to useful information. The validity of the results of studies with flexible research designs can be established by applying techniques that are traditionally used for qualitative designs. This paper urges for increased recognition of flexible designs in ESE and discusses techniques for establishing the trustworthiness in flexible designs.},
	author = {Vigdis By {Kampenes} and Anda, Bente Cecilie Dahlum and Dyb{\r a}, Tore},
	editor = {Giuseppe Visaggio M {Turner}}
}
@article {Simula.SE.162,
	title = {Are Two Heads Better Than One? on the Effectiveness of Pair Programming},
	journal = {IEEE Software},
	volume = {24},
	number = {6},
	year = {2007},
	month = {November/December},
	pages = {12-15},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Arisholm, Erik and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup and Jo Erskine {Hannay} and Shull, Forrest}
}
@article {Arisholm.2006.2,
	title = {Evaluating Pair Programming With Respect to System Complexity and Programmer Expertise},
	journal = {IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering},
	volume = {33},
	number = {2},
	year = {2007},
	month = {February},
	pages = {65-86},
	abstract = {A total of 295 junior, intermediate and senior professional Java consultants (99 individuals and 98 pairs) from 29 international consultancy companies in Norway, Sweden and the UK were hired for one day to participate in a controlled experiment on pair programming. The subjects used professional Java tools to perform several change tasks on two alternative Java systems with different degrees of complexity. The results of this experiment do not support the hypotheses that pair programming in general reduces the time required to solve the tasks correctly or increases the proportion of correct solutions. On the other hand, there is a significant 84 percent increase in effort to perform the tasks correctly. However, on the more complex system, the pair programmers had a 48 percent increase in the proportion of correct solutions, but no significant differences in the time taken to solve the tasks correctly. For the simpler system, there was a 20 percent decrease in time taken but no significant differences in correctness. However, the moderating effect of system complexity depends on the expertise of the subjects. The observed benefits of pair programming in terms of correctness on the complex system apply mainly to juniors, whereas the reductions in duration to perform the tasks correctly on the simple system apply mainly to intermediates and seniors.},
	author = {Arisholm, Erik and Hans Enger {Gallis} and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.13,
	title = {The Future of Empirical Methods in Software Engineering Research},
	journal = {Future of Software Engineering (FOSE {\textquoteright}07)},
	year = {2007},
	month = {May},
	pages = {358-378},
	publisher = {IEEE-CS Press},
	type = {Conference},
	abstract = {We present the vision that for all fields of software engineering (SE), empirical research methods should enable the development of scientific knowledge about how useful different SE technologies are for different kinds of actors, performing different kinds of activities, on different kinds of systems. It is part of the vision that such scientific knowledge will guide the development of new SE technology and is a major input to important SE decisions in industry. Major challenges to the pursuit of this vision are: more SE research should be based on the use of empirical methods; the quality, including relevance, of the studies using such methods should be increased; there should be more and better synthesis of empirical evidence; and more theories should be built and tested. Means to meet these challenges include (1) increased competence regarding how to apply and combine alternative empirical methods, (2) tighter links between academia and industry, (3) the development of common research agendas with a focus on empirical methods, and (4) more resources for empirical research.},
	isbn = {432663526},
	author = {Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and J{\o}rgensen, Magne},
	editor = {Briand, Leon and Wolf, A.}
}
@article {Kampenes.2006.1,
	title = {A Systematic Review of Effect Size in Software Engineering Experiments},
	journal = {Information and Software Technology},
	volume = {49},
	number = {11-12},
	year = {2007},
	pages = {1073-1086},
	author = {Vigdis By {Kampenes} and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Jo Erskine {Hannay} and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup}
}
@article {Hannay.2006.1,
	title = {A Systematic Review of Theory Use in Software Engineering Experiments},
	journal = {IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering},
	volume = {33},
	number = {2},
	year = {2007},
	month = {February},
	pages = {87-107},
