Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 146 references

It's a Complete Haystack: Understanding Dependency Management Needs in Computer-Aided Design

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that hardware design teams face nine specific, recurring challenges in managing dependencies among 3D CAD models—tracing them, navigating them, and keeping them consistent—and that current CAD platforms lack the tool suppor

desk verdict A solid, transparent formative study that gives CAD dependency management its first systematic user-needs taxonomy; the main weakness is that the sample can't fully support the broad claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05940 v1 pith:4HG5Y6XA submitted 2025-08-08 cs.HC

Kathy Cheng , Alison Olechowski , Shurui Zhou This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords CADdependencymanagementworkspaceawarenesscomputer-supportedcooperativeworkhardwaredevelopmentcollaborationparametricthematicanalysisexternalreferencesversioncontrol
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

In modern hardware development, products are designed as networks of 3D CAD models linked by parametric dependencies, sometimes numbering in the tens of thousands. This paper argues that designers cannot see, trace, or safely modify those dependencies, and that the resulting blind spots harm team coordination. To establish this, the authors analyzed 100 of the most-commented threads in a major CAD platform's user forum and interviewed 10 professional mechanical engineers from a single large hardware team. Their thematic analysis converged on nine challenges, grouped into traceability, navigation, and consistency. The paper then derives design goals and concrete tool features—searchable dependency lists, a project-level dependency graph, impact previews, and bulk change propagation—that CAD platforms should provide.

What carries the argument

The central object is the CAD dependency graph formed by external references between documents, parts, features, and sketches in parametric CAD. These references let one artifact's geometry drive another's across document boundaries, creating chains and hierarchies that the paper's nine challenges describe. The method that carries the argument is a two-phase thematic analysis: mining 100 popular forum threads to build initial themes, then semi-structured interviews with 10 engineers to confirm, refine, and extend them into the final nine-challenge taxonomy. The taxonomy, organized into traceability, navigation, and consistency, is the mechanism that converts raw user complaints into design g

What would settle it

Collect dependency-related discussions from other parametric CAD platforms and interview designers from multiple organizations; if a substantial share of the nine challenges never appears—or new dominant challenges emerge—the taxonomy is an artifact of the studied platform and team rather than a general map of CAD dependency needs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that managing dependencies between CAD artifacts is a distinct, under-supported coordination problem, and that the paper has catalogued its main failure modes. The nine challenges are: difficulty tracing dependency chains across documents and granularity levels; poor impact analysis when changes cascade through a hierarchy; broken dependencies caused by deleting or archiving linked artifacts without warnings; lack of a high-level overview of the project structure; difficulty reorganizing models within a document hierarchy; disorganized design history in feature trees; messy navigation of master sketches that accumulate hundreds of reference elements; ambiguous dependency

