final adjustments

Paulo Meireles
1 parent a69f0d8e
Showing 5 changed files with 36 additions and 46 deletions Show diff stats
oss2018/content/00-abstract.tex
oss2018/content/01-introduction.tex
oss2018/content/04-results.tex
oss2018/content/05-discussion.tex
oss2018/spb-oss-2018.tex
@@ -5,13 +5,11 @@ design-reality gaps in e-government projects. However, differences in project
 management methods employed by the organizations is often a challenge for
 collaborative works. Bearing that in mind, we investigated a 30-month
 government-academia partnership to find appropriate ways to get around this
-obstacle. From the analysis of \textit{post-mortem} data as well as the results
-of questionnaires and interviews with project participants, we present a set of
+obstacle. From the analysis of \textit{post-mortem} data, we present a set of
 best practices based on FLOSS and agile software development approaches that
 favors team management in government-academia collaborations in e-government
 development projects.
 \end{abstract}
-\keywords{Open Source Software, Free Software, Agile Methods, Best Practices,
-Project Management, E-Government.}
+\keywords{Open Source Software, Free Software, Project Management.}
@@ -3,12 +3,12 @@
 E-government projects differ from others due to their complexity and extension
 \cite{anthopoulos2016egovernment}. They are complex because they combine
 development, innovation, information \& communications technologies, politics,
-and social impact. They are extensive, on the other hand, regarding their
+and social impact. They are extensive, however, regarding their
 scope, target audience, organizational size, time, and the corresponding
 resistance to change. Developing an innovative e-government project that meets
 the needs of society is a issue that may be addressed alternatively through
-collaborative projects between government and academia. However, this
-collaborative work has challenges, such as organizing the collaboration
+collaborative projects between government and academia. This
+collaborative work has challenges such as organizing the collaboration
 project, aligning goals, synchronizing the pace of between government and
 academia, and overcoming the failure trend of e-government projects
 \cite{goldfinch2007pessimism}.
@@ -13,12 +13,11 @@ The second phase, from April 2015 to the end of the project (June 2016), has
 meaningful data. Much of the management and communication activities were
 recorded and published on online channels and tools. During this period, the
 development leaders consolidated several FLOSS practices and agile values
-employed in the development process. At the end of the project, the academic
+employed in the development process. At the end, the academic
 team had an empirical management approach for meeting the government
 bureaucracies.
-\subsection{Use of the system under development to develop the system itself}
-
+\textbf{Decision 1: Use of the system under development to develop the system itself.}
 Due to the platform features for software development and social network, the
 development coordinators decided to use the platform under construction to
 develop the system itself. Gradually, in addition to development activities,
@@ -37,7 +36,7 @@ Our surveys report Mailing list (100\%) and Issue Tracker (62.5\%) as the main
 means of interaction between senior developers and interns. The development
 team and MPOG staff also interacted mostly via Mailing List (87.5\%) and Issue
 tracker (50\%).  According to one of the interviewees, this movement made the
-\textbf{communication more transparent and efficient}. An MPOG analyst said
+communication more transparent and efficient. An MPOG analyst said
 that \textit{``Communicating well goes far beyond the speed. It means enabling
 someone to tell everyone about everything that is happening in the project. We
 did not use emails, we use more mailing list and avoid emails. This usage
@@ -45,8 +44,8 @@ helped us considerably. Everything was public and did not pollute our email
 box. So, when you wanted to know something, you could access the SPB list and
 see everything''}.
-Migrating to the SPB platform also \textbf{easied monitoring of activities and
-increased interactions between developers and public servants}. The data
+Migrating to the SPB platform also easied monitoring of activities and
+increased interactions between developers and public servants. The data
 collected from the repository highlight the frequent use of the platform by
 both sides teams. In the last 15 months of the project, 59 different authors
 opened the central repository issues, 8 of them were MPOG agents. These issues
@@ -58,8 +57,8 @@ MPOG staff created 43 of them (this represents 42\% of the most active issues).
 For the MPOG analysts, interaction via repository improved communication.
