This technical report presents TeamLens, an optional Critsly interface for voluntarily sharing a self-reported MBTI type with a particular board, an implemented disclosure-to-aggregation workflow and an auditable technical account of its correctness boundaries, privacy limitations and scaling cost.
Abstract
Discussing working preferences may support reflection within a design team, but a personality label should not become a performance prediction or a condition of participation. This technical report presents TeamLens, an optional Critsly interface for voluntarily sharing a self-reported MBTI type with a particular board. It separates account activation from disclosure, displays descriptive composition counts, and provides distinct controls for disabling visibility, withdrawing one report and deleting all of one's reports. The evaluation combines released-source inspection, independently specified synthetic aggregation cases, access and lifecycle checks, browser component tests, a local database microbenchmark and deployment records. All 65,536 binary eligibility subsets of sixteen fixed, distinct type reports matched an independent oracle; 128 seeded multiplicity fixtures also matched, after 4,259 synthetic share calls. The isolated HTTP suite passed 183 assertions. In 180 sequential in-memory SQLite read trials, median service-call time increased from 0.064 ms with no profile rows to 200.932 ms with 1,024 rows; instrumented SQL operations followed 11+3n. These findings concern exercised software behaviour and a bounded workload. They do not establish human usability, psychometric validity, learning gains, team-performance effects or production capacity. The contribution is an implemented disclosure-to-aggregation workflow and an auditable technical account of its correctness boundaries, privacy limitations and scaling cost. OpenAI Codex assisted with implementation, evaluation and manuscript preparation; the paper discloses this use and its limits.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.
M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 401 citations· ⚡48
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The perception of the impact of agile methods is predominantly positive, and several challenge areas were discovered, but based on this study, agile methods are here to stay.
M. Laanti, O. Salo, P. Abrahamsson· Information and Software Tec...· 260 citations· ⚡20
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 7, 2026
Students in MIT’s Concourse program delve deeply into the human condition, debate challenging questions, and learn to develop judgment about issues that can’t be quantified.
Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity. The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduSep 30, 2026
Able to defeat top-ranked human players and more efficient than other models, the new system could help decision-makers in military maneuvers or business negotiations.