Software Público Brasileiro

\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}

\subsection{RQ1. Practices to well combine different teams with different
management processes in a government-academia collaboration}

The case study was analyzed and divided into two phases according to the project
management model. In the second phase (after one year(?) of execution), several
practices have been applied to harmonize the cultural and organizational
divergences of the institutions involved. At the end of the project, an empirical
model of management and development process was created by aligning experiences
from the FLOSS universe, academic research and bureaucracies needed by the
government. In this section, we present by context the practices adopted in this
second phase and show the benefits generated by its deployment.

\begin{table}[]
\centering
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{ | m{4cm} m{10cm} m{10cm} | } 
\hline
\textbf{Decision} & \textbf{Practice Explanation} & \textbf{Benefits} \\ \hline
\textbf{Project management and communication on the developing platform itself} & \begin{itemize} \item Migration of project management and communication into the platform under development using its integrated software components Gitlab and Mailman \end{itemize} & \begin{itemize} \item Confidence in developed code; \item Transparency and efficiency in communication; \item Easier monitoring and increase interactions between development team and public servants; \item Organically documentation and records generation; \end{itemize} \\ \hline
\textbf{Continuous Delivery} & \begin{itemize} \item Creation of DevOps Team to build Continuous Delivery pipeline which involves both side participation. \item At each release, DevOps members would go to the ministry to assist its infrastructure team in deploying. \end{itemize} & \begin{itemize} \item Increasing government confidence for collaborative projects with the university; \item Motivating teams; \item Transfering of knowledge about DevOps and Continuous Deliveries from academia to gov infrastructure team; \item Aligning both side pace to execute project-related activities; \item Improving translation from one development process to the other; \end{itemize}\\ \hline
\textbf{Divide development team in "component" fronts} & \begin{itemize} \item The development was divided into four fronts with a certain self-organization of tasks. \item IT market professionals with recognized experience on each front were hired to work in person or remotely. \item For each front, there was at least one senior developer and the role of coach. \item The meta-coach role was also defined to coordinate tasks between teams. \end{itemize} & \begin{itemize} \item Helping conciliation of development processes and decision-making; \item Creating support-points for students, senior developers, and gov staff; \item Transfering of knowledge from industry and FLOSS community to both academia and government; \end{itemize}\\ \hline
\textbf{Bring together government staff and development team} & \begin{itemize} \item Biweekly gov staff, senior developers and coaches met to planning and review sprint at the UnB headquarters. \item Most of features under development were discussed on Gitlab Issue Tracker. \item Only strategic decisions or bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \end{itemize} & \begin{itemize} \item Reducing communication misunderstood; \item Empathy between members on both sides; Meeting expectations of both sides on developing requirements; \item Improving the understanding of collaborative development by the government; \item Aligning both side pace to execute project-related activities; \end{itemize} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}%
}
\caption{Empirical SPB management method and its benefits}
\label{practice-table}
\end{table}

\subsubsection{Project management and communication on the developing platform
itself}

\begin{itemize}
  \item \textit{Migration from Redmine management to Gitlab (one of the
integrated software):} Wiki feature was used for meeting logging, defining
goals, sprint planning, and documentation of deployment processes and
administration resources guide. Issue tracker was used for discussing
requirements, monitoring the features under development, registrating changes,
and validating functionalities delivered.
  \item \textit{Using the project mailing list provided by Mailman's platform:}
Scheduling meetings and defining schedule. Through the list, brainstorms and
collaborative definition of requirements also happened.
\end{itemize}

