Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2502.03570

Exploring Retrospective Meeting Practices and the Use of Data in Agile Teams

Abstract

Retrospectives are vital for software development teams to continuously enhance their processes and teamwork. Despite the increasing availability of objective data generated throughout the project and software development processes, many teams do not fully utilize this information in retrospective meetings. Instead, they often rely on subjective data, anecdotal insights and their memory. While some literature underscores the value of data-driven retrospectives, little attention has been given to the role data can play and the challenges of effectively incorporating objective project data into these meetings. To address this gap, we conducted a survey with 19 practitioners on retrospective meeting practices and how their teams gather and use subjective and objective data in their retrospectives. Our findings confirm that although teams routinely collect project data, they seldom employ it systematically during retrospectives. Furthermore, this study provides insights into retrospective practices by exploring barriers to project data utilization, including psychological safety concerns and the disconnect between data collection and meaningful integration of data into retrospective meetings. We close by considering preliminary insights that may help to mitigate these concerns and how future research might build on our paper findings to support the integration of project data into retrospective meetings, fostering a balance between human-centric reflections and data-driven insights.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alessandra Maciel Paz Milani, Margaret-Anne Storey, Vivek Katial, Lauren Peate. 2025-02-05. Exploring Retrospective Meeting Practices and the Use of Data in Agile Teams. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.03570

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