diff --git a/icse2018/content/07-discussion.tex b/icse2018/content/07-discussion.tex index 6f75f34..127754e 100644 --- a/icse2018/content/07-discussion.tex +++ b/icse2018/content/07-discussion.tex @@ -1,34 +1,56 @@ \section{Discussion and Final Remarks} \label{sec:discussion} -In this paper we examine the empirical model of project management applied in a -software development case in collaboration between government and academia. We -mapped the practices that harmonized the cultural and organizational differences -of the institutions involved. In the case study, the project team as a whole had -not only distinct mind set, but also different levels of maturity and experience -in topics such as cooperation projects, collaborative development, the adopted -technologies, and FLOSS. To protect the development team, mostly undergraduates -with less experience, boundaries were established in the interaction between -ministry and university. The objectives were: to avoid communication noise, to -maintain team confidence and motivation, and to increase productivity in terms -of developed features. - -Although the surveys and interviews were performed around one year after the -project was completed, the strong interaction over the 30 months allowed us to -extract details of the memories of each of the respondents. Still, we recognize -that many details and other evidence may have been lost by this hiatus. In other -hand, the participants also showed a more mature reflection because they could -related the experienced situations in the project with other works performed -after project end. - -In this research, the answers evidence lessons learned reported in a previous -work of a part of the authors \cite{meirelles2017spb}. In this previous work, -the lessons learned are reported from a partial point of view, from participants -on the academic side of the project and who at the time took leadership roles. -These new evidences found ratifies this view, welcoming the government side and -others involved. - -(Coleta das respostas em português, falta traduzir. Para avaliar conteúdo e relevância) +In this paper we examined the empirical model built in a collaborative project +between government and academia that successfully harmonized the differences in +the common approaches to software development management used by each side. We +mapped the key decisions made over the 30-months of the project, that aimed to +improve communication and the development process as a whole. We also elaborated +two surveys and one interviews that were conducted separately for three groups +of participants. We obtained a total of responses of 37 undergraduated +students, eight IT market professionals, and two government officials. Finally, +we collected post-mortem public data on project management carried out on the +platform itself. The results revealed nine practices were developed from three +main decisions taken and 11 benefits were obtained with the adoption of these +practices. + +In our previous work \cite {meirelles2017spb}, we presented the unprecedent +platform developed in the case study project and seven lessons learned taking into account only the +academia-side view. The new results acquired in the current work corroborate +with these lessons, adding the point of view of the government and the academia +in diverse performed levels. In addition, these results suggest that many free +software development practices can be replicated in other contexts in which the +diversity and plurality of its stakeholders need to be leveled and reconciled. + +The results obtained also showed questions that were not overcome during the +project and which we believe need to be evaluated for future collaborations +between government and academia for software development: +\begin {itemize} +\item Improving understanding about collaboration: \textit{"During development, +we realized that the development team also felt like the owner of the project, +not just a mere executor. partnership, then it had a lot of that team issue to +suggest things to be put into the project. It was not a customer relationship it +was a partnership relationship, so there was a lot of issue suggesting by the +team to be put into the project"} +\item Discussion of roles and responsibilities: \textit{"Who had the power to +make a decision? There was no one, because it was a very equal relationship. The +two organs were on the same hierarchical level within the work plane. But this +does not work well, you have to leave well defined to whom the last word belongs +in the decisions, because the conflicts will always happen."}. +\item Look for a balance in the requirements definition. The responses showed +that the government felt that it was not detailed enough and the development +team felt that the requirements needed to be matured with the use. +\item Smoothing the intermediations between the different roles \textit{"When we +had the [UnB] coordinator, when we forwarded a direct question to a developer, +the coordinator responded. So that was negative, because we felt a little +coerced from talking directly to the teams"} +\end {itemize} + +As future work, we will reapply in another government-academia paternship +project the practices evidenced in this case study, and conduct +qualitative and quantitative research throughout its execution. We intend to +prove the effectiveness in adopting free software development practices to +align the demands and expectations of a G-A collaboration. \begin{comment} diff --git a/icse2018/spb-oss-2018.tex b/icse2018/spb-oss-2018.tex index 44c7019..a1807e2 100644 --- a/icse2018/spb-oss-2018.tex +++ b/icse2018/spb-oss-2018.tex @@ -14,10 +14,10 @@ \begin{document} \sloppy -\title{Conciliating Distinct Processes of Management and Software Development} -\subtitle{A three-year empirical study from the evolution of a government platform} +\title{Reconciling Distinct Processes of Management and Software Development} +\subtitle{A three-year empirical study from the evolution of an open source government platform} -\titlerunning{Conciliating Development Processes} +\titlerunning{Reconciling Development Processes} \author{.} -- libgit2 0.21.2