SIGDOC 2011 - Necessary and Neglected? An Empirical Study of Internal Documentation in Agile Software Development Teams
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

SIGDOC 2011 - Necessary and Neglected? An Empirical Study of Internal Documentation in Agile Software Development Teams

on

  • 3,255 views

Presentation slides for the "Necessary and Neglected? An Empirical Study of Internal Documentation in Agile Software Development Teams" paper presented at SIGDOC 2011

Presentation slides for the "Necessary and Neglected? An Empirical Study of Internal Documentation in Agile Software Development Teams" paper presented at SIGDOC 2011

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,255
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
823
Embed Views
2,432

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

6 Embeds 2,432

http://www.liacs.nl 2277
http://www.stettina.org 125
http://stettina.org 24
http://www.linkedin.com 4
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1
http://www.docshut.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    SIGDOC 2011 - Necessary and Neglected? An Empirical Study of Internal Documentation in Agile Software Development Teams SIGDOC 2011 - Necessary and Neglected? An Empirical Study of Internal Documentation in Agile Software Development Teams Presentation Transcript

    • Necessary  and  Neglected?  Empirical  Study  of  Internal  Documenta?on  in  Agile  SoAware  Development  Teams    SIGDOC  2011,  Pisa,  Italy   Christoph J. Stettina (stettina@liacs.nl) Werner Heijstek (heijstek@liacs.nl) This research has been kindly supported by the Leiden University Fund                          Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
    • Introduc?on  Agile  Knowledge  Transfer    •  Adap&ve  rather  then  predic&ve:                                                                               No  heavy  documenta&on  created  up-­‐front  •  Direct  communica&on  rather  than  documenta&on    •  Lean:  Documenta&on  →  “No  value  for  the  end  user”  ?  All  fine,  but:    l  Project  handover  and  maintenance  l  Loss  of  undocumented  knowledge  (Abrahamsson et al, 2003)l  LiDle  empirical  data  (Dybå and Dingsøyr, 2008)                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
    • Objec?ves    Percep?ons  from  within  teams:  How  do   prac&&oners  feel  about  documenta&on?    Research  Ques?ons    1.  How  do  team  members  in  agile  soIware   development  projects  document  their  work?  2.  How  do  they  perceive  the  amount  and   importance  of  their  internal  documenta&on?                                Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
    • Methodology  Qualita?ve  ScrumMaster  interviews:    Project  and  team  environment    Quan?ta?ve  ques?onnaire:    Comparable  Likert  scale  data  on:    A)  Documenta&on:  Perceived  amount,  effort,   importance  B)  SoIware  Tools:  Usage,  usability  and   importance  (issue  tracking,  revision  control,  electronic  discussion,  Scrum   support,  document  management  and  calendar  &  scheduling)                                Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
    • Methodology:  Ques?onnaire  Design  Percep?ons  Regarding  Documenta?on  -­‐  Perceived  amount,  effort  and  importance      1.  How  much  +me  do  you  spend  on  wri+ng  documenta+on  daily?  2.  How  do  you  feel  about  documenta+on  at  work?    3.  How  effec+ve  do  you  consider  finding  internal  documenta+on?  4.  How  important  do  you  consider  documenta+on  for  your  project?  5.  How  important  do  you  consider  physical  ar+facts  like  story  cards   or  “the  wall”  for  your  project?                              Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