Load-bearing premise

That the 100 most-commented threads on one CAD vendor's forum and ten engineers from a single team at one company together capture the key dependency-management challenges that generalize across CAD platforms and hardware organizations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the nine challenges are real, CAD platforms should treat dependency management as a first-class feature rather than a per-feature inspection tool.
  • Tool support for tracing upstream and downstream dependencies at multiple granularities would let designers anticipate the effects of edits, reducing accidental breakage.
  • A high-level dependency graph with impact previews would give teams an overview of project structure and support decisions about where to place documents in the hierarchy.
  • Bulk change propagation with reviewable summaries would address ambiguous dependency freshness and version conflicts, the two consistency challenges.
  • Designers will still need human review of propagated changes; the paper's proposed workflow is a streamlined approval pipeline, not full automation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the taxonomy generalizes beyond the studied platform, CAD platforms with weaker cloud or version-control support likely exhibit even more severe versions of these challenges, since the platform studied was chosen for its advanced dependency features.
  • The same dependency-awareness ideas could transfer to computational notebooks or data-science pipelines, where cell-to-cell dependencies create analogous traceability and freshness problems—an extension the paper mentions as a direction.
  • A testable extension would be to instrument a dependency-management tool in a real design team and measure whether the nine challenges' frequency or severity drops, especially the traceability and consistency ones.
  • Modular master-sketch hierarchies, an emerging practice observed in the interviews, may reduce dependency clutter but push the hard work into boundary decisions, so future tooling may need to support explicit interface contracts between modules.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a two-phase formative study of CAD dependency management needs. In Study 1, the authors thematically analyzed 100 'popular' Onshape forum threads (by comment count, after screening 114 threads). In Study 2, they interviewed 10 mechanical design engineers from a single team (Team Y) at a single large company (Company X), all using Onshape. The analysis yields nine challenges grouped into traceability-, navigation-, and consistency-related categories (Table 2), and the authors derive four design goals and a set of tool features (Section 5.1), illustrated with a plug-in concept and a user scenario. The central claim, stated in the abstract and Section 6, is that these nine key challenges hinder workspace awareness and effective coordination in hardware development teams.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper would provide a useful empirical grounding for a relatively underexplored area in CSCW: dependency management in CAD. The study uses two complementary sources—online forum discussions and semi-structured interviews—and quotes directly from both, which supports the authenticity of the reported experiences. The proposed design goals and tool features (Sections 5.1) are concrete and actionable for CAD platform builders. However, the strength of the central claim is constrained by the narrow empirical base: one platform (Onshape), one company, one team, and a forum sample selected by comment count. The paper's own limitations section (5.4) concedes limited generalizability, yet the abstract and conclusion state the nine challenges as general facts about hardware development teams. The three challenges with single-source support (Table 2) further weaken the claim that all nine are 'key' and recurring. The contribution is a modest but potentially useful taxonomy and a set of design implications; its significance depends on whether the authors appropriately temper the central claim and evidence strength.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1.1, §3.2.1, §5.4, §6] The central claim outruns the empirical scope. The abstract and Section 6 assert that the nine challenges hinder effective coordination in hardware development teams generally, but the data come from a single CAD platform (Onshape) and one team at one company (Team Y at Company X). The forum sample is further restricted to the 100 most-commented keyword threads, which over-weights controversial or feature-request discussions and can omit widespread-but-quiet pain points. The authors themselves acknowledge in §5.4 that the findings are not generalizable to all CAD software and that the interview pool is a single organization. This is not merely a presentation issue: the force of the 'nine key challenges' claim depends on representativeness. I recommend either broadening the data collection (e.g., multiple platforms or multiple organizations) or, within the current scope, revising the abst
  2. [Table 2, §4.1.3, §4.2.3, §4.3.2] Three of the nine challenges are supported by a single source and low frequency: Broken dependencies (11 threads, 0 interviews), Disorganized design history (8 threads, 0 interviews), and Dependency conflicts across versions (1 interview, 0 threads). Presenting these alongside challenges that appear in 36 of 100 threads and 10 of 10 interviews is unbalanced. The inclusion of Dependency conflicts across versions is justified by 'significant negative consequences' (§4.3.2), but that does not establish recurrence or 'key' status. The paper should either report the evidence strength explicitly for each challenge and frame single-source items as provisional, or seek additional corroboration. This is load-bearing because the contribution is the nine-challenge taxonomy, and readers may over-generalize from the equal visual weight in Table 2.
  3. [§3.1.1] The sampling rationale for selecting the top 100 threads by comment count is not fully convincing. The authors say that lengthy threads are more likely to reveal diverse perspectives and rich ongoing exchanges, but comment count can also reflect controversy, feature-request popularity, or platform-specific issues. The replacement of irrelevant threads with the next most popular thread (§3.1.1) does not cure this bias. This is a concern for the representativeness of the forum-derived themes, especially the three challenges that depend solely on forum data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Header] The running header on pages 436:2 through 436:33 reads 'Trovato et al.', but the paper's authors are Cheng, Olechowski, and Zhou. This appears to be a copy-paste error from a template and should be corrected.
  2. [§3.1.1] The data description says '26K posts' and 'over 121K comments', but the relationship between posts and comments is not clearly defined. The later statement that 100 threads have an average of 63 comments (range 35–401) suggests the post/comment terminology should be consistent.
  3. [§3.1.1] The abstract says '100 online forum discussions' were analyzed, but the text reports that 114 threads were reviewed to obtain 100 relevant threads. The abstract could be more precise (e.g., '100 relevant threads from a larger set').
  4. [§3.2.2] The authors state they refrained from asking about specific challenges to avoid biasing responses, but the follow-up questions focus on dependency-related scenarios. The semi-structured protocol is described generally; providing a sample of the actual interview prompts would increase transparency.
  5. [§5.1] Figure 5 is referenced but not described in text; it may be clearer to call out the figure explicitly when discussing the mapping between challenges and features. Minor readability issue.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the nine-challenge taxonomy is grounded in newly collected forum and interview data, with self-citations only motivational.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—nine challenges of CAD dependency management—is produced by inductive thematic analysis of 100 Onshape forum threads and 10 interviews (Sections 3.1–3.2, Table 2). No derived quantity is fitted from a subset and then 'predicted'; the design goals in Section 5.1 are explicitly generated after the challenges and do not feed back into the taxonomy. The self-citations (e.g., [21], [22], [24]) motivate the topic and justify the choice of forums as a data source, but the support for each challenge is the newly collected quotes and frequencies, not the content of those prior papers. The conceded limitations in Section 5.4—single-platform scope and limited generalizability—are validity threats, not circularity: the claim could be false if the sample is unrepresentative, which is exactly what makes it an empirical claim rather than a definitional or tautological one. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No free parameters or fitted values: this is a qualitative study. The central claims rest on five domain assumptions about platform representativeness, sampling adequacy, sample size sufficiency, coding reliability, and self-report validity, plus one unvalidated design concept.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Onshape is an appropriate representative platform because its advanced dependency management support means remaining challenges are due to tool gaps, not user error or unfamiliarity.
    Used to justify generalizing from Onshape to CAD more broadly. Stated in Section 3: 'Onshape provides more sophisticated support than most CAD platforms... Nonetheless, designers still report persistent challenges.'
  • domain assumption Forum threads with the most comments provide the richest and most relevant data on dependency management needs.
    Section 3.1.1: selection of the top 100 threads by comment count to maximize engagement and information power; this conflates popularity with relevance.
  • domain assumption Ten interviews and 100 threads carry sufficient 'information power' to identify the key challenges.
    Sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1 invoke Malterud et al.'s information power heuristic; the sufficiency is asserted, not independently demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Single-author coding with collaborative theme refinement produces reliable themes.
    Sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.3 describe first-author coding and author discussions; no inter-rater reliability, coder training metrics, or member checking is reported.
  • domain assumption Self-reports in forum posts and interviews accurately reflect designers' actual work practices.
    The entire empirical basis rests on users' descriptions of their own challenges (Sections 3.1 and 3.2), a standard but unverifiable assumption in interview-based research.
invented entities (1)
  • Dependency management plug-in tool (search, network graph, impact preview, bulk approval)
    purpose: Address the seven in-scope challenges and improve designers' awareness of CAD dependencies
    Presented as mockups in Section 5.1.5 and Figures 6-7; no implementation, usability test, or deployment. The scenario text treats benefits as achieved.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of It's a Complete Haystack: Understanding Dependency Management Needs in Computer-Aided Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4HG5Y6XA

@misc{pith2026250805940,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: It's a Complete Haystack: Understanding Dependency Management Needs in Computer-Aided Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4HG5Y6XA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05940}
}
read the original abstract

In today's landscape, hardware development teams face increasing demands for better quality products, greater innovation, and shorter manufacturing lead times. Despite the need for more efficient and effective processes, hardware designers continue to struggle with a lack of awareness of design changes and other collaborators' actions, a persistent issue in decades of CSCW research. One significant and unaddressed challenge is understanding and managing dependencies between 3D CAD (computer-aided design) models, especially when products can contain thousands of interconnected components. In this two-phase formative study, we explore designers' pain points of CAD dependency management through a thematic analysis of 100 online forum discussions and semi-structured interviews with 10 designers. We identify nine key challenges related to the traceability, navigation, and consistency of CAD dependencies, that harm the effective coordination of hardware development teams. To address these challenges, we propose design goals and necessary features to enhance hardware designers' awareness and management of dependencies, ultimately with the goal of improving collaborative workflows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.05940 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Granularity levels of CAD artifacts, organized from highest to lowest. A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Complex products typically follow a top-down architecture, where parameters are defined in (a) a master sketch, which is used to create (b) the final CAD model. Adapted from [113]. Since multiple collaborators work across different dependent documents, researchers empha￾size the importance of tracking dependencies between these external references. Existing efforts have developed automated measures for identifying t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of research methods for Study 1 and Study 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Onshape’s “Show dependencies” feature enables traceability within a document. Adapted from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of findings, design goals, and features for a dependency management tool. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A tool can be implemented as a plug-in directly in the CAD platform interface. Note that these [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example user scenario of a CAD dependency management tool. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

