DOCSLIB.ORG

Decision-Making and Cognitive Biases in Designing Software Architectures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATICS TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH Master Thesis in Informatics Decision-making and Cognitive Biases in Designing Software Architectures Entscheidungsfindung und Kognitive Bias beim Entwurf von Softwarearchitekturen Author: Akash Manjunath Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Florian Matthes Advisor: Manoj Mahabaleshwar M.Sc. Date: February 21, 2018 i I assure the single-handed composition of this master’s thesis only supported by declared resources. Garching, 21.02.2018 (Akash Manjunath) ii Acknowledgement First and foremost, I want to thank my parents, Veena and Manjunath, for always being understanding and patient. My girlfriend, Sharada, for constantly supporting me at every step and ensuring that I maintained a high level of motivation throughout the thesis. I want to thank Prof. Dr. Florian Matthes for providing me with the opportunity to pursue my Master Thesis at the SEBIS chair. My supervisor Manoj, who was highly supportive of me during the time of the thesis and provided a great environment to work in. The weekly discussions helped me challenge myself to deliver a quality thesis. Further, I want to thank my friends Kavyaa, Prateek, Krishna, Akshay and Amith for their timely insights and support. Pushkar, especially, for helping me immensely during my days here in Germany. Lastly, I am grateful to all the people who provided their valuable feedback during the evaluation phase as it played a crucial part in upgrading the quality of the thesis content. iii Abstract The architecture of any software can be thought of as a blueprint about its structure. This blueprint is the end artifact generated based on a series of decisions taken by software architects and decides the overall quality of the resultant software. Software architects, being human, are invariably subject to the influence of cognitive biases during their decision-making due to cognitive limitations of the human mind. This results in a systematic deviation from the ideal decision-making process leading to sub-par solutions because of missing rationality behind the decisions. This thesis focusses on identifying and formalizing decision-making models(DMM) in the context of making software architecture design decisions(SADD). There are two approaches towards decision-making, namely normative and behavioral. Previous studies present various DMMs under both approaches. Within the scope of this thesis, three models are investigated in detail within this thesis: the rational economic model, the bounded rational model and the recognition-primed decision(RPD) model (naturalistic decision-making framework). Each step of the DMMs is mapped to the OODA Loop (Observe, Orient, Decide and Act) decision cycle. Additionally, different types of cognitive biases relevant to making SADD are identified and classified under one or more phases of the OODA Loop. Detailed information about each bias is documented and presented as part of a cognitive bias catalogue and a brief explanation on how to use it is presented. The main target group of this thesis is software architects responsible for making SADD. Software architects possess contrasting experiences and the differences in their experiences is a decisive factor in decision-making. For example, experienced architects could use the RPD model during their decision-making using past experiences as a basis for the decision-making. Junior architects, on the other hand, could use RPD model due to their enthusiasm for innovation and follow latest trends. The primary goal is to make decision-makers understand how the different DMMs, the OODA Loop, and the various cognitive biases are related to each other and about their potential impact during decision-making. The increased awareness equips the decision-makers with ample information to make rational decisions with less bias. iv Contents I. Acknowledgement…………………………………….…………………………………iii II. Abstract…………………………………….…………………………………………….iv 1 Introduction…………………………………….………………………………………..1 1.1 Problem Statement…………………………………….…………………………………..2 1.2 Core Concepts…………………………………….……………………………………….2 1.3 Research Goals…………………………………….……………………………………...3 1.4 Research Questions…………………………………….………………………………….4 1.5 Target Group…………………………………….………………………………………...4 1.6 Using the Thesis Artifacts…………………………………….…………………………...4 2 Related Work…………………………………….………………………………………5 2.1 OODA Loop…………………………………….………………………………………...6 2.1.1 The need for understanding the OODA Loop………………………………………….6 2.1.2 Observe Phase…………………………………….……………………………………7 2.1.3 Orient Phase…………………………………….………………………………..…….8 2.1.4 Decide Phase…………………………………….………………………………..……8 2.1.5 Act Phase…………………………………….………………………………..……….9 2.1.6 Setting the Tempo…………………………………….………………………………..9 2.1.7 Conclusion…………………………………….