diff --git a/icse2018/content/06-results.tex b/icse2018/content/06-results.tex index 883a2e8..7958645 100644 --- a/icse2018/content/06-results.tex +++ b/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} & \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} % -- libgit2 0.21.2