146 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mostafa AbediniAla and Banani Roy. 2022. Facilitating Asynchronous Collaboration in Scientific Workflow Com- position Using Provenance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, EICS (June 2022), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3534520

    work page doi:10.1145/3534520 2022

  2. [2]

    Mohannad Alhanahnah and Yazan Boshmaf. 2024. DepsRAG: Towards Agentic Reasoning and Planning for Software Dependency Management. (2024), 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2405.20455 Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Article 436. Publication date: November 2025. 436:26 Trovato et al

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.20455 2024

  3. [3]

    Jumana Almahmoud and David R. Karger. 2023. Vizdat: A Technology Probe to Understand the Space of Discussion Around Data Visualization on Reddit. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (April 2023), 110:1–110:16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579544

    work page doi:10.1145/3579544 2023

  4. [4]

    Aritz Aranburu, Josu Cotillas, Daniel Justel, Manuel Contero, and Jorge D. Camba. 2022. How Does the Modeling Strategy Influence Design Optimization and the Automatic Generation of Parametric Geometry Variations?Computer- Aided Design 151 (Oct. 2022), 103364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2022.103364

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Asuzu, Kathy Cheng, and Alison Olechowski

    Chukwuma M. Asuzu, Kathy Cheng, and Alison Olechowski. 2024. The Personas of Cloud CAD Collaboration: A Case Study of a Team of CAD Professionals. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 71 (2024), 11225–11237. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2024.3409178 Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Baldwin and Kim B

    Carliss Y. Baldwin and Kim B. Clark. 1999. Design Rules: The Power of Modularity Volume 1 . MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA

    1999

  7. [7]

    Jakob Bardram. 1998. Collaboration, Coordination and Computer Support: An Activity Theoretical Approach to the Design of Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Ph.D. Thesis. DAIMI Report Series 27, 533 (May 1998), 264 pages. https://doi.org/10.7146/dpb.v27i533.7062 Number: 533

    work page doi:10.7146/dpb.v27i533.7062 1998

  8. [8]

    Daniele Bifolco, Sabato Nocera, Simone Romano, Massimiliano Di Penta, Rita Francese, and Giuseppe Scanniello. 2024. On the Accuracy of GitHub’s Dependency Graph. InProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2024). ACM, Salerno, Italy, 242–251. https://doi.org/10.1145/3661167.3661175

    arXiv 2024

Show all 146 references
  1. [9]

    Christopher Bogart, Christian Kästner, James Herbsleb, and Ferdian Thung. 2016. How to break an API: cost negotiation and community values in three software ecosystems. In Proceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (...

    2016

  2. [10]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2021. Thematic analysis. SAGE Publications, London, England

    2021

  4. [12]

    David Briggs. 2012. Establish digital product development (dpd) low end viewer (lev) and archival standard for 787 project. In Collaboration & Interoperability Congress (CIC) . 3D CIC, Bend, OR, USA, 1 pages

    2012

  5. [13]

    Aline Brito, Marco Tulio Valente, Laerte Xavier, and Andre Hora. 2019. You broke my code: understanding the motivations for breaking changes in APIs. Empirical Software Engineering 25, 2 (Nov. 2019), 1458–1492. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10664-019-09756-z

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Colin Brown, Hamed Alhoori, and David Koop. 2023. Facilitating Dependency Exploration in Computational Notebooks. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Human-In-the-Loop Data Analytics (SIGMOD/PODS ’23) . ACM, Seattle, WA, USA, 1-7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3597465.3605222

    2023

  7. [15]

    Camba, Manuel Contero, and Pedro Company

    Jorge D. Camba, Manuel Contero, and Pedro Company. 2016. Parametric CAD modeling: An analysis of strategies for design reusability. Computer-Aided Design 74 (May 2016), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2016.01.003

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Steve Campbell, Melanie Greenwood, Sarah Prior, Toniele Shearer, Kerrie Walkem, Sarah Young, Danielle Bywaters, and Kim Walker. 2020. Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing 25, 8 (June 2020), 652–661. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2020 doi

  9. [17]

    Dan Cascaval, Rastislav Bodik, and Adriana Schulz. 2023. A Lineage-Based Referencing DSL for Computer-Aided Design. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 7, PLDI (June 2023), 109:76–109:99. https://doi.org/10.1145/3591223

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Herbsleb, and Kathleen M

    Marcelo Cataldo, James D. Herbsleb, and Kathleen M. Carley. 2008. Socio-technical congruence: a framework for assessing the impact of technical and work dependencies on software development productivity. In Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirica...

    2008

  11. [19]

    Wagstrom, James D

    Marcelo Cataldo, Patrick A. Wagstrom, James D. Herbsleb, and Kathleen M. Carley. 2006. Identification of coordination requirements: implications for the Design of collaboration and awareness tools. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported co...

    2006

  12. [20]

    Xiang Chen, Shuming Gao, Youdong Yang, and Shuting Zhang. 2012. Multi-level assembly model for top-down design of mechanical products. Computer-Aided Design 44, 10 (Oct. 2012), 1033–1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2010.12.008

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    Kathy Cheng, Phil Cuvin, Alison Olechowski, and Shurui Zhou. 2023. User Perspectives on Branching in Computer- Aided Design. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW2 (Oct. 2023), 371:1–371:30. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3610220

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Davis, Xiyue Zhang, Shurui Zhou, and Alison Olechowski

    Kathy Cheng, Michal K. Davis, Xiyue Zhang, Shurui Zhou, and Alison Olechowski. 2023. In the Age of Collaboration, the Computer-Aided Design Ecosystem is Behind: An Interview Study of Distributed CAD Practice. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (April...

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Kathy Cheng and Alison Olechowski. 2024. Analysis of Collaborative Assembly in Multi-User Computer-Aided Design. Journal of Mechanical Design 146, 3 (March 2024), 12. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4063759 Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Article 436. Publication da...