    • Methodology:  Data  Collec?on  Par?cipant  and  team  iden?fica?on:  l  SNS,  Google  Groups,  SlideShare,  Flickr,  etc.  l  Ac+vely  involved  in  Scrum  at  collec+on  +me                                Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
    • Data:  79  individuals,  13  countries,  8  teams   Experience Country (in years) Roles                          Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
    • Data:  Team  Sample  T1  (UK)  MMO  Game  back-­‐end  T2  (US)  Collabora&ve  SW  for  construc&on  T3  (UK)  Digital  media  agency  T4  (NO)  Smart  Card  key  solu&ons  T5  (NL)  Corporate  sites  and  web  shops  T6  (SE)  News  guide,  community  website  T7  (IN)  E-­‐commerce  T8  (NZ)  State  insurance  company    →  Broad  mul&na&onal  sample                              Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
    • Results:  Too  li^le  documenta?on?      "Code  comments  are  used  in  an  effec+ve  manner.  During  project  development  any  needed  documenta+on  is  generally  available.  However,  finding  documenta+on  for  older  projects  is  not  always  easy,  and  some+mes  this  documenta+on  is  missing.”      -­‐-­‐  Team  member  T6                                  Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
    • Results:  Too  li^le  documenta?on?   5 35 5 35 Effort:  Majority  15  mins  or  less  daily   Effec?veness:  Normal  distribu?on   How important do you consider documentation for your project?Amount:    Distribu?on  towards  too  li^le   Importance:  Important  or  very  important                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
    • Results:  Tools  as  a  “Backchannel”?    Adapta+on  of  support  tools  ”[W]e  have  a  wiki  that  we  are  supposed  to  use”        -­‐-­‐  ScrumMaster  T6    Virtual  Teams  &  GSD     "We  have  good  experience  using  physical  ar+facts  for   local  projects,  but  most  of  our  projects  are     mul7  loca7on  and  require  an  electronic  solu7on.”        -­‐-­‐  ScrumMaster  T4                                  Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
    • 13-)9 $ *3&, $ &;;*-3< $ 4-6-) $ ,0:4&73 $ 3)9-)337-)9 $ 3&C," $ %0=>C3) $ M&)&93C3) $ ,=073, $ 63 $ *&,$;0,--0)$136-)<$N=7>C$N>;;07$&)<$,0*>-0),$:07$O*3=70)-=$%-,=>,,-0)"$563$=&3907+$3)=*0,3,$63$ Results:  Tools  as  a  “Backchannel”?  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ocument  Management:     $ $ Least  usage  and  believed  usability   !""#$%&%()*+,-.+/)01&($)*+)2+#$34+$)2%5&3+5(%6+(%$+13&73(834+#$9("(%:+*4+93"(3834+(01)&%*73 Scrum  Support:   Wide  applica?on  of  soAware  tools  to  support  the  process  Q)3$3D;*&)&-0)$0$63$*04$;37=3-@3<$-C;07&)=3$0:$<0=>C3)$C&)&93C3)$=0>*<$13$63$3C;6&,-,$  0:$&9-*3$C360<0*09-3,$EN=64&137H$#RRST$N=64&137H$UJJSG$0)$<-73=$=0CC>)-=&-0)$,3-)9$47-3)$<0=>C3)&-0) $ -)0 $ 63 $ 1&=8970>)< $ &)< $ C&8-)9    $    -  $    73<>)<&)H $ &) $ -<3& $ ,>;;073< $to  d$ 63 $(9-*3$            Leiden  University.  The  university   1+ iscover.  
    • Discussion  Documenta?on  l  Confirm  lack  of  undocumented  knowledge  l  Majority  spends  <  15  mins  on  wri&ng   documenta&on  daily  l  Believe  documenta&on  is  important  and  too  liDle    SoAware  l  Pure  availability  of  support  tools  not  enough  l  Global  SoIware  Development,  Virtual  Teams  l  Traceability  of  decisions  valued                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
    • Conclusion  ?      What  is  an  appropriate  balance  of  explicit  and  tacit  knowledge  in  agile  soXware  development  projects?                                Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
