Download as
Browse Code »

Commit 921dce9eec9902b4a9f4b12c0fe049a1af8cd579

Authored by Melissa Wen
1 parent b60dc196
Exists in master and in 3 other branches oss_2018, oss_2018_siqueira, rework_case_study

[oss-2018] applying some suggestions of Paulo

Showing 3 changed files with 72 additions and 47 deletions   Show diff stats
icse2018/content/01-introduction.tex
  Diff comments   View file @921dce9
... ... @@ -6,9 +6,8 @@
6 6 E-government projects differ from others due to their complexity and
7 7 extension\cite{anthopoulos2016egovernment}. They are extensive in terms of
8 8 organizational size, time, scope, target audience and corresponding resistance
9   -to change. They are also complex by combining construction, innovation and ICT
10   -in their context, in addition to politics and social impact. In order to
11   -create novelty for e-government projects and meet the needs of society, research
  9 +to change. They are also complex by combining Construction, Innovation and Information and Communications Technologies
  10 +in their context, in addition to politics and social impact. To create novelty for e-government projects and meet the needs of society, research
12 11 collaboration between government and academia can be considered as a way to
13 12 transfer technological knowledge. However, such collaboration also has
14 13 challenges, not only in relation to project organization and alignment of goals
... ...
icse2018/content/04-case.tex
  Diff comments   View file @921dce9
... ... @@ -3,16 +3,17 @@
3 3  
4 4 The project to evolve the Brazilian Public Software Portal
5 5 \cite{meirelles2017spb} was a partnership between government and academia held
6   -between 2014 and 2016. In order to solve maintenance problems and fill
  6 +between 2014 and 2016. To solve maintenance problems and fill
7 7 design-reality gaps in the portal, the Ministry of Planning (MPOG) joined the
8 8 University of Brasília (UnB) and the University of São Paulo (USP) to develop a
9 9 platform with features and technologies novelties in the government context.
10 10  
  11 +%TODO: - Ainda não se falou de ferramentas integradas. Deve ser apresentado o novo SPB (de forma simples e direta como fizemos no IEEE) para se entender a complexidade do projeto/caso
  12 +
11 13 The academic team carried out development activities in the Advanced Laboratory
12   -of Production, Research and Innovation in Software Engineering of UnB. The
  14 +of Production, Research and Innovation in Software Engineering (LAPPIS) of UnB. The
13 15 project management and development process in this laboratory is usually
14   -executed adopting agile methodologies, such as Extreme Programming (XP), Scrum
15   -and Kanban. For this project, a total of 42 undergraduate students, two MSc
  16 +executed adopting free software practices and agile approach. For this project, a total of 42 undergraduate students, two MSc
16 17 students and two coordinator-professors participated in the development team.
17 18 Six IT professionals were also hired as senior developers due their vast
18 19 experiences in Front-end/UX or in one of the softwares integrated to the
... ... @@ -25,8 +26,8 @@ execute development of ministry's software. This department is responsible for
25 26 contracting and homologating software development services and follows
26 27 traditional management approaches, such as the RUP.
27 28  
28   -In order to manage the project progress, these two aforementioned teams
29   -periodically met in person. These meetings initially only took place at the
  29 +These two aforementioned teams
  30 +periodically met in person for the purpose of managing the project progress. These meetings initially only took place at the
30 31 ministry's headquarters to discuss strategic/political and technical goals.
31 32 These meetings were held monthly with the presence of two UnB professors, the
32 33 executive-secretary of the Presidency (project supporter) and all MPOG members
... ... @@ -41,29 +42,4 @@ platform development.
41 42 In this case study, we focus on analyzing the dynamics between government and
42 43 academia for collaborative development. We aim to map the practices adopted in
43 44 the project management and development process to harmonize the cultural and
44   -organizational differences of the institutions involved. Our analysis was guided
45   -by the following research questions:
46   -
47   -\textbf{RQ1.} {How to well combine teams with different management processes
48   -in a government-academia collaboration project?}
49   -
50   -In this first moment, we describe what changes in the management model and the
51   -development process have improved interactions between institutions, as well as
52   -internally. To map the benefits obtained by these movements, we use evidence
53   -obtained from interviews and online surveys with members on both sides, after
54   -project closure. We also collect data from management and communication tools
55   -used throughout the project.
56   -
57   -In a second moment, we address our analysis to issues related to organizational
58   -differences and diversity of project members in terms of maturity and experience
59   -in collaborative development. The harmony between teams sought not only to
60   -approximate the mind-set and culture of teams but also to delimitate the
61   -interactions between different roles and responsibilities. Evaluating this
62   -synergy generates the second research question:
63   -
64   -\textbf{RQ2.} \textit{Which boundaries should be established between government
65   -and academia teams in collaboration interactions?}
66   -
67   -We highlight positive and negative effects of boundaries created among project
68   -member using evidences from interview responses and open field responses from
69   -online surveys.
  45 +organizational differences of the institutions involved.
70 46 \ No newline at end of file
... ...
icse2018/content/05-methods.tex
  Diff comments   View file @921dce9
1 1 \section{Research Design}
2 2 \label{sec:researchdesign}
3 3  
4   -To answer the two research questions presented in the previous section, we
  4 +Our analysis was guided
  5 +by the following research questions:
  6 +
  7 +\textbf{RQ1.} {How to well combine teams with different management processes
