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

Paulo Meireles
1 parent 93a4e5fc
Showing 3 changed files with 37 additions and 38 deletions Show diff stats
oss2018/content/03-methods.tex
oss2018/content/04-results.tex
oss2018/content/05-discussion.tex
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ benefits.
 \subsection{Survey, Interview and Data Collection}
 We divided the development team into two groups of participants according to
-their roles during the project: UnB undergraduate interns and IT professionals.
+their roles during the project: undergraduate interns and IT professionals.
 For each set of members, we designed an online questionnaire with topics
 related to (1) project organization, (2) development process, (3) communication
 and relationship with members, (4) acquired knowledge and (5) experience
 \section{Results}
 \label{sec:results}
-The SPB portal project had two phases according to the traceability of the
+The SPB portal project had two phases according to the traceability of
 project management activities. The first one, between January 2014 and March
-2015, is non-traceable. In this period, only UnB managed the development
-activities. Professors and MPOG coordinators had meetings to define strategic
-goals. The communication between government and academia was, generally, in
+2015, is non-traceable since only the universities managed the development
+activities. The communication between government and academia was, generally, in
 private channels, such as professional e-mails, personal meetings, and
 telephone calls. Therefore, the quantitative data found for this period
 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
 central repository to map best practices and, with the respondents' answers, we
 analyzed how each decision benefited the project collaboration.
-The development team decides to \textbf{use of system under development to
-develop the system itself}.  UnB team released the first version of the new SPB
+The development team decides to \textbf{use of the system under development to
+develop the system itself}.  The team released the first version of the new SPB
 portal nine months after the project beginning. Due to the platform features
-for software development and social network, the UnB coordinators decided to
+for software development and social network, the development coordinators decided to
 use the platform under construction to develop the system itself. Gradually, in
 addition to development activities, government and academia migrated the
 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
 42\% of the most active issues). For the MPOG analysts, interaction via
 repository improved communication. \textit{``There was a lot of evolution, a
 lot of communication via Gitlab.''}.  Migrating to the platform also led MPOG
-staff to \textbf{trust in developed code}: \textit{``Everything was validated.
+staff to \textbf{trust the developed code}: \textit{``Everything was validated.
 We tested the functionalities and developed the project on the SPB platform
-itself.  Consequently, the use of the system validated the most of features.
+itself.  Consequently, the use of the system validated most of the 	features.
 From the moment we began to use it for development, this validation was
 constant. We felt confident in the code developed.''}.
 The abovementioned decision also collaborated to meet the government's demand
 for meticulous documentation of the software design and stages of development
-without bureaucratizing or modifying the development process. The team starts
+without bureaucratizing or modifying the development process. The team started
 to \textbf{produce documentation and records organically} on the platform
-itself, as mentioned at one of the MPOG response.: \textit{``For me, it was a
+itself, as mentioned in one of the MPOG responses: \textit{``For me, it was a
 great learning experience. There are a lot of things documented in emails as
 well as in the portal itself. When necessary, we can access the tools and find
 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.&#39;&#39;}.
 The development coordinator works to \textbf{brings together government staff
 and development team}.  At the beginning of the project, the interviewed MPOG
-analysts did not participate in any direct interaction with any UnB
+analysts did not participate in any direct interaction with any university
 representative, even though they were the ones in charge of the government in
 ensuring the collaboration agreement and the delivery of the products. Because
 of this, they relied on feedback from their superiors on inter-institutional
@@ -92,17 +91,17 @@ the development team.
 In the second phase of the project, these analysts came to represent the
 government directly in the dialogues with the academia, and they started to
-visit bi-weekly the university's laboratory. One of the analysts believes that
+visit bi-weekly the university's laboratory. One of the analysts believed that
 \textit{``at this point, the communication started to change.''}. The new
 dynamic \textit{reduced communication misunderstandings and unified the two
 sides}, as reported by another interviewee: \textit{``It was very positive. We
 liked to go there and to interact with the team. I think it brought more unity,
-more integration into the project.''}. {73\%} of the interns consider positive
-the direct participation of the MPOG staff, and {81\%} of them think the
-presence of goverment staff in sprint ceremonies was relevant for the project
-development. For 76\% of interns, writing the requirements together with the
+more integration into the project.''}. {73\%} of the interns considered positive
+the direct participation of the MPOG staff, and {81\%} of them believed the
+presence of government staff in sprint ceremonies was relevant for the project
+development. For 76\% of the interns, writing the requirements together with the
 MPOG staff was very important to \textbf{better meet expectations of both
-sides}. According to one of them \textit{``Joint planning and timely meetings
+sides}. According to one of them, \textit{``Joint planning and timely meetings
 were very important for understanding the needs of MPOG.''}.