	abstract = {Empirically-based theories are generally perceived as foundational to science. However, in many disciplines, the nature, role and even the necessity of theories remain matters for debate, particularly in young or practical disciplines such as software engineering. This article reports a systematic review of the explicit use of theory in a comprehensive set of 103 articles reporting controlled experiments, from of a total of 5,453 articles published in major software engineering journals and conferences in the decade 1993-2002. Of the 103 articles, 24 use a total of 39 theories in various ways to explain the cause-effect relationship(s) under investigation. The majority of these use theory in the experimental design to justify research questions and hypotheses; some use theory to provide \emph{post-hoc} explanations of their results; while a few test or modify theory. A third of the theories are proposed by authors of the reviewed articles. The interdisciplinary nature of the theories used is greater than that of research in software engineering in general. We found that theory use and awareness of theoretical issues are present, but that theory-driven research is, as yet, not a major issue in empirical software engineering. Several articles comment explicitly on the lack of relevant theory. We call for an increased awareness of the potential benefits of involving theory, when feasible. To support software engineering researchers who wish to use theory, we give an overview that shows which of the reviewed articles on which topics use which theories for what purposes, as well as details of the theories{\textquoteright} characteristics.},
	author = {Jo Erskine {Hannay} and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup and Dyb{\r a}, Tore}
}
@inbook {Arisholm.2006.1,
	title = {Evaluating the Effect of a Delegated Versus Centralized Control Style on the Maintainability of Object-Oriented Software},
	booktitle = {Software Process Improvement: Results and Experience from the Field},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {379-406},
	publisher = {Springer},
	organization = {Springer},
	chapter = {20},
	author = {Arisholm, Erik and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup},
	editor = {Conradi, Reidar and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup and Ulsund, Tor}
}
@inbook {Anda.2006.2,
	title = {Experiences From Introducing UML-Based Development in a Large Safety-Critical Project},
	booktitle = {Software Process Improvement. Results and Experiences from the Field},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {329-359},
	publisher = {Springer},
	organization = {Springer},
	chapter = {18},
	isbn = {3-540-32178-0},
	author = {Anda, Bente Cecilie Dahlum and Hansen, Kai and Gullesen, Ingolf and Hanne Kristin {Thorsen}},
	editor = {Conradi, Reidar and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup and Ulsund, Tor}
}
@book {Conradi.2006.3,
	title = {Software Process Improvement: Results and Experience From the Field},
	year = {2006},
	month = {March},
	publisher = {Springer},
	abstract = {For over a decade, software process improvement (SPI) has been promoted as an approach to improve systematically the way software is developed and managed. Mostly this research and the relevant experience reports have been focussed on large software companies. Conradi and his co-authors have collected the main results from four Norwegian industrial research and development projects on SPI carried out between 1996 and 2005, which, in contrast to other treatments, concentrated on small- and medium-sized companies, typically characterized by fast-changing environments and processes. The presentation is organized in five sections: general principles and methods of SPI, knowledge management for SPI, process modelling and electronic process guides, estimation methods, and object-oriented and component-based systems. A spectrum of empirical methods has been used, e.g. case studies, large-scale experiments, surveys and interviews, and action research. The book mainly targets researchers and graduate students in (empirical) software engineering, and software professionals working in development or quality assurance},
	isbn = {3-540-32178-0},
	author = {Conradi, Reidar and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup and Ulsund, Tor}
}
@article {Dyba.2006.1,
	title = {A Systematic Review of Statistical Power in Software Engineering Experiments},
	journal = {Information and Software Technology},
	volume = {48},
	number = {8},
	year = {2006},
	month = {August},
	pages = {745-755},