Data from Gitlab shows 775 issues were opened and 4658 comments were made in the
repository that versioned the platform (without considering the software
repositories that integrated the platform) within the SPB platform. The issues
were created by 59 different authors (8 MPOG representatives), and commented by
64 different users (9 MPOG users). {\~43\%} of the 84 issues with higher level
of interaction (10 or more comments) are authored by one of MPOG staff. 
Students said the main communication ways used to interacte
with software communities were: IRC (86.5\%); Mailing list (73\%); Issues
(67.6\%). The main means of communication between senior developers and
students was IRC (100\%), Mailing list (100\%), Videoconference (100\%) and
Issue Tracker (62.5\%). Senior developers and MPOG staff interected mostly via
Mailing List (87.5\%) and Issue tracker (50\%). One of the interviewed MPOG
staff ratifies the main interaction spaces between teams: "We interacted a lot
with mailing lists and chatting, sometimes with gitlab within the line of
development."
%
\paragraph{Benefits}

\begin{itemize}
  \setlength\itemsep{1em}
  \item \textit{Confidence in developed code} 
    \subitem One of the gov-side interviewees said "Everything was validated, we
tested the features and the project was developed inside the platform, so that
the feature was validated in the development of the software itself. Our team at
MPOG, used the development and communication tools of the platform itself. From
the moment we installed it, and began to use it for development, this validation
was constant. We felt confident about the features"
  \item \textit{Transparency and efficiency in communication}
    \subitem Undegraduate student response: "We always had an open channel for
conversations / interactions, whether it was the project issues, the IRC
channel, via Whatsapp, etc."
    \subitem MPOG: "I think the communication was excellent, it was comprehensive,
instantaneous and effective. We asked a question, a question, and very quickly
it was answered. Communication goes far beyond that, you communicate to everyone
in the project everything that was happening. We did not have issue related to
emails, use the mailing list more and avoid e-mails, it helped a lot because it
was all public and did not pollute our mailbox. You wanted to know something,
could go there and look at what was happening. We also had instant chatting,
where the team stayed online, working connected. We had a quick access to the
team. This makes all the difference in a project."
  \item \textit{Monitoring of interactions among students, senior developers and
public servants by coordinators}
    \subitem MPOG: "The leader himself informed us who was doing something, then we
talked directly to that student [..] But this interaction was not very frequent,
sometimes we would ask something on the list and the coordinator would answer
first."
  \item \textit{Increase interaction between development team and contract
management team}
    \subitem MPOG: "There was a lot of evolution, a lot of communication via Gitlab"
  \item \textit{Organically documentation and records generation}
    \subitem MPOG: "For me it was a lot of learning, there is a lot of things
documented in the e-mails and also there in the portal itself of what happened
in the project. At any moment we can go there and see how it worked, how the
person did, and manages to salvage those good points."
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection{Continuos Delivery}

\begin{itemize}
 \item \textit{Creating DevOps Team}
 \item \textit{Defining continuous delivery pipeline}
 \item \textit{DevOps team periodically going to the ministry to help deploy each version}
\end{itemize}

\paragraph{Benefits}

\begin{itemize}
  \setlength\itemsep{1em}
  \item \textit{Increase government confidence for collaborative projects with the
university}
    \subitem MPOG: "At first the government staff had a bias that universities did
not deliver and we overcame that bias in the course of the project. We deliver a
lot and with quality. Today, I think that if we had paid the same amount for a
company, it would not have done what was delivered and with the quality that was
delivered with the price that was paid."
  \item \textit{Motivate teams}
    \subitem {81.1\%} of students think new versions released in production motivated
them during the project
    \subitem {75\%} of senior developers think new versions released in production
motivated them during the project
    \subitem {81\%} of students think the presence of a specific DevOps team was
necessary for the project
  \item \textit{Transfer of knowledge about DevOps and Continuous Deliveries from
the academic team to the government infrastructure team}
    \subitem MPOG: "I only noticed positive aspects in the delivery. I think in the
interaction, we had a lot of support to be able to deploy. From the time that
the version was mature, which had already been tested in the UnB test
environment and was ready to be put into production, we had a great agility to
release in production. Then in the course of the project we realized that the
infrastructure team [of MPOG] started to trust the UnB team a lot. Because, for
you to put software in production in government, there is a whole process
behind. The government has much of this security issue."
    \subitem MPOG: "If there was anything stopping the business from working, the
software working inside, we would ask the seniors for support so we could
investigate that, and the infrastructure team was also instructed to prioritize
it. So when it came to an impasse, the teams were all together, both from within
MPOG as well as senior developers and other UnB developers to unlock, to find
the problem."
  \item \textit{Align the university and government teams pace in the execution of
the activities}
    \subitem MPOG: "In the beginning, infrastructure personnel were not accustomed
to deliveries so fast. They had to adapt to this pace. The portal of the SPB
before the project was not there [in the MPOG infrastructure], it was in another
place, they did not have that dynamics there. But what they asked for UnB (some
configuration, installation manual, how to install everything inside) was
requested and delivered."
  \item \textit{Improve translation from one development process to the other}
    \subitem MPOG: "We had an overview at the strategic level, but when we went down
to the level of functionality we had this difficulty to do the planning of the
release every four months. But in the end, I think this has not been a problem,
because a project you are delivering, the results are going to production, the
code is quality, the team is qualified/capable and the project is doing well, it
does not impact as much in practice, because the result is being delivered.
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection{Organization of the project in teams for each front, with a
undergraduate student as coach and at least one senior developer}