  8 +in a government-academia collaboration project?}
  9 +
  10 +In this first moment, we describe what changes in the management model and the
  11 +development process have improved interactions between institutions, as well as
  12 +internally. To map the benefits obtained by these movements, we use evidence
  13 +obtained from interviews and online surveys with members on both sides, after
  14 +project closure. We also collect data from management and communication tools
  15 +used throughout the project.
  16 +
  17 +In a second moment, we address our analysis to issues related to organizational
  18 +differences and diversity of project members in terms of maturity and experience
  19 +in collaborative development. The harmony between teams sought not only to
  20 +approximate the mind-set and culture of teams but also to delimitate the
  21 +interactions between different roles and responsibilities. Evaluating this
  22 +synergy generates the second research question:
  23 +
  24 +\textbf{RQ2.} \textit{Which boundaries should be established between government
  25 +and academia teams in collaboration interactions?}
  26 +
  27 +We highlight positive and negative effects of boundaries created among project
  28 +member using evidences from interview responses and open field responses from
  29 +online surveys.
  30 +
  31 +To answer the two research questions presented, we
5 32 designed an interview and two questionnaires with quantitative and
6 33 qualitative questions addressed to project members. We also collect data from
7 34 tools that supported the project management activities.
... ... @@ -13,8 +40,7 @@ project participants:
13 40  
14 41 \begin{enumerate}
15 42 \item \textit{MPOG Staff:} two government-side employees who have acted
16   -directly in the platform development process. They were separately interviewed
17   -by videoconference using the Hangouts platform. The interviews took an average
  43 +directly in the platform development process. They were separately interviewed and each interview took an average
18 44 of 2 hours with 28 open questions divided by subject: Professional profile;
19 45 Organization, communication and development methodologies in the context of
20 46 government and project; Satisfaction with the developed platform; Lessons
... ... @@ -22,9 +48,9 @@ learned.
22 48 \item \textit{UnB undegraduated students:} 42 undergraduate students who
23 49 participated in any time of the project as developer and received scholarship. A
24 50 questionnaire with 45 closed and six open questions was sent through emails using
25   -the Google Forms platform. The topics covered were: Organization, communication
  51 +online form platform. The topics covered were: Organization, communication
26 52 and development activities between the respondents and the different groups of
27   -the project; Learning acquired; Professional learning; Experience with FLOSS
  53 +the project; Learning acquired; Professional learning; Experience with free software
28 54 projects. We received a total of 37 responses.
29 55 \item \textit{Senior Developers:} eight advanced level researchers, MSc students or
30 56 IT market professionals who participated in some period of the project. A
... ... @@ -36,16 +62,40 @@ Software. All eight recipients answered the questions.
36 62  
37 63 \subsection{Data Collection}
38 64  
39   -In a second round, we also collect post-mortem data from Redmine
40   -(outside the SPB portal), Gitlab and Mailman (inside the SPB portal) - tools
  65 +%TODO: quais dados?
  66 +In a second round, we also collected post-mortem data from Gitlab - an open source and web-based repository manager integrated to SPB platform
41 67 used for management, communication and code versioning during the 30-month
42   -project. The data of the tools provided by the SPB portal are open and available
43   -for access at any time. For Redmine, we use a backup and instantiate the tool on
44   -a server in UnB's research lab. The analysis of these data composes and ratifies
45   -the evidences obtained in the previous round (surveys). The information obtained
46   -represents, in terms of volume, interactions and the evolution of these
  68 +project. These all data are open and available
  69 +for access at any time on the SPB Portal. This data analyze composes and ratifies
  70 +the evidences obtained in the previous round (surveys). The results
  71 +represent, in terms of volume, interactions and the evolution of these
47 72 interactions between the government and academia teams, and, in terms of
48 73 development complexity, the platform size and quantity of software releases
49 74 delivered.
50 75  
  76 +\subsection{Respondents profile}
  77 +
  78 +\subsubsection{MPOG Staff}
  79 +
  80 +The two analysts interviewed are more than 30 years old and have been government
  81 +employees for more than 7 years. Only one of them continues working in the same
  82 +ministry. Both reported that the collaborative project studied was their first
  83 +experience in collaborative projects between government and academia.
  84 +
  85 +\subsubsection{UnB undergraduated students}
  86 +
  87 +The average age of the 37 respondents is 25 years old and 91.9\% of them are male.
  88 +Currently, 35.1\% continue at university as undergraduate or graduate students,
  89 +18.9\% work as developer in a small company and 18.9\% in medium or large
  90 +companies, 10.8\% are entrepreneurs, 8.1\% are unemployed and the others work as
  91 +teachers or civil servants.
  92 +
  93 +\subsubsection{Senior Developers}
  94 +The average age is 32 years old and 87.5\% are male. They have an average of 11
  95 +years of experience in the IT market, and currently 62.5\% of respondents are
  96 +company employees, 37.5\% are freelance developers, 25\% are master's degree
  97 +students and 25\% entrepreneurs. They have worked on average in 5 companies and
  98 +participated in 4 to 80 projects. They participated in the collaborative project
  99 +studied between 7 to 24 months.
  100 +
51 101 % And finally, we analized Colab code before and after the project to evaluate how much effort was spent to use this software as a component of the platform.
... ...