 \textit{``There was a big evolution, we increased our communication via
-Gitlab''}.  Migrating to the platform also led MPOG staff to \textbf{trust the
-developed code}: \textit{``Everything was validated.  We tested the
+Gitlab''}.  Migrating to the platform also led MPOG staff to trust the
+developed code: \textit{``Everything was validated.  We tested the
 functionalities and developed the project on the SPB platform itself. Hence,
 the use of the system homologated most of its features. From the moment we
 began to use it for developing, this validation was constant. We felt confident
@@ -68,15 +67,13 @@ in the code produced&#39;&#39;}.
 The above-mentioned decision also collaborated to meet the government's demand
 for meticulous documentation of the software design and stages of development
 without bureaucratizing or modifying the development process. The usage of the
-platform for project team management conducted \textbf{the organic production
-of documentation and records}, as mentioned in one of the MPOG responses:
+platform for project team management conducted the organic production
+of documentation and records, as mentioned in one of the MPOG responses:
 \textit{``It was a great learning experience. There are many things documented
 in emails as well as in the portal itself. We can access the tools at any time
-and find out how we develop a solution. We can remember the positive project
-points''}.
-
-\subsection{Brings together government staff and development team}
+and find out how we develop a solution. We can remember the positive points''}.
+\textbf{Decision 2: Brings together government staff and development team.}
 In the first phase of the project, the interviewed MPOG analysts did not
 participate in any direct interaction with any university representative, even
 though they were the ones in charge of the government in ensuring the
@@ -89,15 +86,15 @@ development team.
 In the second phase of the project, these analysts became direct
 representatives of the government and started to visit the university's
 laboratory bi-weekly.  One of the analysts believed that \textit{``at this
-point, the communication started to change''}. The new dynamics \textbf{reduced
-communication misunderstandings and unified both sides}, as reported by another
+point, the communication started to change''}. The new dynamics reduced
+communication misunderstandings and unified both sides, as reported by another
 interviewee: \textit{``It was very positive. We liked to go there and to
 interact with the team. I think it brought more unity, more integration into
 the project''}. {73\%} of the interns considered positive the direct
 participation of the MPOG staff, and {81\%} of them believed the presence of
 government staff in sprint ceremonies was relevant for the project development.
 For 76\% of the interns, writing the requirements together with the MPOG staff
-was very important to \textbf{better meet expectations of both sides}.
+was very important to better meet expectations of both sides.
 According to one of them, \textit{``Joint planning and timely meetings were
 very important for understanding the needs of MPOG''}.
@@ -105,7 +102,7 @@ The closest dialogue between government and academia generated empathy, as
 reported by one of the interviewees: \textit{``Knowing people in person makes a
 big difference in the relationship because it causes empathy. You know who that
 person is. He's not merly a name''}. Consequently, this empathy helped to
-\textbf{synchronize the execution pace of activities}: \textit{``Visiting the
+synchronize the execution pace of activities: \textit{``Visiting the
 lab and meeting the developers encouraged us to validate resources faster and
 give faster feedback to the team. In return, they also quickly answered us any
 question''}.
@@ -114,14 +111,14 @@ The implementation of a Continuous Delivery pipeline also reinforced the teams&#39;
 synchronization \cite{siqueira2018cd} .  For 81\% of the interns and 75\% of
 the IT professionals, deploying new versions of the SPB portal in production
 was a motivator during the project. On the government side, this approach
-helped to \textbf{overcome the government bias toward low productivity of
-collaborative projects with academia}, as mentioned by themselves:
+helped to overcome the government bias toward low productivity of
+collaborative projects with academia, as mentioned by themselves:
 \textit{``Government staff has a bias that universities do not deliver
 products. However, in this project, we made many deliveries with high quality.
 Nowadays, I think if we had paid the same amount for a company, it would not
 have done the amount of features we did with the technical quality we have''}.
-Additionally, the deployment of each new version also \textbf{share a common
-understanding of the process from one side to the other}, as mentioned by a
+Additionally, the deployment of each new version also share a common
+understanding of the process from one side to the other, as mentioned by a
 MPOG analyst: \textit{``We had only the strategic vision of the project. When
 we needed to deal with technical issues, we had some difficulty planning the
 four-month releases.  However, in the last stages of the project I realized
@@ -130,8 +127,7 @@ available in production.  The team was qualified, the code had quality, and the
 project was well executed.  So in practice, our difficulty in interpreting the
 technical details did not impact the release planning''}.
