universidade fumec quality assessment of awareness support tools

Transcription

1
UNIVERSIDADE FUMEC
FACULDADE DE CIÊNCIAS EMPRESARIAIS
CURSO DE SISTEMAS DE INFORMAÇÃO E GESTÃO DO
CONHECIMENTO
QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF AWARENESS SUPPORT TOOLS IN
AGILE COLLABORATIVE APPLICATIONS
Concentration Area
Information Systems
Research Field
Process and Systems Engineering
DIOGO ALBERTO DO ESPÍRITO SANTO SARAIVA
Belo Horizonte - MG
2015
2
DIOGO ALBERTO DO ESPÍRITO SANTO SARAIVA
QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF AWARENESS SUPPORT TOOLS IN
AGILE COLLABORATIVE APPLICATIONS
MSc thesis project presented to the Programa
de
Pós-Graduação
em
Sistemas
de
Informação e Gestão do Conhecimento of
FUMEC University, as partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the Master’s degree.
Concentration Area: Information Systems
Research
Field:
Process
and
Systems
Engineering
Advisor: Prof. Dr. Fernando Silva Parreiras
Belo Horizonte - MG
2015
3
ABSTRACT
Computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) is now widely applied in tailoring working
environments, noticeable in value-based IT organizations. It is also an interdisciplinary
academic research field focused on understanding characteristics of interdependent group work
with the objective of designing adequate computer-based technology to support cooperative
work processes. One of key concepts behind CSCW regards the provision of relevant
information to each worker in a team, a concept known as awareness. As the market and
research community has already perceived the value based on information and has been
increasingly adopting agile practices, it shares the common interest of CSCW in awareness
improvement, in order to provide fast and reliable information among geographic dispersed
team members. This work proposes the identification of collaboration tools used by agile teams
and analysis of the quality of awareness support in them by responding the following research
question: what is the quality of awareness support in collaborative applications used by agile
teams? The research will be conducted as a systematic literature review (SLR) and a survey.
The SLR analyzed published papers on agile collaborative applications to identify which are
the most used ones by agile teams and how to perceive them by CSCW classification. The
survey will be applied to IT professionals to assess the identified applications regarding their
awareness elements in order to gather users perspective and the given scores. Such scores will
be further analyzed to remark some insights, and the expects results are the overall quality
assessment of the aforementioned collaborative applications.
Keywords: Awareness support; Agile Collaboration Tools; Quality of awareness.
4
RESUMO
Trabalho cooperativo suportado por computador (Computer-supported cooperative work
(CSCW)) é atualmente amplamente aplicado em ambientes de trabalho customizados,
notoriamente em organizações baseadas no valor da Tecnologia da Informação. Também é um
campo acadêmico interdisciplinar focado no entendimento das características de grupos de
trabalho interdependentes com o objetivo de definir tecnologias baseadas em computador para
suportar processos de trabalho cooperativo. Um dos conceitos-chave por trás do CSCW aborda
o provisionamento de informação relevante para cada trabalhador em uma equipe, conceito
conhecido como conscientização. Como o mercado e a comunidade acadêmica já reconheceu
o valor baseado em informação e tem adotado cada vez mais práticas ágeis, também
compartilha o interesse do CSCW em aumentar a conscientização, com o intuito de prover
informações rápidas e confiáveis entre membros de equipes dispersas geograficamente. Este
trabalho propõe a identificação de ferramentas colaborativas usadas por equipes ágeis e a
análise da qualidade do suporte a conscientização respondendo a seguinte pergunta de pesquisa:
qual é a qualidade do suporte a conscientização em aplicações colaborativas usadas por equipes
ágeis? A pesquisa será conduzida como uma revisão sistemática de literatura (RSL) e um
survey. A RSL analisou artigos publicados sobre aplicações colaborativas para identificar quais
as mais utilizadas por equipes ágeis e como contextualiza-las sob a perspectiva de classificação
de CSCW. O survey será aplicado em profissionais de tecnologia da informação para avaliar as
aplicações identificadas quanto aos elementos de conscientização para coletar a perspectiva dos
usuários e as pontuações obtidas. Tais pontuações serão subsequentemente analisadas para
ressaltar as visões de consenso geral e o resultado esperado é a avaliação geral das aplicações
colaborativas envolvidas.
Palavras-chave: Awareness support; Agile Collaboration Tools; Quality of awareness.
5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – A Classification space for CSCW systems ............................................................. 17
Figure 2 – Overview of main awareness elements ................................................................... 21
Figure 3 – Correlations matrix with moderate and weak relationships expressed by the experts
.................................................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 4 – Objectives and related activities.............................................................................. 40
6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Johansen Time-Space Matrix ................................................................................... 14
Table 2 – CSCW Characteristics .............................................................................................. 15
Table 3 – Time-space possibilities ........................................................................................... 16
Table 4 – Time-space possibilities ........................................................................................... 16
Table 5 – Cooperative system class description ....................................................................... 18
Table 6 – Application-level class taxonomy ............................................................................ 19
Table 7 – FTR methods description ......................................................................................... 24
Table 8 – Main design elements influencing awareness .......................................................... 25
Table 9 – Main relationships between design and awareness elements ................................... 26
Table 10 – Agile practice adoption survey ............................................................................... 29
Table 11 – Agile techniques adoption survey .......................................................................... 32
Table 12 – Agile tools general use purpose survey .................................................................. 33
Table 13 – Agile tools general use purpose classified by CSCW taxonomy ........................... 34
Table 14 – Definition of the General search string .................................................................. 36
Table 15 – Selection criteria for including and excluding papers from the research ............... 37
Table 16 – Related work similarities and differences .............................................................. 38
Table 17 – Research schedule .................................................................................................. 42
Table 18 – Research activities description ............................................................................... 42
7
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
CSCW
Computer-supported cooperative work
FTR
Formal Technical Reviews
FUMEC
Fundação Mineira de Educação e Cultura
GDSSs
Group decision support systems
IS
Information System(s)
IT
Information Technology
ITC
Information Technology and Communication
POI
Point of interest
QA
Quality Assurance
SLR
Systematic Literature Review
XP
eXtreme Programming
8
CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 9
1.1
Research Problem..................................................................................................... 10
1.2
Objectives .................................................................................................................. 10
1.2.1
Main Objective ........................................................................................................... 10
1.2.2
Specific Objectives ..................................................................................................... 10
1.3
Motivation ................................................................................................................. 11
1.4
Adherence to FUMEC’s Graduate Program in Information Systems and
Knowledge Management........................................................................................................ 11
1.5
Document Structure ................................................................................................. 12
2
2.1
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................ 13
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 13
Background ............................................................................................................... 13
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) ...................................................... 13
Agile............................................................................................................................ 28
Research Protocol ..................................................................................................... 35
Research Questions .................................................................................................... 35
Search Strategy........................................................................................................... 36
3
RELATED WORK................................................................................................... 38
4
4.1
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.3
4.4
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 39
Population ................................................................................................................. 39
Research Steps .......................................................................................................... 40
Constructs................................................................................................................... 40
Research Model .......................................................................................................... 40
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................ 41
Schedule..................................................................................................................... 41
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 43
APPENDIX A – SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................. 49
9
1
INTRODUCTION
The worldwide nature of today’s market has forced many companies to decentralize their
organizational structures. Facing the growing complexity of commercial problems, these
companies must expend considerable effort increasing the effectiveness of their production
processes, augmenting their product quality, and reducing the time it takes to get their products
to market. They require optimally tailored working environments, which open new application
domains for Computer-supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (REINHARD et al., 1994). Over
the last decade, CSCW has emerged as an identifiable research area which focuses on the role
of the computer support in group work (RODDEN, 1991). CSCW is a term that indicates a
variety of technologies which enable teams of workers to cooperate electronically
(PAPADOPOULOS, 2010, 2015).
