[oss-2018] Review Benefits table

Melissa Wen
1 parent ceaeb23e
Showing 1 changed file with 107 additions and 103 deletions Show diff stats
icse2018/content/06-results.tex
@@ -28,15 +28,29 @@ and Mailman \end{itemize} &amp; \begin{itemize} \item Confidence in developed code;
 \item Transparency and efficiency in communication; \item Easier monitoring and 
 increase interactions between development team and public servants; \item 
 Organically documentation and records generation; \end{itemize} \\ \hline
-\textbf{Continuous Delivery} & \begin{itemize} \item Creation of DevOps Team to 
-build Continuous Delivery pipeline which involves both side participation. 
-\item At each release, DevOps members would go to the ministry to assist its 
-infrastructure team in deploying. \end{itemize} & \begin{itemize} \item 
+\textbf{Bring together government staff and development team} & \begin{itemize} 
+\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} & \begin{itemize} 
+\item Reducing communication misunderstood; \item Empathy between members on 
+both sides; Meeting expectations of both sides on developing requirements; 
+\item Improving the understanding of collaborative development by the 
+government; \item Aligning both side pace to execute project-related 
+activities; \item 
 Increasing government confidence for collaborative projects with the 
-university; \item Motivating teams; \item Transfering of knowledge about DevOps 
-and Continuous Deliveries from academia to gov infrastructure team; \item 
+university; \item Motivating teams; \item 
 Aligning both side pace to execute project-related activities; \item Improving 
-translation from one development process to the other; \end{itemize}\\ \hline
+translation from one development process to the other; \end{itemize} \\ \hline
+%\textbf{Continuous Delivery} & 
+%\item At each release, DevOps members would go to the ministry to assist its 
+%infrastructure team in deploying. \end{itemize} & \begin{itemize} \item 
+%Increasing government confidence for collaborative projects with the 
+%university; \item Motivating teams; \item Transfering of knowledge about DevOps 
+%and Continuous Deliveries from academia to gov infrastructure team; \item 
+%Aligning both side pace to execute project-related activities; \item Improving 
+%translation from one development process to the other; \end{itemize}\\ \hline
 \textbf{Divide development team in "component" fronts} & \begin{itemize} \item 
 The development was divided into four fronts with a certain self-organization 
 of tasks. \item IT market professionals with recognized experience on each 
@@ -47,23 +61,13 @@ was also defined to coordinate tasks between teams. \end{itemize} &amp;
 decision-making; \item Creating support-points for students, senior developers, 
 and gov staff; \item Transfering of knowledge from industry and FLOSS community 
 to both academia and government; \end{itemize}\\ \hline
-\textbf{Bring together government staff and development team} & \begin{itemize} 
-\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. \end{itemize} & \begin{itemize} 
-\item Reducing communication misunderstood; \item Empathy between members on 
-both sides; Meeting expectations of both sides on developing requirements; 
-\item Improving the understanding of collaborative development by the 
-government; \item Aligning both side pace to execute project-related 
-activities; \end{itemize} \\ \hline
 \end{tabular}%
 }
 \caption{Empirical SPB management method and its benefits}
 \label{practices-table}
 \end{table}
  
-\subsubsection{Project management and communication on the developing platform
+\subsection{Project management and communication on the developing platform
 itself}
 \hfill
  
@@ -114,6 +118,91 @@ 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}
+
 %\subsubsection{Continuos Delivery}
 %
 %\begin{itemize}
@@ -272,88 +361,3 @@ to salvage those good points.&quot;
 %difícil com a coordenação e não com a equipe, porque a equipe ela sabia o 
 %limite dela e a partir dali ela não agia mais, ela já convocava a 
 %coordenação para lidar (a gerência)."
-%
-%\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}
...	...	@@ -28,15 +28,29 @@ and Mailman \end{itemize} & \begin{itemize} \item Confidence in developed code;
28	28	\item Transparency and efficiency in communication; \item Easier monitoring and
29	29	increase interactions between development team and public servants; \item
30	30	Organically documentation and records generation; \end{itemize} \\ \hline
31		-\textbf{Continuous Delivery} & \begin{itemize} \item Creation of DevOps Team to
32		-build Continuous Delivery pipeline which involves both side participation.