 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
 question.''}.
 The implementation of a Continuous Delivery pipeline also reinforced the teams'
-synchronization \cite{siqueira2018cd} .  For 81\% of interns and 75\% of senior
+synchronization \cite{siqueira2018cd} .  For 81\% of the interns and 75\% of the senior
 developers, deploying new versions of the SPB portal in production was a
 motivator during the project. On the government side, this approach helped to
 \textbf{overcome the government bias regarding the low productivity of
-collaborative projects with academia}, as mentioned by themselves
+collaborative projects with academia}, as mentioned by themselves:
 \textit{``Government staff has a bias that universities do not deliver
 products. However, in this project, we made many deliveries with high quality.
 Nowadays I think if we had paid the same amount for a company, it would not
 have done what we did with the quality we delivered.''}. Additionally, the
 deployment of each new version also \textbf{improve the translation of the
-process from one side to the other}, as mentioned by MPOG analyst \textit{``We
+process from one side to the other}, as mentioned by a MPOG analyst: \textit{``We
 had a strategic level view. When we went to the technical level, we had
 difficulty to plan each four-month release. However, in the final stages of the
 project, I realized that this was not a problem because the team made the
 deliveries and the results were available in production. The team was
 qualified, the code had quality, and the project was well executed. So in
-practice, our difficulty interpreting the technical details did not impact the
-releases planning.''}.
+practice, our difficulty interpreting the technical details did not impact
+release planning.''}.
 The technical leaders \textbf{divide the development team into priority fronts,
 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
 experience in the FLOSS systems and tools used in the project.
 The participation of senior developers in the project contributed to
-\textbf{conciliate the development processes of each institution and made
+\textbf{conciliate the development processes of each institution and make
 better technical decisions}, as quoted in one of the answers to the senior
 developer's questionnaire: \textit{``I think my main contribution was to
-balance the relations between the MPOG staff and the UnB team.''}. {63\%} of
-senior developers believe they have collaborated to conciliate the management
+balance the relations between the MPOG staff and the university team.''}. {63\%} of
+the senior developers believed they have collaborated to conciliate the management
 and development process between the two institutions and also {63\%} of them
 that they helped MPOG staff to express their requests more clearly. Government
 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
 code.''}. According to questionnaire responses, they largely agreed with the
 project development process. For 63\%, this process has close similarity to
 their previous experiences. In contrast, {62.5\%} of them did not understand
-the MPOG's project management process and {50\%} believe this process could
+the MPOG's project management process and {50\%} believed this process could
 affect their project productivity.
 Senior developers were also responsible for \textbf{improving the management
 and technical knowledge} of the interns about practices from industry and open
-source projects. {91\%} of the interns believe that working with professionals
+source projects. {91\%} of the interns believed that working with professionals
 was essential for learning. Working with senior developers was important during
-the project for all of them. {75\%} of senior developers believe that ``Working
+the project for all of them. {75\%} of the senior developers believed that ``Working
 in pairs with a senior'' and 63\% that ``Participate in joint review tasks''
 were the tasks with the involvement of them that most contributed to the
-evolution of UnB interns in the project. {75\%} believe that the knowledge
+evolution of university interns in the project. {75\%} believed that the knowledge
 taught by them to a intern was widespread among the others in the team.
 Government analysts also pointed this acquisition of knowledge: \textit{``On
-the side of UnB, what we noticed was a significant improvement in the platform
+the side of the universities, what we noticed was a significant improvement in the platform
 with the hiring of the original developers of the systems. They had a guide on
 how to best develop each feature and were able to solve non-trivial problems
 quickly.''}.
@@ -178,9 +177,9 @@ Dividing the development team and hiring senior developers allowed each team to
 \textbf{self-organize and gain more autonomy in the management of their tasks}.
 There was a development coach to lead each team, and a ``meta-coach'' supported
 all of them in their internal management activities. The coaches (most advanced
-UnB interns) were points of reference in the development process. {89\%} of the
+university interns) were points of reference in the development process. {89\%} of the
 interns said that the presence of the coach was essential to the sprint's
-running, and for {88\%} of senior developers coaches was essential for their
+running, and for {88\%} of the senior developers coaches was essential for their
 interaction with the team. MPOG analysts saw coaches as facilitators their
 activities and communication with the development team. They said \textit{``I
 interacted more with the project coordinator (professor) and team coaches''},
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ population-funded resources.
 \begin{tabular}{ | m{4cm} m{10cm} m{10cm} | } 
 \hline
 \textbf{Decision} & \textbf{Practice Explanation} & \textbf{Benefits} \\ \hline
-\textbf{Use of system under development to develop the system itself} &
+\textbf{Use of the system under development to develop the system itself} &
 \begin{itemize}
 \item The features and tools of the platform under development supported the project management and communication activities.