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    A Lot of Moving Parts

    Kathy Cheng, Shurui Zhou, and Alison Olechowski. 2024. “A Lot of Moving Parts”: A Case Study of Open-Source Hardware Design Collaboration in the Thingiverse Community. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW2 (Nov. 2024), 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3687008

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Hojin Cho, Kwanwoo Lee, and Kyo C. Kang. 2008. Feature Relation and Dependency Management: An Aspect- Oriented Approach. In 2008 12th International Software Product Line Conference . IEEE, Limerick, Ireland, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/splc.2008.23

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    Dexin Chu, Xuening Chu, Yupeng Li, Guolin Lyu, and Deyi Xue. 2016. A multi-skeleton modelling approach based on top-down design and modular product design for development of complex product layouts. Journal of Engineering Design 27, 10 (Oct. 2016), 725–750. https://doi.org/10....

    2016

  19. [27]

    Claudio Ciaccioli, Anna Eva Morabito, and University of Salento, Department of Engineering for Innovation, Lecce, Italy. 2021. An investigation on skeleton-based top-down modelling approaches of complex industrial product. Journal of Graphic Engineering and Design 12, 1 (March...

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Clark and Susan E

    Herbert H. Clark and Susan E. Brennan. 1991. Grounding in Communication. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, Lauren Resnick, Levine B., M. John, Stephanie Teasley, and D. (Eds.). American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., DC, 13–1991

    1991

  21. [29]

    Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun. 2013. Successful qualitative research. SAGE Publications, London, England

    2013

  22. [30]

    Melvin E Conway. 1968. How do committees invent. Datamation 14, 4 (1968), 28–31

    1968

  23. [31]

    2008.Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory

    Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2008.Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, California. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153

    2008 doi

  24. [32]

    Joel Cox, Eric Bouwers, Marko van Eekelen, and Joost Visser. 2015. Measuring Dependency Freshness in Software Systems. In 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering . IEEE, Florence, Italy, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1109/icse.2015.140

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    Laura Dabbish, Colleen Stuart, Jason Tsay, and Jim Herbsleb. 2012. Social coding in GitHub: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW ’12 . Association for Computing Ma...

    2012

  26. [34]

    Maitraye Das, Thomas Barlow McHugh, Anne Marie Piper, and Darren Gergle. 2022. Co11ab: Augmenting Accessibility in Synchronous Collaborative Writing for People with Vision Impairments. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22) . ...

    2022

  27. [35]

    Cleidson de Souza and David Redmiles. 2008. An empirical study of software developers’ management of dependencies and changes. In 2008 ACM/IEEE 30th International Conference on Software Engineering . Association for Computing Machinery, Leipzig, Germany, 241–250. https://doi.o...

    2008

  28. [36]

    de Souza, D

    C.R.B. de Souza, D. Redmiles, G. Mark, J. Penix, and M. Sierhuis. 2003. Management of interdependencies in collaborative software development. In 2003 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2003. ISESE

    2003

  29. [37]

    de Souza, Stephen Quirk, Erik Trainer, and David F

    Cleidson R. de Souza, Stephen Quirk, Erik Trainer, and David F. Redmiles. 2007. Supporting collaborative software development through the visualization of socio-technical dependencies. In Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on Conference on supporting group wo...

    2007

  30. [38]

    Cleidson R. B. de Souza and David F. Redmiles. 2011. The Awareness Network, To Whom Should I Display My Actions? And, Whose Actions Should I Monitor? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 37, 3 (May 2011), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1109/tse.2011.19

    2011 doi

  31. [39]

    Bayram Demirkazık. 2021. Onshape Practices (Youtube Tutorials). https://www.youtube.com/@bayramdemirkazk1618. [Accessed 08-04-2025]

    2021

  32. [40]

    Jens Dietrich, David Pearce, Jacob Stringer, Amjed Tahir, and Kelly Blincoe. 2019. Dependency Versioning in the Wild. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 16th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) . IEEE, Montreal, QC, Canada, 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1109/msr.2019.00061

    2019

  33. [41]

    Paul Dourish and Victoria Bellotti. 1992. Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work - CSCW ’92 . Association for Computing Machinery, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1...

    1992

  34. [42]

    Melanie Duckert, Louise Barkhuus, and Pernille Bjørn. 2023. Collocated Distance: A Fundamental Challenge for the Design of Hybrid Work Technologies. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, N...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Eppinger, Daniel E

    Steven D. Eppinger, Daniel E. Whitney, Robert P. Smith, and David A. Gebala. 1994. A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development. Research in Engineering Design 6, 1 (March 1994), 1–13. https: //doi.org/10.1007/bf01588087 Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vo...

    1994 doi

  36. [44]

    Abuzuraiq, Maryam Zarei, Osama AlSalman, Robert Woodbury, and John Dill

    Halil Erhan, Ahmed M. Abuzuraiq, Maryam Zarei, Osama AlSalman, Robert Woodbury, and John Dill. 2020. What do Design Data say About Your Model? - A Case Study on Reliability and Validity. In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in A...

    2020 doi

  37. [45]

    Morten Esbensen and Pernille Bjørn. 2014. Routine and Standardization in Global Software Development. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Supporting Group Work . ACM, Sanibel Island Florida USA, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/2660398.2660413

    2014

  38. [46]

    Gang Fan, Chengpeng Wang, Rongxin Wu, Xiao Xiao, Qingkai Shi, and Charles Zhang. 2020. Escaping dependency hell: finding build dependency errors with the unified dependency graph. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (...

    2020

  39. [47]

    John, Stephanie Stark, Louis Theran, and Xilin Yu

    James Farre, Helena Kleinschmidt, Jessica Sidman, Audrey St. John, Stephanie Stark, Louis Theran, and Xilin Yu. 2016. Algorithms for detecting dependencies and rigid subsystems for CAD. Computer Aided Geometric Design 47 (Oct. 2016), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cagd.2016.06.001

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    Jessie Frazelle. 2021. A new era for mechanical CAD. Commun. ACM 64, 10 (Oct. 2021), 36–39. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3464909

    2021

  41. [49]

    Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, and John Vlissides. 1994. Design patterns. Addison Wesley, Boston, MA

    1994

  42. [50]

    Rajaram Ganeshan, James Garrett, and Susan Finger. 1994. A framework for representing design intent. Design Studies 15, 1 (Jan. 1994), 59–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(94)90039-6

    1994 doi

  43. [51]

    Saskia Gilmer, Avinash Bhat, Shuvam Shah, Kevin Cherry, Jinghui Cheng, and Jin L.C. Guo. 2023. SUMMIT: Scaffolding Open Source Software Issue Discussion Through Summarization. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW2 (Oct. 2023), 297:1–297:27. https://doi....