………………………………..……...9 2.2 Decision-making…………………………………….………………………………..…..9 2.2.1 Modeling the Decision-making Process…………………………………….………..10 2.2.2 Normative Approach…………………………………….…………………………...10 2.2.2.1 Rational Economic Model…………………………………….………………….10 2.2.2.2 Brunwick’s Lens Model…………………………………….…………………….11 2.2.2.3 The Cynefin Framework…………………………………….……………………12 2.2.3 Behavioral Approach…………………………………….…………………………...12 2.2.3.1 Incrementalism…………………………………….……………………………..12 2.2.3.2 Naturalistic Decision-making…………………………………….………………13 2.2.3.3 Bounded Rationality…………………………………….………………………..14 2.2.4 Cognitive Biases……………………………….…………………………………......15 2.2.4.1 Types of Cognitive Biases……………………………….……………………….16 3 Thesis Contribution…………………………………….………………………………17 3.1 OODA Loop and DMMs…………………………………….…………………………..18 v 3.2 Selection Criteria for DMMs…………………………………….………………………18 3.3 Rational Economic Model…………………………………….…………………………19 3.4 Recognition-Primed Decision Model…………………………………….……………...20 3.5 Bounded Rational Model…………………………………….…………………………..21 3.6 Cognitive Biases in the context of SADD…………………………………….…………23 3.7 Classification of Cognitive Biases…………………………………….…………………24 3.8 Cognitive Bias Catalogue Template …………………………….………………………28 3.9 Cognitive Bias Catalogue………………………………………………………………..29 4 Results and Feedback…………………………………….…………………………….68 4.1 Reflections on Research Questions………………………………….…………………..69 4.2 Using the Thesis Artifacts………………………………………………………………..70 4.2.1 Understanding the DMMs………………………………….………………………...70 4.2.2 Using the Cognitive Bias Catalogue…………………………………….……………71 4.3 Evaluation through Expert Feedback…………………………………………………….71 5 Future Work and Conclusion…………………………………….……………………77 5.1 Future Work..………………………………….…………………………………………78 5.2 Conclusion..…………………………………….………………………………………..79 III. Bibliography…………………………………….………………………………………80 IV. Appendix I List of Cognitive Biases…………………….………………………………83 V. Appendix II Feedback Form Template……………….………………………………102 VI. Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………..103 vi List of Figures Figure 1 Skeleton matrix of DMMs and the OODA Loop phases……………………………...3 Figure 2.1 High Level Overview of the four phases of the OODA Loop Decision Cycle………6 Figure 2.2 Detailed View of the OODA Loop…………………….……………………………7 Figure 2.3 Rational Economic Model…………………….…………………………………..11 Figure 2.4 Recognition Primed Decision Model…………………….………………………..14 Figure 2.5 Bounded Rational Model…………………….……………………………………15 Figure 3.1 REM with the OODA Loop…………………….…………………………………20 Figure 3.2 Recognition-Primed Decision Model with the OODA Loop……………………...21 Figure 3.3 Bounded Rational Model with the OODA Loop…………………………………..23 Figure 3.4 First level classification of cognitive biases to OODA Loop………………………24 Figure 3.5 Sub-classification of Cognitive Biases in the Observe Phase……………………...24 Figure 3.6 Sub-classification of Cognitive Biases in the Orient Phase………………………..25 Figure 3.7 Sub-classification of Cognitive Biases in the Decide Phase……………………….27 Figure 4.1 Landing page…………………….…………………….………………………….72 Figure 4.2 Decision-making models with brief descriptions………………………………….72 Figure 4.3 Cognitive bias catalogue page (when no bias is selected) …………………………73 Figure 4.4 Cognitive bias catalogue page (when a bias is selected) …………………………..73 Figure 4.5 Feedback page with Google form…………………….…………………………...74 Figure 4.6 First question regarding the two-level classification………………………………74 Figure 4.7 Second question regarding the examples presented in the cognitive bias catalogue……………………………………………………………………………………...75 Figure 4.8 Third question regarding the debiasing techniques presented in the cognitive bias catalogue…………………….…………………….…………………….……………………75 vii List of Tables Table 3.1 Cognitive Biases from the Context of SADD………………………………………24 Table 3.2 Cognitive Biases related to Information Gathering………………………………...25 Table 3.3 Cognitive Biases related to Information Presentation……………………………...25 Table 3.4 Cognitive Bias related to Information Filtering…………………………………….25 Table 3.5 Cognitive Bias related to Semblance…………………….…………………………26 Table 3.6 Cognitive Biases related to Previous Knowledge / Experience…………………….26 Table 3.7 Cognitive Biases related to Trends…………………….…………………………...26 Table 3.8 Cognitive Biases related to Information Presentation……………………………...27 Table 3.9 Cognitive Biases related to Previous Knowledge / Experiences……………………27 Table 3.10 Cognitive Biases related to Strategy…………………….………………………...27 Table 3.11 Cognitive Bias Catalogue Template…………………….………………………..27 Table 3.12 Completeness Bias…………………….…………………….……………………29 Table 3.13 Confirmation Bias…………………….…………………….…………………….30 Table 3.14 Information Bias…………………….…………………….……………………...31 Table 3.15 Levels-of-processing Effect…………………….………………………………...32 Table 3.16 Reference Bias…………………….…………………….………………………..33 Table 3.17
Recommended publications
  • A Task-Based Taxonomy of Cognitive Biases for Information Visualization