-\subsection{Organized development team into priority fronts, and for each one, hire at least one specialist from the IT market}
-
+\textbf{Decision 3: Organized development team into priority fronts, and for each one, hire at least one specialist from the IT market.}
 The development team had four work areas divided by the main demands of the
 project: User Experience, DevOps, Integration of Systems, and Social
 Networking. For each segment, at least one professional in the IT market was
@@ -140,8 +136,8 @@ based on their vast experience in FLOSS systems and their knowledge on tools
 used in the project.
 The presence of senior developers in the project contributed to
-\textbf{conciliate the development processes of each institution and make
-better technical decisions}, as quoted in one of the answers to the senior
+conciliate the development processes of each institution and make
+better technical decisions, as quoted in one of the answers to the senior
 developer's questionnaire: \textit{``I think my main contribution was to
 balance the relations between the MPOG staff and the university team''}. {63\%}
 of the IT professionals believed they have collaborated to conciliate the
@@ -156,8 +152,8 @@ their previous experiences. In contrast, {62.5\%} of them did not understand
 the MPOG's project management process and {50\%} believed this process could
 affect their project productivity.
-The senior developers were also responsible for \textbf{improving the
-management and technical knowledge} of the interns about practices from
+The senior developers were also responsible for improving the
+management and technical knowledge of the interns about practices from
 industry and open source projects. {91\%} of the interns believed that working
 with professionals was essential for learning, and, for all of them, working
 with IT professionals was important during the project. {75\%} of the IT
@@ -172,8 +168,8 @@ guide on how to best develop each feature and were able to solve non-trivial
 problems quickly''}.
 Organizing the development team and hiring of the IT professionals allowed each
-team to \textbf{self-organize and gain more autonomy in the management of their
-tasks}.  There was a development coach to lead each team, and a ``meta-coach''
+team to self-organize and gain more autonomy in the management of their
+tasks.  There was a development coach to lead each team, and a ``meta-coach''
 supported all of them in their internal management activities. The coaches
 (most advanced interns) were points of reference in the development process.
 {89\%} of the interns said that the presence of the coach was essential to the
@@ -181,7 +177,7 @@ sprint&#39;s running, and for {88\%} of the of the IT professionals the coaches was
 essential for their interaction with the development team. MPOG analysts saw
 the coaches as facilitators their activities and communication with the
 development team. They said \textit{``I interacted more with the project
-coordinator (professor) and team coaches (interns)''}, \textit{``Usually, we
+coordinator (professor) and team coaches''}, \textit{``Usually, we
 contact a coach to clarify some requirements or to understand some feature. The
 coaches were more available than senior developers and, sometimes, they would
 take our question to a senior developer''}.
@@ -9,8 +9,6 @@ evidence from the gathered data that demonstrates the benefits obtained with the
 adoption of a collection of practices. Table \ref{practices-table} summarizes
 macro-decisions, practices, and benefits.
-\vspace*{-.5cm}
-
 \begin{table}[h]
 \centering
 \def\arraystretch{1.5}
@@ -85,7 +83,7 @@ macro-decisions, practices, and benefits.
 \label{practices-table}
 \end{table}
-\vspace*{-1cm}
+\vspace{-1cm}
 The results presented here corroborate the lessons learned in our previous work
 on studying the SPB project case \cite{meirelles2017spb}. Evidence from the data
@@ -22,14 +22,12 @@
 \titlerunning{OSS in Gov-Academia Collab}
-\author{Melissa Wen\inst{1}, Paulo Meirelles\inst{1,2}, Rodrigo Siqueira\inst{1}, Fabio Kon\inst{1}}
+\author{Melissa Wen, Paulo Meirelles, Rodrigo Siqueira, Fabio Kon}
 \authorrunning{Wen et al.}
-\institute{FLOSS Competence Center -- University of S\~ao Paulo \\
-  \texttt{\{wen,siqueira,fabio.kon\}@ime.usp.br}
-\and  Department of Health Informatics -- Federal University of S\~ao Paulo\\
-  \texttt{paulo@softwarelivre.org}
+\institute{FLOSS Competence Center -- University of S\~ao Paulo, Brazil\\
+  \texttt{\{wen,paulormm,siqueira,fabio.kon\}@ime.usp.br}
 }
 \maketitle