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    Felipe Gonzalez, Thomas Pietrzak, Audrey Girouard, and Géry Casiez

    J. Felipe Gonzalez, Thomas Pietrzak, Audrey Girouard, and Géry Casiez. 2024. Facilitating the Parametric Definition of Geometric Properties in Programming-Based CAD. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM Symposium on User Inter- face Software and Technology (UIST ’24) . ACM, Pittsbur...

    2024

  45. [53]

    Gopsill, Chris Snider, and Ben J

    James A. Gopsill, Chris Snider, and Ben J. Hicks. 2019. The emergent structures in digital engineering work: what can we learn from dynamic DSMs of near-identical systems design projects? Design Science 5 (2019), 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2019.20

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    Han, and Michel Beaudouin-Lafon

    Julien Gori, Han L. Han, and Michel Beaudouin-Lafon. 2020. FileWeaver: Flexible File Management with Automatic Dependency Tracking. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . ACM, Virtual Event USA, 22–34. https://doi.org/10.114...

    2020

  47. [55]

    Saul Greenberg and Carl Gutwin. 2016. Implications of We-Awareness to the Design of Distributed Groupware Tools. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 25, 4 (Oct. 2016), 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-016-9244-y

    2016 doi

  48. [56]

    Rebecca E. Grinter. 2003. Recomposition: Coordinating a Web of Software Dependencies. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 12, 3 (Sept. 2003), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025012916465

    2003 doi

  49. [57]

    Tom Gross. 2013. Supporting Effortless Coordination: 25 Years of Awareness Research.Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 22, 4–6 (June 2013), 425–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-013-9190-x

    2013 doi

  50. [58]

    Carl Gutwin and Saul Greenberg. 1999. The effects of workspace awareness support on the usability of real-time distributed groupware. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 6, 3 (Sept. 1999), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1145/329693. 329696

    1999 doi

  51. [59]

    Carl Gutwin and Saul Greenberg. 2002. A Descriptive Framework of Workspace Awareness for Real-Time Groupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 11, 3 (Sept. 2002), 411–446. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021271517844

    2002 doi

  52. [60]

    Carl Gutwin and Saul Greenberg. 2004. The importance of awareness for team cognition in distributed collaboration. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., DC, 177–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/10690-009

    2004 doi

  53. [61]

    Carl Gutwin, Reagan Penner, and Kevin Schneider. 2004. Group awareness in distributed software development. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW ’04 . ACM Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 72. https://doi.org/10.1145/1031607.1031621

    2004

  54. [62]

    Carl Gutwin, Mark Roseman, and Saul Greenberg. 1996. A usability study of awareness widgets in a shared workspace groupware system. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Boston, Massachusetts, USA) (CSCW ’96). Association for Computi...

    1996

  55. [63]

    Han, Junhang Yu, Raphael Bournet, Alexandre Ciorascu, Wendy E

    Han L. Han, Junhang Yu, Raphael Bournet, Alexandre Ciorascu, Wendy E. Mackay, and Michel Beaudouin-Lafon

  56. [64]

    Runzhi He, Hao He, Yuxia Zhang, and Minghui Zhou. 2023. Automating Dependency Updates in Practice: An Exploratory Study on GitHub Dependabot. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 49, 8 (Aug. 2023), 4004–4022. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Article 436. P...

    2023

  57. [66]

    Christian Heath and Paul Luff. 1992. Collaboration and controlCrisis management and multimedia technology in London Underground Line Control Rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 1, 1–2 (March 1992), 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00752451

    1992 doi

  58. [67]

    Herbsleb and Rebecca E

    James D. Herbsleb and Rebecca E. Grinter. 1999. Splitting the organization and integrating the code: Conway’s law revisited. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Software engineering . ACM, Los Angeles California USA, 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1145/302405.302455

    1999

  59. [68]

    James Hollan, Edwin Hutchins, and David Kirsh. 2000. Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human- computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 7, 2 (June 2000), 174–196. https: //doi.org/10.1145/353485.353487

    2000

  60. [69]

    Edwin Hutchins. 1996. Cognition in the Wild . Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA

    1996

  61. [70]

    Felix Hähnlein, Gilbert Bernstein, and Adriana Schulz. 2024. Understanding and Supporting Debugging Workflows in CAD. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’24) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, ...

    2024

  62. [71]

    Mahmoud Jahanshahi, David Reid, and Audris Mockus. 2025. Beyond Dependencies: The Role of Copy-Based Reuse in Open Source Software Development. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (Jan. 2025). https://doi.org/10.1145/3715907

    2025 doi

  63. [72]

    Dhanushka Jayasuriya, Valerio Terragni, Jens Dietrich, Samuel Ou, and Kelly Blincoe. 2023. Understanding Breaking Changes in the Wild. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis. ACM, Seattle WA USA, 1433–1444. https://doi.o...

    2023

  64. [73]

    Joel Johansson, Manuel Contero, Pedro Company, and Fredrik Elgh. 2018. Supporting connectivism in knowledge based engineering with graph theory, filtering techniques and model quality assurance. Advanced Engineering Informatics 38 (Oct. 2018), 252–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/...

    2018 doi

  65. [74]

    Dan Kane. 2022. Tech Tip: Utilizing Feature Dependencies in Onshape. https://www.onshape.com/en/resource- center/tech-tips/utilizing-feature-dependencies-in-onshape. [Accessed 25-10-2024]

    2022

  66. [75]

    Pranav Khadpe, Lindy Le, Kate Nowak, Shamsi T Iqbal, and Jina Suh. 2024. DISCERN: Designing Decision Support Interfaces to Investigate the Complexities of Workplace Social Decision-Making With Line Managers. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Sy...

    2024

  67. [76]

    Andrey Kharitonov, Amro Abdalla, Abdulrahman Nahhas, Daniel Staegemann, Christian Haertel, Christian Daase, and Klaus Turowski. 2024. A Literature Survey on Pitfalls of Open-Source Dependency Management in Enterprise. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Soft...

    2024 doi

  68. [77]

    One-Size-Fits- All

    Kimia Kiani, George Cui, Andrea Bunt, Joanna McGrenere, and Parmit K. Chilana. 2019. Beyond "One-Size-Fits- All": Understanding the Diversity in How Software Newcomers Discover and Make Use of Help Resources. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput...