    A Task-Based Taxonomy of Cognitive Biases for Information Visualization

    A Task-based Taxonomy of Cognitive Biases for Information Visualization Evanthia Dimara, Steven Franconeri, Catherine Plaisant, Anastasia Bezerianos, and Pierre Dragicevic Three kinds of limitations The Computer The Display 2 Three kinds of limitations The Computer The Display The Human 3 Three kinds of limitations: humans • Human vision ️ has limitations • Human reasoning 易 has limitations The Human 4 ️Perceptual bias Magnitude estimation 5 ️Perceptual bias Magnitude estimation Color perception 6 易 Cognitive bias Behaviors when humans consistently behave irrationally Pohl’s criteria distilled: • Are predictable and consistent • People are unaware they’re doing them • Are not misunderstandings 7 Ambiguity effect, Anchoring or focalism, Anthropocentric thinking, Anthropomorphism or personification, Attentional bias, Attribute substitution, Automation bias, Availability heuristic, Availability cascade, Backfire effect, Bandwagon effect, Base rate fallacy or Base rate neglect, Belief bias, Ben Franklin effect, Berkson's paradox, Bias blind spot, Choice-supportive bias, Clustering illusion, Compassion fade, Confirmation bias, Congruence bias, Conjunction fallacy, Conservatism (belief revision), Continued influence effect, Contrast effect, Courtesy bias, Curse of knowledge, Declinism, Decoy effect, Default effect, Denomination effect, Disposition effect, Distinction bias, Dread aversion, Dunning–Kruger effect, Duration neglect, Empathy gap, End-of-history illusion, Endowment effect, Exaggerated expectation, Experimenter's or expectation bias,
  • Bias Mitigation in Data Sets

    Bias Mitigation in Data Sets

    Bias Mitigation in Data Sets Shea Brown Ryan Carrier Merve Hickok Adam Leon Smith ForHumanity, BABL ForHumanity ForHumanity, AIethicist.org ForHumanity, Dragonfly [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] adam@wearedragonfly.co Abstract—Tackling sample bias, Non-Response Bias, Cognitive 2) Ethical and reputational risk - perpetuation of stereotypes Bias, and disparate impact associated with Protected Categories and discrimination, failure to abide by a Code of Ethics in three parts/papers, data, algorithm construction, and output or social responsibility policy impact. This paper covers the Data section. 3) Functional risk - bad validity, poor fit, and misalignment Index Terms—artificial intelligence, machine learning, bias, data quality with the intended scope, nature, context and purpose of the system The desire of the authors, and ForHumanity’s Independent I. INTRODUCTION Audit of AI Systems, is to explain and document mitigations Bias is a loaded word. It has serious implications and gets related to all bias in its many manifestations in the data input used a lot in the debates about algorithms that occur today. phase of AI/ML model development. Research around bias in AI/ML systems often draws in fairness, Circling back to the societal concern with the statistical even though they are two very different concepts. To avoid notion of bias - societies, under the law of different jurisdictions, confusion and help with bias mitigation, we will keep the have determined that bias is prohibited with respect to certain concepts separate. In its widest sense, bias can originate, data characteristics - human characteristics, such as race, age, or be found, across the whole spectrum of decisions made gender etc.
  • Pleasantness Bias in Flashbulb Memories: Positive and Negative Flashbulb Memories of the Fall of the Berlin Wall Among East and West Germans

