Download as
Browse Code »

Commit cc91fad4782d5ca050254afd3a730f38167c80b8

Authored by Paulo Meireles
1 parent 93a4e5fc
Exists in master and in 2 other branches oss_2018, rework_case_study

[oss-2018] Applying Fabio's review in the results sections and removing/changing UnB to university

Showing 3 changed files with 37 additions and 38 deletions   Show diff stats
oss2018/content/03-methods.tex
  Diff comments   View file @cc91fad
... ... @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ benefits.
77 77 \subsection{Survey, Interview and Data Collection}
78 78  
79 79 We divided the development team into two groups of participants according to
80   -their roles during the project: UnB undergraduate interns and IT professionals.
  80 +their roles during the project: undergraduate interns and IT professionals.
81 81 For each set of members, we designed an online questionnaire with topics
82 82 related to (1) project organization, (2) development process, (3) communication
83 83 and relationship with members, (4) acquired knowledge and (5) experience
... ...
oss2018/content/04-results.tex
  Diff comments   View file @cc91fad
1 1 \section{Results}
2 2 \label{sec:results}
3 3  
4   -The SPB portal project had two phases according to the traceability of the
  4 +The SPB portal project had two phases according to the traceability of
5 5 project management activities. The first one, between January 2014 and March
6   -2015, is non-traceable. In this period, only UnB managed the development
7   -activities. Professors and MPOG coordinators had meetings to define strategic
8   -goals. The communication between government and academia was, generally, in
  6 +2015, is non-traceable since only the universities managed the development
  7 +activities. The communication between government and academia was, generally, in
9 8 private channels, such as professional e-mails, personal meetings, and
10 9 telephone calls. Therefore, the quantitative data found for this period
11 10 are not conclusive or have little expressiveness, and we do not examine them.
... ... @@ -24,10 +23,10 @@ practices that made these decisions concrete. We use data collected from the
24 23 central repository to map best practices and, with the respondents' answers, we
25 24 analyzed how each decision benefited the project collaboration.
26 25  
27   -The development team decides to \textbf{use of system under development to
28   -develop the system itself}. UnB team released the first version of the new SPB
  26 +The development team decides to \textbf{use of the system under development to
  27 +develop the system itself}. The team released the first version of the new SPB
29 28 portal nine months after the project beginning. Due to the platform features
30   -for software development and social network, the UnB coordinators decided to
  29 +for software development and social network, the development coordinators decided to
31 30 use the platform under construction to develop the system itself. Gradually, in
32 31 addition to development activities, government and academia migrated the
33 32 project management and the communication between teams to the portal
... ... @@ -64,17 +63,17 @@ issues with much interaction, MPOG staff created 43 of them (this represents
64 63 42\% of the most active issues). For the MPOG analysts, interaction via
65 64 repository improved communication. \textit{``There was a lot of evolution, a
66 65 lot of communication via Gitlab.''}. Migrating to the platform also led MPOG
67   -staff to \textbf{trust in developed code}: \textit{``Everything was validated.
  66 +staff to \textbf{trust the developed code}: \textit{``Everything was validated.
68 67 We tested the functionalities and developed the project on the SPB platform
69   -itself. Consequently, the use of the system validated the most of features.
  68 +itself. Consequently, the use of the system validated most of the features.
70 69 From the moment we began to use it for development, this validation was
71 70 constant. We felt confident in the code developed.''}.
72 71  
73 72 The abovementioned decision also collaborated to meet the government's demand
74 73 for meticulous documentation of the software design and stages of development
75   -without bureaucratizing or modifying the development process. The team starts
  74 +without bureaucratizing or modifying the development process. The team started
76 75 to \textbf{produce documentation and records organically} on the platform
77   -itself, as mentioned at one of the MPOG response.: \textit{``For me, it was a
  76 +itself, as mentioned in one of the MPOG responses: \textit{``For me, it was a
78 77 great learning experience. There are a lot of things documented in emails as
79 78 well as in the portal itself. When necessary, we can access the tools and find
80 79 out how we develop a solution. We can recover these positive points.''}.
... ... @@ -82,7 +81,7 @@ out how we develop a solution. We can recover these positive points.''}.
82 81  
83 82 The development coordinator works to \textbf{brings together government staff
84 83 and development team}. At the beginning of the project, the interviewed MPOG
85   -analysts did not participate in any direct interaction with any UnB
  84 +analysts did not participate in any direct interaction with any university
86 85 representative, even though they were the ones in charge of the government in
87 86 ensuring the collaboration agreement and the delivery of the products. Because
88 87 of this, they relied on feedback from their superiors on inter-institutional
... ... @@ -92,17 +91,17 @@ the development team.