\begin{itemize}
  \item \textit{Four fronts: Colab, Noosfero, DevOps and Front-End/UX}
  \item \textit{Definition of the role of team coaches and meta-coach, selected from undergraduate students group}
  \item \textit{Hiring professionals from the IT market for face-to-face or remote work, specialists in the software components}
\end{itemize}

\paragraph{Benefits}

\begin{itemize}
  \setlength\itemsep{1em}
  \item \textit{Help to conciliate development processes and decision-making}
    \subitem {62,5\%} of senior developers believe they have helped MPOG staff to more clearly express their requests
    \subitem {87,5\%} of seniors agreed with the project development process. For 37.5\% this process was little similar to their previous experiences, for the others there was a certain similarity.
    \subitem {62,5\%} of seniors did not understand MPOG's project management process. {50\%} of them believe their project productivity was affected by MPOG's project management process.
    \subitem Senior Dev: "I think my main contribution was to have balanced the relations between the MPOG staff and the UnB team"
    \subitem Senior Dev: "When I entered the project, the client had a disproportionate view of how to make explicit the requirements. They were still talking about use cases and were extremely concerned about validation processes and acceptance of these documents."
    \subitem MPOG: "You had the reviewers, who were the original developers of the software, that gave you confidence and confidence in the code."
%
  \item \textit{Create support and reference points for students, senior developers, and government staff}
    \subitem {89.1\%} of students believe that the presence of the leader was essential to the running of Sprint
    \subitem {87.5\%} of seniors believe that the presence of team leaders was essential for their interaction with the team
    \subitem MPOG: "It interacted more with the project coordinator and team coaches (noosfero, colab, visual identity). Interacted with coaches by mailing list, hangouts The reason was usually to elucidate requirements, to ask questions about requirements, to understand some functionality. "
    \subitem MPOG: "There was interaction with the other [non-coaches] because they also participated in the bi-weekly meetings (sprints), but it was more with coaches."
    \subitem MPOG: "Access to coaches was faster, because we were in much more interaction with leaders than with senior developers. Sometimes the coaches brought the question to the senior developers."
%
  \item \textit{Transfer of knowledge from industry and FLOSS community to both academia and government}
    \subitem {62.5\%} of senior developers believe that they have collaborated in the relationship between the management and development processes of the two institutions
    \subitem {100\%} of the students we interviewed believe that working with senior developers was important during the project
    \subitem {91.\%} of students also believe that working with seniors was important for learning
    \subitem {75\%} of senior developers believe that 'Working in pairs with a senior' and 62.5% who 'Participate in joint review tasks' were the tasks with the involvement of them that most contributed to the evolution of students in the project.
    \subitem {75\%} of senior developers believe that in guiding a student, this knowledge was widespread among the other students on the team.
    \subitem MPOG: "On the side of UnB, what we perceived so strongly was that the project took a very big leap when the original developers of the software (the official software development) were hired in the case of Noosfero and Colab [..] Because they had a guide on how to develop things in the best way and were able to solve non-trivial problems and quickly "
\end{itemize}

%* Filtrar a comunicação por níveis de maturidade/experiência e responsabilidades
%MPOG: "Eu acho que esses pontos de conflito eram muito mais fáceis de lidar com a equipe do que com a própria coordenação. [..] Eu acho que tem uma diferença também de papel tem uma diferença de postura. Eu acho que a relação com a equipe, embora ela fosse saudável, eu acho que a equipe não tinha tanta autonomia quanto à coordenação tinha. Então talvez fosse mais difícil com a coordenação e não com a equipe, porque a equipe ela sabia o limite dela e a partir dali ela não agia mais, ela já convocava a coordenação para lidar (a gerência)."