    Pleasantness Bias in Flashbulb Memories: Positive and Negative Flashbulb Memories of the Fall of the Berlin Wall Among East and West Germans

    Memory & Cognition 2007, 35 (3), 565-577 Pleasantness bias in flashbulb memories: Positive and negative flashbulb memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall among East and West Germans ANNETTE BOHN AND DORTHE BERNTSEN Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark Flashbulb memories for the fall of the Berlin Wall were examined among 103 East and West Germans who considered the event as either highly positive or highly negative. The participants in the positive group rated their memories higher on measures of reliving and sensory imagery, whereas their memory for facts was less accurate than that of the participants in the negative group. The participants in the negative group had higher ratings on amount of consequences but had talked less about the event and considered it less central to their personal and national identity than did the participants in the positive group. In both groups, rehearsal and the centrality of the memory to the person’s identity and life story correlated positively with memory qualities. The results suggest that positive and negative emotions have different effects on the processing and long-term reten- tion of flashbulb memories. On Thursday, November 9, 1989, the Berlin Wall fell Wall, and how well do they remember factual details in re- after having divided East and West Germany for 28 years. lation to the event? These are the chief questions raised in On that day at 6:57 p.m., Günther Schabowski, a leading the present article. By addressing these questions, we wish member of the ruling communist party in East Germany, to investigate whether positive versus negative affect is as- had casually announced to a stunned audience during a sociated with different qualities of flashbulb memories.
  • Detection of Confirmation and Distinction Biases in Visual

    Detection of Confirmation and Distinction Biases in Visual

    EuroVis Workshop on Trustworthy Visualization (TrustVis) (2019) R. Kosara, K. Lawonn, L. Linsen, and N. Smit (Editors) Detection of Confirmation and Distinction Biases in Visual Analytics Systems . A. Nalcaci , D. Girgin , S. Balki , F. Talay, H. A. Boz and S. Balcisoy 1Sabanci University, Faculty of Engineering & Natural Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey Abstract Cognitive bias is a systematic error that introduces drifts and distortions in the human judgment in terms of visual decompo- sition in the direction of the dominant instance. It has a significant role in decision-making process by means of evaluation of data visualizations. This paper elaborates on the experimental depiction of two cognitive bias types, namely Distinction Bias and Confirmation Bias, through the examination of cognate visual experimentations. The main goal of this implementation is to indicate the existence of cognitive bias in visual analytics systems through the adjustment of data visualization and crowdsourc- ing in terms of confirmation and distinction biases. Two distinct surveys that include biased and unbiased data visualizations which are related to a given data set were established in order to detect and measure the level of existence of introduced bias types. Practice of crowdsourcing which is provided by Amazon Mechanical Turk have been used for experimentation purposes through prepared surveys. Results statistically indicate that both distinction and confirmation biases has substantial effect and prominent significance on decision-making process. CCS Concepts • Human-centered computing ! Empirical studies in visualization; Visualization design and evaluation methods; 1. Introduction cording to existing studies, usual heuristic errors involve confirma- tion bias, which characterizes people’s approaches to receive the Visual perception is the combination of physical and thoughtful de- confirmatory corroboration of a pre-existing hypothesis and dis- sign that provides the ability to interpret the environment and the miss contrary information.
  • A Neural Network Framework for Cognitive Bias