33		-\item At each release, DevOps members would go to the ministry to assist its
34		-infrastructure team in deploying. \end{itemize} & \begin{itemize} \item
	31	+\textbf{Bring together government staff and development team} & \begin{itemize}
	32	+\item Biweekly gov staff, senior developers and coaches met to planning and
	33	+review sprint at the UnB headquarters. \item Most of features under development
	34	+were discussed on Gitlab Issue Tracker. \item Only strategic decisions or
	35	+bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \item Deploying SPB intermediated
	36	+versions in production \end{itemize} & \begin{itemize}
	37	+\item Reducing communication misunderstood; \item Empathy between members on
	38	+both sides; Meeting expectations of both sides on developing requirements;
	39	+\item Improving the understanding of collaborative development by the
	40	+government; \item Aligning both side pace to execute project-related
	41	+activities; \item
35	42	Increasing government confidence for collaborative projects with the
36		-university; \item Motivating teams; \item Transfering of knowledge about DevOps
37		-and Continuous Deliveries from academia to gov infrastructure team; \item
	43	+university; \item Motivating teams; \item
38	44	Aligning both side pace to execute project-related activities; \item Improving
39		-translation from one development process to the other; \end{itemize}\\ \hline
	45	+translation from one development process to the other; \end{itemize} \\ \hline
	46	+%\textbf{Continuous Delivery} &
	47	+%\item At each release, DevOps members would go to the ministry to assist its
	48	+%infrastructure team in deploying. \end{itemize} & \begin{itemize} \item
	49	+%Increasing government confidence for collaborative projects with the
	50	+%university; \item Motivating teams; \item Transfering of knowledge about DevOps
	51	+%and Continuous Deliveries from academia to gov infrastructure team; \item
	52	+%Aligning both side pace to execute project-related activities; \item Improving
	53	+%translation from one development process to the other; \end{itemize}\\ \hline
40	54	\textbf{Divide development team in "component" fronts} & \begin{itemize} \item
41	55	The development was divided into four fronts with a certain self-organization
42	56	of tasks. \item IT market professionals with recognized experience on each
...	...	@@ -47,23 +61,13 @@ was also defined to coordinate tasks between teams. \end{itemize} &
47	61	decision-making; \item Creating support-points for students, senior developers,
48	62	and gov staff; \item Transfering of knowledge from industry and FLOSS community
49	63	to both academia and government; \end{itemize}\\ \hline
50		-\textbf{Bring together government staff and development team} & \begin{itemize}
51		-\item Biweekly gov staff, senior developers and coaches met to planning and
52		-review sprint at the UnB headquarters. \item Most of features under development
53		-were discussed on Gitlab Issue Tracker. \item Only strategic decisions or
54		-bureaucratic issues involve board directors. \end{itemize} & \begin{itemize}
55		-\item Reducing communication misunderstood; \item Empathy between members on
56		-both sides; Meeting expectations of both sides on developing requirements;
57		-\item Improving the understanding of collaborative development by the
58		-government; \item Aligning both side pace to execute project-related
59		-activities; \end{itemize} \\ \hline
60	64	\end{tabular}%
61	65	}
62	66	\caption{Empirical SPB management method and its benefits}
63	67	\label{practices-table}
64	68	\end{table}
65	69
66		-\subsubsection{Project management and communication on the developing platform
	70	+\subsection{Project management and communication on the developing platform
67	71	itself}
68	72	\hfill
69	73
...	...	@@ -114,6 +118,91 @@ and also there in the portal itself of what happened in the project. At any
114	118	moment we can go there and see how it worked, how the person did, and manages
115	119	to salvage those good points."
116	120
	121	+%\subsubsection{Bringing the government staff directly responsible for the
	122	+%project together with development team}
	123	+%\begin{itemize}
	124	+%\item \textit{Biweekly meetings (planning and sprint review) in the
	125	+%development lab with the presence of government staff, team coaches and senior
	126	+%developers}
	127	+%\item \textit{Discuss features under development directly on Gitlab Issue
	128	+%Tracker}
	129	+%\item \textit{Only strategic decisions or bureaucratic issues involve the
	130	+%directors/secretaries}
	131	+%\end{itemize}
	132	+%
	133	+%\paragraph{Benefits}
	134	+%
	135	+%\begin{itemize}
	136	+% \setlength\itemsep{1em}
	137	+% \item \textit{Reduce communication misunderstood}
	138	+% \subitem MPOG: "That's when the project started, people [MPOG staff] did
	139	+%not participate in anything. The communication process was horrible."; "The
	140	+%[MPOG] coordinator did not help, he would say something and UnB would talk to
	141	+%another at the meeting and it was the biggest mess." About the direct dialogue
	142	+%between the academic team and MPOG staff (without the involvement of
	143	+%coordinators and / or directors) , she said "That's where things really started
	144	+%to move, that the communication of the project began to improve."
