Download as
Browse Code »

Commit d3d50a88580cb63d0082d613a39e07e3928dd7fb

Authored by Melissa Wen
1 parent 12218a55
Exists in master and in 2 other branches oss_2018, rework_case_study

[oss-2018] Results - second subsection

Showing 1 changed file with 77 additions and 73 deletions   Show diff stats
oss2018/content/04-results.tex
  Diff comments   View file @d3d50a8
... ... @@ -33,18 +33,18 @@ after the project beginning. Due to the platform features for software
33 33 development and social network, the UnB coordinators decided to use the system
34 34 under construction to develop the system itself. Gradually, in addition to
35 35 development activities, government and academia migrated the project management
36   -and communication between teams to the portal environment. In short, the wiki
  36 +and the communication between teams to the portal environment. In short, the wiki
37 37 feature was used for logging meetings, defining goals, planning sprints,
38 38 documenting deployment procedures and user guides. The issue tracker was used
39 39 for discussing requirements, monitoring features under development, requesting
40 40 and recording changes, and validating the delivered funcionalities. Finally, the
41   -mailing list was used by the entire team for collaboratively constructing
  41 +mailing list was used by the entire team for collaborative construction of
42 42 requirements, defining schedules, and scheduling meetings between institutions.
43 43  
44 44 Our surveys report Mailing list (100\%) and Issue Tracker (62.5\%) as the main
45 45 means of interaction between senior developers and interns. Developers
46 46 and MPOG staff also interacted mostly via Mailing List (87.5\%) and Issue
47   -tracker (50\%). According to answers, this movement made the
  47 +tracker (50\%). According to one of the interviewees, this movement made the
48 48 \textbf{communication more transparent and efficient}. An MPOG analyst said
49 49 that \textit{``Communicating well goes far beyond the speed. It means enabling
50 50 someone to tell everyone about everything that is happening in the project. We
... ... @@ -53,85 +53,89 @@ us a lot because everything was public and did not pollute our email box. So,
53 53 when you wanted to know something, you could access the SPB list to see
54 54 everything that was happening''}.
55 55  
56   -Migration to the SPB platform also \textbf{easied coordinator monitoring
  56 +Migrating to the SPB platform also \textbf{easied coordinator monitoring
57 57 activities and increased interactions between developers and public servants}.
58 58 The data collected from the repository evidence the frequent use of the platform
59 59 by the academic team and the government team. In the last 15 months of the
60   -project, the main project issues were opened by 59 different authors, 8 of them
  60 +project, the main repository issues were opened by 59 different authors, 8 of them
61 61 MPOG agents. These issues received comments from 64 distinct users, 9 of them
62 62 from MPOG. When we consider the issues with much interaction, those who had ten
63   -comments or more, we realized that the government team also felt more
64   -comfortable using the tool to interact directly with the development team. In a
  63 +comments or more, we notice that the government team also felt comfortable
  64 +with using the tool to interact directly with the development team. In a
65 65 set of 102 issues with much interaction, MPOG staff created 43 of them (this
66   -represents 42\% of the most active issues). An MPOG analyst highlighted that \textit{``there was
67   -a lot of evolution, a lot of communication via Gitlab''}. This interaction
68   -also led MPOG staff to \textbf{trust in developed code}: \textit{``Everything was
69   -validated, we tested the features and we developed the project inside the
70   -platform so that the feature was validated in the development of the software
71   -itself. From the moment we installed it and began to use it for development,
72   -this validation was constant. We felt confident in the features''}.
73   -
74   -%Morri aqui (Melissa)
75   -
76   -One of the main concerns of traditional approaches is meticulous documentation of
77   -the software designed and the development steps. With this aforementioned
78   -decision, we could meet this government demand without bureaucracies and
79   -changes in our development process, \textbf{producting organically
80   -documentation and records} in the platform itself, as one of the MPOG response
81   -evidenced: \textit{``For me, it was a lot of learning. There is a lot of things
82   -documented in the e-mails and also in the portal itself. At any moment we can
83   -go there and see how it worked, how someone did something. We can recover those
84   -good points''}.
  66 +represents 42\% of the most active issues). For the MPOG analysts, interaction
  67 +via repository improved communication. \textit{``There was a lot of evolution, a
  68 +lot of communication via Gitlab''}. Migrating to the platform also led MPOG
  69 +staff to \textbf{trust in developed code}: \textit{``Everything was validated.
  70 +We tested the functionalities and developed the project on the platform itself.
  71 +Consequently, all features were checked according to the use of the system.
  72 +From the moment we began to use it for development, this validation was constant.
  73 +We felt confident in the code developed.'}.
  74 +
  75 +The abovementioned decision also collaborated to meet the government's demand
  76 +for meticulous documentation of the software design and stages of development
  77 +without bureaucratizing or modifying the development process. The team starts to
  78 +\textbf{produce documentation and records organically} on the platform itself, as
  79 +mentioned at one of the MPOG response.: \textit{``For me, it was a great learning
  80 +experience. There are a lot of things documented in emails as well as in the
  81 +portal itself. When necessary, we can access the tools and find out how we
  82 +develop a solution. We can recover these positive points.''}.
  83 +
85 84  
86 85 \subsection{Bring together government staff and development team}
87 86  
88   -The MPOG analysts observed communication noise in the dialogue between them and
89   -their superiors and in dialogues with the development team,
90   -intermediated by the superiors. They said that direct dialogue with the
91   -development team and biweekly visits to the university's lab \textbf{reduce
92   -communication misunderstood}: \textit{``At this point, the communication
93   -started to change.. started to improve''}. According to another interviewee,
94   -this new dynamic unified the two sides: \textit{``I believe it was very
95   -positive, we also liked to go there, to interact with the team. I think it
96   -brought more unity, more integration into the project''}. The participation of