    A Neural Network Framework for Cognitive Bias

    fpsyg-09-01561 August 31, 2018 Time: 17:34 # 1 HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY published: 03 September 2018 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01561 A Neural Network Framework for Cognitive Bias Johan E. Korteling*, Anne-Marie Brouwer and Alexander Toet* TNO Human Factors, Soesterberg, Netherlands Human decision-making shows systematic simplifications and deviations from the tenets of rationality (‘heuristics’) that may lead to suboptimal decisional outcomes (‘cognitive biases’). There are currently three prevailing theoretical perspectives on the origin of heuristics and cognitive biases: a cognitive-psychological, an ecological and an evolutionary perspective. However, these perspectives are mainly descriptive and none of them provides an overall explanatory framework for the underlying mechanisms of cognitive biases. To enhance our understanding of cognitive heuristics and biases we propose a neural network framework for cognitive biases, which explains why our brain systematically tends to default to heuristic (‘Type 1’) decision making. We argue that many cognitive biases arise from intrinsic brain mechanisms that are fundamental for the working of biological neural networks. To substantiate our viewpoint, Edited by: we discern and explain four basic neural network principles: (1) Association, (2) Eldad Yechiam, Technion – Israel Institute Compatibility, (3) Retainment, and (4) Focus. These principles are inherent to (all) neural of Technology, Israel networks which were originally optimized to perform concrete biological, perceptual, Reviewed by: and motor functions. They form the basis for our inclinations to associate and combine Amos Schurr, (unrelated) information, to prioritize information that is compatible with our present Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel state (such as knowledge, opinions, and expectations), to retain given information Edward J.
  • Memory Category Fluency, Memory Specificity, And

    Memory Category Fluency, Memory Specificity, And

    Journal of Experimental Psychology: General © 2019 The Author(s) 2020, Vol. 149, No. 1, 198–206 0096-3445/20/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000617 BRIEF REPORT Memory Category Fluency, Memory Specificity, and the Fading Affect Bias for Positive and Negative Autobiographical Events: Performance on a Good Day–Bad Day Task in Healthy and Depressed Individuals Caitlin Hitchcock, Jill Newby, Emma Timm, Willem Kuyken Rachel M. Howard, and Ann-Marie Golden University of Oxford University of Cambridge Tim Dalgleish University of Cambridge and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust In mentally healthy individuals, autobiographical memory is typically biased toward positive events, which may help to maintain psychological well-being. Our aim was to assess a range of important positive memory biases in the mentally healthy and explore the possibility that these biases are mitigated in those with mental health problems. We administered a novel recall paradigm that required recollection of multiple good and bad past events (the Good Day–Bad Day task) to healthy and depressed individuals. This allowed us to explore differences in memory category fluency (i.e., the ability to generate integrated sets of associated events) for positive and negative memories, along with memory specificity, and fading affect bias—a greater reduction in the intensity of memory-related affect over time for negative versus positive events. We found that healthy participants demonstrated superior category fluency for positive relative to negative events but that this effect was absent in depressed participants. Healthy participants exhibited a strong fading affect bias that was significantly mitigated, although still present, in depression.
  • Can Self-Persuasion Reduce Hostile Attribution Bias in Young Children?

    Can Self-Persuasion Reduce Hostile Attribution Bias in Young Children?

    Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-018-0499-2 Can Self-Persuasion Reduce Hostile Attribution Bias in Young Children? Anouk van Dijk1 & Sander Thomaes1 & Astrid M. G. Poorthuis1 & Bram Orobio de Castro1 # The Author(s) 2018 Abstract Two experiments tested an intervention approach to reduce young children’s hostile attribution bias and aggression: self-persua- sion. Children with high levels of hostile attribution bias recorded a video-message advocating to peers why story characters who caused a negative outcome may have had nonhostile intentions (self-persuasion condition), or they simply described the stories (control condition). Before and after the manipulation, hostile attribution bias was assessed using vignettes of ambiguous provocations. Study 1 (n =83,age4–8) showed that self-persuasion reduced children’s hostile attribution bias. Study 2 (n = 121, age 6–9) replicated this finding, and further showed that self-persuasion was equally effective at reducing hostile attribution bias as was persuasion by others (i.e., listening to an experimenter advocating for nonhostile intentions). Effects on aggressive behavior, however, were small and only significant for one out of four effects tested. This research provides the first evidence that self-persuasion may be an effective approach to reduce hostile attribution bias in young children. Keywords Hostile attribution bias . Self-persuasion . Aggression . Intervention . Experiments Children’s daily social interactions abound with provocations by Dodge 1994). The present research tests an intervention approach peers, such as when they are physically hurt, laughed at, or ex- to reduce hostile attribution bias in young children. cluded from play. The exact reasons behind these provocations, Most interventions that effectively reduce children’s hostile and especially the issue of whether hostile intent was involved, attribution bias rely on attribution retraining techniques (e.g., are often unclear.
  • The Fading Affect Bias: Effects of Social Disclosure to an Interactive Versus Non-Responsive Listener

