[oss-2018] Review thrid decision result

Melissa Wen
1 parent b3ebea5e
Showing 1 changed file with 62 additions and 78 deletions Show diff stats
icse2018/content/06-results.tex
@@ -35,14 +35,16 @@ and Mailman
 \item Transparency and efficiency in communication;
 \item Easier monitoring and 
 increase interactions between development team and public servants;
-\item Organically documentation and records generation; \end{itemize} \\ \hline
+\item Organically documentation and records generation;
+\end{itemize} \\ \hline
  
 \textbf{Bring together government staff and development team} &
 \begin{itemize} 
 \item Biweekly gov staff, senior developers and coaches met to planning and 
 review sprint at the UnB headquarters. \item Most of features under development 
 were discussed on Gitlab Issue Tracker. \item Only strategic decisions or 
-bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \item Continuous Delivery \end{itemize} &
+bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \item Continuous Delivery
+\end{itemize} &
 \begin{itemize} 
 \item Reduce communication misunderstood and better meet expectations of both sides;
 \item Improve understanding of collaborative development by MPOG staff and increase their confidence for collaborative projects with the university;
@@ -50,16 +52,18 @@ bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \item Continuous Delivery \end{item
 \item Improving translation from one development process to the other;
 \end{itemize} \\ \hline
  
-\textbf{Divide development team in "component" fronts} &
+\textbf{Split development team into priority work fronts with IT market specialists} &
 \begin{itemize}
-\item The development was divided into four fronts with a certain self-organization of tasks.
+\item The development was divided into four fronts (DevOps / UX / Noosfero / Colab) with a certain self-organization of tasks.
 \item IT market professionals with recognized experience on each front were hired to work in person or remotely.
 \item For each front, there was at least one senior developer and the role of coach.
-\item The meta-coach role was also defined to coordinate tasks between teams. \end{itemize} & 
+\item The meta-coach role was also defined to coordinate tasks between teams.
+\end{itemize} & 
 \begin{itemize}
 \item Helping conciliation of development processes and decision-making;
 \item Creating support-points for students, senior developers, and gov staff;
-\item Transfering of knowledge from industry and FLOSS community to both academia and government; \end{itemize}\\ \hline
+\item Transfering of knowledge from industry and FLOSS community to both academia and government;
+\end{itemize}\\ \hline
 \end{tabular}%
 }
 \caption{Empirical SPB management method and its benefits}
@@ -161,79 +165,59 @@ not been a problem. A project you are delivering, the results are going to
 production, the code is quality, the team is qualified/capable and the project
 is doing well, it does not impact as much in practice”
  
+\subsection{Split development team into priority work fronts with IT market
+specialists}
+
+Four teams were defined to dedicated to the main development demands of the
+portal: UX, DevOps, Colab and Noosfero. External developers with vast experience
+in the SPB platform software components and professionals with experience in
+front-end and UX were hired. These professionals also contributed to 
+disseminate practices adopted in the industry and in the free software
+communities to other project members. {87.5\%} of seniors agreed with the
+project development process. For 62.5\% this process has a good similarity to
+their previous experiences. Their experience helped to \textbf{reconcile development
+processes and decision making}, as stated by one of the respondent developers
+"I think my main contribution was to have balanced the relations between the
+MPOG staff and the UnB team". {62.5\%} of senior developers believe they have
+collaborated in the relationship between the management and development
+processes of the two institutions and {62.5\%} asserted that helped MPOG
+staff to more clearly express their requests. {62.5\%} of them did not
+understand MPOG's project management process and {50\%} believe their project
+productivity was affected by MPOG's project management process. For the
+government, these professionals gave credibility to the development "You had
+the reviewers, who were the original developers of the software, that gave
+you confidence and confidence in the code."
+
+In addition, with these professionals was possible to \textbf{transferred
+knowledge of industry and free software to government and academia}. Working
+with senior developers was important for all student-respondents during the
+project. {91\%} of them also believe that working with professionals was
+important for learning. {75\%} of senior developers believe that 'Working in
+pairs with a senior' and 62.5\% that 'Participate in joint review tasks' were
+the tasks with the involvement of them that most contributed to the evolution
+of students in the project. And, in guiding a students, {75\%} believe that
+this knowledge was widespread among the others in the team. This acquisition
+of knowledge was also noted by the government, which stated "On the side of
+UnB, what we perceived was that the project was very big leap when the
+original software developers were hired in the case of Noosfero and Colab,
+because they had a guide on how to develop things in the best way and were
+able to solve non-trivial problems and quickly "
+
+The fronts also gained more autonomy to manage their activities. The role
+of meta-coach was defined among the students, to coordinate the interactions
+between teams and coach to coordinate each front. Coaches have become a \textbf{point
+of reference for the development process}. {89.1\%} of students said that the
+presence of the coach was essential to the running of Sprint, and for {87.5\%}
+of senior developers coaches was essential for their interaction with the team.
