Information Science Working Paper/Discussion Paper Series

Information for Authors

Purpose of the Series

The Information Science Working Paper and Discussion Paper Series together provide a forum for discussion through the publication and distribution of previously unpublished papers that are concerned with one or more topic areas related to the discipline of information science. Along with papers dealing purely with aspects of information science, contributions investigating the application of information science principles to other domains (e.g. cognitive science, psychology, geography and surveying) are also encouraged. Both theoretical and practical treatments are welcome.

The two Series are published in parallel, in an effort to ensure that potential contributors are adequately encouraged to submit. Papers submitted to the Discussion Paper Series undergo editing but are not refereed. These are likely to be general discussion documents or research papers that require rapid turn-around. Contributions to the Working Paper Series are those that require evaluation by independent referees (see the section on the Review Process below).

Contributions

Research, development, case study and tutorial papers reporting both final and interim observations will be considered for publication in one of the two Series. The editors will consider submissions from individuals or groups who are associated with the research of this department. This includes departmental staff and research students (including 4th year students), as well as research students who are studying for non-Commerce degrees but who are enroled in or partly supervised by this department. Copyright and responsibility for accuracy remain with the author(s).

Submission Process

Three copies of each paper should be supplied in the first instance to the Series Co-ordinator.

Two of the three copies should not include authorship details. Authors should indicate their publication preference (i.e. Discussion Paper or Working Paper) on a completed copy of the Submission Form attached to these notes (a signed photocopy is acceptable).

Review Process

A. Discussion Papers: A paper submitted for publication in the Discussion Paper Series is passed on to two members of the editorial board for evaluation of relevance, structure and overall quality. Two outcomes are possible: 1. the editors may recommend structural changes before the paper is accepted for publication; or 2. the editors may recommend that the paper is of sufficient quality to be published as is.

B. Working Papers: Every contribution to the Working Paper Series passes through two levels of review. Two editors are required to make general comments on relevance and applicability, as well as on the basic structural and grammatical quality of the paper. This is to ensure that the papers being sent out to referees are of a level of quality appropriate to the department's work standards, and that they conform to the layout requirements expressed in the Structure and Style Guide provided below. Again, two outcomes are possible: 1. the editors may recommend structural changes before the paper is sent out to the referees; or 2. the editors may recommend that the paper is of sufficient quality to be refereed as is. After obtaining editorial approval, the submission is sent on to two academic colleagues with knowledge of the research area. Thus each refereed paper will generate feedback for the author(s) from at least four people. The refereeing process is anonymous in both directions; that is, the author(s) do not know who the referees are and the referees are not told the names of the author(s). Once a refereed paper has been accepted for publication, however, the author(s) will be provided with the names of the referees so that they can establish further contact (in order to obtain more detailed feedback) if they wish.

Distribution

Copies of each Paper are sent to the Information Systems and Computer Science departments of the six other universities in New Zealand and to the Information Systems departments at a selection of Australian and Asian universities. Two copies will be provided free of charge to the principal author.

Particular authors may, of course, wish to send their papers to specific individuals working in the area in order to get their reaction - this is, however, outside the remit of the Series.

Structure and Style Guide

To ensure prompt turn-around of papers there is a maximum size limit of 12 single-spaced single-sided A4 sheets or 6000 words, whichever is the shorter. (Larger manuscripts may be considered in exceptional circumstances). This will be reduced to 6 double-sided sheets for final publication. The 12 pages should include the following (sample layouts follow these notes):

Title

Authors and affiliations

Abstract

Keywords

Main text, including figures and tables (if any)

Acknowledgements (if any)

References

Appendices (if any)

Title - The title should be short but descriptive.

Authors and affiliations - This listing should refer to a footnote containing the full correspondence address of the principal author, including fax and email details if appropriate.

Abstract - The abstract should contain no more than 100 words and should concisely describe the main ideas and/or conclusions expressed in the paper.

Keywords - The keywords should be independent terms that, as a group, provide a brief indication of the issues discussed in the paper. Up to six keywords may be included, in alphabetical order.

Main text - The text should be divided up into appropriate sections with relevant numbered headings. Nesting headings to more than two levels should be avoided. Figures and tables should be included at appropriate points within the main text. Each should include a short explanatory caption centred below the item being described. The figures and tables should be numbered sequentially but separately, in the following style:

Figure 1: Comparing effort predictions

Table 1: Relevant measures and their associated definitions

Acknowledgements - If they wish, personal and financial acknowledgements may be included by the authors at the conclusion of the main text.

References - References should be cited in the paper using bracketed names and years of publication e.g. (Ince and Hekmatpour, 1988; DeMarco, 1982) or (Basili et al., 1985). The full list of alphabetically ordered references at the end of the paper should adopt the following styles:

Journal paper:

D.C. Ince and S. Hekmatpour (1988), "An Approach to Automated Software Design Based on Product Metrics", Software Engineering Journal 3 (2), pp. 53-56.