    The Fading Affect Bias: Effects of Social Disclosure to an Interactive Versus Non-Responsive Listener

    This is a repository copy of The fading affect bias: Effects of social disclosure to an interactive versus non-responsive listener. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/85286/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Muir, K, Brown, C and Madill, A (2015) The fading affect bias: Effects of social disclosure to an interactive versus non-responsive listener. Memory, 23 (6). 829 - 847. ISSN 0965-8211 https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.931435 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ EFFECTS OF SOCIAL DISCLOSURE Running head: EFFECTS OF SOCIAL DISCLOSURE The Fading Affect Bias: Effects of Social Disclosure to an Interactive versus Non-Responsive Listener Kate Muir*1, Institute of Psychological Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT.
  • Communication Science to the Public

    Communication Science to the Public

    David M. Berube North Carolina State University ▪ HOW WE COMMUNICATE. In The Age of American Unreason, Jacoby posited that it trickled down from the top, fueled by faux-populist politicians striving to make themselves sound approachable rather than smart. (Jacoby, 2008). EX: The average length of a sound bite by a presidential candidate in 1968 was 42.3 seconds. Two decades later, it was 9.8 seconds. Today, it’s just a touch over seven seconds and well on its way to being supplanted by 140/280- character Twitter bursts. ▪ DATA FRAMING. ▪ When asked if they truly believe what scientists tell them, NEW ANTI- only 36 percent of respondents said yes. Just 12 percent expressed strong confidence in the press to accurately INTELLECTUALISM: report scientific findings. ▪ ROLE OF THE PUBLIC. A study by two Princeton University researchers, Martin TRENDS Gilens and Benjamin Page, released Fall 2014, tracked 1,800 U.S. policy changes between 1981 and 2002, and compared the outcome with the expressed preferences of median- income Americans, the affluent, business interests and powerful lobbies. They concluded that average citizens “have little or no independent influence” on policy in the U.S., while the rich and their hired mouthpieces routinely get their way. “The majority does not rule,” they wrote. ▪ Anti-intellectualism and suspicion (trends). ▪ Trump world – outsiders/insiders. ▪ Erasing/re-writing history – damnatio memoriae. ▪ False news. ▪ Infoxication (CC) and infobesity. ▪ Aggregators and managed reality. ▪ Affirmation and confirmation bias. ▪ Negotiating reality. ▪ New tribalism is mostly ideational not political. ▪ Unspoken – guns, birth control, sexual harassment, race… “The amount of technical information is doubling every two years.
  • Safe-To-Fail Probe Has…

    Safe-To-Fail Probe Has…

    Liz Keogh [email protected] If a project has no risks, don’t do it. @lunivore The Innovaon Cycle Spoilers Differentiators Commodities Build on Cynefin Complex Complicated sense, probe, analyze, sense, respond respond Obvious Chaotic sense, act, categorize, sense, respond respond With thanks to David Snowden and Cognitive Edge EsBmang Complexity 5. Nobody has ever done it before 4. Someone outside the org has done it before (probably a compeBtor) 3. Someone in the company has done it before 2. Someone in the team has done it before 1. We all know how to do it. Esmang Complexity 5 4 3 Analyze Probe (Break it down) (Try it out) 2 1 Fractal beauty Feature Scenario Goal Capability Story Feature Scenario Vision Story Goal Code Capability Feature Code Code Scenario Goal A Real ProjectWhoops, Don’t need forgot this… Can’t remember Feature what this Scenario was for… Goal Capability Story Feature Scenario Vision Story Goal Code Capability Feature Code Code Scenario Goal Oops, didn’t know about Look what I that… found! A Real ProjectWhoops, Don’t need forgot this… Can’t remember Um Feature what this Scenario was for… Goal Oh! Capability Hmm! Story FeatureOoh, look! Scenario Vision Story GoalThat’s Code funny! Capability Feature Code Er… Code Scenario Dammit! Oops! Oh F… InteresBng! Goal Sh..! Oops, didn’t know about Look what I that… found! We are uncovering be^er ways of developing so_ware by doing it Feature Scenario Goal Capability Story Feature Scenario Vision Story Goal Code Capability Feature Code Code Scenario Goal We’re discovering how to
  • Ilidigital Master Anton 2.Indd