\subsubsection{Bringing the government staff directly responsible for the project together with development team}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Biweekly meetings (planning and sprint review) in the development lab with the presence of government staff, team coaches and senior developers}
\item \textit{Discuss features under development directly on Gitlab Issue Tracker}
\item \textit{Only strategic decisions or bureaucratic issues involve the directors/secretaries}
\end{itemize}

\paragraph{Benefits}

\begin{itemize}
  \setlength\itemsep{1em}
  \item \textit{Reduce communication misunderstood}
    \subitem MPOG: "That's when the project started, people [MPOG staff] did not participate in anything. The communication process was horrible."; "The [MPOG] coordinator did not help, he would say something and UnB would talk to another at the meeting and it was the biggest mess." About the direct dialogue between the academic team and MPOG staff (without the involvement of coordinators and / or directors) , she said "That's where things really started to move, that the communication of the project began to improve."
%
  \item \textit{Empathy between members on both sides}
    \subitem {72.9\%} of students believe that interacting with MPOG staff was important during the project
    \subitem Only 27\% of the students interviewed said they did not feel like attending meetings with MPOG employees
    \subitem MPOG: "You know people in person and it makes such a big difference because it causes empathy. You know what the person is going through on their side and she knows what we're going through on our side. So the next time you have a non-personal interaction (by mail, by list ...) I think it even facilitates, improves communication. You already know who that person is, it's not just a name. "
%
  \item \textit{Develop requirements closer to the expectations of both sides}
    \subitem {81.1 \%} of students believe that the participation of MPOG staff in planning and closing sprints was important for the development of the project
    \subitem {75.6 \%} of students believe that writing the requirements together with the MPOG staff was very important
    \subitem Undergrad student: "Joint planning and timely meetings were very important for understanding the needs of MPOG, and the interaction via SPB tools helped validate the tool as a development platform"
    \subitem Undergrad student: "Often they did not know what they really wanted, and they caused some delays in the development of sprints"
    \subitem Undergrad student: "A relationship of constant attempt to balance and negotiate. The client does not always know the impacts of their requests"
    \subitem MPOG: "I believe it was very positive, we also liked to go there, to interact with the team. I think it brought more unity, more integration into the project, because we went there, where people were working and they show what was done. I think they also liked to receive our feedback about what had been done by them.This interaction did not just made with the coordinator. I found it very important and very positive it. "
%
  \item \textit{Improve understanding of collaborative development by MPOG staff}
    \subitem Undergrad student: "In the beginning the demands of MPOG were very 'orders from above', but according to the progress of the project, they understood better our work philosophy and became more open"
    \subitem MPOG: "During development we realized that the team that was developing also felt like the owner of the project felt involved not only a mere executor of an order. It was not a client relationship, it was a partnership relationship, so there was a lot of team suggestions to be put into the project. Sometimes these were put in for us to decide and sometimes not."
    \subitem MPOG: "I think it was easy, I think the team was aligned. In addition to being aligned, these items that, for example, were not priorities and became priorities, were, in a sense, brought with some arguments from the team. So the team was able to argue and succeed in showing that it was important, that it needed to be prioritized, and I think the team was able to present the arguments well for some of the priorities that happened during the process."
%
  \item \textit{Align the pace of both sides to execute activities}
    \subitem MPOG: "When we went there, I knew people and made that interaction more frequent, we also felt encouraged to validate faster and give faster feedback to the teams so they would not wait there. I knew they were waiting for our feedback and we were struggling to do it fast, because we ended a sprint and start another and not stop. We gave that feedback fast and they also gave quick feedback for any questions when they encountered a problem. That gave the project agility, things flowed faster and better. "
\end{itemize}