Commit 9d36f725722fc58cb6f835067c1e8850ca5588d3

Authored by Melissa Wen
1 parent 34525353

[oss-2018] Conclusion, final remarks and title fixes

1 1 \section{Discussion and Final Remarks}
2 2 \label{sec:discussion}
3 3  
4   -In this paper we examine the empirical model of project management applied in a
5   -software development case in collaboration between government and academia. We
6   -mapped the practices that harmonized the cultural and organizational differences
7   -of the institutions involved. In the case study, the project team as a whole had
8   -not only distinct mind set, but also different levels of maturity and experience
9   -in topics such as cooperation projects, collaborative development, the adopted
10   -technologies, and FLOSS. To protect the development team, mostly undergraduates
11   -with less experience, boundaries were established in the interaction between
12   -ministry and university. The objectives were: to avoid communication noise, to
13   -maintain team confidence and motivation, and to increase productivity in terms
14   -of developed features.
15   -
16   -Although the surveys and interviews were performed around one year after the
17   -project was completed, the strong interaction over the 30 months allowed us to
18   -extract details of the memories of each of the respondents. Still, we recognize
19   -that many details and other evidence may have been lost by this hiatus. In other
20   -hand, the participants also showed a more mature reflection because they could
21   -related the experienced situations in the project with other works performed
22   -after project end.
23   -
24   -In this research, the answers evidence lessons learned reported in a previous
25   -work of a part of the authors \cite{meirelles2017spb}. In this previous work,
26   -the lessons learned are reported from a partial point of view, from participants
27   -on the academic side of the project and who at the time took leadership roles.
28   -These new evidences found ratifies this view, welcoming the government side and
29   -others involved.
30   -
31   -(Coleta das respostas em português, falta traduzir. Para avaliar conteúdo e relevância)
  4 +In this paper we examined the empirical model built in a collaborative project
  5 +between government and academia that successfully harmonized the differences in
  6 +the common approaches to software development management used by each side. We
  7 +mapped the key decisions made over the 30-months of the project, that aimed to
  8 +improve communication and the development process as a whole. We also elaborated
  9 +two surveys and one interviews that were conducted separately for three groups
  10 +of participants. We obtained a total of responses of 37 undergraduated
  11 +students, eight IT market professionals, and two government officials. Finally,
  12 +we collected post-mortem public data on project management carried out on the
  13 +platform itself. The results revealed nine practices were developed from three
  14 +main decisions taken and 11 benefits were obtained with the adoption of these
  15 +practices.
  16 +
  17 +In our previous work \cite {meirelles2017spb}, we presented the unprecedent
  18 +platform developed in the case study project and seven lessons learned taking into account only the
  19 +academia-side view. The new results acquired in the current work corroborate
  20 +with these lessons, adding the point of view of the government and the academia
  21 +in diverse performed levels. In addition, these results suggest that many free
  22 +software development practices can be replicated in other contexts in which the
  23 +diversity and plurality of its stakeholders need to be leveled and reconciled.
  24 +
  25 +The results obtained also showed questions that were not overcome during the
  26 +project and which we believe need to be evaluated for future collaborations
  27 +between government and academia for software development:
  28 +\begin {itemize}
  29 +\item Improving understanding about collaboration: \textit{"During development,
  30 +we realized that the development team also felt like the owner of the project,
  31 +not just a mere executor. partnership, then it had a lot of that team issue to
  32 +suggest things to be put into the project. It was not a customer relationship it
  33 +was a partnership relationship, so there was a lot of issue suggesting by the
  34 +team to be put into the project"}
  35 +\item Discussion of roles and responsibilities: \textit{"Who had the power to
  36 +make a decision? There was no one, because it was a very equal relationship. The
  37 +two organs were on the same hierarchical level within the work plane. But this
  38 +does not work well, you have to leave well defined to whom the last word belongs
  39 +in the decisions, because the conflicts will always happen."}.
  40 +\item Look for a balance in the requirements definition. The responses showed
  41 +that the government felt that it was not detailed enough and the development
  42 +team felt that the requirements needed to be matured with the use.
  43 +\item Smoothing the intermediations between the different roles \textit{"When we
  44 +had the [UnB] coordinator, when we forwarded a direct question to a developer,
  45 +the coordinator responded. So that was negative, because we felt a little
  46 +coerced from talking directly to the teams"}
  47 +\end {itemize}
  48 +
  49 +As future work, we will reapply in another government-academia paternship
  50 +project the practices evidenced in this case study, and conduct
  51 +qualitative and quantitative research throughout its execution. We intend to
  52 +prove the effectiveness in adopting free software development practices to
  53 +align the demands and expectations of a G-A collaboration.
32 54  
33 55 \begin{comment}
34 56  
... ...
... ... @@ -14,10 +14,10 @@
14 14  
15 15 \begin{document}
16 16 \sloppy
17   -\title{Conciliating Distinct Processes of Management and Software Development}
18   -\subtitle{A three-year empirical study from the evolution of a government platform}
  17 +\title{Reconciling Distinct Processes of Management and Software Development}
  18 +\subtitle{A three-year empirical study from the evolution of an open source government platform}
19 19  
20   -\titlerunning{Conciliating Development Processes}
  20 +\titlerunning{Reconciling Development Processes}
21 21  
22 22 \author{.}
23 23  
... ...