+MPOG analysts saw coaches as facilitators for their activities and for
+communication with the development team. One of the interviewees said "I
+interacted more with the project coordinator and team coaches.", " The reason
+for this was that the coaches were more likely to meet the requirements, to
+ask questions about requirements, to understand some features. interaction with
+leaders than with senior developers. Sometimes the coaches brought the question
+to the senior developers. "
+
  
-%\subsubsection{Organization of the project in teams for each front, with a
-%undergraduate student as coach and at least one senior developer}
-%
-%\begin{itemize}
-%  \item \textit{Four fronts: Colab, Noosfero, DevOps and Front-End/UX}
-%  \item \textit{Definition of the role of team coaches and meta-coach, 
-%selected from undergraduate students group}
-%  \item \textit{Hiring professionals from the IT market for face-to-face or 
-%remote work, specialists in the software components}
-%\end{itemize}
-%
-%\paragraph{Benefits}
-%
-%\begin{itemize}
-%  \setlength\itemsep{1em}
-%  \item \textit{Help to conciliate development processes and decision-making}
-%    \subitem {62,5\%} of senior developers believe they have helped MPOG staff 
-%to more clearly express their requests
-%    \subitem {87,5\%} of seniors agreed with the project development process. 
-%For 37.5\% this process was little similar to their previous experiences, for 
-%the others there was a certain similarity.
-%    \subitem {62,5\%} of seniors did not understand MPOG's project management 
-%process. {50\%} of them believe their project productivity was affected by 
-%MPOG's project management process.
-%    \subitem Senior Dev: "I think my main contribution was to have balanced 
-%the relations between the MPOG staff and the UnB team"
-%    \subitem Senior Dev: "When I entered the project, the client had a 
-%disproportionate view of how to make explicit the requirements. They were still 
-%talking about use cases and were extremely concerned about validation processes 
-%and acceptance of these documents."
-%    \subitem MPOG: "You had the reviewers, who were the original developers of 
-%the software, that gave you confidence and confidence in the code."
-%%
-%  \item \textit{Create support and reference points for students, senior 
-%developers, and government staff}
-%    \subitem {89.1\%} of students believe that the presence of the leader was 
-%essential to the running of Sprint
-%    \subitem {87.5\%} of seniors believe that the presence of team leaders was 
-%essential for their interaction with the team
-%    \subitem MPOG: "It interacted more with the project coordinator and team 
-%coaches (noosfero, colab, visual identity). Interacted with coaches by mailing 
-%list, hangouts The reason was usually to elucidate requirements, to ask 
-%questions about requirements, to understand some functionality. "
-%    \subitem MPOG: "There was interaction with the other [non-coaches] because 
-%they also participated in the bi-weekly meetings (sprints), but it was more 
-%with coaches."
-%    \subitem MPOG: "Access to coaches was faster, because we were in much more 
-%interaction with leaders than with senior developers. Sometimes the coaches 
-%brought the question to the senior developers."
-%%
-%  \item \textit{Transfer of knowledge from industry and FLOSS community to 
-%both academia and government}
-%    \subitem {62.5\%} of senior developers believe that they have collaborated 
-%in the relationship between the management and development processes of the two 
-%institutions
-%    \subitem {100\%} of the students we interviewed believe that working with 
-%senior developers was important during the project
-%    \subitem {91.\%} of students also believe that working with seniors was 
-%important for learning
-%    \subitem {75\%} of senior developers believe that 'Working in pairs with a 
-%senior' and 62.5% who 'Participate in joint review tasks' were the tasks with 
-%the involvement of them that most contributed to the evolution of students in 
-%the project.
-%    \subitem {75\%} of senior developers believe that in guiding a student, 
-%this knowledge was widespread among the other students on the team.
-%    \subitem MPOG: "On the side of UnB, what we perceived so strongly was that 
-%the project took a very big leap when the original developers of the software 
-%(the official software development) were hired in the case of Noosfero and 
-%Colab [..] Because they had a guide on how to develop things in the best way 
-%and were able to solve non-trivial problems and quickly "
-%\end{itemize}
-%
 %%* Filtrar a comunicação por níveis de maturidade/experiência e 
 %responsabilidades
 %%MPOG: "Eu acho que esses pontos de conflito eram muito mais fáceis de lidar
...	...	@@ -35,14 +35,16 @@ and Mailman
35	35	\item Transparency and efficiency in communication;
36	36	\item Easier monitoring and
37	37	increase interactions between development team and public servants;
38		-\item Organically documentation and records generation; \end{itemize} \\ \hline
	38	+\item Organically documentation and records generation;
	39	+\end{itemize} \\ \hline
39	40
40	41	\textbf{Bring together government staff and development team} &
41	42	\begin{itemize}
42	43	\item Biweekly gov staff, senior developers and coaches met to planning and
43	44	review sprint at the UnB headquarters. \item Most of features under development
44	45	were discussed on Gitlab Issue Tracker. \item Only strategic decisions or
45		-bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \item Continuous Delivery \end{itemize} &
	46	+bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \item Continuous Delivery
	47	+\end{itemize} &
46	48	\begin{itemize}
47	49	\item Reduce communication misunderstood and better meet expectations of both sides;
48	50	\item Improve understanding of collaborative development by MPOG staff and increase their confidence for collaborative projects with the university;
...	...	@@ -50,16 +52,18 @@ bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \item Continuous Delivery \end{item
50	52	\item Improving translation from one development process to the other;
51	53	\end{itemize} \\ \hline
52	54
53		-\textbf{Divide development team in "component" fronts} &
	55	+\textbf{Split development team into priority work fronts with IT market specialists} &
54	56	\begin{itemize}
55		-\item The development was divided into four fronts with a certain self-organization of tasks.
	57	+\item The development was divided into four fronts (DevOps / UX / Noosfero / Colab) with a certain self-organization of tasks.
56	58	\item IT market professionals with recognized experience on each front were hired to work in person or remotely.
57	59	\item For each front, there was at least one senior developer and the role of coach.
58		-\item The meta-coach role was also defined to coordinate tasks between teams. \end{itemize} &
	60	+\item The meta-coach role was also defined to coordinate tasks between teams.
	61	+\end{itemize} &
59	62	\begin{itemize}
60	63	\item Helping conciliation of development processes and decision-making;
61	64	\item Creating support-points for students, senior developers, and gov staff;
62		-\item Transfering of knowledge from industry and FLOSS community to both academia and government; \end{itemize}\\ \hline
	65	+\item Transfering of knowledge from industry and FLOSS community to both academia and government;
	66	+\end{itemize}\\ \hline
63	67	\end{tabular}%
64	68	}
65	69	\caption{Empirical SPB management method and its benefits}
...	...	@@ -161,79 +165,59 @@ not been a problem. A project you are delivering, the results are going to
161	165	production, the code is quality, the team is qualified/capable and the project
162	166	is doing well, it does not impact as much in practice”
163	167
	168	+\subsection{Split development team into priority work fronts with IT market
	169	+specialists}
	170	+
	171	+Four teams were defined to dedicated to the main development demands of the
	172	+portal: UX, DevOps, Colab and Noosfero. External developers with vast experience
	173	+in the SPB platform software components and professionals with experience in
	174	+front-end and UX were hired. These professionals also contributed to
	175	+disseminate practices adopted in the industry and in the free software
	176	+communities to other project members. {87.5\%} of seniors agreed with the
	177	+project development process. For 62.5\% this process has a good similarity to
	178	+their previous experiences. Their experience helped to \textbf{reconcile development
	179	+processes and decision making}, as stated by one of the respondent developers
	180	+"I think my main contribution was to have balanced the relations between the
	181	+MPOG staff and the UnB team". {62.5\%} of senior developers believe they have
	182	+collaborated in the relationship between the management and development
	183	+processes of the two institutions and {62.5\%} asserted that helped MPOG
	184	+staff to more clearly express their requests. {62.5\%} of them did not
	185	+understand MPOG's project management process and {50\%} believe their project
	186	+productivity was affected by MPOG's project management process. For the
	187	+government, these professionals gave credibility to the development "You had
	188	+the reviewers, who were the original developers of the software, that gave
	189	+you confidence and confidence in the code."
	190	+
	191	+In addition, with these professionals was possible to \textbf{transferred
	192	+knowledge of industry and free software to government and academia}. Working
	193	+with senior developers was important for all student-respondents during the
	194	+project. {91\%} of them also believe that working with professionals was
	195	+important for learning. {75\%} of senior developers believe that 'Working in
	196	+pairs with a senior' and 62.5\% that 'Participate in joint review tasks' were
	197	+the tasks with the involvement of them that most contributed to the evolution
	198	+of students in the project. And, in guiding a students, {75\%} believe that
	199	+this knowledge was widespread among the others in the team. This acquisition
	200	+of knowledge was also noted by the government, which stated "On the side of
	201	+UnB, what we perceived was that the project was very big leap when the
	202	+original software developers were hired in the case of Noosfero and Colab,
	203	+because they had a guide on how to develop things in the best way and were
	204	+able to solve non-trivial problems and quickly "
	205	+
	206	+The fronts also gained more autonomy to manage their activities. The role
	207	+of meta-coach was defined among the students, to coordinate the interactions
	208	+between teams and coach to coordinate each front. Coaches have become a \textbf{point
	209	+of reference for the development process}. {89.1\%} of students said that the
	210	+presence of the coach was essential to the running of Sprint, and for {87.5\%}
	211	+of senior developers coaches was essential for their interaction with the team.
