[oss-2018] General review - part 2

Paulo Meireles
1 parent e59065aa
Showing 2 changed files with 151 additions and 144 deletions Show diff stats
oss2018/content/03-methods.tex
oss2018/content/04-results.tex
 \section{Research Design}
 \label{sec:researchdesign}
-We studied practical alternatives to harmonize the software
-project lifecycle when confronting different development processes from crucial
-stakeholders. We are interested in the relationship between government and
-academia from the project management perspective, without the enforcement of
-changing their internal processes. We present two research questions that guided
-this work:
+We studied practical alternatives to harmonize the software project lifecycle
+when confronting different development processes from crucial stakeholders. We
+are interested in the relationship between government and academia from the
+project management perspective, without the enforcement of changing their
+internal processes. We present two research questions that guided this work:
 \textbf{RQ1. }\textit{How to introduce FLOSS and agile best practices into
 government-academia collaboration projects?}
@@ -14,8 +13,8 @@ government-academia collaboration projects?}
 \textbf{RQ2. }\textit{What practices favor effective team management in
 government-academia collaborative projects?}
-To answer these questions, we used the case study as research method. We selected
-as a case the evolution of the Brazilian Public Software (SPB) portal
+To answer these questions, we used the case study as research method. We
+selected as a case the evolution of the Brazilian Public Software (SPB) portal
 \cite{meirelles2017spb}, a government-academia collaborative project based on
 FLOSS systems. To validate our answers, we covered three different points of
 view: developers, government agent, and data collected from the project
@@ -26,10 +25,11 @@ repository.
 The project to evolve the SPB portal was a partnership between government and
 academia held between 2014 and 2016 \cite{meirelles2017spb}. The old version of
 SPB suffered from maintenance problems and design-reality gaps. In this sense,
-The Ministry of Planning (MPOG) decided to join the University of Brasília (UnB) and
-the University of São Paulo (USP) to develop a new platform. This platform had
-as its primary requirement to be based on existing FLOSS projects and integrate
-multiple systems into one, providing the end user with a unified experience.
+The Ministry of Planning (MPOG) decided to join the University of Brasília
+(UnB) and the University of São Paulo (USP) to develop a new platform. This
+platform had as its primary requirement to be based on existing FLOSS projects
+and integrate multiple systems into one, providing the end user with a unified
+experience.
 In short, the SPB portal evolved into a Collaborative Development Environment
 (CDE) \cite{booch2003}. It was a novelty in the context of the Brazilian
@@ -40,13 +40,12 @@ system-of-systems framework \cite{meirelles2017spb}.
 The development of the platform took place at the Advanced Laboratory of
 Production, Research, and Innovation in Software Engineering (LAPPIS/UnB) and
-the FLOSS Competence Center at USP (CCSL/USP),
-following the workflow of biweekly sprints and 4-month releases. On the
-managerial aspect, at the project beginning, the collaboration management and
-strategic discussions happened only once a month, when project leaders and MPOG
-directors met in person at the ministry's headquarters.
-Table~\ref{tab:gov-academia-diff} summarizes the organizational differences
-in both involved sides.
+the FLOSS Competence Center at USP (CCSL/USP), following the workflow of
+biweekly sprints and 4-month releases. On the managerial aspect, at the project
+beginning, the collaboration management and strategic discussions happened only
+once a month, when project leaders and MPOG directors met in person at the
+ministry's headquarters.  Table~\ref{tab:gov-academia-diff} summarizes the
+organizational differences in both involved sides.
 \vspace*{-.5cm}
@@ -54,7 +53,7 @@ in both involved sides.
 \centering
 \def\arraystretch{1.2}
 \setlength\tabcolsep{0.2cm}
-\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{
+\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
 \begin{tabular}{m{4.3cm}!{\color{white}\vrule}m{7cm}!{\color{white}\vrule}m{8cm}}
 \rowcolor[HTML]{c0d6e4} 
 \textbf{Collaboration peaces} & \textbf{Academia} & \textbf{Goverment} \\
@@ -68,7 +67,7 @@ in both involved sides.
 \textbf{Workplace} & LAPPIS at UnB and CCSL at USP & MPOG headquarters \\
 \rowcolor[HTML]{fafafa}
 \begin{tabular}[c]{@{}l@{}}\textbf{Management} \textbf{approaches}\end{tabular} & FLOSS practices and Agile values & Traditional approach from RUP, CMMI, and PMBOK \\
-\end{tabular}
+\end{tabular}%
 }
 \caption{Differences between academia and government sides.}
 \label{tab:gov-academia-diff}
@@ -88,10 +87,11 @@ these decisions and how they favored the collaboration progress.
