Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2206.04744

The Developers' Design Thinking Toolbox in Hackathons: A Study on the Recurring Design Methods in Software Development Marathons

Abstract

Hackathons are time-bounded collaborative events of intense teamwork to build prototypes usually in the form of software, aiming to specific challenges proposed by the organizers. These events became a widespread practice in the IT industry, universities and many other scenarios, as a result of a growing open-innovation trend in the last decade. Since the main deliverable of these events is a demonstrable version of an idea, such as early hardware or software prototypes, the short time frame requires participants to quickly understand the proposed challenge or even identify issues related to a given domain. To create solutions, teams follow an ad-hoc but effective design approach, that many times seems informal since the background of the participants is rather centered on technical aspects (e.g., web and mobile programming) and does not involve any training in Design Thinking. To understand this creative process, we conducted 37 interviews (32 hackathons winners and 5 hackathon organizers) with people from 16 countries. We aimed to identify the design processes and recurring design methods applied by winners in these events. Also, we conducted a focus group with 8 people experienced in hackathons (participants and organizers) to discuss our findings. Our analysis revealed that although hackathon winners with IT background have no formal training on Design Thinking, they are aware of many design methods, typically following a sequence of phases that involve divergent and convergent thinking to explore the problem space and propose alternatives in a solution space, which is the rationale behind Design Thinking. We derived a set of recommendations based on design strategies that seem to lead to successful hackathon participation. These recommendations can also be useful to organizers who intend to enhance the experience of newcomers in hackathons.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kiev Gama, George Valença, Pedro Alessio, Rafael Formiga, André Neves, Nycolas Lacerda. 2022-06-09. The Developers' Design Thinking Toolbox in Hackathons: A Study on the Recurring Design Methods in Software Development Marathons. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2075601

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE