[oss-2018] Results - second subsection

Melissa Wen
1 parent 12218a55
Showing 1 changed file with 77 additions and 73 deletions Show diff stats
oss2018/content/04-results.tex
@@ -33,18 +33,18 @@ after the project beginning. Due to the platform features for software
 development and social network, the UnB coordinators decided to use the system
 under construction to develop the system itself. Gradually, in addition to
 development activities, government and academia migrated the project management
-and communication between teams to the portal environment. In short, the wiki
+and the communication between teams to the portal environment. In short, the wiki
 feature was used for logging meetings, defining goals, planning sprints,
 documenting deployment procedures and user guides. The issue tracker was used
 for discussing requirements, monitoring features under development, requesting
 and recording changes, and validating the delivered funcionalities. Finally, the
-mailing list was used by the entire team for collaboratively constructing
+mailing list was used by the entire team for collaborative construction of
 requirements, defining schedules, and scheduling meetings between institutions.
 Our surveys report Mailing list (100\%) and Issue Tracker (62.5\%) as the main
 means of interaction between senior developers and interns. Developers
 and MPOG staff also interacted mostly via Mailing List (87.5\%) and Issue
-tracker (50\%).  According to answers, this movement made the
+tracker (50\%).  According to one of the interviewees, this movement made the
 \textbf{communication more transparent and efficient}. An MPOG analyst said
 that \textit{``Communicating well goes far beyond the speed. It means enabling
 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,
 when you wanted to know something, you could access the SPB list to see
 everything that was happening''}.
-Migration to the SPB platform also \textbf{easied coordinator monitoring
+Migrating to the SPB platform also \textbf{easied coordinator monitoring
 activities and increased interactions between developers and public servants}.
 The data collected from the repository evidence the frequent use of the platform
 by the academic team and the government team. In the last 15 months of the
-project, the main project issues were opened by 59 different authors, 8 of them
+project, the main repository issues were opened by 59 different authors, 8 of them
 MPOG agents. These issues received comments from 64 distinct users, 9 of them
 from MPOG. When we consider the issues with much interaction, those who had ten
-comments or more, we realized that the government team also felt more
-comfortable using the tool to interact directly with the development team. In a
+comments or more, we notice that the government team also felt comfortable
+with using the tool to interact directly with the development team. In a
 set of 102 issues with much interaction, MPOG staff created 43 of them (this
-represents 42\% of the most active issues). An MPOG analyst highlighted that \textit{``there was
-a lot of evolution, a lot of communication via Gitlab''}.  This interaction
-also led MPOG staff to \textbf{trust in developed code}: \textit{``Everything was
-validated, we tested the features and we developed the project inside the
-platform so that the feature was validated in the development of the software
-itself. From the moment we installed it and began to use it for development,
-this validation was constant. We felt confident in the features''}.
-
-%Morri aqui (Melissa)
-
-One of the main concerns of traditional approaches is meticulous documentation of
-the software designed and the development steps. With this aforementioned
-decision, we could meet this government demand without bureaucracies and
-changes in our development process, \textbf{producting organically
-documentation and records} in the platform itself, as one of the MPOG response
-evidenced: \textit{``For me, it was a lot of learning. There is a lot of things
-documented in the e-mails and also in the portal itself. At any moment we can
-go there and see how it worked, how someone did something. We can recover those
-good points''}.
+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.
+We tested the functionalities and developed the project on the platform itself.
+Consequently, all features were checked according to the use of the system.
+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 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 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.''}.
+
 \subsection{Bring together government staff and development team}
-The MPOG analysts observed communication noise in the dialogue between them and
-their superiors and in dialogues with the development team,
-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}: \textit{``At this point, the communication
-started to change.. started to improve''}. According to another interviewee,
-this new dynamic unified the two sides: \textit{``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 undergraduates
-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 \textit{``Joint planning and timely
-meetings were very important for understanding the needs of MPOG''}.
-
-An imported consequence of this direct government-academia interaction in the
-laboratory was empathy, as reported by one of the interviewees \textit{``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},
-\textit{``When we went there, we knew the people and we realized that, on our
-side, we also felt more encouraged to validate faster and give faster feedback
-to the teams [..] We gave this feedback fast and they also gave quick feedback
-for any our questions''}. 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{siqueira2018cd} 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 the low productivity of
-collaborative projects with academia}: \textit{``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 \textit{``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''}.
+At the beginning of the project, the interviewed MPOG analysts did not
+participate in any direct interaction with any UnB 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 meetings. They reported
+that there was significant communication noise in the internal dialogues with
+their superiors, as well as between their superiors and 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
+\textit{``at this point, the communication started to change.''} The new dynamic
+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 MPOG staff was
+very important to \textbf{better meet expectations of both 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
+reported by one of the interviewees: \textit{``Knowing people in person makes a
+big difference in the relationship because it causes empathy. You know who is
+that person, it's not simply a name.''}. This subjectively helped to
+\textbf{synchronize the execution pace of activities}, \textit{``When we visited
+the lab and met the team, we realized that this encouraged us to validate
+resources faster and give faster feedback to the team. In return, they also
+quickly answered us any question''}.
+
+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{siqueira2018cd} and corroborate these research results.
+For 81\% of interns and 75\% of 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 \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 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 \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
+deliveries were made 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.''}.
 \subsection{Split development team into priority work fronts with IT professionals}