	abstract = {Statistical power is an inherent part of empirical studies that employ significance testing and is essential for the planning of studies, for the interpretation of study results, and for the validity of study conclusions. This paper reports a quantitative assessment of the statistical power of empirical software engineering research based on the 103 papers on controlled experiments (of a total of 5453 papers) published in nine major software engineering journals and three conference proceedings in the decade 1993-2002. The results show that the statistical power of software engineering experiments falls substantially below accepted norms as well as the levels found in the related discipline of information systems research. Given this study{\textquoteright}s findings, additional attention must be directed to the adequacy of sample sizes and research designs to ensure acceptable levels of statistical power. Furthermore, the current reporting of significance tests should be enhanced by also reporting effect sizes and confidence intervals.},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Vigdis By {Kampenes} and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup}
}
@article {Dyba.2005.1,
	title = {Evidence-Based Software Engineering for Practitioners},
	journal = {IEEE Software},
	volume = {22},
	number = {1},
	year = {2005},
	pages = {58-65},
	publisher = {-},
	abstract = {Objective: Our objective is to explain how practitioners in industry can use evidencebased software engineering (EBSE) to assist decisions concerning the adoption of new techniques. Rationale: Practitioners may make incorrect technology adoption decisions if they do not consider scientific evidence about the efficacy of techniques. Method: We adapt procedures used for evidence-based medicine to software engineering and discuss how these procedures map to software process improvement. Results: We found EBSE fitted well with current ideas concerning process improvement and that it could be an important means for closing the gap between research and practice. However EBSE presents difficulties for practitioners because current software engineering research is limited and not reported in a manner that assists accumulation and evaluation of evidence. Conclusions: EBSE has potential benefits for software engineering practitioners, but will be hindered without changes to software engineering research. Keywords: Evidence, empirical software engineering, evaluation.}, how these procedures map to software process improvement. Results = {We found EBSE},
	keywords = {empirical software engineering, evaluation., Evidence},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Kitchenham, Barbara and J{\o}rgensen, Magne}
}
@inproceedings {Dyba.2005.3,
	title = {Measuring Software Methodology Usage: Challenges of Conceptualization and Operationalization},
	journal = {International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE{\textquoteright}05), Noosa, Australia, November 17-18},
	year = {2005},
	month = {November},
	pages = {447-458},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	type = {1},
	abstract = {Most software engineering research implicitly assumes that development methodologies are useful and that there is a direct relationship between software methodologies and their effects on organizational performance. However, a methodology cannot have an impact if it is not used. The purpose of this paper is, thus, to raise a number of challenges related to the conceptualization and operationalization of methodology usage and to report on a study that compared subjective and objective operationalizations of usage. Results of regression analyses show that these operationalizations do not appear to be strongly related. While self-reported usage is related to self-reported measures of the independent variables of methodology acceptance in the study, the objective and computer-recorded measures show different and distinctly weaker links. There are several explanations to these seemingly contradictory results. Most importantly, the results of this study suggest a need for reconceptualization and better validation of methodology usage constructs in future, empirical software engineering research.},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Nils B. {Moe} and Arisholm, Erik}
}
@inproceedings {Jorgensen.2005.4,
	title = {Teaching Evidence-Based Software Engineering to University Students},
	journal = {11th IEEE International Software Metrics Symposium, Como, Italy, September 19-22},
	year = {2005},
	month = {September},
	type = {1},
	abstract = {Evidence-based software engineering (EBSE) describes a process of identifying, understanding and evaluating findings from research and practice-based experience. This process aims at improving software engineering decisions. For the last three years, EBSE has been taught to university students at Hedmark University College, Rena, Norway. The motivation for the EBSE-course is that it is essential for the students, as future practitioners, to learn how to base important software engineering decisions on the systematic and critical evaluation of the best available evidence. The main purpose of this paper is to inspire and support other universities in their work on developing their own EBSE-courses. For this purpose we report on how our course has been organized and what lessons have been learned. There are currently no studies available on the effects of teaching EBSE and, as far as we know, only we have gained practice-based experience. To acquire more knowledge about the costs and benefits of teaching EBSE we hope that other universities will develop their own EBSE-courses and report their experience.},