92 91  
93 92 In the second phase of the project, these analysts came to represent the
94 93 government directly in the dialogues with the academia, and they started to
95   -visit bi-weekly the university's laboratory. One of the analysts believes that
  94 +visit bi-weekly the university's laboratory. One of the analysts believed that
96 95 \textit{``at this point, the communication started to change.''}. The new
97 96 dynamic \textit{reduced communication misunderstandings and unified the two
98 97 sides}, as reported by another interviewee: \textit{``It was very positive. We
99 98 liked to go there and to interact with the team. I think it brought more unity,
100   -more integration into the project.''}. {73\%} of the interns consider positive
101   -the direct participation of the MPOG staff, and {81\%} of them think the
102   -presence of goverment staff in sprint ceremonies was relevant for the project
103   -development. For 76\% of interns, writing the requirements together with the
  99 +more integration into the project.''}. {73\%} of the interns considered positive
  100 +the direct participation of the MPOG staff, and {81\%} of them believed the
  101 +presence of government staff in sprint ceremonies was relevant for the project
  102 +development. For 76\% of the interns, writing the requirements together with the
104 103 MPOG staff was very important to \textbf{better meet expectations of both
105   -sides}. According to one of them \textit{``Joint planning and timely meetings
  104 +sides}. According to one of them, \textit{``Joint planning and timely meetings
106 105 were very important for understanding the needs of MPOG.''}.
107 106  
108 107 The closest dialogue between government and academia generated empathy, as
... ... @@ -115,24 +114,24 @@ give faster feedback to the team. In return, they also quickly answered us any
115 114 question.''}.
116 115  
117 116 The implementation of a Continuous Delivery pipeline also reinforced the teams'
118   -synchronization \cite{siqueira2018cd} . For 81\% of interns and 75\% of senior
  117 +synchronization \cite{siqueira2018cd} . For 81\% of the interns and 75\% of the senior
119 118 developers, deploying new versions of the SPB portal in production was a
120 119 motivator during the project. On the government side, this approach helped to
121 120 \textbf{overcome the government bias regarding the low productivity of
122   -collaborative projects with academia}, as mentioned by themselves
  121 +collaborative projects with academia}, as mentioned by themselves:
123 122 \textit{``Government staff has a bias that universities do not deliver
124 123 products. However, in this project, we made many deliveries with high quality.
125 124 Nowadays I think if we had paid the same amount for a company, it would not
126 125 have done what we did with the quality we delivered.''}. Additionally, the
127 126 deployment of each new version also \textbf{improve the translation of the
128   -process from one side to the other}, as mentioned by MPOG analyst \textit{``We
  127 +process from one side to the other}, as mentioned by a MPOG analyst: \textit{``We
129 128 had a strategic level view. When we went to the technical level, we had
130 129 difficulty to plan each four-month release. However, in the final stages of the
131 130 project, I realized that this was not a problem because the team made the
132 131 deliveries and the results were available in production. The team was
133 132 qualified, the code had quality, and the project was well executed. So in
134   -practice, our difficulty interpreting the technical details did not impact the
135   -releases planning.''}.
  133 +practice, our difficulty interpreting the technical details did not impact
  134 +release planning.''}.
136 135  
137 136 The technical leaders \textbf{divide the development team into priority fronts,
138 137 and for each one, hire at least one specialist from the IT market}. The
... ... @@ -143,11 +142,11 @@ hired to raise the quality of the product. Senior developers have a vast
143 142 experience in the FLOSS systems and tools used in the project.
144 143  
145 144 The participation of senior developers in the project contributed to
146   -\textbf{conciliate the development processes of each institution and made
  145 +\textbf{conciliate the development processes of each institution and make
147 146 better technical decisions}, as quoted in one of the answers to the senior
148 147 developer's questionnaire: \textit{``I think my main contribution was to
149   -balance the relations between the MPOG staff and the UnB team.''}. {63\%} of
150   -senior developers believe they have collaborated to conciliate the management
  148 +balance the relations between the MPOG staff and the university team.''}. {63\%} of
  149 +the senior developers believed they have collaborated to conciliate the management
151 150 and development process between the two institutions and also {63\%} of them
152 151 that they helped MPOG staff to express their requests more clearly. Government
153 152 analysts were also more open to suggestions from these developers:
... ... @@ -156,20 +155,20 @@ integrate the platform. They conveyed trust, and then we trust in the developed
156 155 code.''}. According to questionnaire responses, they largely agreed with the
157 156 project development process. For 63\%, this process has close similarity to
158 157 their previous experiences. In contrast, {62.5\%} of them did not understand
159   -the MPOG's project management process and {50\%} believe this process could
  158 +the MPOG's project management process and {50\%} believed this process could
160 159 affect their project productivity.
