[oss-2018] applying some suggestions of Paulo

Melissa Wen
1 parent b60dc196
Showing 3 changed files with 72 additions and 47 deletions Show diff stats
icse2018/content/01-introduction.tex
icse2018/content/04-case.tex
icse2018/content/05-methods.tex
@@ -6,9 +6,8 @@
 E-government projects differ from others due to their complexity and
 extension\cite{anthopoulos2016egovernment}. They are extensive in terms of
 organizational size, time, scope, target audience and corresponding resistance
-to change. They are also complex by combining construction, innovation and ICT
-in their context, in addition to politics and social impact. In order to
-create novelty for e-government projects and meet the needs of society, research
+to change. They are also complex by combining Construction, Innovation and Information and Communications Technologies
+in their context, in addition to politics and social impact. To create novelty for e-government projects and meet the needs of society, research
 collaboration between government and academia can be considered as a way to
 transfer technological knowledge. However, such collaboration also has
 challenges, not only in relation to project organization and alignment of goals
@@ -3,16 +3,17 @@
 The project to evolve the Brazilian Public Software Portal
 \cite{meirelles2017spb} was a partnership between government and academia held
-between 2014 and 2016. In order to solve maintenance problems and fill
+between 2014 and 2016. To solve maintenance problems and fill
 design-reality gaps in the portal, the Ministry of Planning (MPOG) joined the
 University of Brasília (UnB) and the University of São Paulo (USP) to develop a
 platform with features and technologies novelties in the government context.
+%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
+
 The academic team carried out development activities in the Advanced Laboratory
-of Production, Research and Innovation in Software Engineering of UnB. The
+of Production, Research and Innovation in Software Engineering (LAPPIS) of UnB. The
 project management and development process in this laboratory is usually
-executed adopting agile methodologies, such as Extreme Programming (XP), Scrum
-and Kanban. For this project, a total of 42 undergraduate students, two MSc
+executed adopting free software practices and agile approach. For this project, a total of 42 undergraduate students, two MSc
 students and two coordinator-professors participated in the development team.
 Six IT professionals were also hired as senior developers due their vast
 experiences in Front-end/UX or in one of the softwares integrated to the
@@ -25,8 +26,8 @@ execute development of ministry&#39;s software. This department is responsible for
 contracting and homologating software development services and follows
 traditional management approaches, such as the RUP.
-In order to manage the project progress, these two aforementioned teams
-periodically met in person. These meetings initially only took place at the
+These two aforementioned teams
+periodically met in person for the purpose of managing the project progress. These meetings initially only took place at the
 ministry's headquarters to discuss strategic/political and technical goals.
 These meetings were held monthly with the presence of two UnB professors, the
 executive-secretary of the Presidency (project supporter) and all MPOG members
@@ -41,29 +42,4 @@ platform development.
 In this case study, we focus on analyzing the dynamics between government and
 academia for collaborative development. We aim to map the practices adopted in
 the project management and development process to harmonize the cultural and
-organizational differences of the institutions involved. Our analysis was guided
-by the following research questions:
-
-\textbf{RQ1.} {How to well combine teams with different management processes
-in a government-academia collaboration project?}
-
-In this first moment, we describe what changes in the management model and the
-development process have improved interactions between institutions, as well as
-internally. To map the benefits obtained by these movements, we use evidence
-obtained from interviews and online surveys with members on both sides, after
-project closure. We also collect data from management and communication tools
-used throughout the project.
-
-In a second moment, we address our analysis to issues related to organizational
-differences and diversity of project members in terms of maturity and experience
-in collaborative development. The harmony between teams sought not only to
-approximate the mind-set and culture of teams but also to delimitate the
-interactions between different roles and responsibilities. Evaluating this
-synergy generates the second research question:
-
-\textbf{RQ2.} \textit{Which boundaries should be established between government
-and academia teams in collaboration interactions?}
-
-We highlight positive and negative effects of boundaries created among project
-member using evidences from interview responses and open field responses from
-online surveys.
+organizational differences of the institutions involved.
 \ No newline at end of file
 \section{Research Design}
 \label{sec:researchdesign}
-To answer the two research questions presented in the previous section, we
+Our analysis was guided
+by the following research questions:
+
+\textbf{RQ1.} {How to well combine teams with different management processes
+in a government-academia collaboration project?}
+
+In this first moment, we describe what changes in the management model and the
+development process have improved interactions between institutions, as well as
+internally. To map the benefits obtained by these movements, we use evidence
+obtained from interviews and online surveys with members on both sides, after
+project closure. We also collect data from management and communication tools
+used throughout the project.
+
+In a second moment, we address our analysis to issues related to organizational
+differences and diversity of project members in terms of maturity and experience
+in collaborative development. The harmony between teams sought not only to
+approximate the mind-set and culture of teams but also to delimitate the
+interactions between different roles and responsibilities. Evaluating this
+synergy generates the second research question:
+
+\textbf{RQ2.} \textit{Which boundaries should be established between government
+and academia teams in collaboration interactions?}
+
+We highlight positive and negative effects of boundaries created among project
+member using evidences from interview responses and open field responses from
+online surveys.
+
+To answer the two research questions presented, we
 designed an interview and two questionnaires with quantitative and
 qualitative questions addressed to project members. We also collect data from
 tools that supported the project management activities.