	145	+%%
	146	+% \item \textit{Empathy between members on both sides}
	147	+% \subitem {72.9\%} of students believe that interacting with MPOG staff was
	148	+%important during the project
	149	+% \subitem Only 27\% of the students interviewed said they did not feel like
	150	+%attending meetings with MPOG employees
	151	+% \subitem MPOG: "You know people in person and it makes such a big
	152	+%difference because it causes empathy. You know what the person is going through
	153	+%on their side and she knows what we're going through on our side. So the next
	154	+%time you have a non-personal interaction (by mail, by list ...) I think it even
	155	+%facilitates, improves communication. You already know who that person is, it's
	156	+%not just a name. "
	157	+%%
	158	+% \item \textit{Develop requirements closer to the expectations of both sides}
	159	+% \subitem {81.1 \%} of students believe that the participation of MPOG
	160	+%staff in planning and closing sprints was important for the development of the
	161	+%project
	162	+% \subitem {75.6 \%} of students believe that writing the requirements
	163	+%together with the MPOG staff was very important
	164	+% \subitem Undergrad student: "Joint planning and timely meetings were very
	165	+%important for understanding the needs of MPOG, and the interaction via SPB
	166	+%tools helped validate the tool as a development platform"
	167	+% \subitem Undergrad student: "Often they did not know what they really
	168	+%wanted, and they caused some delays in the development of sprints"
	169	+% \subitem Undergrad student: "A relationship of constant attempt to balance
	170	+%and negotiate. The client does not always know the impacts of their requests"
	171	+% \subitem MPOG: "I believe it was very positive, we also liked to go there,
	172	+%to interact with the team. I think it brought more unity, more integration into
	173	+%the project, because we went there, where people were working and they show
	174	+%what was done. I think they also liked to receive our feedback about what had
	175	+%been done by them.This interaction did not just made with the coordinator. I
	176	+%found it very important and very positive it. "
	177	+%%
	178	+% \item \textit{Improve understanding of collaborative development by MPOG
	179	+%staff}
	180	+% \subitem Undergrad student: "In the beginning the demands of MPOG were
	181	+%very 'orders from above', but according to the progress of the project, they
	182	+%understood better our work philosophy and became more open"
	183	+% \subitem MPOG: "During development we realized that the team that was
	184	+%developing also felt like the owner of the project felt involved not only a
	185	+%mere executor of an order. It was not a client relationship, it was a
	186	+%partnership relationship, so there was a lot of team suggestions to be put into
	187	+%the project. Sometimes these were put in for us to decide and sometimes not."
	188	+% \subitem MPOG: "I think it was easy, I think the team was aligned. In
	189	+%addition to being aligned, these items that, for example, were not priorities
	190	+%and became priorities, were, in a sense, brought with some arguments from the
	191	+%team. So the team was able to argue and succeed in showing that it was
	192	+%important, that it needed to be prioritized, and I think the team was able to
	193	+%present the arguments well for some of the priorities that happened during the
	194	+%process."
	195	+%%
	196	+% \item \textit{Align the pace of both sides to execute activities}
	197	+% \subitem MPOG: "When we went there, I knew people and made that
	198	+%interaction more frequent, we also felt encouraged to validate faster and give
	199	+%faster feedback to the teams so they would not wait there. I knew they were
	200	+%waiting for our feedback and we were struggling to do it fast, because we ended
	201	+%a sprint and start another and not stop. We gave that feedback fast and they
	202	+%also gave quick feedback for any questions when they encountered a problem.
	203	+%That gave the project agility, things flowed faster and better. "
	204	+%\end{itemize}
	205	+
117	206	%\subsubsection{Continuos Delivery}
118	207	%
119	208	%\begin{itemize}
...	...	@@ -272,88 +361,3 @@ to salvage those good points."
272	361	%difícil com a coordenação e não com a equipe, porque a equipe ela sabia o
273	362	%limite dela e a partir dali ela não agia mais, ela já convocava a
274	363	%coordenação para lidar (a gerência)."