    • Conclusion  →  Future  Work    Expecta+ons  &  Sa+sfac+on  in  agile  seZngs            →  Who  needs  what  documenta&on?    Process  Alignment  and  Cost/Quality  balance            →  Effects  of  documen&ng  itera&vely    SoXware  support  and  codifica+on  of  informa+on            →  How  to  code  informa&on  in  wikis  and  issue  trackers?      Visual  methods            →  Collabora&ve,  Agile  Modeling,  ICONIX,  ADSD                              Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
    • Ques?ons?    Thank  you  for  your  aDen&on!    stegna@liacs.nl                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
    • Validity  Validity  Considera?ons    l  Consistency  of  data  →  Likert  scales  l  Low  amount  of  data  →  Team  agreement  l  Socially  Desirable  Responding  →  Anonymity                            Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.  
    • Results:  Team  Sample   Table 2: Descriptive variables, team results (x) and agreement (σ 2 ) T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 avg. agr. country UK US UK NO NL SE IN NZ team size ( pers.) 4 9 5 12 6 4 8 6 collected answers 4 6 5 6 5 3 8 4 avg. exp. ( yrs.) 7.75 13.7 6.6 12.7 2.6 10 7 3.5 spacial distribution co-loc. co-loc. co-loc. distrib. co-loc. co-loc. distrib. co-loc. documentation tool Wiki Con- Google - - Wiki Con- - fluence Docs fluence Wiki Wiki perceived doc. x -0.25 -0.50 -0.40 -1.30 -1.00 -0.75 -0.13 0 amount σ2 (0.19) (0.25) (1.44) (0.89) (0.40) (0.67) (0.61) (0) (.56) perceived eff.. x 0.65 0.76 0.44 0.60 0.52 0.50 0.75 0.45 finding doc σ2 (0.69) (0.47) (0.16) (1.33) (1.44) (0.89) (0.69) (0.69) (.80) perceived x 1.00 0.70 0.76 0.57 0.72 0.75 0.7 0.85 importance artif. σ2 (0) (2.25) (0.16) (0.47) (1.04) (0.67) (0.50) (0.69) (.72) average agreement σ2 (.29) (.99) (.59) (.90) (.96) (.74) (.60) (.46) (.69)6.2 Software, More Than a Backchannel documentation, suggesting that documentation should only The teams in our study predominantly adopt collabora- include information that is used, we found that agile soft-tion tools to document and share agile artifacts such as user ware development practitioners perceive their internal doc-stories or sprint backlogs. An interesting finding is the per- umentation as important but that they feel that too littleceived importance and application of software that directly        documentation is available.TAnalogously to to  dobservations                  Leiden  University.   he  university   the iscover.  
    • References  Abrahamsson,  P.  Warsta,  J.,  Siponen,  M.  T.  and  Ronkainen,  J.  (2003)  New  direc&ons  on  agile  methods:  a  compara&ve  analysis.  In  Proceedings  of  the  25th  Interna&onal  Conference  on  SoIware  Engineering,  ICSE  2003,  pages  244–254,  Washington,  DC,  USA,  2003.  IEEE  Computer  Society.    Clear,  T.  (2003)  Documenta&on  and  agile  methods:  striking  a  balance.  SIGCSE  Bulle&n,  35(2):12–13    Dyba,  T.,  Moe,  N.  B.  (1999)  Rethinking  the  concept  of  soIware  process  assessment.  In  Proceedings  of  European  SoIware  Process  Improvement  Conference  (EuroSPI  1999),  Pori,  Finland    Dyba,  T.  and  Dingsøyr,  T.  (2008)  Empirical  studies  of  agile  soIware  development:  A  systema&c  review.  Informa&on  SoIware  Technology,  50(9-­‐10):833–859,  2008.    Fægri,  T.E.,  Dyb˚a,  T.,  Dingsøyr,  T.:  Introducing  knowledge  redundancy  prac&ce  in  soIware  development:  Experiences  with  job  rota&on  in  support  work.  Inf.  SoIw.  Technol.  52,  1118–1132  (2010)    Rubin,  E.  and  Rubin,  H.  (2011)  Suppor&ng  agile  soIware  development  through  ac&ve  documenta&on.  Requirements  Engineering,  16:117–132                              Leiden  University.  The  university  to  discover.