161 160  
162 161 Senior developers were also responsible for \textbf{improving the management
163 162 and technical knowledge} of the interns about practices from industry and open
164   -source projects. {91\%} of the interns believe that working with professionals
  163 +source projects. {91\%} of the interns believed that working with professionals
165 164 was essential for learning. Working with senior developers was important during
166   -the project for all of them. {75\%} of senior developers believe that ``Working
  165 +the project for all of them. {75\%} of the senior developers believed that ``Working
167 166 in pairs with a senior'' and 63\% that ``Participate in joint review tasks''
168 167 were the tasks with the involvement of them that most contributed to the
169   -evolution of UnB interns in the project. {75\%} believe that the knowledge
  168 +evolution of university interns in the project. {75\%} believed that the knowledge
170 169 taught by them to a intern was widespread among the others in the team.
171 170 Government analysts also pointed this acquisition of knowledge: \textit{``On
172   -the side of UnB, what we noticed was a significant improvement in the platform
  171 +the side of the universities, what we noticed was a significant improvement in the platform
173 172 with the hiring of the original developers of the systems. They had a guide on
174 173 how to best develop each feature and were able to solve non-trivial problems
175 174 quickly.''}.
... ... @@ -178,9 +177,9 @@ Dividing the development team and hiring senior developers allowed each team to
178 177 \textbf{self-organize and gain more autonomy in the management of their tasks}.
179 178 There was a development coach to lead each team, and a ``meta-coach'' supported
180 179 all of them in their internal management activities. The coaches (most advanced
181   -UnB interns) were points of reference in the development process. {89\%} of the
  180 +university interns) were points of reference in the development process. {89\%} of the
182 181 interns said that the presence of the coach was essential to the sprint's
183   -running, and for {88\%} of senior developers coaches was essential for their
  182 +running, and for {88\%} of the senior developers coaches was essential for their
184 183 interaction with the team. MPOG analysts saw coaches as facilitators their
185 184 activities and communication with the development team. They said \textit{``I
186 185 interacted more with the project coordinator (professor) and team coaches''},
... ...
oss2018/content/05-discussion.tex
  Diff comments   View file @cc91fad
... ... @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ population-funded resources.
19 19 \begin{tabular}{ | m{4cm} m{10cm} m{10cm} | }
20 20 \hline
21 21 \textbf{Decision} & \textbf{Practice Explanation} & \textbf{Benefits} \\ \hline
22   -\textbf{Use of system under development to develop the system itself} &
  22 +\textbf{Use of the system under development to develop the system itself} &
23 23 \begin{itemize}
24 24 \item The features and tools of the platform under development supported the project management and communication activities.
25 25 \end{itemize} &
... ... @@ -27,13 +27,13 @@ population-funded resources.
27 27 \item Communicating with transparency and efficiency;
28 28 \item Monitoring of activities;
29 29 \item More interactions between developers and public servants;
30   -\item Confidence in the code;
  30 +\item Trust the developed code;
31 31 \item Organic documentation;
32 32 \end{itemize} \\ \hline
33 33  
34 34 \textbf{Bring together government staff and development team} &
35 35 \begin{itemize}
36   -\item Government staff, academic coordinators, senior developers and team coaches biweekly meet at the UnB's lab, academia headquarters, for sprint planning and review.
  36 +\item Government staff, academic coordinators, senior developers and team coaches biweekly meet at the university lab, academia headquarters, for sprint planning and review.
37 37 \item Conduct on the platform the technical discussions between government staff and the development team.
38 38 \item Involve government board directors only in strategic planning of the project.
39 39 \item Build a continuous delivery pipeline with steps involving both sides.
... ... @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ collaboration works. They took time to realize that the project was not a
106 106 client-executor relationship and that both organizations were at the same
107 107 hierarchical level in the work plan. Finally, they also felt the project needed
108 108 a decision-maker role to resolve impasses between organizations, and the
109   -development coordinator sometimes took on that.
  109 +development coordinators sometimes took on that.
110 110  
111 111 The decisions, practices, and benefits presented in the Table
112 112 \ref{practices-table} should be evaluated and used in contexts with more
... ...