    2019

  69. [78]

    Tae Soo Kim, Nitesh Goyal, Jeongyeon Kim, Juho Kim, and Sungsoo Ray Hong. 2021. Supporting Collaborative Sequencing of Small Groups through Visual Awareness. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW1 (April 2021), 176:1–176:29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449250

    2021 doi

  70. [79]

    Mark Klein, Hiroki Sayama, Peyman Faratin, and Yaneer Bar-Yam. 2002. A complex systems perspective on computer- supported collaborative design technology. Commun. ACM 45, 11 (Nov. 2002), 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/581571. 581589

    2002 doi

  71. [80]

    Sheikholeslami, Lyn Bartram, and Robert Woodbury

    Karine Kozlova, Roham M. Sheikholeslami, Lyn Bartram, and Robert Woodbury. 2011. Graph visualization in computer-aided design: An exploration of alternative representations for GenerativeComponentsTM Symbolic View. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Computer Aided Archit...

    2011 doi

  72. [81]

    German, Ali Ouni, Takashi Ishio, and Katsuro Inoue

    Raula Gaikovina Kula, Daniel M. German, Ali Ouni, Takashi Ishio, and Katsuro Inoue. 2017. Do developers update their library dependencies?: An empirical study on the impact of security advisories on library migration. Empirical Software Engineering 23, 1 (May 2017), 384–417. h...

    2017 doi

  73. [82]

    Rodrigo Laigner, Diogo Mendonça, Alessandro Garcia, and Marcos Kalinowski. 2022. Cataloging dependency injection anti-patterns in software systems. Journal of Systems and Software 184 (Feb. 2022), 111125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jss.2021.111125

    2022

  74. [83]

    Ida Larsen-Ledet, Henrik Korsgaard, and Susanne Bødker. 2020. Collaborative Writing Across Multiple Artifact Ecologies. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Honolulu HI Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Article 4...

    2020

  75. [84]

    Steffen Lehnert. 2011. A taxonomy for software change impact analysis. In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution and the 7th annual ERCIM Workshop on Software Evolution (ESEC/FSE’11, Vol. 3). ACM, Szeged, Hungary, 41–50. https://doi....

    2011

  76. [85]

    Piritta Leinonen, Sanna Järvelä, and Päivi Häkkinen. 2005. Conceptualizing the Awareness of Collaboration: A Qualitative Study of a Global Virtual Team. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 14, 4 (Aug. 2005), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-005-9002-z

    2005 doi

  77. [86]

    Xingjun Li, Yizhi Zhang, Justin Leung, Chengnian Sun, and Jian Zhao. 2023. EDAssistant: Supporting Exploratory Data Analysis in Computational Notebooks with In Situ Code Search and Recommendation. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 13, 1 (March 2023), 1:1–1:27...

    2023 doi

  78. [87]

    Lu Liu, Harm Van Essen, and Berry Eggen. 2024. Let Information Flow Into Awareness: A Design Space for Human- Like Experiences to Promote Informal Communication for Hybrid Work. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’24, Vol. 2). ACM, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1666–1680....

    2024

  79. [88]

    Guerrero

    Gustavo Lopez and Luis A. Guerrero. 2017. Awareness Supporting Technologies used in Collaborative Systems: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, Portland Oregon USA, 808–820. ...

    2017

  80. [89]

    Zhaojing Luo, Sai Ho Yeung, Meihui Zhang, Kaiping Zheng, Lei Zhu, Gang Chen, Feiyi Fan, Qian Lin, Kee Yuan Ngiam, and Beng Chin Ooi. 2021. MLCask: Efficient Management of Component Evolution in Collaborative Data Analytics Pipelines. In 2021 IEEE 37th International Conference ...

    2021

  81. [90]

    Kurt E. Madsen. 2009. Collaboration Strategies for Distributed Teams: A Case Study of CAD Systems Integration. In 2009 Fourth International Conference on Systems . IEEE, Gosier, France, 222–227. https://doi.org/10.1109/icons.2009.46

    2009 doi

  82. [91]

    2017.CAD in the Cloud - Market Trends 2017 Report

    Kathleen Maher, Bill Gordon, and Chris Turner. 2017.CAD in the Cloud - Market Trends 2017 Report . Technical Report. Jon Peddie Research and Business Advantage

    2017

  83. [92]

    Malone and Kevin Crowston

    Thomas W. Malone and Kevin Crowston. 1990. What is coordination theory and how can it help design cooperative work systems?. In Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work - CSCW ’90 . ACM Press, Los Angeles, California, United States, 357–370...

    1990

  84. [93]

    Malone and Kevin Crowston

    Thomas W. Malone and Kevin Crowston. 1994. The interdisciplinary study of coordination. Comput. Surveys 26, 1 (March 1994), 87–119. https://doi.org/10.1145/174666.174668

    1994

  85. [94]

    Kirsti Malterud, Volkert Dirk Siersma, and Ann Dorrit Guassora. 2016. Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power. Qualitative Health Research 26, 13 (July 2016), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1049732315617444

    2016

  86. [95]

    Marcio Jose Mantau and Fabiane Barreto Vavassori Benitti. 2022. Awareness Support in Collaborative System: Reviewing Last 10 Years of CSCW Research. In 2022 IEEE 25th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), Vol. 3. IEEE, Hangzhou, Chi...

    2022

  87. [96]

    Varshney, Ioana Baldini, Casey Dugan, and Aleksandra Mojsilović

    Yaoli Mao, Dakuo Wang, Michael Muller, Kush R. Varshney, Ioana Baldini, Casey Dugan, and Aleksandra Mojsilović

  88. [97]

    Maxim Marchenko, Bernd-Arno Behrens, Gregor Wrobel, Robert Scheffler, and Matthias Pleßow. 2011. A New Method of Visualization and Documentation of Parametric Information of 3D CAD Models. Computer-Aided Design and Applications 8, 3 (Jan. 2011), 435–448. https://doi.org/10.372...

    2011 doi

  89. [98]

    Robert C Martin and Micah Martin. 2006. Agile Principles, Patterns, and Practices in C# . Prentice Hall, Philadelphia, PA

    2006

  90. [99]

    Mahmoud Masmoudi, Patrice Leclaire, Marc Zolghadri, and Mohamed Haddar. 2015. DEPENDENCY IDENTIFI- CATION FOR ENGINEERING CHANGE MANAGEMENT (ECM): AN EXAMPLE OF COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN (CAD)-BASED APPROACH. In the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15) (Or...