In the area of CSCW, Dourish and Bellotti (1992) introduced the awareness term in their
seminal paper, defining it as “an understanding of the activities of others, which provides a
context for your own activity”. Awareness has been a focus of research in CSCW for over thirty
years, and a thorough overview of its history was presented by Rittenbruch and McEwan
(2009). Contrary to its relevance, Antunes et al. (2014) concludes that little research has been
done to assess the quality of awareness support provided by a specific system. Evaluation of
the quality of awareness support can be traced back to Formal Technical Reviews (FTR)
(FAGAN, 1976), widely adopted in software engineering (AURUM et al., 2002; NEILL;
LAPLANTE, 2003). Holzinger (2005) remarks that participation of users is not always possible
or available at the time of evaluation. For that purpose, Antunes et al. (2014) proposes an
awareness checklist, which may be useful to system developers to assess their applications at
various development stages.
With regard to organizations whose value is based on information technology, it is increasingly
evident that they are subjected to great pressure to deliver products of better quality at greater
speed (SCHWABER, 2005; SHROFF et al., 2006). Beck et al. (2001) considers that this market
demand has stimulated the use of agile software development practices. In addition,
organizations are betting on the association of distinct skills and tools support as a strategy to
10
face these new challenges, implying that organizations have dedicated themselves to the search
for mechanisms that show new ways to improve collaboration in working groups (FRANÇA;
DIAS, 2015). Antunes et al. (2014) concludes that Quality Assurance (QA) is essential to ensure
the quality of collaborative systems development. There are a few FTR approaches to assess
the quality support of collaborative systems. This work aims to research such methods in order
to propose a survey to evaluate collaboration tools used by agile teams.
1.1
Research Problem
What is the quality of awareness support in collaborative applications achieved by agile teams?
1.2
Objectives
1.2.1
Main Objective
The main objective of this research is to evaluate the quality of awareness support in
collaborative applications used by agile teams.
1.2.2
Specific Objectives
The specific objectives of this research are
•
OBJ1 - Outline the conceptual framework.
•
OBJ2 - Conduct a survey with the Awareness checklist of agile collaborative tools outlined
by the conceptual framework.
•
OBJ3 - Validate results.
11
1.3
Motivation
The increasing global competition and the rapid advances in information systems have led
organizations to search for more effective and efficient ways to manage their business (ZANDI;
TAVANA, 2011). According to Antunes et al. (2014), QA must assess a very wide range of
factors related with multiple stakeholders (customers, managers, individual workers, formal
and informal work groups), various domains of concern (business processes, goals, tasks, group
wellbeing, culture) and multiple technology components (addressing various aspects of
collaboration such as awareness). Such complexity, added with the differences of each company
interests and business practices adoption amongst employees suggest that the awareness
checklist approach can be crucial to assess developers to build and evolve the usage of CSCW
applications towards a more efficient awareness support solution. Agile collaboration is a
specific and attractive context to choose tools to assess by awareness support standards, as they
are a current trend among IT professionals. Those are the best candidates to evaluate the tools
due to their background and specific knowledge of design elements of an application.
Additionally, agile collaborative tools provide a more difficult awareness support context due
to some synchronous and co-located techniques, such as daily meetings.
1.4
Adherence to FUMEC’s Graduate Program in Information Systems and Knowledge
Management
FUMEC’s master’s degree program in Information Systems and Knowledge Management is
based on two main research fields: (1) Technology and Information Systems; and (2)
Information and Knowledge Management. Both fields are based on interdisciplinary academic
knowledge, scientific development and applied research. Knowledge management is a set of
processes aiming to create, storage, distribute and use the knowledge, considering internal and
external knowledge sources (MITJA, 2011).
12
1.5
Document Structure
The project is structured in 5 chapters: (1) Chapter 1 presents the introduction; (2) Chapter 2
presents a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) providing the theoretical foundamentation of
this research; (3) Chapter 3 cites some related work on CSCW Awareness Improvement; (4)
Chapter 4 describes the methodology used on the research implementation; and (5) Chapter 5
provides the results of the research, with the gathered respondents feedback as a validation of
the present work proposal.
13
2
SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction
A systematic review is a secondary study that identifies, evaluates and interprets all research
available and relevant to a specific research question or phenomenon of interest
(KITCHENHAM, 2004). Reviews of research literature are conducted for a variety of purposes,
such as providing a theoretical background for subsequent research; learning the breadth of
research on a topic of interest; or answering practical questions by understanding what existing
research has to say on the matter (OKOLI; SCHABRAM, 2010). In this research, the produced
SLR is used to support the theoretical foundamentation regarding the two main constructs:
CSCW and AGILE.
2.2
2.2.1
Background
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) is the study of how people use technology,
with relation to hardware and software, to work together in shared time and space. CSCW began
as an effort by technologists to learn from anyone whom could help them better understand
group activity and how one could use technology to support people in their work. These
specialists spanned many areas of research, including economists, social psychologists,
anthropologists, organizational theorists and educators (GRUDIN, 1994). While some
researchers views the terms “CSCW” and “Groupware” as synonyms, Grudin (1994)
understands that CSCW describes the research and groupware describes the technology.
14
2.2.1.1 CSCW Applications
A CSCW system relates functional features with the social aspects of teamwork. Each
functionality has an impact on the work behavior and efficiency of the entire group using the
system. These functionalities also influence the behavior of individual group members.
However, the psychological, social, and cultural processes active within groups of collaborators
are the real keys to the acceptance and success of CSCW systems (REINHARD;
SCHWEITZER; VOLKSEN; WEBER, 1994). According to the CSCW characteristics, the
applications tend to include, at least, communication as one of its functions, directly among
members of the organization or information communication, as news, events, etcetera, for the
members of the organization (PENICHET et al., 2007). It is not usual to create a system to work
exclusively in the same place, as could be a meeting room (PENICHET et al., 2007).
2.2.1.2 CSCW Classification
As systems in general tend to be collaborative, to ease human communication and to be a useful
tool in the processes and human coordination, it is expected that the number of applications,
ideas, forms, etc. will grow in the years to come. Until now, the possibilities to classify tools,
functions, etc. related with CSCW are based on a time-space array (JOHANSEN, 1988), as
shown in Table 1.
Same Time
Same Place
Different Place
Different Time
Face to face interaction
Asynchronous interaction
Synchronous distributed interaction
Asynchronous distributed interaction
Table 1 – Johansen Time-Space Matrix
Source: Adapted from Johansen (1991)
Therefore, tools can be classified in four ways:
15
1. synchronous / in the same place
2. synchronous / in different places
3. asynchronous / in the same place
4. asynchronous / in different places.
E-mail would be an asynchronous tool and, in theory, destined to persons allocated in different
places (PENICHET et al., 2007).
An more recent classification proposal based on the Time-space Matrix, added by three main
CSCW characteristics is presented by Penichet et al. (2007), named CSCW Classification
Array. The first part of the classification regards the the concepts of Information Sharing,
Communication and Coordination in a non-excluding logical answer (0 for no; 1 for yes), as
described in Table 2.
CSCW
Description
Characteristic
Information sharing
Information sharing can be descripted as a medium of exchange messages
among two or more recipients (Penichet et al., 2007).
Communication
Communication can be understand as the process of exchanging
information usually via a common system of symbols (Penichet et al.,
2007).
Coordination
Poltrock and Grudin (1999) define coordination tools as the groupware
which allow users to capture and coordinate the internal processes of an
organization. Such coordination might increase quality and reduce costs.
Table 2 – CSCW Characteristics
Source: Adapted from Penichet et al. (2007)
The second part adopts the same concepts of the Time-space matrix, although also in a nonexcluding logical manner, as shown in Table 3.
16
Type
Time
Space
Synchronous
Asynchronous
Same
Different
No = 0
No = 0
No = 0
No = 0
Yes = 1
Yes = 1
Yes = 1
Yes = 1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
1
1
4
0
1
0
0
5
0
1
0
1
6
0
1
1
0
7
0
1
1
1
8
1
0
0
0
9
1
0
0
1
10
1
0
1
0
11
1
0
1
1
12
1
1
0
0
13
1
1
0
1
14
1
1
1
0
15
1
1
1
1
Table 3 – Time-space possibilities
Both classifications combined results in the CSCW Classification Array proposal, as shown in
Table 4.
Tool
CSCW Characteristic
Time/Space
Inf. Sharing
Communicate
Coordinate
Synch
Asynch
Same
Different
N=0
Y=1
N=0
Y=1
N=0
Y=1
N=0
Y=1
N=0
Y=1
N=0
Y=1
N=0
Y=1
Fax
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
E-mail
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
IP Telephony
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
System
Table 4 – Time-space possibilities
17
According to Rodden (1991), four classes of cooperative system have emerged over the last
decade, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – A Classification space for CSCW systems
Source: Rodden (1991)
The different circles in the figure outlines six different classes (“keys”) in which CSCW systems
can be classified. Their descriptions are detailed in Table 5.
18
Cooperative system class
Message systems
Description
According to Rodden (1991), cooperative message systems are often
termed structured or active message systems and assume an
asynchronous and remote mode of cooperation. The assumption
underlying these systems is that members of a group cooperate by
exchanging messages.
Conferencing
In computer conferencing systems, users interact through a shared
information space accessed by each of the users. This model of
interaction through a shared information space is often augmented by
the use of direct user-to-user communication (RODDEN, 1991).
Meeting rooms
The support of face-to-face cooperation represents the most recent
and distinct research development in cooperative working. A typical
approach to this form of computer support is to develop a meeting
room furnished with a large screen video projector and a number of
computer workstation/terminals, often these systems include a
control terminal (RODDEN, 1991).
Co-Authoring and
The aim of co-authoring systems is to support the cooperation
Argumentation Systems
necessary between these co-authors in document production. The
general model adopted by these systems is that of asynchronous cooperation with each user working independently on a portion of the
document. Reviews and comments are added to the document by
annotating sections of the document. However while the mode of
interaction in co-authoring systems is asynchronous, co-authoring
systems are not distinguished by the location of users and some coauthoring and outline processor and argumentation systems are used
when the participants are co-located (RODDEN, 1991).
Table 5 – Cooperative system class description
Source: Adapted from Rodden (1991)
Application-level is another taxonomy approach proposed by Ellis et al. (1991), in which
classes distinguishes itself in a not exclusive classification as: message systems; group editors;
group decision support systems (GDSSs) and electronic meeting rooms; computer
conferencing; intelligent agents; and coordination systems. Their descriptions are detailed in
Table 6.
19
Application-level
Message systems
Description
Supports the asynchronous exchange of textual messages between groups of
users. Examples include electronic mail and computer conferencing or
bulletin board systems (ELLIS et al., 1991).
Group editors
Some of these editors, are for asynchronous use, and conveniently
separate the text supplied by the author from the comments of various
reviewers. Real-time group editors allow a group of people to edit the same
object at the same time. The object being edited is usually divided into logical
segments (ELLIS et al., 1991).
GDDSs and
Provide computer-based facilities for the exploration of unstructured
Electronic meeting
problems in a group setting. The goal is to improve the productivity of
rooms
decision-making meetings, either by speeding up the decision-making process
or by improving the quality of the resulting decisions (KRAEMER; KING,
1988). There are GDSS aids for decision structuring, such as alternative
ranking and voting tools, and for idea generation (APPLEGATE et al. 1986)
or issue analysis (CONKLIN; BEGEMAN, 1988).
Computer
The computer serves as a communications medium in a variety of
conferencing
ways. In particular, it has provided three new approaches in the way
people carry out conferences: real-time computer conferencing, computer
teleconferencing, and desktop conferencing (ELLIS et al., 1991).
Intelligent agents
Not all the participants in an electronic meeting are people. Multiplayer
computer games, for example, might automatically generate participants if
the number of people is too low for a challenging game. Such nonhuman
participants are a special case of intelligent agents. In general, intelligent
agents are responsible for a specific set of tasks, and the user interface makes
their actions resemble those of other users (ELLIS et al., 1991).
Coordination
Coordination systems allow individuals to view their actions, as well as the
systems
relevant actions of others, within the context of the overall goal. Systems may
also trigger users' actions by informing users of the states of their actions and
their wait conditions, or by generating automatic reminders and alerts.
Coordination systems can be categorized by one of the four types of models
they embrace: form, procedure, conversation, or communication-structure
oriented (ELLIS et al., 1991).
Table 6 – Application-level class taxonomy
Source: Adapted from Ellis et al. (1991)
20
Borghoff and Schlichter (2000) mentions other CSCW classification proposals: quantitative
classification, which focuses on the team size; social classification distinguishes between
formal and informal communication within the group; and organizational classification, which
asks whether meetings are face-to-face or electronic, with geographically dispersed
participants.
2.2.1.3 Awareness
One of the main purposes of CSCW is the provision of information to each worker on the
presence and the activities of other group members. This information is called group awareness
and has been a central topic of research because it satisfies the need of collaborators to watch
each other’s activities and coordinate accordingly their own work (DOURISH; BELLOTTI,
1992). Numerous studies have found awareness to be a very important component of a
collaborative system (TANG, 1991; GAVER, 1991; GUTWIN; ROSEMAN; GREENBERG,
1996). Users’ mobility increases the need for awareness since the collaboration environments
typically change very often in this case (ANTUNES et al., 2010).
Awareness in its various types has been considered a distinctive feature of collaborative systems
when compared with other kinds of information systems (DOURISH; BELLOTTI, 1992).
Awareness support is a great challenge for synchronous CSCW, where interactive
responsiveness is the foremost goal. This implies that awareness information must be provided
at a properly fast pace to convey the current status of cooperative work without outstripping the
collaborators’ ability to perceive it (PAPADOPOULOS, 2006).
According to several researches (JOHANSEN et al., 1991; HARRISON; DOURISH, 1996;
DIX et al., 2000; ENDSLEY, 1995; MACEACHREN; BREWER, 2004; GUTWIN;
GREENBERG, 1996), there are five main awareness elements, which in Antunes et al. (2010)
bases its model called Overview of main awareness elements, shown in Figure 2.
21
Figure 2 – Overview of main awareness elements
Source: Antunes et al. (2010)
The model presents an overview of the identified awareness elements as well as their main
aspects and the types of awareness they support. The descriptions of each awareness type are
further presented.
2.2.1.3.1 Time x place
Based upon the work of DeSanctis and Gallupe (1987) on the support to remote and local
groups, the time/place map proposed by Johansen et al. (1991) is the most prevalent subject
related to collaborative applications.
22
2.2.1.3.2 Geographical space
Dix et al. (2000) characterized location as either being Cartesian or topological. It can be also
classified regarding its location, distance and orientation (ANTUNES et al., 2010).
2.2.1.3.3 Physical space
Mainly concerning mobility, it has been categorized in wandering, visiting and traveling
(KRISTOFFERSEN; LJUNGBERG, 1998). Dix et al. (2000) proposed another taxonomy:
fixed, mobile, autonomous, free, embedded and pervasive. Hazas et al. (2004) discuss location
awareness as the means to determine physical location using various types of sensing
technology such as GPS and RFID. Hazas et al. (2004) also make the distinction between
physical and semantic locations such as rooms, floors and buildings.
2.2.1.3.4 Virtual space
Rodden (1991) developed the notion of virtual space as a collection of computer-supported
interactive spaces. Many collaborative applications offer various types of virtual spaces,
including virtual meeting rooms, media spaces and collaborative virtual environments
(ANTUNES et al., 2010).
2.2.1.3.5 Social space
Dourish (2006) and Brewer and Dourish (1992) proposed social spaces as adequate to
understand broader issues related to social practice and context. Dourish (2001) also proposed
the notion of embodied interaction to account for the embedded relationships between social
and the other spaces. It combines geographical, physical and virtual affordances with social
interaction, cultural meaning, experience and knowledge (ANTUNES et al., 2010).
23
2.2.1.3.6 Workspace
Snowdon and Munro (2000) describes a workspace as a container of places with ongoing
activities. It’s possible to distinguish two different aspects of workspaces: (1) workspaces may
organize activities according to logical sets (i.e. a group editor, as it serves to organize activities
like writing and revising, while maintaining a coherent view of the whole (KOCK; KOCK,
2000)); (2) workspaces also introduce geography as an important context for working activities
(ANTUNES et al., 2010).