	author = {J{\o}rgensen, Magne and Kitchenham, Barbara and Dyb{\r a}, Tore}
}
@misc {SE.5.Moe.2004,
	title = {The Adoption of an Electronic Process Guide in a Company With Voluntary Use},
	howpublished = {Misc},
	year = {2004},
	note = {Accepted for the European Software Engineering Conference (EuroSPI 2004)},
	month = {10-12 November},
	author = {N. B. {Moe} and Dyb{\r a}, Tore}
}
@misc {SE.4s.Dybaa.2004.b,
	title = {An Empirical Investigation of the Key Factors for Success in Software Process Improvement},
	howpublished = {Misc},
	year = {2004},
	note = {Submitted to IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore}
}
@misc {SE.5.Dybaa.2004,
	title = {An Empirical Investigation on Factors Affecting Software Developer Acceptance and Utilization of Electronic Process Guides},
	howpublished = {Misc},
	year = {2004},
	note = {Accepted for the 10th International Software Metrics Symposium (Metrics 2004)},
	month = {14-16 September},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore and N. B. {Moe} and E. M. {Mikkelsen}}
}
@inproceedings {SE.5.Kitchenham.2004,
	title = {Evidence-Based Software Engineering},
	journal = {International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE{\textquoteright}04)},
	year = {2004},
	month = {23-28 May},
	pages = {273-281},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society, Washington DC, USA},
	type = {1},
	address = {Edinburgh},
	abstract = {Objective: Our objective is to describe how software engineering might benefit from an evidence-based approach and to identify the potential difficulties associated with the approach. Method: We compared the organisation and technical infrastructure supporting evidence-based medicine (EBM) with the situation in software engineering. We considered the impact that factors peculiar to software engineering (i.e. the skill factor and the lifecycle factor) would have on our ability to practice evidence-based software engineering (EBSE). Results: EBSE promises a number of benefits by encouraging integration of research results with a view to supporting the needs of many different stakeholder groups. However, we do not currently have the infrastructure needed for widespread adoption of EBSE. The skill factor means software engineering experiments are vulnerable to subject and experimenter bias. The lifecycle factor means it is difficult to determine how technologies will behave once deployed. Conclusions: Software engineering would benefit from adopting what it can of the evidence approach provided that it deals with the specific problems that arise from the nature of software engineering.},
	author = {Kitchenham, Barbara and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and J{\o}rgensen, Magne}
}
@book {SE.1.Dybaa.2004,
	title = {Process Improvement in Practice - a Handbook for IT Companies},
	year = {2004},
	publisher = {Kluwer Academic Publishers},
	organization = {Kluwer Academic Publishers},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Dings{\o}yr, T. and N. B. {Moe}}
}
@inbook {SE.5.Dingsoeyr.2004,
	title = {A Workshop-Oriented Approach for Defining Electronic Process Guides},
	booktitle = {Software Process Modelling},
	series = {The Kluwer International Series in Software Engineering,},
	year = {2004},
	publisher = {Kluwer Academic Publishers},
	organization = {Kluwer Academic Publishers},
	author = {Dings{\o}yr, T. and N. B. {Moe} and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Conradi, R.},
	editor = {Silvia Teresita {Acu{\~n}a} and Juristo, Natalia}
}
@inbook {Sjoberg.2003.1,
	title = {Challenges and Recommendations When Increasing the Realism of Controlled Software Engineering Experiments},
	booktitle = {Empirical Methods and Studies in Software Engineering: Experiences from ESERNET},
	series = {Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 2765},
	year = {2003},
	pages = {24-38},
	publisher = {Springer},
	organization = {Springer},
	chapter = {Part II: Method Chapters},
	address = {Berlin / Heidelberg},
	abstract = {An important goal of most empirical software engineering experiments is the transfer of the research results to industrial applications. To convince industry about the validity and applicability of the results of controlled software engineering experiments, the tasks, subjects and the environments should be as realistic as practically possible. Such experiments are, however, more demanding and expensive than experiments involving students, small tasks and pen-and-paper environments. This chapter describes challenges of increasing the realism of controlled experiments and lessons learned from the experiments that have been conducted at Simula Research Laboratory.},