Book/published report:

T. DeMarco (1982), Controlling Software Projects. Yourdon, New York.

Chapter/section of edited book:

J.H.L. Bingham and R.G. Falkner (1982), "The Applications Plan", in R.L. Nolan (ed.), Managing the Data Resource Function. West Publishing, St Paul.

Paper in proceedings:

V.R. Basili and H.D. Rombach (1987), "Tailoring the Software Process to Project Goals and Environments", in Proc. 9th International Conference on Software Engineering, Monterey CA, pp. 345-357.

Thesis/unpublished report:

S.F. King (1992), "Making CASE Work", Unpublished research proposal, Advanced Technology Centre, University of Warwick, Coventry.

Improving the Morale of Software Development

Personnel Through the Use of Torture

Dr A Cula

Transylvanian School of

Computer and Inflammation Science

September 1993

Abstract

Low morale in software development departments is a well-documented phenomenon. Recent work at the Frank N. Stein Memorial Laboratory, however, has highlighted the positive aspects of a relatively new combination of factors - that is, the use of prototyping methodologies in conjunction with computer-aided suffering enhancement (CASE) tools. The results reported here illustrate that individual morale, as measured on the well-known Pavarotti Pain Threshold scale, can be improved by more than 40% in most cases. These findings have significant implications for future project management practices.

Keywords: CASE, morale, Pavarotti Pain Threshold scale, prototyping methodology, thumbscrew.

1 Introduction

Convention would have us believe that traditional methods of torture hold little relevance to the effective management of software development projects. DeTaco (1982), for example, provides ample empirical evidence to support his assertion that replacing the traditional desk with a rack, a device recently adapted to the commercial software domain, results in lower levels of developer satisfaction. Sane and Garson (1978) also found that although liberal application of the thumbscrew generally ensured greater adherence to their structured methodology, it also resulted in mass resignation. In the face of evidence such as this it might appear that the possibilities for torture in the software development workplace are virtually nil.

It is our contention, however, that almost all previous investigations in this area are flawed, due to the inappropriate assessment of third-generation lacerations (3GLs) using the Val Doonican Toleration method. Recent evidence suggests that this evaluation technique is significantly inferior to the widely used Pavarotti Pain Threshold (PPT) scale (Carreras and Domingo 1991). The work described in the remainder of this paper, then, is concerned with the wide-scale validation of the PPT scale in four large software development organisations.

2 Assessment of Staff Morale

This section is concerned with the determination of an appropriate method of morale evaluation. Studies by DeTaco (1982) and Kruger et al. (1988), while concluding that there was no relationship between torture and morale, failed to take into account the inadequacies of the Val Doonican Toleration (VDT) morale assessment method.

2.1 The Assessment Instrument

Figure 1 depicts the relative effectiveness of the VDT assessment method when compared with the PPT scale.

(If the figure existed it

would appear here).

Figure 1: Comparing assessment instruments

The actual data values determined during the empirical assessment procedures are presented in Table 1.

Method Empirical Results - Six Samples VDT (mg) 20 12 19 24 13 19 PPT (cm) 38 14 44 51 20 41

Table 1: Assessment values recorded using the VDT and PPT methods

(and so on....)

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful for the funding assistance provided for this work by the Greater Midwestern Thumbscrew Company. He would also like to thank the referees for their constructive criticisms of an earlier draft of this paper.

References

J. Carreras and P. Domingo (1991), "Making Luciano Work", Unpublished research proposal, Advanced Oratory Centre, University of Vanessa Redgrave, Manchester.

T. DeTaco (1982), Controlling Torture Projects. Yawndon, New Jack City.

F. Kruger, N. Bates and Q. Modo (1988), "The Psychotic Staff Member and CASE", in M. Bolan (ed.), Managing T-Rex. Northern Publishing, South Dunedin.

I.N. Sane and O.I. Garson (1978), "Tailoring the Suffering Process to Protest Goals and Exclamation Volume", in Proc. 9th International Conference on Suffering Enhancement, Mataura, pp. 345-357.

(etc.)

Appendix A - Data Listings

This appendix contains all of the raw data listings supplementary to the main thrust of the paper but essential for repetition of the experiment by other interested parties.

(etc.)

Information Science Working Paper/Discussion Paper Series

Submission Form

TO:	Series Co-ordinator	DATE: _______________

Department of Information Science

University of Otago

Dear Co-ordinator

I would like to submit the enclosed paper, entitled:

_________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

for publication in the:	Working Paper Series	□

(Tick one only)

Discussion Paper Series	□

NAME:	__________________________________________________

DEPARTMENT:	__________________________________________________

SIGNATURE:	______________________________________