@@ -13,8 +40,7 @@ project participants:
 \begin{enumerate}
  \item \textit{MPOG Staff:} two government-side employees who have acted
-directly in the platform development process. They were separately interviewed
-by videoconference using the Hangouts platform. The interviews took an average
+directly in the platform development process. They were separately interviewed and each interview took an average
 of 2 hours with 28 open questions divided by subject: Professional profile;
 Organization, communication and development methodologies in the context of
 government and project; Satisfaction with the developed platform; Lessons
@@ -22,9 +48,9 @@ learned.
  \item \textit{UnB undegraduated students:} 42 undergraduate students who
 participated in any time of the project as developer and received scholarship. A
 questionnaire with 45 closed and six open questions was sent through emails using
-the Google Forms platform. The topics covered were: Organization, communication
+online form platform. The topics covered were: Organization, communication
 and development activities between the respondents and the different groups of
-the project; Learning acquired; Professional learning; Experience with FLOSS
+the project; Learning acquired; Professional learning; Experience with free software
 projects. We received a total of 37 responses.
  \item \textit{Senior Developers:} eight advanced level researchers, MSc students or
 IT market professionals who participated in some period of the project. A
@@ -36,16 +62,40 @@ Software. All eight recipients answered the questions.
 \subsection{Data Collection}
-In a second round, we also collect post-mortem data from Redmine
-(outside the SPB portal), Gitlab and Mailman (inside the SPB portal) - tools
+%TODO: quais dados?
+In a second round, we also collected post-mortem data from Gitlab - an open source and web-based repository manager integrated to SPB platform
 used for management, communication and code versioning during the 30-month
-project. The data of the tools provided by the SPB portal are open and available
-for access at any time. For Redmine, we use a backup and instantiate the tool on
-a server in UnB's research lab. The analysis of these data composes and ratifies
-the evidences obtained in the previous round (surveys). The information obtained
-represents, in terms of volume, interactions and the evolution of these
+project. These all data are open and available
+for access at any time on the SPB Portal. This data analyze composes and ratifies
+the evidences obtained in the previous round (surveys). The results
+represent, in terms of volume, interactions and the evolution of these
 interactions between the government and academia teams, and, in terms of
 development complexity, the platform size and quantity of software releases
 delivered.
+\subsection{Respondents profile}
+
+\subsubsection{MPOG Staff}
+
+The two analysts interviewed are more than 30 years old and have been government
+employees for more than 7 years. Only one of them continues working in the same
+ministry. Both reported that the collaborative project studied was their first
+experience in collaborative projects between government and academia.
+
+\subsubsection{UnB undergraduated students}
+
+The average age of the 37 respondents is 25 years old and 91.9\% of them are male.
+Currently, 35.1\% continue at university as undergraduate or graduate students,
+18.9\% work as developer in a small company and 18.9\% in medium or large
+companies, 10.8\% are entrepreneurs, 8.1\% are unemployed and the others work as
+teachers or civil servants.
+
+\subsubsection{Senior Developers}
+The average age is 32 years old and 87.5\% are male. They have an average of 11
+years of experience in the IT market, and currently 62.5\% of respondents are
+company employees, 37.5\% are freelance developers, 25\% are master's degree
+students and 25\% entrepreneurs. They have worked on average in 5 companies and
+participated in 4 to 80 projects. They participated in the collaborative project
+studied between 7 to 24 months.
+
 % 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.
1	\section{Research Design}	1	\section{Research Design}
2	\label{sec:researchdesign}	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	designed an interview and two questionnaires with quantitative and	32	designed an interview and two questionnaires with quantitative and
6	qualitative questions addressed to project members. We also collect data from	33	qualitative questions addressed to project members. We also collect data from
7	tools that supported the project management activities.	34	tools that supported the project management activities.
	@@ -13,8 +40,7 @@ project participants:		@@ -13,8 +40,7 @@ project participants:
13		40
14	\begin{enumerate}	41	\begin{enumerate}
15	\item \textit{MPOG Staff:} two government-side employees who have acted	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	of 2 hours with 28 open questions divided by subject: Professional profile;	44	of 2 hours with 28 open questions divided by subject: Professional profile;
19	Organization, communication and development methodologies in the context of	45	Organization, communication and development methodologies in the context of
20	government and project; Satisfaction with the developed platform; Lessons	46	government and project; Satisfaction with the developed platform; Lessons
	@@ -22,9 +48,9 @@ learned.		@@ -22,9 +48,9 @@ learned.
22	\item \textit{UnB undegraduated students:} 42 undergraduate students who	48	\item \textit{UnB undegraduated students:} 42 undergraduate students who
23	participated in any time of the project as developer and received scholarship. A	49	participated in any time of the project as developer and received scholarship. A
24	questionnaire with 45 closed and six open questions was sent through emails using	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	and development activities between the respondents and the different groups of	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	projects. We received a total of 37 responses.	54	projects. We received a total of 37 responses.
29	\item \textit{Senior Developers:} eight advanced level researchers, MSc students or	55	\item \textit{Senior Developers:} eight advanced level researchers, MSc students or
30	IT market professionals who participated in some period of the project. A	56	IT market professionals who participated in some period of the project. A
	@@ -36,16 +62,40 @@ Software. All eight recipients answered the questions.		@@ -36,16 +62,40 @@ Software. All eight recipients answered the questions.
36		62
37	\subsection{Data Collection}	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	used for management, communication and code versioning during the 30-month	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	interactions between the government and academia teams, and, in terms of	72	interactions between the government and academia teams, and, in terms of
48	development complexity, the platform size and quantity of software releases	73	development complexity, the platform size and quantity of software releases
49	delivered.	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	% 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.	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.