    2015

  91. [100]

    Justin Matejka, Tovi Grossman, and George Fitzmaurice. 2011. IP-QAT: in-product questions, answers, & tips. In Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology . Association for Computing Machinery, Santa Barbara, California USA, 175–184. ...

    2011

  92. [101]

    Lambourne, and Daniele Grandi

    Peter Meltzer, Joseph G. Lambourne, and Daniele Grandi. 2024. What’s in a Name? Evaluating Assembly-Part Semantic Knowledge in Language Models Through User-Provided Names in Computer Aided Design Files. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 24, 011002 (Ja...

    2024 doi

  93. [102]

    Courtney Miller, Mahmoud Jahanshahi, Audris Mockus, Bogdan Vasilescu, and Christian Kästner. 2025. Understanding the Response to Open-Source Dependency Abandonment in the npm Ecosystem. InProceedings of the 47th International Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Ar...

    2025

  94. [103]

    Jasper O’Leary, Holger Winnemöller, Wilmot Li, Mira Dontcheva, and Morgan Dixon. 2018. Charrette: Supporting In-Person Discussions around Iterations in User Interface Design. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Montreal QC Can...

    2018

  95. [104]

    Omer and Alexander Schill

    Abrehet M. Omer and Alexander Schill. 2011. Automatic Management of Cyclic Dependency among Web Services. In 2011 14th IEEE International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering , Vol. 17. IEEE, Dalian, China, 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/cse.2011.22

    2011 doi

  96. [105]

    Ouertani, S

    M.Z. Ouertani, S. Baïna, L. Gzara, and G. Morel. 2011. Traceability and management of dispersed product knowledge during design and manufacturing. Computer-Aided Design 43, 5 (May 2011), 546–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad. 2010.03.006

    2011 doi

  97. [106]

    Sami Paavola and Reijo Miettinen. 2019. Dynamics of Design Collaboration: BIM Models as Intermediary Digital Objects. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 28, 1 (April 2019), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018- 9306-4

    2019 doi

  98. [107]

    Gerhard Pahl, Wolfgang Beitz, Jörg Feldhusen, and Karl-Heinrich Grote. 2007. Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach (3 ed.). Springer London, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-319-2

    2007 doi

  99. [108]

    Zhiyi Pan, Xin Wang, Rumin Teng, and Xuyang Cao. 2016. Computer-aided design-while-engineering technology in top-down modeling of mechanical product. Computers in Industry 75 (Jan. 2016), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. compind.2015.05.004

    2016 doi

  100. [109]

    Podgurski and L

    A. Podgurski and L. Clarke. 1989. The implications of program dependencies for software testing, debugging, and maintenance. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes14, 8 (Dec. 1989), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1145/75309.75328

    1989

  101. [110]

    Santosa, Asankhaya Sharma, and David Lo

    Gede Artha Azriadi Prana, Abhishek Sharma, Lwin Khin Shar, Darius Foo, Andrew E. Santosa, Asankhaya Sharma, and David Lo. 2021. Out of sight, out of mind? How vulnerable dependencies affect open-source projects. Empirical Software Engineering 26, 4 (April 2021), 34 pages. http...

    2021 doi

  102. [111]

    Ahsan Qamar, Christiaan J. J. Paredis, Jan Wikander, and Carl During. 2012. Dependency Modeling and Model Management in Mechatronic Design. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 12, 041009 (Dec. 2012), 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4007986

    2012 doi

  103. [112]

    Robertson and D.F

    B.F. Robertson and D.F. Radcliffe. 2009. Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in engineering design. Computer-Aided Design 41, 3 (March 2009), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2008.06.007

    2009 doi

  104. [113]

    Matt Rohr. 2022. Tech Tip: Creating Master Sketches with Onshape’s Derived Feature — onshape.com. https://www. onshape.com/en/resource-center/tech-tips/creating-master-sketches-with-onshapes-derived-feature. [Accessed 25-10-2024]

    2022

  105. [114]

    Cogo, Bram Adams, and Ahmed E

    Benjamin Rombaut, Filipe R. Cogo, Bram Adams, and Ahmed E. Hassan. 2023. There’s no Such Thing as a Free Lunch: Lessons Learned from Exploring the Overhead Introduced by the Greenkeeper Dependency Bot in Npm. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 32, 1 (Jan....

    2023 doi

  106. [115]

    Larri Ann Rosser and Zakaria Ouzzif. 2021. Technical Debt in Hardware Systems and Elements. In2021 IEEE Aerospace Conference (50100). IEEE, Big Sky, MT, USA, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO50100.2021.9438332 ISSN: 1095-323X

    2021

  107. [116]

    Rosso, J

    P. Rosso, J. Gopsill, S. C. Burgess, and B. Hicks. 2022. Does CAD Smell Like Code? A Mapping Between Violation of Object Oriented Programming Design Principles and Computer Aided Design Modelling. Proceedings of the Design Society 2 (May 2022), 1737–1746. https://doi.org/10.10...

    2022 doi

  108. [117]

    Johnny Saldaña. 2012. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers . SAGE Publications, London, England

    2012

  109. [118]

    Anita Sarma, Larry Maccherone, Patrick Wagstrom, and James Herbsleb. 2009. Tesseract: Interactive visual exploration of socio-technical relationships in software development. In 2009 IEEE 31st International Conference on Software Engineering. IEEE, Vancouver, Canada, 23–33. ht...

    2009

  110. [119]

    Sarma, D

    A. Sarma, D. F. Redmiles, and A. van der Hoek. 2012. Palantir: Early Detection of Development Conflicts Arising from Parallel Code Changes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 38, 4 (July 2012), 889–908. https://doi.org/10. 1109/TSE.2011.64

    2012

  111. [120]

    Schelble, Christopher Flathmann, Geoff Musick, Nathan J

    Beau G. Schelble, Christopher Flathmann, Geoff Musick, Nathan J. McNeese, and Guo Freeman. 2022. I See You: Examining the Role of Spatial Information in Human-Agent Teams. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, CSCW2 (Nov. 2022), 374:1–374:27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555099

    2022 doi

  112. [121]

    Leviathan

    Kjeld Schmidt. 1994. The organization of cooperative work: beyond the “Leviathan” conception of the organization of cooperative work. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW ’94 . ACM Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United St...

    1994

  113. [122]

    Kjeld Schmidt. 2002. The Problem with ’Awareness’: Introductory Remarks on ’Awareness in CSCW’. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 11 (Sept. 2002), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021272909573

    2002 doi

  114. [123]

    Kjeld Schmidt. 2011. Cooperative Work and Coordinative Practices: Contributions to the Conceptual Foundations of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). Springer London, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-068-1 Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 7, Arti...