2.2.1.3.7 Situation
Jensen (2009) combined situation awareness with sensemaking, a theory developed by Weick
(1993, 2001) to understand the relationships between environmental changes and organizational
responses. Sensemaking is defined as the capability to create order and make retrospective sense
of what occurs through the articulation of several cognitive functions like perception,
interpretation and anticipation of events (ANTUNES et al., 2010). Cecez-Kecmanovic (2005)
highlighted that sensemaking emerges from individual, coordinated and collaborative efforts.
2.2.1.4 Quality of awareness
According to Antunes et al (2010), Quality Assurance (QA) is essential to ensure the quality of
collaborative systems development. Collaborative systems are difficult to assess due to the
complexity, cost and time involved (HERSKOVIC et al., 2007), and most of them tend to be
informal. Herskovic et al. (2007) identifies twelve proposed assessment methods and classifies
them according to various criteria such as development status; scope; time span of the
assessment; and who participates in the assessment. Of these twelve methods, three methods
adapt the FTR approach to the specific characteristics of collaborative systems assessment
(ANTUNES, 2010). These FTR methods are descripted in Table 7.
24
FTR Method
Description
Groupware
GHE defines a procedure for inspecting how a collaborative system conforms
Heuristic
with eight heuristics that codify best practices in collaborative systems
Evaluation (GHE) development (BAKER, 2002).
Groupware
GW entails stepping through task sequences to conceptually explore task goals,
Walkthrough
actions necessary to perform tasks, knowledge needed to accomplish tasks, and
(GW)
possible performance failures (GUTWIN; GREENBERG, 2000; PINELLE;
GUTWIN, 2002).
Knowledge
KMA involves using a checklist to assess how the system helps knowledge
Management
circulation (VIZCAÍNO et al, 2005).
Approach (KMA)
Table 7 – FTR methods description
Source: Adapted from Antunes et al. (2010)
Convertino et al. (2004) developed a laboratorial method to assess activity awareness in
controlled settings based on collaboration scenarios drawn from field studies and assessed
during laboratory experiments using questionnaires, interviews and observations. Antunes et.
al (2010) has proposed a FTR method specifically focused on awareness assessment, which he
named Awareness Checklist. According to this method, there are 77 design elements that
influence or contribute to awareness support. Those methods can be categorized in 14 design
categories, as shown in Table 8.
25
#
Design
Design Elements
Category
1
Accessibility
Same place, different place, any place, co-located, virtually co-located,
remote
2
Communication
Synchronous, asynchronous, network connectivity, message delivery,
network management
3
Spatiality
Cartesian locations, topological locations, distances, orientation,
focus/nimbus
4
Mobility
Wandering, visiting, traveling, fixed, mobile, autonomous, independent,
embedded, pervasive
5
Physicality
Physical constraints, physical places, physical topology, physical attributes
6
Navigation
Viewports, links, radar views, teleports
7
Virtuality
Private, group, public, data access privileges, concurrency control, floor
control, version control, virtual constraints, virtual places, virtual topology,
virtual attributes
8
Membership
Participants, roles, activities, privileges, group history
9
Attention
Eye-gaze orientation, body orientation, voice filtering, portholes/peepholes
10 Task
Who, what, where, when, how, task history
11 Interaction
Feedback, feedthrough, backchannel feedback
12 Interdependence
Parallel activities, coordinated activities, mutually adjusted activities,
loosely coupled, tightly coupled
13 Internalization
Events, actions, resources, critical elements, meaning, future scenarios
14 Externalization
Individual cognition, distributed cognition, team cognition
Table 8 – Main design elements influencing awareness
Antunes et al. (2010) relates the Design Categories with the Awareness Types by requesting
five experts in collaborative technology to define the relationships between the 77 design
elements and the seven types of awareness shown in Table 9.
26
#
Type of awareness
Design categories
1 Time x place
Accessibility, communication
2 Geographical space
Spatiality
3 Physical space
Mobility, physicality
4 Virtual space
Navigation, virtuality
5 Social space
Membership, attention
6 Workspace
Task, interaction, interdependence
7 Situation
Internalization, externalization
Table 9 – Main relationships between design and awareness elements
First, the experts were provided with a table which relates strong relationships between them,
as shown in Table 9. To calculate the correlations, the strong, moderate and weak relationships
were empirically given the values 4, 2 and 1, respectively. The accumulated correlations
obtaining a value equal or below 2 were zeroed (ANTUNES et al., 2010). The resulting
correlations matrix is shown in Figure 3:
Figure 3 – Correlations matrix with moderate and weak relationships expressed by the experts
27
Next, the correlations were normalized in two ways:
1. Normalize the impact of each design category in the awareness score, avoiding that design
categories with a higher number of design elements have more impact on the awareness
scores
2. Normalize the awareness scale so the sum of all correlations for a given awareness category
is 100% (ANTUNES et al., 2010). According to this relationship, it is possible to address
some application design issues to awareness type deficiencies (i.e. communication
problems in the application prejudices especially time x place awareness).
Finally, the scores are determined in the following way:
1. For each awareness category, every design element in the checklist that received a positive
assessment (+2 or +1) is multiplied by the corresponding correlation expressed in the
correlations matrix for that awareness category.
2. The same operation is executed for the negative assessments (-2 or -1).
3. For each awareness category, the positive score is obtained by adding the adjusted results
obtained in step 1, multiplied by a 0.5 factor. This allows normalizing the scores on a [0100] scale.
4. For each awareness category, the negative score is obtained by adding the adjusted results
obtained in step 2, multiplied by a -0.5 factor, which again normalizes the scores on a [0100] scale.
The relationship between design categories and type of awareness is the main foundamentation
to motivate the survey on reviews of design attributes, to further address awareness deficiencies
in applications in order to propose improvements and remark the main qualities that users
perceive as a differential factor. By classifying the tools according to CSCW classification, it
will be possible to generalize some key aspects of each tool and it will make understanding and
concluding upon gathered results easier and more accurate.
28
2.2.2
Agile
Traditional approaches assumed that if we just tried hard enough, we could anticipate the
complete set of requirements early and reduce cost by eliminating change. Today, eliminating
change early means being unresponsive to business conditions — in other words, business
failure (HIGHSMITH; COCKBURN, 2001). Agile proponents claim that the focal aspects of
light and agile methods are simplicity and speed (MCCAULEY, 2001; BECK, 1999;
HIGHSMITH; COCKBURN, 2001). The main principles of Agile are (HIGHSMITH;
COCKBURN, 2001):
•
Individuals and interactions over processes and tools,
•
Working software over comprehensive documentation,
•
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation,
•
Responding to change over following a plan.
Relying on interactions between individuals facilitates sharing information and changing the
process quickly when it needs changing (HIGHSMITH; COCKBURN, 2001). According to a
relevant research survey conducted in 2014 (VERSIONONE, 2015), nearly 80% of respondents
had at least some distributed teams practicing agile within their organizations, up to 35% from
2012.
2.2.2.1 Agile Methods
Agile methods are in their essence based on values and principles defined on the Agile
Manifesto (BECK et al., 2001). According to Boehm (2002), Agile methods derive much of
their agility by relying on the tacit knowledge embodied in the team, rather than writing the
knowledge down in plans. The choice of the strategy for agile methods adoption is a key
component to get the organization to take advantage of the benefits brought by agility and to
overcome the common issues found on the adoption process (NERUR et al., 2005;
SOUNDARARAJAN et al, 2013). According to VersionOne survey (2015) regarding the usage
29
of agile methodologies amongst its respondents, the most adopted agile methodologies are
ranked in Table 10. Some of the mentioned mainstream agile methodologies in it will be further
addressed in subtopics.
Rank
Agile methodology
Adoption percentage
1
Scrum
56%
2
Scrum/XP Hybrid
10%
3
Custom Hybrid (multiple methodologies)
8%
4
Scrumban
6%
5
Kanban
5%
6
Iterative Development
4%
7
I Don’t Know
3%
8
Lean Development
2%
9
Other
2%
10
Agile Modeling
1%
11
Feature-Driven Development (FDD)
1%
12
Agile Unified Process (AgileUP)
<1%
13
DSDM/Atern
<1%
14
XP
<1%
Table 10 – Agile practice adoption survey
Source: Adapted from Versionone (2015)
2.2.2.1.1
Scrum
Scrum is a process framework to deliver products with the highest possible value and handle
complex problems or situations (SCHWABER; SUTHERLAND, 2011). The main roles
involved are product owner (PO), developer and ScrumMaster (SM) (MISHRA et al., 2012).
Scrum uses intense 15-minute daily meetings and comprehensive iteration reviews at the end
of each 30-day iteration (HIGHSMITH; COCKBURN, 2001).
30
2.2.2.1.2
Kanban
Kanban has been created as a lean tool to manage manufacturing operations (IKONEN et al.,
2010). It drives project teams to visualize the workflow, limit work in progress (WIP) at each
workflow stage, and measure the cycle time (i.e., average time to complete one task)
(KNIBERG, 2009). According to Liker (2004), Kanban attempts to lower production costs,
increase quality, and accelerate cycle time.
2.2.2.1.3
Lean Development
While Lean thinking has turned out to be a success in manufacturing (WOMACK; JONES,
1994), it has recently been applied to the area of software engineering, as well (REDDING;
CATALANELLO, 1994). Lean software development principles can be defined as follows:
build quality in, create knowledge, defer commitment, deliver fast, respect people, and optimize
the whole (POPPENDIECK, 2007).
2.2.2.1.4
Feature-Driven Development
FDD satisfies the fundamental concept of software requirement (PALMER; FELSING, 2002)
and it also distinguishes between the requirement which makes sub-attribute software
requirements fundamental adequately satisfies (ABRAHAMSSON et al., 2002). Requirement
specification, analysis and validation are defined in FDD process (PALMER; FELSING, 2002)
and actors and activities of the actors are identified in FDD (ABRAHAMSSON et al., 2002).
2.2.2.1.5
eXtreme Programming (XP)
According to Beck (1999), XP, rather than planning, analyzing, and designing for the far-flung
future, XP programmers do all of these activities—a little at a time—throughout development.
Also according to Beck (1999), the biggest barrier to the success of an XP project arises from
31
an insistence on complete up-front design rather than just steering the project along the way.
There are many practices that adopts XP principles, such as Planning games, Small releases,
Simple design, Test-Driven development, Pair programming and Continuous integration
(WOOD; KLEB, 2003).
2.2.2.2 Agile Tools
There are several practices related to Agile methods. According to VersionOne State of Agile
2015 survey research, Table 11 shows a list of the most adopted techniques.
32
Rank
Agile techinique
Adoption percentage
1
Daily standup
80%
2
Short iterations
79%
3
Prioritized backlogs
79%
4
Iteration planning
71%
5
Retrospectives
69%
6
Release planning
65%
7
Unit testing
65%
8
Team-based estimation
56%
9
Iteration reviews
53%
10
Taskboard
53%
11
Continuous integration
50%
12
Dedicated product owner
48%
13
Single team (integrated dev & testing)
46%
14
Coding standards
43%
15
Open work area
38%
16
Refactoring
36%
17
Test-Driven Development
34%
18
Kanban
31%
19
Story mapping
29%
20
Collective code ownership
27%
21
Continuous development
24%
22
Pair programming
21%
23
Agile games
13%
24
Behavior-driven development
9%
Table 11 – Agile techniques adoption survey
In order to assist agile projects, there are a handful of tools available in the market to offer the
same functionalities of agile some techniques as a CSCW resource.
33
2.2.2.3 Agile Tools
Agile tools are used to offer some of the agile methods proposals as a application or a distinct
functionality of a process. Table 12 shows a list of the most used tools purpose in 2013 and
2014, according to VersionOne State of Agile 2015 survey research (VERSIONONE, 2015).
Rank
Tool usage
General tool use
(2014)
1
Bug tracker
80%
2
Taskboard
79%
3
Spreadsheet
72%
4
Wiki
68%
5
Agile project management tool
65%
6
Unit test tool
65%
7
Automated build tool
65%
8
Continuous integration tool
55%
9
Kanban board
52%
10
Traditional project management tool
51%
11
Requirements management tool
50%
12
Release/deployment automation tool
48%
13
Index cards
41%
14
Ct % portfolio management (PPM) tool
37%
15
Automated acceptance tool
35%
16
Story mapping tool
34%
17
Refactioring tool
29%
18
Customer idea management tool
22%
Table 12 – Agile tools general use purpose survey
In order to demonstrate the usage of CSCW classification of tools, the first 7 ranked agile tools
general use purpose has been categorized according to the taxonomy in Chapter 2.2.1.2 of this
document, as shown in Table 13. In case of non-exclusive option availability, the most complex
34
scenario has been chosen (i. e. if tool can be supported by Asynchronous distributed interaction
(Different time/Different places)).
General
tool use
Bug tracker
Taskboard
CSCW Classification
Time-space
Application
Quantita
matrix
level
tive
Different
Workflow
time /
management
Different
/coordination
places
systems
Different
Message
time /
systems
Any size
Any size
Social
Organizat
CSCW
ional
system class
Formal
Electronic
Message
communication
meetings
systems
Informal
Electronic
Message
communication
meetings
systems
Formal
Electronic
Message
communication
meetings
systems
Informal
Electronic
Co-Authoring
communication
meetings
and
Different
places
Spreadsheet
Different
Shared
time /
information
Different
spaces
Any size
places
Wiki
Different
Group editors
Any size
time /
Different
Argumentatio
places
n Systems
Agile project
Different
Workflow
management
time /
management
tool
Different
/coordination
places
systems
Unit test
Different
Workflow
tool
time /
management
Different
/coordination
places
systems
Automated
Different
Workflow
build tool
time /
management
Different
/coordination
places
systems
Any size
Any size
Formal
Electronic
Message
communication
meetings
systems
Formal
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
communication
Any size
Formal
communication
Table 13 – Agile tools general use purpose classified by CSCW taxonomy
Source: Author
35
2.3
SLR Protocol
The design of this SLR was based on the guidelines provided by Keele (KEELE, 2007) and
Petersen et al. (PETERSEN et al., 2008). The steps of the review were:
1. Definition of the research questions;
2. Conduct search for studies;
3. Screening of papers;
4. Data extraction;
5. Data synthesis.
2.3.1
Research Questions
The main goal of the research questions is to provide an understanding of the context of CSCW
agile collaboration tools used by agile distributed teams research in the literature. The research
questions were identified according to the focus of this study are:
•
RQ1 - What are the tools used by distributed agile teams which implements concepts of
Computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW)?
•
RQ2 - What are the tools used to improve awareness in agile distributed teams?
Research Question 1 (RQ1) aims to identify which CSCW tools are used by agile distributed
teams by considering empirically mentions of the usage of such tools in literature. Research
Question 2 (RQ2) has a similar purpose, although it excludes mentioning of CSCW in order to
identify the same tools under similar contexts, such as Awareness itself (apart from the CSCW
research field), Groupware, Collaborative work, etc.
36
2.3.2
Search Strategy
There are 3 steps to be conducted in order to collect papers relevant to this research. The first
is the definition of the search terms based on the research questions and the consequently
definition of a General search string, as shown in Table 14.
SLR Research Question
What are the tools used by
distributed agile teams which
implements concepts of Computersupported cooperative work
(CSCW)?
What are the tools used to improve
awareness in agile distributed teams?
Related search strings
agile AND tools AND distributed
agile AND tools AND cooperative
agile AND tools AND cooperation
agile AND tools AND collaborative
agile AND tools AND collaboration
agile AND cscw
agile AND awareness
General search string
agile AND ((tools AND
(distributed OR
cooperative OR
cooperation OR
collaborative OR
collaboration)) OR
cscw OR awareness)
Table 14 – Definition of the General search string
Source: Author
Next, the digital databases chosen for data retrieval are defined:
•
ACM Digital Library
•
IEEE Xplore
•
Science Direct
•
Springer
•
Wiley Online Library
The data retrieval process consists of the search execution using the search strings on each of
the digital libraries. The retrieval of the papers and their metadata will be conducted using a
reference management tool named Zotero.