97   -the MPOG staff was also considered positive by {72.9\%} of the undergraduates
98   -and to {81.1\%} of them think the presence of MPOG staff in sprint ceremonies
99   -was important for the development. In addition, to \textbf{better meet
100   -expectations of both sides} regarding the requirements developed, {75.6\%} of
101   -students believe that writing the requirements together with the MPOG staff was
102   -very important. According to one of them \textit{``Joint planning and timely
103   -meetings were very important for understanding the needs of MPOG''}.
104   -
105   -An imported consequence of this direct government-academia interaction in the
106   -laboratory was empathy, as reported by one of the interviewees \textit{``You
107   -know people in person and it makes such a big difference because it causes
108   -empathy. You already know who that person is, it's not just a name''}. This
109   -subjectively helped to \textbf{align both activities execution pace},
110   -\textit{``When we went there, we knew the people and we realized that, on our
111   -side, we also felt more encouraged to validate faster and give faster feedback
112   -to the teams [..] We gave this feedback fast and they also gave quick feedback
113   -for any our questions''}. The teams' synchronization was reinforced with the
114   -implementation of a Continuous Delivery pipeline. The benefits of this approach
115   -were presented in our previous work \cite{siqueira2018cd} and corroborate these
116   -research results. To 81.1\% of students and 75\% of senior developers,
117   -deploying new versions of the SPB portal in production was a motivator during
118   -the project.
119   -
120   -One of the MPOG analyst interviewed also noted these releases also helped to
121   -\textbf{overcome the government bias regarding the low productivity of
122   -collaborative projects with academia}: \textit{``At first, the government staff
123   -had a bias that universities do not deliver. We overcame that bias in the
124   -course of the project. We deliver a lot and with quality. Today, I think if we
125   -had paid the same amount for a company, it would not have done what was
126   -delivered and with the quality that was delivered with the price that was
127   -paid''}. Additionally, the deployment in production of each new version also
128   -\textbf{improve the translation of the process from one side to the other}, as
129   -mentioned by MPOG analyst \textit{``We had an overview at the strategic level.
130   -When we went down to the technical level, plan the release every four months
131   -was difficult. But in the end, I think this has not been a problem. A project
132   -you are delivering, the results are going to production, the code is quality,
133   -the team is qualified/capable and the project is doing well, it does not impact
134   -as much in practice''}.
  87 +At the beginning of the project, the interviewed MPOG analysts did not
  88 +participate in any direct interaction with any UnB representative, even though
  89 +they were the ones in charge of the government in ensuring the collaboration
  90 +agreement and the delivery of the products. Because of this, they relied on
  91 +feedback from their superiors on inter-institutional meetings. They reported
  92 +that there was significant communication noise in the internal dialogues with
  93 +their superiors, as well as between their superiors and the development team.
  94 +
  95 +In the second phase of the project, these analysts came to represent the
  96 +government directly in the dialogues with the academia, and they started to
  97 +visit bi-weekly the university's laboratory. One of the analysts believes that
  98 +\textit{``at this point, the communication started to change.''} The new dynamic
  99 +reduced communication misunderstandings and unified the two sides, as reported
  100 +by another interviewee: \textit{``It was very positive. We liked to go there and
  101 +to interact with the team. I think it brought more unity, more integration into
  102 +the project''}. {73\%} of the interns consider positive the direct
  103 +participation of the MPOG staff, and {81\%} of them think the presence of
  104 +goverment staff in sprint ceremonies was relevant for the project development.
  105 +For 76\% of interns, writing the requirements together with the MPOG staff was
  106 +very important to \textbf{better meet expectations of both sides}. According to
  107 +one of them \textit{``Joint planning and timely meetings were very important for
  108 +understanding the needs of MPOG''}.
  109 +
  110 +The closest dialogue between government and academia generated empathy, as
  111 +reported by one of the interviewees: \textit{``Knowing people in person makes a
  112 +big difference in the relationship because it causes empathy. You know who is
  113 +that person, it's not simply a name.''}. This subjectively helped to
  114 +\textbf{synchronize the execution pace of activities}, \textit{``When we visited
  115 +the lab and met the team, we realized that this encouraged us to validate
  116 +resources faster and give faster feedback to the team. In return, they also
  117 +quickly answered us any question''}.
  118 +
  119 +The teams' synchronization was reinforced with the implementation of a
  120 +Continuous Delivery pipeline. The benefits of this approach were presented in
  121 +our previous work \cite{siqueira2018cd} and corroborate these research results.
  122 +For 81\% of interns and 75\% of senior developers, deploying new versions of the
  123 +SPB portal in production was a motivator during the project. On the government
  124 +side, this approach helped to \textbf{overcome the government bias regarding the
  125 +low productivity of collaborative projects with academia}, as mentioned by
  126 +themselves \textit{``Government staff has a bias that universities do not
  127 +deliver products. However, in this project, we made many deliveries with high
  128 +quality. Nowadays I think if we had paid the same amount for a company, it would
  129 +not have done what we did with the quality we delivered.''}. Additionally, the
  130 +deployment in production of each new version also \textbf{improve the
  131 +translation of the process from one side to the other}, as mentioned by MPOG
  132 +analyst \textit{``We had a strategic level view. When we went to the technical
  133 +level, we had difficulty to plan each four-month release. However, in the final
  134 +stages of the project I realized that this was not a problem because the
  135 +deliveries were made and the results were available in production. The team was
  136 +qualified, the code had quality and the project was well executed. So in
  137 +practice, our difficulty interpreting the technical details did not impact the
  138 +releases planning.''}.
135 139  
136 140 \subsection{Split development team into priority work fronts with IT professionals}
137 141  
... ...