 \end{itemize} &
@@ -27,13 +27,13 @@ population-funded resources.
 \item Communicating with transparency and efficiency; 
 \item Monitoring of activities;
 \item More interactions between developers and public servants;
-\item Confidence in the code;
+\item Trust the developed code;
 \item Organic documentation;
 \end{itemize} \\ \hline
 \textbf{Bring together government staff and development team} &
 \begin{itemize} 
-\item Government staff, academic coordinators, senior developers and team coaches biweekly meet at the UnB's lab, academia headquarters, for sprint planning and review.
+\item Government staff, academic coordinators, senior developers and team coaches biweekly meet at the university lab, academia headquarters, for sprint planning and review.
 \item Conduct on the platform the technical discussions between government staff and the development team.
 \item Involve government board directors only in strategic planning of the project.
 \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
 client-executor relationship and that both organizations were at the same
 hierarchical level in the work plan. Finally, they also felt the project needed
 a decision-maker role to resolve impasses between organizations, and the
-development coordinator sometimes took on that.
+development coordinators sometimes took on that.
 The decisions, practices, and benefits presented in the Table
 \ref{practices-table} should be evaluated and used in contexts with more
	@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ benefits.		@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ benefits.
77	\subsection{Survey, Interview and Data Collection}	77	\subsection{Survey, Interview and Data Collection}
78		78
79	We divided the development team into two groups of participants according to	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	For each set of members, we designed an online questionnaire with topics	81	For each set of members, we designed an online questionnaire with topics
82	related to (1) project organization, (2) development process, (3) communication	82	related to (1) project organization, (2) development process, (3) communication
83	and relationship with members, (4) acquired knowledge and (5) experience	83	and relationship with members, (4) acquired knowledge and (5) experience
	@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ population-funded resources.		@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ population-funded resources.
19	\begin{tabular}{ \| m{4cm} m{10cm} m{10cm} \| }	19	\begin{tabular}{ \| m{4cm} m{10cm} m{10cm} \| }
20	\hline	20	\hline
21	\textbf{Decision} & \textbf{Practice Explanation} & \textbf{Benefits} \\ \hline	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	\begin{itemize}	23	\begin{itemize}
24	\item The features and tools of the platform under development supported the project management and communication activities.	24	\item The features and tools of the platform under development supported the project management and communication activities.
25	\end{itemize} &	25	\end{itemize} &
	@@ -27,13 +27,13 @@ population-funded resources.		@@ -27,13 +27,13 @@ population-funded resources.
27	\item Communicating with transparency and efficiency;	27	\item Communicating with transparency and efficiency;
28	\item Monitoring of activities;	28	\item Monitoring of activities;
29	\item More interactions between developers and public servants;	29	\item More interactions between developers and public servants;
30	-\item Confidence in the code;	30	+\item Trust the developed code;
31	\item Organic documentation;	31	\item Organic documentation;
32	\end{itemize} \\ \hline	32	\end{itemize} \\ \hline
33		33
34	\textbf{Bring together government staff and development team} &	34	\textbf{Bring together government staff and development team} &
35	\begin{itemize}	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	\item Conduct on the platform the technical discussions between government staff and the development team.	37	\item Conduct on the platform the technical discussions between government staff and the development team.
38	\item Involve government board directors only in strategic planning of the project.	38	\item Involve government board directors only in strategic planning of the project.
39	\item Build a continuous delivery pipeline with steps involving both sides.	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		@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ collaboration works. They took time to realize that the project was not a
106	client-executor relationship and that both organizations were at the same	106	client-executor relationship and that both organizations were at the same
107	hierarchical level in the work plan. Finally, they also felt the project needed	107	hierarchical level in the work plan. Finally, they also felt the project needed
108	a decision-maker role to resolve impasses between organizations, and the	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	The decisions, practices, and benefits presented in the Table	111	The decisions, practices, and benefits presented in the Table
112	\ref{practices-table} should be evaluated and used in contexts with more	112	\ref{practices-table} should be evaluated and used in contexts with more