37
Finally, we define including and excluding criteria in order to filter the relevant papers of this
research and exclude irrelevant papers out. Both criteria are shown in Table 15.
Type
Inclusion criteria
Criteria
Academic papers published on journals or conferences related to collaborative
tools used in agile context.
Papers should describe collaborative tools usage by agile teams.
Exclusion criteria
Studies not covering collaboration tools usage.
Books, thesis, editorials, prefaces, article summaries, interviews, news,
reviews, correspondence, discussions, comments, reader’s letters and
summaries of tutorials, workshops, panels, and poster session.
Studies that are only available as abstracts.
References to studies downloaded from the digital libraries missing the
abstract.
Duplicate papers found on the digital libraries.
Table 15 – Selection criteria for including and excluding papers from the research
Source: Author
38
3
RELATED WORK
The work of Antunes et al. (2010) is directly related to this research, as it based on their proposal
of Design elements, Design categories and Awareness types relationships and further QA
assessment in order to evaluate the quality of awareness support. This research is also related
to the research conducted by Papadopoulos (2006) as we intend to analyze the quality of
awareness, although in a completely different subject (agile collaborative applications x
network protocols). Table 16 presents similarities and differences with related work.
Related work
Similarities
Differences
(ANTUNES et al.,
- Adopts the overview of
- The reviewed collaborative applications
2010)
seven main awareness
are more specific in this research (agile
elements.
collaborative applications).
- Use of an FTR assessment
- Only two collaborative application was
to evaluate quality in
evaluated in the related work as a practical
collaborative applications.
example of its usage (experimental).
(PAPADOPOULOS,
- Aim to understand how
- Different perspective.
2006)
awareness can be improved.
- The related work aims to improve
awareness through hardware means, by
proposing a network protocol.
Table 16 – Related work similarities and differences
Source: Author
39
4
METHODOLOGY
The work in this research can be classified as an applied research in its nature. According to
Shneiderman (2013), science research projects that address basic and applied questions, seek
theoretical and practical outcomes, and are inspired by curiosity-driven as well as missiondriven goals are likely to have the greatest payoffs. In this research, awareness improvement
analysis can be considered such goal.
According to its objectives, this research is descriptive. The descriptive approach may be
defined as a descriptive study which exhibits some form of pattern within the material of
interest, which may then be explained by means of general laws derived from systematic studies
(CERVENY et al., 1991). A systematic literature review is conducted to identify collaborative
tools used by agile teams, which will then by evaluated by survey response. The identified tools
will be included in a survey.
Regarding its procedures, this research is bibliographical and a survey. Mining bibliographical
data can be useful to find communities of researchers (MUHLENBACH; LALLICH, 2010).
Surveys can gather insights about people’s attitudes, perceptions, intents, habits, awareness,
experiences, and characteristics, both at significant moments in time and over time (MULLER,
SEDLEY, 2015). The survey conducted in this research is based on the Awareness checklist
proposal by Antunes et al. (2010) and can be found on Appendix A.
4.1
Population
As this research pretends to evaluate the quality of awareness in agile collaborative applications,
it is implied that the population to be analyzed needs to use or at least have certain knowledge
about agile collaborative applications and related methodologies. As most of the companies that
use agile are IT software companies, its owners and employees are the best subjects for validate
this research results by responding the proposed survey. The Brazilian information technology
and communication (ITC) market is the 4th biggest market in the world (SOFTEX, 2014). For
40
the purposes of this research, Brazilian companies owners and employees are the population to
be analyzed.
4.2
4.2.1
Research Steps
Constructs
The constructs for this research were based on the results of the SLR. Regarding its research
fields, most of the concepts found in results addresses to the areas of Agile (agile collaboration
tools, methodologies and practices) and CSCW (CSCW applications, classifications and
Awareness).
4.2.2
Research Model
This research is divided into five activities that address each specific objective, as shown in
Figure 4.
MAIN OBJECTIVE
OBJ1 - Outline the
conceptual framework.
Conduct Systematic
Literature Review
OBJ2 - Apply a survey with the
Awareness checklist of agile
collaborative tools outlined by the
conceptual framework.
Design survey
Beginning of
Research
Conduct
survey
OBJ3 - Validate results.
Gather data and
analyze scores
Document
discussion and
results
End of
Research
Figure 4 – Objectives and related activities
Source: Author
According to Figure 4, the SLR will be conducted as means to outline the conceptual
framework. Then, a survey will be design gathering the identified agile collaborative
41
applications with the Awareness checklist proposal and it will be conducted as an online survey.
To validate the results, respondents data will be gathered and their given scores to each tool
will be further analyzed. Finally, discussions will be proposed based on the insights provided
by data analysis and the results will be documented.
4.3
Data Analysis
The data analysis of this research will be based on the scores given by survey respondents
regarding each collaboration tool outlined by the conceptual framework based on the SLR
conducted in this work. For each tool evaluated in the survey, each design category will be
evaluated and specific issues and insights will be remarked in order to propose some
improvements to the application as means to improve awareness support in them.
4.4
Schedule
The research schedule for the thesis is presented on Table 17.
42
2015
SEP
OCT
A02
X
X
A03
X
X
A01
JUL
AUG
X
X
2016
A04
X
A05
X
NOV
DEC
X
X
A06
JAN
FEB
X
A07
APR
MAY
X
X
A08
MAR
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A09
A10
X
X
Table 17 – Research schedule
Source: Author
Table 18 describes the activities indexed on the research schedule.
Index
Activity
A01
Produce the Project Proposal.
A02
Produce the Systematic Literature Review protocol.
A03
Produce the Qualification Project.
A04
Submit the Qualification Project.
A05
Produce the Systematic Literature Review.
A06
Execute Survey.
A07
Analyze gathered data.
A08
Document results, conclusions and discussion.
A09
Review Thesis.
A10
Defend Thesis.
Table 18 – Research activities description
Source: Author
43
REFERENCES
ABRAHAMSSON, P.; SALO, 0.; RONKAINEN, J.; WARSTA, J. Agile software
development methods: Review and analysis. Finland: VII Publications, 2002.
ANTUNES, P.; PINO, J. A Review of CRIWG Research. 16th CRIWG, 2010.
ANTUNES, P.; SAPATEIRO, C.; PINO, J. Awareness Checklist: Reviewing the Quality of
Awareness Support in Collaborative Applications. Collaboration and Technology, G.
Kolfschoten, T. Herrmann, and S. Lukosch, Eds. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 202–
217.
APPLEGATE, L.M.; KONSYNSKI, B.R.; NUNAMAKER, J.F. A group decision support
system for idea generation and issue analysis in organization planning. Proceedings of the
First Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (Austin, Tex., Dec. 3-5).
ACM, New York, pp. 16-34, 1986.
AURUM, A., PETERSSON, H., WOHLIN, C. State-of-the-Art: software inspections after 25
years. Software Testing Verification and Reliability 12 (3), 133–154. 2002.
BAKER, K.; GREENBERG, S.; GUTWIN, C. Empirical Development of a Heuristic
Evaluation Methodology for Shared Workspace Groupware. CSCW 2002, pp. 96–105, 2002.
BECK, K.; BEEDLE, M; BENNEKUM, A. V.; COCKBURN, A.; CUNNINGHAM, W.;
FOWLER, M.; GRENNING, J.; HIGHSMITH, J.; HUNT, A.; JEFFRIES, R.; KERN, J.;
MARICK, B.; MARTIN, R.C.; MELLOR, S.; SCHWABER, K.; SUTHERLAND, J.;
THOMAS, D. Manifesto for Agile Software Development, 2001.
BECK, K. Embracing Change With Extreme Programming. IEEE Computer, vol. 32, pp. 7077, 1999.
BORGHOFF U.M.; SCHLICHTER, J. H. Computer-supported cooperative work: introduction
to distributed applications. Berlin: Springer, 2000.
CECEZ-KECMANOVIC, D. A Sensemaking Theory of Knowledge in Organizations and Its
Application. Davis, J., et al. (eds.) Knowledge Management. Organizational and
Technological Dimensions. Springer, Heidelberg , 2005.