275		-%
276		-%\subsubsection{Bringing the government staff directly responsible for the
277		-%project together with development team}
278		-%\begin{itemize}
279		-%\item \textit{Biweekly meetings (planning and sprint review) in the
280		-%development lab with the presence of government staff, team coaches and senior
281		-%developers}
282		-%\item \textit{Discuss features under development directly on Gitlab Issue
283		-%Tracker}
284		-%\item \textit{Only strategic decisions or bureaucratic issues involve the
285		-%directors/secretaries}
286		-%\end{itemize}
287		-%
288		-%\paragraph{Benefits}
289		-%
290		-%\begin{itemize}
291		-% \setlength\itemsep{1em}
292		-% \item \textit{Reduce communication misunderstood}
293		-% \subitem MPOG: "That's when the project started, people [MPOG staff] did
294		-%not participate in anything. The communication process was horrible."; "The
295		-%[MPOG] coordinator did not help, he would say something and UnB would talk to
296		-%another at the meeting and it was the biggest mess." About the direct dialogue
297		-%between the academic team and MPOG staff (without the involvement of
298		-%coordinators and / or directors) , she said "That's where things really started
299		-%to move, that the communication of the project began to improve."
300		-%%
301		-% \item \textit{Empathy between members on both sides}
302		-% \subitem {72.9\%} of students believe that interacting with MPOG staff was
303		-%important during the project
304		-% \subitem Only 27\% of the students interviewed said they did not feel like
305		-%attending meetings with MPOG employees
306		-% \subitem MPOG: "You know people in person and it makes such a big
307		-%difference because it causes empathy. You know what the person is going through
308		-%on their side and she knows what we're going through on our side. So the next
309		-%time you have a non-personal interaction (by mail, by list ...) I think it even
310		-%facilitates, improves communication. You already know who that person is, it's
311		-%not just a name. "
312		-%%
313		-% \item \textit{Develop requirements closer to the expectations of both sides}
314		-% \subitem {81.1 \%} of students believe that the participation of MPOG
315		-%staff in planning and closing sprints was important for the development of the
316		-%project
317		-% \subitem {75.6 \%} of students believe that writing the requirements
318		-%together with the MPOG staff was very important
319		-% \subitem Undergrad student: "Joint planning and timely meetings were very
320		-%important for understanding the needs of MPOG, and the interaction via SPB
321		-%tools helped validate the tool as a development platform"
322		-% \subitem Undergrad student: "Often they did not know what they really
323		-%wanted, and they caused some delays in the development of sprints"
324		-% \subitem Undergrad student: "A relationship of constant attempt to balance
325		-%and negotiate. The client does not always know the impacts of their requests"
326		-% \subitem MPOG: "I believe it was very positive, we also liked to go there,
327		-%to interact with the team. I think it brought more unity, more integration into
328		-%the project, because we went there, where people were working and they show
329		-%what was done. I think they also liked to receive our feedback about what had
330		-%been done by them.This interaction did not just made with the coordinator. I
331		-%found it very important and very positive it. "
332		-%%
333		-% \item \textit{Improve understanding of collaborative development by MPOG
334		-%staff}
335		-% \subitem Undergrad student: "In the beginning the demands of MPOG were
336		-%very 'orders from above', but according to the progress of the project, they
337		-%understood better our work philosophy and became more open"
338		-% \subitem MPOG: "During development we realized that the team that was
339		-%developing also felt like the owner of the project felt involved not only a
340		-%mere executor of an order. It was not a client relationship, it was a
341		-%partnership relationship, so there was a lot of team suggestions to be put into
342		-%the project. Sometimes these were put in for us to decide and sometimes not."
343		-% \subitem MPOG: "I think it was easy, I think the team was aligned. In
344		-%addition to being aligned, these items that, for example, were not priorities
345		-%and became priorities, were, in a sense, brought with some arguments from the
346		-%team. So the team was able to argue and succeed in showing that it was
347		-%important, that it needed to be prioritized, and I think the team was able to
348		-%present the arguments well for some of the priorities that happened during the
349		-%process."
350		-%%
351		-% \item \textit{Align the pace of both sides to execute activities}
352		-% \subitem MPOG: "When we went there, I knew people and made that
353		-%interaction more frequent, we also felt encouraged to validate faster and give
354		-%faster feedback to the teams so they would not wait there. I knew they were
355		-%waiting for our feedback and we were struggling to do it fast, because we ended
356		-%a sprint and start another and not stop. We gave that feedback fast and they
357		-%also gave quick feedback for any questions when they encountered a problem.
358		-%That gave the project agility, things flowed faster and better. "
359		-%\end{itemize}
...	...