    Ilidigital Master Anton 2.Indd

    services are developed to be used by humans. Thus, understanding humans understanding Thus, humans. by used be to developed are services obvious than others but certainly not less complex. Most products bioengineering, and as shown in this magazine. Psychology mightbusiness world. beBe it more the comparison to relationships, game elements, or There are many non-business flieds which can betransfered to the COGNTIVE COGNTIVE is key to a succesfully develop a product orservice. is keytoasuccesfullydevelopproduct BIASES by ANTON KOGER The Power of Power The //PsychologistatILI.DIGITAL WE EDIT AND REINFORCE SOME WE DISCARD SPECIFICS TO WE REDUCE EVENTS AND LISTS WE STORE MEMORY DIFFERENTLY BASED WE NOTICE THINGS ALREADY PRIMED BIZARRE, FUNNY, OR VISUALLY WE NOTICE WHEN WE ARE DRAWN TO DETAILS THAT WE NOTICE FLAWS IN OTHERS WE FAVOR SIMPLE-LOOKING OPTIONS MEMORIES AFTER THE FACT FORM GENERALITIES TO THEIR KEY ELEMENTS ON HOW THEY WERE EXPERIENCED IN MEMORY OR REPEATED OFTEN STRIKING THINGS STICK OUT MORE SOMETHING HAS CHANGED CONFIRM OUR OWN EXISTING BELIEFS MORE EASILY THAN IN OURSELVES AND COMPLETE INFORMATION way we see situations but also the way we situationsbutalsotheway wesee way the biasesnotonlychange Furthermore, overload. cognitive avoid attention, ore situations, guide help todesign massively can This in. take people information of kind explainhowandwhat ofperception egory First,biasesinthecat andappraisal. ory, self,mem perception, into fourcategories: roughly bedivided Cognitive biasescan within thesesituations. forusers interaction andeasy in anatural situationswhichresults sible toimprove itpos and adaptingtothesebiasesmakes ingiven situations.Reacting ways certain act sively helpstounderstandwhypeople mas into consideration biases ing cognitive Tak humanbehavior. topredict likely less or andmore relevant illusionsare cognitive In each situation different every havior day.
  • Cognitive Biases in Software Engineering: a Systematic Mapping Study

    Cognitive Biases in Software Engineering: a Systematic Mapping Study

    Cognitive Biases in Software Engineering: A Systematic Mapping Study Rahul Mohanani, Iflaah Salman, Burak Turhan, Member, IEEE, Pilar Rodriguez and Paul Ralph Abstract—One source of software project challenges and failures is the systematic errors introduced by human cognitive biases. Although extensively explored in cognitive psychology, investigations concerning cognitive biases have only recently gained popularity in software engineering research. This paper therefore systematically maps, aggregates and synthesizes the literature on cognitive biases in software engineering to generate a comprehensive body of knowledge, understand state of the art research and provide guidelines for future research and practise. Focusing on bias antecedents, effects and mitigation techniques, we identified 65 articles (published between 1990 and 2016), which investigate 37 cognitive biases. Despite strong and increasing interest, the results reveal a scarcity of research on mitigation techniques and poor theoretical foundations in understanding and interpreting cognitive biases. Although bias-related research has generated many new insights in the software engineering community, specific bias mitigation techniques are still needed for software professionals to overcome the deleterious effects of cognitive biases on their work. Index Terms—Antecedents of cognitive bias. cognitive bias. debiasing, effects of cognitive bias. software engineering, systematic mapping. 1 INTRODUCTION OGNITIVE biases are systematic deviations from op- knowledge. No analogous review of SE research exists. The timal reasoning [1], [2]. In other words, they are re- purpose of this study is therefore as follows: curring errors in thinking, or patterns of bad judgment Purpose: to review, summarize and synthesize the current observable in different people and contexts. A well-known state of software engineering research involving cognitive example is confirmation bias—the tendency to pay more at- biases.