44
CERVENY, J. F. Capturing manager's mental models using Kelly's repertory grid. System
Sciences, 1992.
CONKLIN, J.; BEGEMAN, M. gIB1S: A hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion.
Proceedings of Second Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (Portland,
Oreg., Sept. 26-28). ACM, New York, 1988, pp. 140- 152.
CONVERTINO, G., NEALE, D., HOBBY, L., CARROLL, J., ROSSON, M. A Laboratory
Method for Studying Activity Awareness. Proc. Third Nordic Conf. on Human-Computer
interaction, pp. 313–322. ACM Press, Tampere, 2004.
DEEMER, P. et al. The scrum primer. Scrum Primer is an in-depth introduction to the
theory and practice of Scrum, albeit primarily from a software development perspective.
http://assets.scrumtraininginstitute.com/downloads/1/scrumprimer121.pdf, 2010.
DESANCTIS, G.; GALLUPE, R. A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support
Systems. Management Science 33, 589–609, 1987.
DIX, A.; RODDEN, T.; DAVIES, N.; TREVOR, J.; FRIDAY, A.; PALFREYMAN, K.
Exploiting Space and Location as a Design Framework for Interactive Mobile Systems. ACM
Transactions on CHI 7, 2000.
DOURISH, P. Re-Space-Ing Place: "Place" And "Space" Ten Years On. 20th Conf. on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 299–308. ACM Press, Alberta, 2006.
DOURISH, P. Where the Action Is. The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2001.
DOURISH, P.; BELLOTI, V. Awareness and Coordination in Shared Workspaces. ACM Conf.
Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 107-114, Nov. 1992.
ENDSLEY, M. Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Human
Factors 31, 32–64, 1995.
FAGAN, M. Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM
Systems Journal 15, 182–211. 1976.
FRANÇA, J. B. S.; DIAS, A. F. S. Observations on collaboration in Agile software
development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD), 2015 IEEE
19th International Conference. pp. 147-152, 2015.
GAVER, W. Sound support for collaboration. Proc. of ECSCW 1991, pp. 293–308, 1991.
45
GRUDIN, J. CSCW: History and focus. IEEE Computer 27 (5), 19-26, 1994.
GUTWIN, C., GREENBERG, S. The Mechanics of Collaboration: Developing Low Cost
Usability Eval. Methods for Shared Workspaces. WETICE 2000, pp. 98–103. IEEE Press, Los
Alamitos, 2000.
GUTWIN, C.; ROSEMAN, M. GREENBERG, S. A usability study of awareness widgets in a
shared workspace groupware system. Proc. of CSCW 1996, pp. 258–267, 1996.
HAZAS, M.; SCOTT, J.; KRUMM, J. Location-Aware Computing Comes of Age. Computer
37, 95–97, 2004.
HERSKOVIC, V.; PINO, J.; OCHOA, S.; ANTUNES, P. Evaluation Methods for Groupware
Systems. Haake, J.M., Ochoa, S.F., Cechich, A. (eds.) CRIWG 2007. LNCS, vol. 4715, pp.
328–336. Springer, Heidelberg, 2007.
HIGHSMITH, J.; COCKBURN, A. Agile Software Development: The Business of Innovation.
Computer, vol. 34, pp. 120-122, 2001.
HOLZINGER, A.: Usability engineering methods for software developers. Communications
of the ACM 48, 71–74, 2005.
IKONEN, M. et al. Exploring the sources of waste in kanban software development projects.
IEEE Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), 2010 36th EUROMICRO
Conference on. [S.l.], 2010. p. 376–381.
JENSEN, E. Sensemaking in Military Planning: A Methodological Study of Command Teams.
Cognition, Technology & Work 11, 103–118, 2009.
JOHANSEN, R.; SIBBET, D.; BENSON, S.; MARTIN, A.; MITTMAN, R.; SAFFO, P.
Leading Business Teams. Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1991.
JOHANSEN, R. Groupware: Computer support for business teams. New York: The Free
Press, 1988.
KEELE, S. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering,
2007.
KRAEMER, K. L.; KING, J. L. Computer-based systems for cooperative work and group
decision making. ACM Comput. Surv. 20, 2, 115-146, jun. 1988.
46
KITCHENHAM, B. Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele
University, 2004. v. 33, p. 2004, 2004.
KNIBERG,
H.
Kanban
vs.
Scrum:
How
to
make
the
most
of
both.
http://www.crisp.se/henrik.kniberg/Kanban-vs-Scrum.pdf, 2009.
KOCH, M.; KOCH, J. Application of Frameworks in Groupware—the Iris Group Editor
Environment. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 32, 2000.
KRISTOFFERSEN, S.; LJUNGBERG, F. Your Mobile Computer Is a Stationary Computer.
CSCW 1998 Handheld CSCW Ws., Seattle, USA,1998.
LIKER, J. The Toyota Way. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill, 2004.
MACEACHREN, A.; BREWER, I. Developing a Conceptual Framework for Visually-Enabled
Geocollaboration. Int. Journal of Geographical Information Science 18, 1–34, 2004.
MCCAULEY, R. Agile Development Methods Poised to Upset Status Quo. SIGCSE Bulletin,
vol. 33, pp. 14 - 15, 2001.
MITJA, T. The knowledge management wheel. Management, Knowledge and Learning,
2011.
MISHRA, D.; MISHRA, A.; OSTROVSKA, S. Impact of Physical Ambiance on
Communication, Collaboration and Coordination in Agile Software Development: An
Empirical Evaluation. Information and Software Technology, v. 54,p. 1067-1078, 2012.
MUHLENBACH, F.; LALLICH, S. Discovering Research Communities by Clustering
Bibliographical Data. 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web
Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, 2010.
MULLER, H.; SEDLEY, A. Designing Surveys for HCI Research. CHI 2015, Crossings,
Seoul, Korea 2485, 2015.
NEILL, C., LAPLANTE, P. Requirements engineering: the state of the practice. IEEE
Software 20 (6), 40–45, 2003.
NERUR, S.; MAHAPATRA, R.; MANGALARAJ, G. Challenges of migrating to agile
methodologies. Communications of the ACM, 2005. ACM, v. 48, n. 5, p. 72–78, 2005.
PALMER, S. R.; FELSING, M. A Practical Guide to Feature-Driven Development. Prentice
Hall, 2002.
47
PAPADOPOULOS, C. Improving Awareness in Mobile CSCW. IEEE Transactions on
Mobile Computing, vol. 5, pp. 1331-1346, Oct. 2006.
PENICHET, V. M. R.; MARIN, I.; GALLUD, J. A.; LOZANO, M. D.; TESORIERO, R. A
Classification Method for CSCW Systems. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer
Science. 2007. Elsevier Science Publishers B.
PETERSEN, K. et al. Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. 12th International
Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, v. 17, p. 1, 2008.
PINELLE, D.; GUTWIN, C. Groupware Walkthrough: Adding Context to Groupware
Usability Evaluation. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. on Human factors in computing systems, pp.
455–462. ACM Press, Minneapolis, 2002.
POLTROCK, S.; GRUDIN, J. CSCW, groupware and workflow: experiences, state of art, and
future trends. CHI’99 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, ACM Press, New York, NY, 1999, pp.120–121.
POPPENDIECK, M.; POPPENDIECK, T. Implementing Lean Software Development: From
Concept to Cash. Addison-Wesley, 2007.
REINHARD, W.; SCHWEITZER, J.; VOLKSEN, G.; WEBER, M. CSCW tools: Concepts
and architectures. IEEE Comput. Mag., pp. 28–36, May 1994.
RITTENBRUCH, M.; MCEWAN, G. An historical reflection of awareness in collaboration.
Awareness Systems: Advances in Theory, Methodology and Design. Springer Verlag,
London, 2000.
SCHWABER, K.; SUTHERLAND, J. The scrum guide. Scrum.org, October, 2011. 2011.
SHNEIDERMAN, B. High impact research: Blending basic and applied methods. Empirical
Software Engineering and Measurement, 2013 ACM / IEEE International Symposium, 2013.
SOFTEX. TIC Brasileira: IBSS em nível regional. 2014. http://www.softex.br/ti-brasileira/.
