[oss-2018] Review results of second practice

Melissa Wen
1 parent e10d8141
Showing 1 changed file with 50 additions and 166 deletions Show diff stats
icse2018/content/06-results.tex
@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ government. In this section, we present by context the practices adopted in this
 second phase and show the benefits generated by its deployment, as summarized 
 in the Table \ref{practices-table}.
  
+%% TODO: explicar a estrutura e cada campo da tabela
+
 \begin{table}[]
 \centering
 \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
@@ -40,12 +42,10 @@ increase interactions between development team and public servants;
 \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 Deploying SPB intermediated
-versions in production \end{itemize} &
+bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \item Continuous Delivery \end{itemize} &
 \begin{itemize} 
-\item Reduce communication misunderstood and develop requirements closer to the expectations of both sides;
-\item Improve understanding of collaborative development by MPOG staff
-\item Increasing government confidence for collaborative projects with the university;
+\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;
 \item Aligning both side pace to execute project-related activities (Empathy between gov and academia side)
 \item Improving translation from one development process to the other;
 \end{itemize} \\ \hline
@@ -68,7 +68,6 @@ versions in production \end{itemize} &amp;
  
 \subsection{Project management and communication on the developing platform
 itself}
-\hfill
  
 After nine months of project activities, the first version of new SPB Portal was
 released. From this point, we started to migrate the management and 
@@ -117,167 +116,52 @@ and also there in the portal itself of what happened in the project. At any
 moment we can go there and see how it worked, how the person did, and manages 
 to salvage those good points."
  
-%\subsubsection{Bringing the government staff directly responsible for the 
-%project together with development team}
-%\begin{itemize}
-%\item \textit{Biweekly meetings (planning and sprint review) in the 
-%development lab with the presence of government staff, team coaches and senior 
-%developers}
-%\item \textit{Discuss features under development directly on Gitlab Issue 
-%Tracker}
-%\item \textit{Only strategic decisions or bureaucratic issues involve the 
-%directors/secretaries}
-%\end{itemize}
-%
-%\paragraph{Benefits}
-%
-%\begin{itemize}
-%  \setlength\itemsep{1em}
-%  \item \textit{Reduce communication misunderstood}
-%    \subitem MPOG: "That's when the project started, people [MPOG staff] did 
-%not participate in anything. The communication process was horrible."; "The 
-%[MPOG] coordinator did not help, he would say something and UnB would talk to 
-%another at the meeting and it was the biggest mess." About the direct dialogue 
-%between the academic team and MPOG staff (without the involvement of 
-%coordinators and / or directors) , she said "That's where things really started 
-%to move, that the communication of the project began to improve."
-%%
-%  \item \textit{Empathy between members on both sides}
-%    \subitem {72.9\%} of students believe that interacting with MPOG staff was 
-%important during the project
-%    \subitem Only 27\% of the students interviewed said they did not feel like 
-%attending meetings with MPOG employees
-%    \subitem MPOG: "You know people in person and it makes such a big 
-%difference because it causes empathy. You know what the person is going through 
-%on their side and she knows what we're going through on our side. So the next 
-%time you have a non-personal interaction (by mail, by list ...) I think it even 
-%facilitates, improves communication. You already know who that person is, it's 
-%not just a name. "
-%%
-%  \item \textit{Develop requirements closer to the expectations of both sides}
-%    \subitem {81.1 \%} of students believe that the participation of MPOG 
-%staff in planning and closing sprints was important for the development of the 
-%project
-%    \subitem {75.6 \%} of students believe that writing the requirements 
-%together with the MPOG staff was very important
-%    \subitem Undergrad student: "Joint planning and timely meetings were very 
-%important for understanding the needs of MPOG, and the interaction via SPB 
-%tools helped validate the tool as a development platform"
-%    \subitem Undergrad student: "Often they did not know what they really 
-%wanted, and they caused some delays in the development of sprints"
-%    \subitem Undergrad student: "A relationship of constant attempt to balance 
-%and negotiate. The client does not always know the impacts of their requests"
-%    \subitem MPOG: "I believe it was very positive, we also liked to go there, 
-%to interact with the team. I think it brought more unity, more integration into 
-%the project, because we went there, where people were working and they show 
-%what was done. I think they also liked to receive our feedback about what had 
-%been done by them.This interaction did not just made with the coordinator. I 
-%found it very important and very positive it. "
-%%
-%  \item \textit{Improve understanding of collaborative development by MPOG 
-%staff}
-%    \subitem Undergrad student: "In the beginning the demands of MPOG were 
-%very 'orders from above', but according to the progress of the project, they 
-%understood better our work philosophy and became more open"
-%    \subitem MPOG: "During development we realized that the team that was 
-%developing also felt like the owner of the project felt involved not only a 
-%mere executor of an order. It was not a client relationship, it was a 
-%partnership relationship, so there was a lot of team suggestions to be put into 
-%the project. Sometimes these were put in for us to decide and sometimes not."
-%    \subitem MPOG: "I think it was easy, I think the team was aligned. In 
-%addition to being aligned, these items that, for example, were not priorities 
-%and became priorities, were, in a sense, brought with some arguments from the 
-%team. So the team was able to argue and succeed in showing that it was 
-%important, that it needed to be prioritized, and I think the team was able to 
-%present the arguments well for some of the priorities that happened during the 
-%process."
-%%
-%  \item \textit{Align the pace of both sides to execute activities}
-%    \subitem MPOG: "When we went there, I knew people and made that 
-%interaction more frequent, we also felt encouraged to validate faster and give 
-%faster feedback to the teams so they would not wait there. I knew they were 
-%waiting for our feedback and we were struggling to do it fast, because we ended 
-%a sprint and start another and not stop. We gave that feedback fast and they 
-%also gave quick feedback for any questions when they encountered a problem. 
-%That gave the project agility, things flowed faster and better. "
-%\end{itemize}
+\subsection{Bringing together government staff and development team}
+
+The MPOG analysts observed communication noise in the dialogue between them and
+their superiors and in the dialogues with the development team that were
+intermediated by the superiors. They said that direct dialogue with the
+development team and biweekly visits to the university's lab  \textbf{reduce
+communication misunderstood}. "At this point, the communication started to
+change.. started to improve." According to one of the interviewees this new
+dynamic unified the two sides: "I believe it was very positive, we also liked to
+go there, to interact with the team. I think it brought more unity, more
+integration into the project". The participation of the MPOG staff was also
+considered positive by {72.9\%} of the students of them and to {81.1 \%} of them
+think the presence of MPOG staff in sprint ceremonies was important for the
+development. In addition, to  \textbf{better meet expectations of both sides}
+regarding the requirements developed, {75.6 \%} of students believe that writing
+the requirements together with the MPOG staff was very important. According to
+one of them "Joint planning and timely meetings were very important for
+understanding the needs of MPOG".
+
+One of the consequences of this direct government-academia interaction in
+laboratory was empathy, as reported by one of the interviewees "You know people
+in person and it makes such a big difference because it causes empathy. You
+already know who that person is, it's not just a name". This subjectively helped
+to \textbf{align both activities execution pace}. The teams' synchronization was
+reinforced with the implementation of a Continuous Delivery pipeline. The
+benefits of this approach were presented in our previous work \cite {?} and
+corroborate these research results. To 81.1\% of students and 75\% of senior
+developers, deploying new versions of the SPB portal in production was a
+motivator during the project.
+
+One of the MPOG analyst interviewed also noted these releases also helped to 
+\textbf{overcome the government bias regarding low productivity of collaborative
+projects with academia}: ”At first, the government staff had a bias that
+universities do not deliver. We overcame that bias in the course of the project.
+We deliver a lot and with quality. Today, I think if we had paid the same amount
+for a company, it would not have done what was delivered and with the quality
+that was delivered with the price that was paid.” Additionally, the deployment
+in production of each new version also \textbf{improve the translation of the
+process from one side to the other}, as mentioned by MPOG analyst ”We had an
+overview at the strategic level. When we went down to the technical level, plan
+the release every four months was difficult. But in the end, I think this has
+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”
+
  
-%\subsubsection{Continuos Delivery}
-%
-%\begin{itemize}
-% \item \textit{Creating DevOps Team}
-% \item \textit{Defining continuous delivery pipeline}
-% \item \textit{DevOps team periodically going to the ministry to help deploy 
-%each version}
-%\end{itemize}
-%
-%\paragraph{Benefits}
-%
-%\begin{itemize}
-%  \setlength\itemsep{1em}
-%  \item \textit{Increase government confidence for collaborative projects with 
-%the
-%university}
-%    \subitem MPOG: "At first the government staff had a bias that universities 
-%did
-%not deliver and we overcame that bias in the course of the project. We deliver 
-%a
-%lot and with quality. Today, I think that if we had paid the same amount for a
-%company, it would not have done what was delivered and with the quality that 
-%was
-%delivered with the price that was paid."
-%  \item \textit{Motivate teams}
-%    \subitem {81.1\%} of students think new versions released in production 
-%motivated
-%them during the project
-%    \subitem {75\%} of senior developers think new versions released in 
-%production
-%motivated them during the project
-%    \subitem {81\%} of students think the presence of a specific DevOps team 
-%was
-%necessary for the project
-%  \item \textit{Transfer of knowledge about DevOps and Continuous Deliveries 
-%from
-%the academic team to the government infrastructure team}
-%    \subitem MPOG: "I only noticed positive aspects in the delivery. I think 
-%in the
-%interaction, we had a lot of support to be able to deploy. From the time that
-%the version was mature, which had already been tested in the UnB test
-%environment and was ready to be put into production, we had a great agility to
-%release in production. Then in the course of the project we realized that the
-%infrastructure team [of MPOG] started to trust the UnB team a lot. Because, for
-%you to put software in production in government, there is a whole process
-%behind. The government has much of this security issue."
-%    \subitem MPOG: "If there was anything stopping the business from working, 
-%the
-%software working inside, we would ask the seniors for support so we could
-%investigate that, and the infrastructure team was also instructed to prioritize
-%it. So when it came to an impasse, the teams were all together, both from 
-%within
-%MPOG as well as senior developers and other UnB developers to unlock, to find
-%the problem."
-%  \item \textit{Align the university and government teams pace in the 
-%execution of
-%the activities}
-%    \subitem MPOG: "In the beginning, infrastructure personnel were not 
-%accustomed
-%to deliveries so fast. They had to adapt to this pace. The portal of the SPB
-%before the project was not there [in the MPOG infrastructure], it was in 
-%another
-%place, they did not have that dynamics there. But what they asked for UnB (some
-%configuration, installation manual, how to install everything inside) was
-%requested and delivered."
-%  \item \textit{Improve translation from one development process to the other}
-%    \subitem MPOG: "We had an overview at the strategic level, but when we 
-%went down
-%to the level of functionality we had this difficulty to do the planning of the
-%release every four months. But in the end, I think this has not been a problem,
-%because 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, because the result is being delivered.
-%\end{itemize}
-%
 %\subsubsection{Organization of the project in teams for each front, with a
 %undergraduate student as coach and at least one senior developer}
 %
...	...	@@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ government. In this section, we present by context the practices adopted in this
15	15	second phase and show the benefits generated by its deployment, as summarized
16	16	in the Table \ref{practices-table}.
17	17
	18	+%% TODO: explicar a estrutura e cada campo da tabela
	19	+
18	20	\begin{table}[]
19	21	\centering
20	22	\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
...	...	@@ -40,12 +42,10 @@ increase interactions between development team and public servants;
40	42	\item Biweekly gov staff, senior developers and coaches met to planning and
41	43	review sprint at the UnB headquarters. \item Most of features under development
42	44	were discussed on Gitlab Issue Tracker. \item Only strategic decisions or
43		-bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \item Deploying SPB intermediated
44		-versions in production \end{itemize} &
	45	+bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \item Continuous Delivery \end{itemize} &
45	46	\begin{itemize}
46		-\item Reduce communication misunderstood and develop requirements closer to the expectations of both sides;
47		-\item Improve understanding of collaborative development by MPOG staff
48		-\item Increasing government confidence for collaborative projects with the university;
	47	+\item Reduce communication misunderstood and better meet expectations of both sides;
	48	+\item Improve understanding of collaborative development by MPOG staff and increase their confidence for collaborative projects with the university;
49	49	\item Aligning both side pace to execute project-related activities (Empathy between gov and academia side)
50	50	\item Improving translation from one development process to the other;
51	51	\end{itemize} \\ \hline
...	...	@@ -68,7 +68,6 @@ versions in production \end{itemize} &
68	68
69	69	\subsection{Project management and communication on the developing platform
70	70	itself}
71		-\hfill
72	71
73	72	After nine months of project activities, the first version of new SPB Portal was
74	73	released. From this point, we started to migrate the management and
...	...	@@ -117,167 +116,52 @@ and also there in the portal itself of what happened in the project. At any
117	116	moment we can go there and see how it worked, how the person did, and manages
118	117	to salvage those good points."
119	118
120		-%\subsubsection{Bringing the government staff directly responsible for the
121		-%project together with development team}
122		-%\begin{itemize}
123		-%\item \textit{Biweekly meetings (planning and sprint review) in the
124		-%development lab with the presence of government staff, team coaches and senior
125		-%developers}
126		-%\item \textit{Discuss features under development directly on Gitlab Issue
127		-%Tracker}
128		-%\item \textit{Only strategic decisions or bureaucratic issues involve the
129		-%directors/secretaries}
130		-%\end{itemize}
131		-%
132		-%\paragraph{Benefits}
133		-%
134		-%\begin{itemize}
135		-% \setlength\itemsep{1em}
136		-% \item \textit{Reduce communication misunderstood}
137		-% \subitem MPOG: "That's when the project started, people [MPOG staff] did
138		-%not participate in anything. The communication process was horrible."; "The
139		-%[MPOG] coordinator did not help, he would say something and UnB would talk to
140		-%another at the meeting and it was the biggest mess." About the direct dialogue
141		-%between the academic team and MPOG staff (without the involvement of
142		-%coordinators and / or directors) , she said "That's where things really started
143		-%to move, that the communication of the project began to improve."
144		-%%
145		-% \item \textit{Empathy between members on both sides}
146		-% \subitem {72.9\%} of students believe that interacting with MPOG staff was
147		-%important during the project
148		-% \subitem Only 27\% of the students interviewed said they did not feel like
149		-%attending meetings with MPOG employees
150		-% \subitem MPOG: "You know people in person and it makes such a big
151		-%difference because it causes empathy. You know what the person is going through
152		-%on their side and she knows what we're going through on our side. So the next
153		-%time you have a non-personal interaction (by mail, by list ...) I think it even
154		-%facilitates, improves communication. You already know who that person is, it's
155		-%not just a name. "
156		-%%
157		-% \item \textit{Develop requirements closer to the expectations of both sides}
158		-% \subitem {81.1 \%} of students believe that the participation of MPOG
159		-%staff in planning and closing sprints was important for the development of the
160		-%project
161		-% \subitem {75.6 \%} of students believe that writing the requirements
162		-%together with the MPOG staff was very important
163		-% \subitem Undergrad student: "Joint planning and timely meetings were very
164		-%important for understanding the needs of MPOG, and the interaction via SPB
165		-%tools helped validate the tool as a development platform"
166		-% \subitem Undergrad student: "Often they did not know what they really
167		-%wanted, and they caused some delays in the development of sprints"
168		-% \subitem Undergrad student: "A relationship of constant attempt to balance
169		-%and negotiate. The client does not always know the impacts of their requests"
170		-% \subitem MPOG: "I believe it was very positive, we also liked to go there,
171		-%to interact with the team. I think it brought more unity, more integration into
172		-%the project, because we went there, where people were working and they show
173		-%what was done. I think they also liked to receive our feedback about what had
174		-%been done by them.This interaction did not just made with the coordinator. I
175		-%found it very important and very positive it. "
176		-%%
177		-% \item \textit{Improve understanding of collaborative development by MPOG
178		-%staff}
179		-% \subitem Undergrad student: "In the beginning the demands of MPOG were
180		-%very 'orders from above', but according to the progress of the project, they
181		-%understood better our work philosophy and became more open"
182		-% \subitem MPOG: "During development we realized that the team that was
183		-%developing also felt like the owner of the project felt involved not only a
184		-%mere executor of an order. It was not a client relationship, it was a
185		-%partnership relationship, so there was a lot of team suggestions to be put into
186		-%the project. Sometimes these were put in for us to decide and sometimes not."
187		-% \subitem MPOG: "I think it was easy, I think the team was aligned. In
188		-%addition to being aligned, these items that, for example, were not priorities
189		-%and became priorities, were, in a sense, brought with some arguments from the
190		-%team. So the team was able to argue and succeed in showing that it was
191		-%important, that it needed to be prioritized, and I think the team was able to
192		-%present the arguments well for some of the priorities that happened during the
193		-%process."
194		-%%
195		-% \item \textit{Align the pace of both sides to execute activities}
196		-% \subitem MPOG: "When we went there, I knew people and made that
197		-%interaction more frequent, we also felt encouraged to validate faster and give
198		-%faster feedback to the teams so they would not wait there. I knew they were
199		-%waiting for our feedback and we were struggling to do it fast, because we ended
200		-%a sprint and start another and not stop. We gave that feedback fast and they
201		-%also gave quick feedback for any questions when they encountered a problem.
202		-%That gave the project agility, things flowed faster and better. "
203		-%\end{itemize}
	119	+\subsection{Bringing together government staff and development team}
	120	+
	121	+The MPOG analysts observed communication noise in the dialogue between them and
	122	+their superiors and in the dialogues with the development team that were
	123	+intermediated by the superiors. They said that direct dialogue with the
	124	+development team and biweekly visits to the university's lab \textbf{reduce
	125	+communication misunderstood}. "At this point, the communication started to
	126	+change.. started to improve." According to one of the interviewees this new
	127	+dynamic unified the two sides: "I believe it was very positive, we also liked to
	128	+go there, to interact with the team. I think it brought more unity, more
	129	+integration into the project". The participation of the MPOG staff was also
	130	+considered positive by {72.9\%} of the students of them and to {81.1 \%} of them
	131	+think the presence of MPOG staff in sprint ceremonies was important for the
	132	+development. In addition, to \textbf{better meet expectations of both sides}
	133	+regarding the requirements developed, {75.6 \%} of students believe that writing
	134	+the requirements together with the MPOG staff was very important. According to
	135	+one of them "Joint planning and timely meetings were very important for
	136	+understanding the needs of MPOG".
	137	+
	138	+One of the consequences of this direct government-academia interaction in
	139	+laboratory was empathy, as reported by one of the interviewees "You know people
	140	+in person and it makes such a big difference because it causes empathy. You
	141	+already know who that person is, it's not just a name". This subjectively helped
	142	+to \textbf{align both activities execution pace}. The teams' synchronization was
	143	+reinforced with the implementation of a Continuous Delivery pipeline. The
	144	+benefits of this approach were presented in our previous work \cite {?} and
	145	+corroborate these research results. To 81.1\% of students and 75\% of senior
	146	+developers, deploying new versions of the SPB portal in production was a
	147	+motivator during the project.
	148	+
	149	+One of the MPOG analyst interviewed also noted these releases also helped to
	150	+\textbf{overcome the government bias regarding low productivity of collaborative
	151	+projects with academia}: ”At first, the government staff had a bias that
	152	+universities do not deliver. We overcame that bias in the course of the project.
	153	+We deliver a lot and with quality. Today, I think if we had paid the same amount
	154	+for a company, it would not have done what was delivered and with the quality
	155	+that was delivered with the price that was paid.” Additionally, the deployment
	156	+in production of each new version also \textbf{improve the translation of the
	157	+process from one side to the other}, as mentioned by MPOG analyst ”We had an
	158	+overview at the strategic level. When we went down to the technical level, plan
	159	+the release every four months was difficult. But in the end, I think this has
	160	+not been a problem. A project you are delivering, the results are going to
	161	+production, the code is quality, the team is qualified/capable and the project
	162	+is doing well, it does not impact as much in practice”
	163	+
204	164
205		-%\subsubsection{Continuos Delivery}
206		-%
207		-%\begin{itemize}
208		-% \item \textit{Creating DevOps Team}
209		-% \item \textit{Defining continuous delivery pipeline}
210		-% \item \textit{DevOps team periodically going to the ministry to help deploy
211		-%each version}
212		-%\end{itemize}
213		-%
214		-%\paragraph{Benefits}
215		-%
216		-%\begin{itemize}
217		-% \setlength\itemsep{1em}
218		-% \item \textit{Increase government confidence for collaborative projects with
219		-%the
220		-%university}
221		-% \subitem MPOG: "At first the government staff had a bias that universities
222		-%did
223		-%not deliver and we overcame that bias in the course of the project. We deliver
224		-%a
225		-%lot and with quality. Today, I think that if we had paid the same amount for a
226		-%company, it would not have done what was delivered and with the quality that
227		-%was
228		-%delivered with the price that was paid."
229		-% \item \textit{Motivate teams}
230		-% \subitem {81.1\%} of students think new versions released in production
231		-%motivated
232		-%them during the project
233		-% \subitem {75\%} of senior developers think new versions released in
234		-%production
235		-%motivated them during the project
236		-% \subitem {81\%} of students think the presence of a specific DevOps team
237		-%was
238		-%necessary for the project
239		-% \item \textit{Transfer of knowledge about DevOps and Continuous Deliveries
240		-%from
241		-%the academic team to the government infrastructure team}
242		-% \subitem MPOG: "I only noticed positive aspects in the delivery. I think
243		-%in the
244		-%interaction, we had a lot of support to be able to deploy. From the time that
245		-%the version was mature, which had already been tested in the UnB test
246		-%environment and was ready to be put into production, we had a great agility to
247		-%release in production. Then in the course of the project we realized that the
248		-%infrastructure team [of MPOG] started to trust the UnB team a lot. Because, for
249		-%you to put software in production in government, there is a whole process
250		-%behind. The government has much of this security issue."
251		-% \subitem MPOG: "If there was anything stopping the business from working,
252		-%the
253		-%software working inside, we would ask the seniors for support so we could
254		-%investigate that, and the infrastructure team was also instructed to prioritize
255		-%it. So when it came to an impasse, the teams were all together, both from
256		-%within
257		-%MPOG as well as senior developers and other UnB developers to unlock, to find
258		-%the problem."
259		-% \item \textit{Align the university and government teams pace in the
260		-%execution of
261		-%the activities}
262		-% \subitem MPOG: "In the beginning, infrastructure personnel were not
263		-%accustomed
264		-%to deliveries so fast. They had to adapt to this pace. The portal of the SPB
265		-%before the project was not there [in the MPOG infrastructure], it was in
266		-%another
267		-%place, they did not have that dynamics there. But what they asked for UnB (some
268		-%configuration, installation manual, how to install everything inside) was
269		-%requested and delivered."
270		-% \item \textit{Improve translation from one development process to the other}
271		-% \subitem MPOG: "We had an overview at the strategic level, but when we
272		-%went down
273		-%to the level of functionality we had this difficulty to do the planning of the
274		-%release every four months. But in the end, I think this has not been a problem,
275		-%because a project you are delivering, the results are going to production, the
276		-%code is quality, the team is qualified/capable and the project is doing well,
277		-%it
278		-%does not impact as much in practice, because the result is being delivered.
279		-%\end{itemize}
280		-%
281	165	%\subsubsection{Organization of the project in teams for each front, with a
282	166	%undergraduate student as coach and at least one senior developer}
283	167	%
...	...