	isbn = {978-3-540-40672-3},
	author = {Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup and Anda, Bente Cecilie Dahlum and Arisholm, Erik and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and J{\o}rgensen, Magne and Karahasanovic, Amela and Vok{\'a}c, Marek},
	editor = {Conradi, Reidar and Alf Inge {Wang}}
}
@inbook {SE.5.Dybaa.2003,
	title = {A Dynamic Model of Software Engineering Knowledge Creation},
	booktitle = {Managing Software Engineering Knowledge},
	year = {2003},
	pages = {95-117,},
	publisher = {Springer},
	organization = {Springer},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore},
	editor = {Aurum, A. and Jeffery, R. and Wohlin, C. and Handzic, M.}
}
@inproceedings {SE.5.Dybaa.2003.a,
	title = {Factors of Software Process Improvement Success in Small and Large Organizations: an Empirical Study in the Scandinavian Context},
	journal = {Proceedings of Joint 9th European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC) and 11th SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE-11)},
	year = {2003},
	month = {1-5 September,},
	pages = {148-157},
	publisher = {ACM press},
	type = {1},
	address = {Helsinki, Finland},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore}
}
@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.Conradi.2003.b,
	title = {Lessons Learned and Recommendations From Two Large Norwegian SPI Programmes},
	journal = {9th European Workshop on Software Process Technology (EWSPT 2003)},
	year = {2003},
	month = {1-2 September},
	pages = {32-45},
	publisher = {Springer-Verlag},
	type = {1},
	address = {Helsinki, Finland},
	isbn = {978-3-540-40764-5},
	author = {Conradi, R. and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup and Ulsund, T.},
	editor = {Oquendo, }
}
@misc {Gallis.2003.3,
	title = {Pair Programming Versus Individual Programming on Maintenance Tasks With Professional Subjects: a Controlled Experiment},
	howpublished = {Scientific presentation to ISERN, October 4th},
	year = {2003},
	month = {October},
	author = {Hans Enger {Gallis} and Arisholm, Erik and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup}
}
@inproceedings {SE.5.Sjoeberg.2002,
	title = {Conducting Realistic Experiments in Software Engineering},
	journal = {ISESE{\textquoteright}2002 (First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering)},
	year = {2002},
	month = {October 3-4},
	pages = {17-26},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	type = {1},
	abstract = {An important goal of most empirical software engineering research is the transfer of research results to industrial applications. Two important obstacles for this transfer are the lack of control of variables of case studies, i.e., the lack of explanatory power, and the lack of realism of controlled experiments. While it may be difficult to increase the explanatory power of case studies, there is a large potential for increasing the realism of controlled software engineering experiments. To convince industry about the validity and applicability of the experimental results, the tasks, subjects and the environments of the experiments should be as realistic as practically possible. Such experiments are, however, more expensive than experiments involving students, small tasks and pen-and-paper environments. Consequently, a change towards more realistic experiments requires a change in the amount of resources spent on software engineering experiments. This paper argues that software engineering researchers should apply for resources enabling expensive and realistic software engineering experiments similar to how other researchers apply for resources for expensive software and hardware that are necessary for their research. The paper describes some of the experiences from recent experiments that varied in size from involving one software professional for 5 days to 130 software professionals, from 9 consultancy companies, for one day each.},
	isbn = {0-7695-1796-X},
	author = {Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup and Anda, Bente Cecilie Dahlum and Arisholm, Erik and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and J{\o}rgensen, Magne and Karahasanovic, Amela and Koren, E. and Vok{\'a}c, Marek},
	editor = {found, not}
}
@article {SE.4.Dybaa.2003,
	title = {Enabling Software Process Improvement: an Investigation of the Importance of Organizational Issues},
	journal = {Empirical Software Engineering},
	volume = {7},
	number = {4},
	year = {2002},
	month = {December,},
	pages = {387-390},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore}
}