Accessed: 2015-10-03.
REDDING, J.; CATALANELLO, R. F. Strategic readiness: The making of the learning
organisation. San Fransisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
RODDEN, T. A survey of CSCW systems. Interacting with Computers, 3 (3), p. 319-353,
December 1991.
48
SCHWABER, C. Corporate Software Development Fails to Satisfy on Speed or Quality.
Forrester Research v. II, p. 1-4, 2005.
SHROFF G.; MEHTA A.; PUNEET P.; SINHA, R. Collaborative Development of Business
Applications, Proceedings of WEBIST 2006. 2nd International Conference on Web
Information Systems and Technologies, Serubal, Portugal. April 11-13, 2006.
SNOWDON, D.; MUNRO, A. Collaborative Virtual Environments: Digital Places and Spaces
for Interaction. Springer, New York, 2000.
TANG, J.: Findings from observational studies of collaborative work. International Journal
of Man-Machine Studies 34, 143–160, 1991.
VERSIONONE.
9th
Annual
State
of
Agile
Development
Survey.
2015.
http://stateofagile.versionone.com. Accessed: 2015-09-19.
VIZCAÍNO, A., MARTINEZ, M., ARANDA, G., PIATTINI, M. Evaluating Collaborative
Applications from a Knowledge Management Approach. 14th WETICE 2005, pp. 221–225.
IEEE Press, Los Alamitos, 2005.
WEICK, K. Making Sense of the Organization. Blackwell, Oxford, 2001.
WEICK, K. The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster.
Administrative Science Quarterly 38, 628–652, 1993.
WOMACK, J.; JONES, D. From lean production to the lean enterprise. Harward Business
Review, 1994.
ZANDI, F.; TAVANA, M. A fuzzy group quality function deployment model for e-CRM
framework assessment in agile manufacturing. Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol.
61, pp. 1-19. 2011.
49
APPENDIX A – SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Instructions: evaluate positive (0-N/A; +1; +2) and negative scores (0-N/A; -1; -2) to each
design element of the application.
Assessed tool: ________________
Date: _______________________
Design
ID
Design Element
Question
Category
Accessibility
+
AC- Same place
How is the tool support regarding access
Q01
in the same place it is optimally used?
AC- Different place
Q02
in different places?
AC- Any place
Is it possible to access the tools
Q03
functionalities disregarding user’s
location?
AC- Co-located
Q04
in the two or more different places?
AC- Virtually co-
How is the tool support regarding virtual
Q05 located
access in the two or more different
places?
Communication
Score Score
AC- Remote
How is the tool support regarding remote
Q06
access of its functionalities?
AC- Synchronous
How is the tool support regarding
Q07
synchronous activities?
AC- Asynchronous
Q08
asynchronous activities?
AC- Network
How is the tool support regarding its
Q09 connectivity
network connectivity?
AC- Message delivery
Q10
message delivery?
AC- Network
How is the tool support regarding network
Q11 management
management?
-
50
Spatiality
AC- Cartesian
Does the tool support the display of
Q12 locations
Cartesian locations?
AC- Topological
Q13 locations
Topological locations?
AC- Distances
Q14
distances among two different Cartesian
locations?
Mobility
AC- Orientation
Q15
orientation (i. e. compass)?
AC- Focus/nimbus
Does the tool provides focus on Points of
Q16
interest?
AC- Wandering
Q17
wandering on different places?
AC- Visiting
How is the tool support regarding visiting
Q18
some specific places (does it recognize
some)?
AC- Traveling
Q19
traveling (does it notices users of
travelling access)?
AC- Fixed
How is the tool support regarding fixed
Q20
access (i. e. does it save fixed access
locations)?
AC- Mobile
How is the tool support regarding mobile
Q21
access (i. e. does it notice users about
mobile access)?
AC- Autonomous
Q22
autonomous access (i. e. does it notice
users about different access)?
AC- Independent
Q23
independent access (i. e. does it notice
users about one-time access)?
AC- Embedded
Q24
independent access (i. e. does it notice
users about third-party access)?
AC- Pervasive
Q25
pervasive access (i. e. does it notice users
about pervasive access)?
Physicality
AC- Physical
Q26 constraints
physical constraints?
51
AC- Physical places
Q27
physical places?
AC- Physical topology How is the tool support regarding
Navigation
Q28
physical topologies?
AC- Physical
Q29 attributes
physical attributes?
AC- Viewports
Q30
Viewports?
AC- Links
How is the tool support regarding Links?
Q31
Virtuality
AC- Radar views
How is the tool support regarding Radar
Q32
views?
AC- Teleports
Q33
Teleports?
AC- Private objects
How is the tool support regarding Privacy
Q34
(i. e. does it notices users about privacy
policies)?
AC- Group objects
Q35
Groups?
AC- Public objects
How is the tool support regarding public
Q36
access?
AC- Data access
How is the tool support regarding data
Q37 privileges
access privileges (i. e. does it have
different access levels for different users)?
AC- Concurrency
Q38 control
concurrency control (i. e. does it notice
users about concurrent edit/access)?
AC- Floor control
How is the tool support regarding floor
Q39
control?
AC- Version control
How is the tool support regarding version
Q40
control?
AC- Virtual
Q41 constraints
constraints?
AC- Virtual places
Q42
places?
AC- Virtual topology
Q43
topology?
AC- Virtual attributes
Q44
attributes?
52
Membership
Attention
AC- Participants
How is the tool support regarding its
Q45
participants?
AC- Roles
How is the tool support regarding user’s
Q46
roles?
AC- Activities
Q47
activities?
AC- Privileges
Q48
privileges?
AC- Group history
Q49
group history?
AC- Eye-gaze
How is the tool support regarding eye-
Q50 orientation
gaze orientation (i. e. message popup)?
AC- Body orientation
How is the tool support regarding body
Q51
orientation (i. e. does it rotate the display
as users rotate their devices screen)?
AC- Voice filtering
How is the tool support regarding voice
Q52
filtering?
AC- Portholes/peephol How is the tool support regarding
Q53 es
portholes/peepholes (i. e. does it preview
some contents without have to access
them)?
Task
AC- Who
Q54
identity?
AC- What
Q55
purpose of usage?
AC- Where
Q56
location?
AC- When
Q57
current time clock?
AC- How
Q58
usage methods (i. e. does it notices users
about done operation types)?
Interaction
AC- Task history
Q59
task history?
AC- Feedback
Q60
feedback to its users?
AC- Feedthrough
Q61
feedthrough (i. e. approval notifications to
responsible)?
53
Interdependence
AC- Backchannel
Q62
backchannel feedback?
AC- Individual
Q63 activities
individual activities of its users?
AC- Parallel activities
How is the tool support regarding parallel
Q64
activities of its users?
AC- Coordinated
Q65 activities
coordinated activities?
AC- Mutually adjusted How is the tool support regarding
Q66 activities
mutually adjusted activities?
AC- Loosely coupled
How is the tool support regarding loose
Q67
coupling?
AC- Tightly coupled
How is the tool support regarding tight
Q68
coupling?
Internationalizatio
AC- Events
How is the tool support regarding events
n
Q69
notifications in different languages?
AC- Actions
How is the tool support regarding action
Q70
notifications in different languages?
AC- Resources
Q71
resource usage in different languages?
AC- Critical elements
How is the tool support regarding critical
Q72
elements notification in different
languages?
AC- Meaning
How is the tool support regarding the
Q73
meaning of context induced words
notification in different languages?
Externalization
AC- Future scenarios
How is the tool support regarding future
Q74
scenarios in different languages?
AC- Individual
Q75 cognition
individual cognition?
AC- Distributed
Q76 cognition
distributed cognition?
AC- Team cognition
How is the tool support regarding team
Q77
cognition?

universidade fumec quality assessment of awareness support tools

Transcription

Similar documents

Digital Industry - PASSTI | Perkumpulan Assessment Center Indonesia

Organization is half the battle.

AGILE WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

robsmallshire - Agilia Conference 2017

Agile Risk Management

Software Requirements and Engineering Tarbut v Torah Howard

MobileLife

Continuous Delivery Maturity

USA