    2011 doi

  115. [124]

    Kjeld Schmidt and Liam Bannon. 1996. Taking CSCW Seriously: Supporting Articulation Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 1 (1996), 7–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-415040-9.50118-4

    1996 doi

  116. [125]

    Michael Sedlmair, Petra Isenberg, Dominikus Baur, Michael Mauerer, Christian Pigorsch, and Andreas Butz. 2011. Cardiogram: visual analytics for automotive engineers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI ’11)...

    2011

  117. [126]

    Xiaohu Song, Ying Wang, Xiao Cheng, Guangtai Liang, Qianxiang Wang, and Zhiliang Zhu. 2024. Efficiently Trimming the Fat: Streamlining Software Dependencies with Java Reflection and Dependency Analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software E...

    2024

  118. [127]

    Sosa, Steven D

    Manuel E. Sosa, Steven D. Eppinger, and Craig M. Rowles. 2004. The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development. Management Science 50, 12 (Dec. 2004), 1674–1689. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0289 Publisher: INFORMS

    2004

  119. [128]

    Christian Stark. 2024. Classic VW Engine and Gearbox. https://onshape.com/documents/a6f221da86aa4e3e8d317737/ w/0a1d7a6bf0f94186b94358e0/e/65e2403e8c63dce036723077?renderMode=0&uiState=671c5f54a25f7a08b136e601. [Ac- cessed 25-10-2024]

    2024

  120. [129]

    Rainer Stark. 2022. Major Technology 1: Computer Aided Design—CAD. In Virtual Product Creation in Industry . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64301-3_7

    2022 doi

  121. [130]

    Viktoria Stray, Nils Brede Moe, and Andreas Aasheim. 2019. Dependency Management in Large-Scale Agile: A Case Study of DevOps Teams. InProceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) . Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Grand...

    2019 doi

  122. [131]

    Diane E. Strode. 2015. A dependency taxonomy for agile software development projects.Information Systems Frontiers 18, 1 (June 2015), 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-015-9574-1

    2015 doi

  123. [132]

    Gengyi Sun, Mehran Meidani, Sarra Habchi, Mathieu Nayrolles, and Shane Mcintosh. 2024. Code Impact Beyond Disciplinary Boundaries: Constructing a Multidisciplinary Dependency Graph and Analyzing Cross-Boundary Impact. In Proceedings of the 46th International Conference on Soft...

    2024

  124. [133]

    Ruben Taelman, Joachim Van Herwegen, Miel Vander Sande, and Ruben Verborgh. 2022. Components.js: Semantic dependency injection. Semantic Web 14, 1 (Nov. 2022), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.3233/sw-222945

    2022 doi

  125. [134]

    James Tam and Saul Greenberg. 2006. A framework for asynchronous change awareness in collaborative documents and workspaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64, 7 (July 2006), 583–598. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ijhcs.2006.02.004

    2006

  126. [135]

    Josh Tenenberg, Wolff-Michael Roth, and David Socha. 2016. From I-Awareness to We-Awareness in CSCW.Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 25, 4 (Oct. 2016), 235–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-014-9215-0

    2016 doi

  127. [136]

    Christoph Treude and Margaret-Anne Storey. 2010. Awareness 2.0: staying aware of projects, developers and tasks using dashboards and feeds. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - ICSE ’10, Vol. 1. ACM Press, Cape Town, South Afri...

    2010

  128. [137]

    Tuomo Tuikka. 2002. Remote concept design from an activity theory perspective. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work . ACM, New Orleans Louisiana USA, 186–195. https://doi.org/10. 1145/587078.587105

    2002

  129. [138]

    Gerosa, and Igor Scaliante Wiese

    Daniel Venturini, Filipe Roseiro Cogo, Ivanilton Polato, Marco A. Gerosa, and Igor Scaliante Wiese. 2023. I Depended on You and You Broke Me: An Empirical Study of Manifesting Breaking Changes in Client Packages.ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 32, 4 (M...

    2023 doi

  130. [139]

    Ruotong Wang, Lin Qiu, Justin Cranshaw, and Amy X. Zhang. 2024. Meeting Bridges: Designing Information Artifacts that Bridge from Synchronous Meetings to Asynchronous Collaboration. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW1 (April 2024), 35:1–35:29. https:/...

    2024 doi

  131. [140]

    Drucker, Titus Barik, and Robert DeLine

    Nathaniel Weinman, Steven M. Drucker, Titus Barik, and Robert DeLine. 2021. Fork It: Supporting Stateful Alternatives in Computational Notebooks. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.114...

    2021

  132. [141]

    Chauncey E. Wilson. 2006. Triangulation: the explicit use of multiple methods, measures, and approaches for determining core issues in product development. Interactions 13, 6 (Nov. 2006), 46. https://doi.org/10.1145/1167948. 1167980

    2006 doi

  133. [142]

    Moritz Wittenhagen, Christian Cherek, and Jan Borchers. 2016. Chronicler: Interactive Exploration of Source Code History. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, San Jose California USA, 3522–3532. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036....

    2016

  134. [143]

    Stephanie Yang, Amreen Amin Poonawala, Tian-Shun Allan Jiang, and Bertrand Schneider. 2023. Can Synchronous Code Editing and Awareness Tools Support Remote Tutoring? Effects on Learning and Teaching. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW2 (Oct. 2023), 32...

    2023 doi

  135. [144]

    Zhang, Michael Muller, and Dakuo Wang

    Amy X. Zhang, Michael Muller, and Dakuo Wang. 2020. How do Data Science Workers Collaborate? Roles, Workflows, and Tools. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW1 (May 2020), 1–23. https://doi.org/10. 1145/3392826 Received October 2024; revised April 2025;...

    2020

  136. [2003]

    IEEE Comput

    Proceedings. IEEE Comput. Soc, Rome, Italy, 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISESE.2003.1237990

    2003 arXiv

  137. [2019]

    2019), 237:1–237:23

    How Data ScientistsWork Together With Domain Experts in Scientific Collaborations: To Find The Right Answer Or To Ask The Right Question? Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, GROUP (Dec. 2019), 237:1–237:23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3361118

    2019 doi

  138. [2022]

    In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Passages: Interacting with Text Across Documents. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502052

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.