 \subsection{Survey, Interview and Data Collection}
-We separated the project team into three groups: undergraduate interns, IT professionals (senior
-developers and designers), and MPOG analysts. For the first two we sent online questionnaires,
-and for the last one, we conducted 2-hour interviews. Table \ref{survey-table}
-presents the details of these processes.
+We separated the project team into three groups: undergraduate interns, IT
+professionals (senior developers and designers), and MPOG analysts. For the
+first two we sent online questionnaires, and for the last one, we conducted
+2-hour interviews. Table \ref{survey-table} presents the details of these
+processes.
 \vspace*{-.5cm}
 \section{Results}
 \label{sec:results}
-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 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.
+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 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.
 The second phase, from April 2015 to the end of the project (June 2016), has
 meaningful data. Much of the management and communication activities were
 recorded and published on online channels and tools. During this period, the
-development leaders' employed several FLOSS practices and agile values in the
-development process. At the end of the project, the academic team had an
-empirical management approach for meeting the government bureaucracies.
+development leaders consolidated several FLOSS practices and agile values
+employed in the development process. At the end of the project, the academic
+team had an empirical management approach for meeting the government
+bureaucracies.
 \subsection{Use of the system under development to develop the system itself}
-Due to the platform features 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 environment. 
+Due to the platform features 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 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
+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
-functionalities. Finally, the mailing list was used for collaborative construction
-of requirements, defining schedules, and scheduling meetings between institutions.
+functionalities. Finally, the mailing list was used 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 one of the interviewees, this movement made the
+means of interaction between senior developers and interns. The development
+team and MPOG staff also interacted mostly via Mailing List (87.5\%) and Issue
+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
@@ -45,85 +47,88 @@ see everything&#39;&#39;}.
 Migrating to the SPB platform also \textbf{easied monitoring of activities and
 increased interactions between developers and public servants}. The data
-collected from the repository highlight the frequent use of the platform by both
-sides teams. In the last 15 months of the project, 59 different authors opened the
-central repository issues, 8 of them were MPOG agents. These issues received comments
-from 64 distinct users, 9 of them from MPOG. When we consider the issues with more interactions, those which had ten
-comments or more, we notice that the government team also felt comfortable in
-using the tool to interact directly with the development team. In a set of 102
-active issues, 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 big evolution, we
-increased our communication via Gitlab''}.  Migrating to the platform also led MPOG
-staff to \textbf{trust the developed code}: \textit{``Everything was validated.
-We tested the functionalities and developed the project on the SPB platform
-itself. Hence, the use of the system homologated most of its features. From the
-moment we began to use it for developing, this validation was constant. We felt
-confident in the code produced''}.
+collected from the repository highlight the frequent use of the platform by
+both sides teams. In the last 15 months of the project, 59 different authors
+opened the central repository issues, 8 of them were MPOG agents. These issues
+received comments from 64 distinct users, 9 of them from MPOG. When we consider
+the issues with more interactions, those which had ten comments or more, we
+notice that the government team also felt comfortable in using the tool to
+interact directly with the development team. In a set of 102 active issues,
+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 big evolution, we increased our communication via
+Gitlab''}.  Migrating to the platform also led MPOG staff to \textbf{trust the
+developed code}: \textit{``Everything was validated.  We tested the
+functionalities and developed the project on the SPB platform itself. Hence,
+the use of the system homologated most of its features. From the moment we
+began to use it for developing, this validation was constant. We felt confident
+in the code produced''}.
 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 usage of the
 platform for project team management conducted \textbf{the organic production
-of documentation and records}, as mentioned in one of the MPOG responses: \textit{``It was a great
-learning experience. There are many things documented in emails as well as
-in the portal itself. We can access the tools at any time and find out how we
-develop a solution. We can remember the positive project points''}.
+of documentation and records}, as mentioned in one of the MPOG responses:
+\textit{``It was a great learning experience. There are many things documented
+in emails as well as in the portal itself. We can access the tools at any time
+and find out how we develop a solution. We can remember the positive project
+points''}.
 \subsection{Brings together government staff and development team}
-In the first phase of the project, the interviewed MPOG
-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
-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 became direct representatives
-of the government and started to visit the university's laboratory bi-weekly.