	212	+MPOG analysts saw coaches as facilitators for their activities and for
	213	+communication with the development team. One of the interviewees said "I
	214	+interacted more with the project coordinator and team coaches.", " The reason
	215	+for this was that the coaches were more likely to meet the requirements, to
	216	+ask questions about requirements, to understand some features. interaction with
	217	+leaders than with senior developers. Sometimes the coaches brought the question
	218	+to the senior developers. "
	219	+
164	220
165		-%\subsubsection{Organization of the project in teams for each front, with a
166		-%undergraduate student as coach and at least one senior developer}
167		-%
168		-%\begin{itemize}
169		-% \item \textit{Four fronts: Colab, Noosfero, DevOps and Front-End/UX}
170		-% \item \textit{Definition of the role of team coaches and meta-coach,
171		-%selected from undergraduate students group}
172		-% \item \textit{Hiring professionals from the IT market for face-to-face or
173		-%remote work, specialists in the software components}
174		-%\end{itemize}
175		-%
176		-%\paragraph{Benefits}
177		-%
178		-%\begin{itemize}
179		-% \setlength\itemsep{1em}
180		-% \item \textit{Help to conciliate development processes and decision-making}
181		-% \subitem {62,5\%} of senior developers believe they have helped MPOG staff
182		-%to more clearly express their requests
183		-% \subitem {87,5\%} of seniors agreed with the project development process.
184		-%For 37.5\% this process was little similar to their previous experiences, for
185		-%the others there was a certain similarity.
186		-% \subitem {62,5\%} of seniors did not understand MPOG's project management
187		-%process. {50\%} of them believe their project productivity was affected by
188		-%MPOG's project management process.
189		-% \subitem Senior Dev: "I think my main contribution was to have balanced
190		-%the relations between the MPOG staff and the UnB team"
191		-% \subitem Senior Dev: "When I entered the project, the client had a
192		-%disproportionate view of how to make explicit the requirements. They were still
193		-%talking about use cases and were extremely concerned about validation processes
194		-%and acceptance of these documents."
195		-% \subitem MPOG: "You had the reviewers, who were the original developers of
196		-%the software, that gave you confidence and confidence in the code."
197		-%%
198		-% \item \textit{Create support and reference points for students, senior
199		-%developers, and government staff}
200		-% \subitem {89.1\%} of students believe that the presence of the leader was
201		-%essential to the running of Sprint
202		-% \subitem {87.5\%} of seniors believe that the presence of team leaders was
203		-%essential for their interaction with the team
204		-% \subitem MPOG: "It interacted more with the project coordinator and team
205		-%coaches (noosfero, colab, visual identity). Interacted with coaches by mailing
206		-%list, hangouts The reason was usually to elucidate requirements, to ask
207		-%questions about requirements, to understand some functionality. "
208		-% \subitem MPOG: "There was interaction with the other [non-coaches] because
209		-%they also participated in the bi-weekly meetings (sprints), but it was more
210		-%with coaches."
211		-% \subitem MPOG: "Access to coaches was faster, because we were in much more
212		-%interaction with leaders than with senior developers. Sometimes the coaches
213		-%brought the question to the senior developers."
214		-%%
215		-% \item \textit{Transfer of knowledge from industry and FLOSS community to
216		-%both academia and government}
217		-% \subitem {62.5\%} of senior developers believe that they have collaborated
218		-%in the relationship between the management and development processes of the two
219		-%institutions
220		-% \subitem {100\%} of the students we interviewed believe that working with
221		-%senior developers was important during the project
222		-% \subitem {91.\%} of students also believe that working with seniors was
223		-%important for learning
224		-% \subitem {75\%} of senior developers believe that 'Working in pairs with a
225		-%senior' and 62.5% who 'Participate in joint review tasks' were the tasks with
226		-%the involvement of them that most contributed to the evolution of students in
227		-%the project.
228		-% \subitem {75\%} of senior developers believe that in guiding a student,
229		-%this knowledge was widespread among the other students on the team.
230		-% \subitem MPOG: "On the side of UnB, what we perceived so strongly was that
231		-%the project took a very big leap when the original developers of the software
232		-%(the official software development) were hired in the case of Noosfero and
233		-%Colab [..] Because they had a guide on how to develop things in the best way
234		-%and were able to solve non-trivial problems and quickly "
235		-%\end{itemize}
236		-%
237	221	%%* Filtrar a comunicação por níveis de maturidade/experiência e
238	222	%responsabilidades
239	223	%%MPOG: "Eu acho que esses pontos de conflito eram muito mais fáceis de lidar
...	...