Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2209.14055

Dealing with Data Challenges when Delivering Data-Intensive Software Solutions

Abstract

The predicted increase in demand for data-intensive solution development is driving the need for software, data, and domain experts to effectively collaborate in multi-disciplinary data-intensive software teams (MDSTs). We conducted a socio-technical grounded theory study through interviews with 24 practitioners in MDSTs to better understand the challenges these teams face when delivering data-intensive software solutions. The interviews provided perspectives across different types of roles including domain, data and software experts, and covered different organisational levels from team members, team managers to executive leaders. We found that the key concern for these teams is dealing with data-related challenges. In this paper, we present the theory of dealing with data challenges that explains the challenges faced by MDSTs including gaining access to data, aligning data, understanding data, and resolving data quality issues; the context in and condition under which these challenges occur, the causes that lead to the challenges, and the related consequences such as having to conduct remediation activities, inability to achieve expected outcomes and lack of trust in the delivered solutions. We also identified contingencies or strategies applied to address the challenges including high-level strategic approaches such as implementing data governance, implementing new tools and techniques such as data quality visualisation and monitoring tools, as well as building stronger teams by focusing on people dynamics, communication skill development and cross-skilling. Our findings have direct implications for practitioners and researchers to better understand the landscape of data challenges and how to deal with them.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ulrike M. Graetsch, Hourieh Khalajzadeh, Mojtaba Shahin, Rashina Hoda, John Grundy. 2023-03-24. Dealing with Data Challenges when Delivering Data-Intensive Software Solutions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14055

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