-One of the analysts believed that
-\textit{``at this point, the communication started to change''}. The new
-dynamics \textit{reduced communication misunderstandings and unified both
-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 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
-were very important for understanding the needs of MPOG''}.
+In the first phase of the project, the interviewed MPOG 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 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 became direct
+representatives of the government and started to visit the university's
+laboratory bi-weekly.  One of the analysts believed that \textit{``at this
+point, the communication started to change''}. The new dynamics \textbf{reduced
+communication misunderstandings and unified both 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 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 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 that
-person is. He's not merly a name''}. Consequently, this empathy helped to \textbf{synchronize
-the execution pace of activities}: \textit{``Visiting the lab and meeting
-the developers encouraged us to validate resources faster and give faster feedback to
-the team. In return, they also quickly answered us any question''}.
+person is. He's not merly a name''}. Consequently, this empathy helped to
+\textbf{synchronize the execution pace of activities}: \textit{``Visiting the
+lab and meeting the developers encouraged us to validate resources faster and
+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 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 toward low productivity of
+synchronization \cite{siqueira2018cd} .  For 81\% of the interns and 75\% of
+the IT professionals, 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 toward 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 the amount of features we did with the technical quality we have''}. Additionally, the
-deployment of each new version also \textbf{share a common understanding of the
-process from one side to the other}, as mentioned by a MPOG analyst: \textit{``We
-had only the strategic vision of the project. When we needed to deal with
-technical issues, we had some difficulty planning the four-month releases.
-However, in the last stages of the project I realized that this was not a
-problem. The team was delivering 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 in interpreting the technical details did not
-impact the release planning''}.
+have done the amount of features we did with the technical quality we have''}.
+Additionally, the deployment of each new version also \textbf{share a common
+understanding of the process from one side to the other}, as mentioned by a
+MPOG analyst: \textit{``We had only the strategic vision of the project. When
+we needed to deal with technical issues, we had some difficulty planning the
+four-month releases.  However, in the last stages of the project I realized
+that this was not a problem. The team was delivering 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 in interpreting the
+technical details did not impact the release planning''}.
 \subsection{Organized development team into priority fronts, and for each one, hire at least one specialist from the IT market}
@@ -138,44 +143,46 @@ The presence of senior developers in the project contributed to
 \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 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 
-helped MPOG staff express their requests more clearly. Government
+balance the relations between the MPOG staff and the university team''}. {63\%}
+of the IT professionals believed they have collaborated to conciliate the
+management and development process between the two institutions and also {63\%}
+of them helped MPOG staff express their requests more clearly. Government
 analysts were also more open to suggestions from these developers:
-\textit{``They are upstream developers of the systems that
-integrate the platform. They conveyed trust, and then we trust in the developed
-code''}. According to questionnaire responses, senior developers largely agreed with the
+\textit{``They are upstream developers of the systems that integrate the
+platform. They conveyed trust, and then we trust in the developed code''}.
+According to questionnaire responses, IT professionals 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\%} believed this process could
 affect their project productivity.
-The 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 believed that working with professionals
-was essential for learning, and, for all of them, working with senior developers
-was important during the project. {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 university interns in the project. {75\%} believed that the knowledge
-shared by them to one intern was widespread among the others in the team.
-Government analysts also pointed this knowledge sharing: \textit{``On
-the university side, we noticed a significant improvement in the platform
-with the hiring of the systems original developers. They had a guide on
-how to best develop each feature and were able to solve non-trivial problems
-quickly''}.
-
-Organizing 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
-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 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''},
-\textit{``Usually, we contact a coach to clarify some requirements or to
-understand some feature. The coaches were more available than senior
-developers and, sometimes, they would take our question to a senior developer''}.
+The 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 believed that working
+with professionals was essential for learning, and, for all of them, working
+with IT professionals was important during the project. {75\%} of the IT
+professionals 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 the interns in the project.
+{75\%} believed that the knowledge shared by them to one intern was widespread
+among the others in the team.  Government analysts also pointed this knowledge
+sharing: \textit{``On the university side, we noticed a significant improvement
+in the platform with the hiring of the systems original developers. They had a
+guide on how to best develop each feature and were able to solve non-trivial
+problems quickly''}.
+
+Organizing the development team and hiring of the IT professionals 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 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 the of the IT professionals the coaches was
+essential for their interaction with the development team. MPOG analysts saw
+the 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 (interns)''}, \textit{``Usually, we
+contact a coach to clarify some requirements or to understand some feature. The
+coaches were more available than senior developers and, sometimes, they would
+take our question to a senior developer''}.
+