@book {SE.1.Dybaa.2002,
	title = {Praktisk Prosessforbedring - En H{\r a}ndbok for IT-Bedrifter},
	year = {2002},
	publisher = {Fagbokforlaget},
	organization = {Fagbokforlaget},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Dings{\o}yr, T. and N. B. {Moe}}
}
@inproceedings {SE.5.Moe.2002,
	title = {Process Guides As Software Process Improvement in a Small Company},
	journal = {Proceedings of European Software Process Improvement Conference (EuroSPI{\textquoteright}2002)},
	year = {2002},
	month = {18-20 September,},
	type = {1},
	address = {N{\"u}rnberg, Germany},
	author = {N. B. {Moe} and Dings{\o}yr, T. and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Johansen, T.}
}
@inproceedings {SE.5.Hanssen.2002,
	title = {SPI - Easy in Theory, Hard in Practice},
	journal = {Proceedings of European Software Process Improvement Conference (EuroSPI{\textquoteright}2002)},
	year = {2002},
	month = {18-20 September},
	type = {1},
	address = {N{\"u}rnberg, Germany},
	author = {Geir Kjetil {Hanssen} and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and St{\r a}lhane, T. and Dings{\o}yr, T. and Westerheim, H.}
}
@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.Conradi.2001,
	title = {An Empirical Study on the Utility of Formal Routines to Transfer Knowledge and Experience},
	journal = {Proceedings of Joint 8th European Software Engineering Conference (ESEC) and 9th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE)},
	year = {2001},
	month = {10-14 September,},
	type = {1},
	address = {Vienna, Austria},
	author = {Conradi, R. and Dyb{\r a}, Tore}
}
@phdthesis {SE.3.Dybaa.2001,
	title = {Enabling Software Process Improvement: an Investigation of the Importance of Organizational Issues},
	year = {2001},
	note = {Doctoral Dissertation},
	school = {Norwegian University of Science and Technology},
	type = {phd},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore}
}
@article {SE.4.Dybaa.2000.b,
	title = {Improvisation in Small Software Organizations},
	journal = {IEEE Software},
	volume = {17},
	number = {5},
	year = {2000},
	month = {Sept.-Oct.,},
	pages = {82-87},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore}
}
@article {SE.4.Dybaa.2000.a,
	title = {An Instrument for Measuring the Key Factors of Success in Software Process Improvement},
	journal = {Empirical Software Engineering},
	volume = {5},
	number = {4},
	year = {2000},
	month = {December,},
	pages = {357-390},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore}
}
@techreport {SE.7.Dybaa.2000,
	title = {SPIQ Metodeh{\r a}ndbok},
	number = {282},
	year = {2000},
	note = {ISBN 82-7368-230-7, ISSN 0806-3036},
	publisher = {Department of Informatics, University of Oslo},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore and K. J. {Wedde} and St{\r a}lhane, T. and N. B. {Moe} and Conradi, R. and Dings{\o}yr, T. and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup and J{\o}rgensen, Magne}
}
@article {SE.4.Dybaa.1999,
	title = {Assessment-Based Software Process Improvement},
	journal = {Telektronikk},
	volume = {95},
	number = {1},
	year = {1999},
	pages = {37-47,},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore}
}
@inproceedings {SE.5.Dybaa.1999,
	title = {Rethinking the Concept of Software Process Assessment},
	journal = {Proceedings of European Software Process Improvement Conference (EuroSPI{\textquoteright}99)},
	year = {1999},
	month = {October 25-27,},
	type = {1},
	address = {Pori, Finland},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore and N. B. {Moe}}
}
@inproceedings {SE.5.Staalhane.1998,
	title = {Data Driven Improvement for SMEs},
	journal = {Proceedings of European Software Process Improvement Conference (EuroSPI{\textquoteright}98)},
	year = {1998},
	month = {October 17-18,},
	type = {1},
	address = {Gothenburg, Sweden},
	author = {St{\r a}lhane, T. and K. J. {Wedde} and Dyb{\r a}, Tore}
}
@inproceedings {SE.5.Dybaa.1997,
	title = {Experience of Goal-Oriented Measurement Using Ami and GQM},
	journal = {Proceedings of 8th European Software Control and Metrics Conference (ESCOM{\textquoteright}97)},
	year = {1997},
	month = {26-28 May,},
	type = {1},
	address = {Berlin},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore and St{\r a}lhane, T. and Palmstr{\o}m, R.}
}
@inproceedings {SE.5.Staalhane.1997,
	title = {Experience of Introducing Goal-Oriented Measurement},
	journal = {Proceedings of 8th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice (STEP{\textquoteright}97)},
	year = {1997},
	month = {14-18 July,},
	type = {1},
	address = {London},
	author = {St{\r a}lhane, T. and Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Palmstr{\o}m, R.}
}
@article {SE.4.Dybaa.1997,
	title = {Measurement-Based Software Process Improvement},
	journal = {Telektronikk},
	volume = {93},
	number = {1},
	year = {1997},
	pages = {73-82,},
	author = {Dyb{\r a}, Tore and Skogstad, {\O}}
}
