3. Distributed
So-ware
Development
–
Sweden
-­‐
Croa8a

4. Distributed
project
Supervisors
MDH
FER
MDH
FER
Students
Students
Project
group
4
2013-­‐02-­‐06

5. What
would
be
success?
Supervisors
MDH
FER
IDt
FER
Students
Students
Project
group
5
2013-­‐02-­‐06

6. Risk
Supervisors
MDH
FER
IDE
FER
Students
Students
Project
group
6
2013-­‐02-­‐06

7. What
would
be
disaster?
Supervisors
MDH
FER
IDE
FER
Students
Students
7
2013-­‐02-­‐06

8. What
would
be
that?
(maybe
OK,
but
not
good
for
the
final
students
resultsJ)
Supervisors
MDH
FER
IDE
FER
Students
Students
Project
group
8
2013-­‐02-­‐06

9. Distributed
So-ware
Development
Challenges
• Global
Challenges
– Out
of
sight,
out
of
mind
– Technical
barriers
– Physical
barriers–
space
&
=me
– Language
barriers
– Cultural
Challenges
• Local
Challenges
– Cultural
Challenges

10. Way
of
thinking
and
presentning
a
Acsbah
a
A
the
ghjkhgjQsaf
sdfgsdfgAsg
a
sdfgsdfgdsfg
A
or
B
maybe
a
So
Difficult..

11. WAY
OF
THINKING
(how
to
argue,
how
to
carry
through
a
mee8ng,
a
conversa8on
etc.)
o
X
o
X
11

12. Sense
for
8me
• Swedish
Students
• European
Students
(Italian,
Croa8an)
• Asian
Students

13. Worklaod
during
the
project
• Swedish
• Italy,
Croa8a
• Asian

14. How
to
make
such
course
working?
• Administra8ve
&
Organiza8onal
Challenges
• Pedagogical
Challenges
• Technical
Challenges
• Cultural
Challenges
Avoiding
Scylla
and
Charybdis
in
Distributed
SoCware
Development
Course
–ICSE
2011
CTG-­‐DSD
workshop

15. Administar8ve
&
Organisa8onal
Challanges
• Course
approval
• Joint
student
enrolment
• Credits
the
students
obtain
in
the
course
• Examina7on
elements
• Course
quality
assurance
• Administra7ve
course
support
• Staff
workload

16. Cultural
Challenges
• Language
differences
• Communica7on
characteris7cs
• Timing
issues
• Agreement
and
Commitment
• Teamwork
• Different
views
of
teaching
staff

17. Heterogeneity
Challenges
• Different
knowledge
background
• Different
expecta8on
about
workload
• Different
expecta8on
of
giving
credits

18. How
to
avoid
the
risks?
• Tac8cs
– Force
students
to
start
to
communicate
– Force
students
to
keep
to
communicate
– Avoid
situa8on
that
students
complain
about
other
side
– Explain
many
8mes
that
you
mean
what
you
say
– Mo8vate
students
– Remove
extremely
bad
students

19. Project schedule
Intro., Lectures, Project presentations and assignments
Lectures & Group project plan presentations
Guest Lectures Requirements presentation
Group project design, presentations
Guest Lectures
Project status presentations
Project status presentations
In reserve
Final Presentations
Weeks
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(W44) (W45) (W46) (W47) (W58) (W49) (W50 (W51) (W02) (W03)
30/10 6/11 13/11 20/11 27/11 4/12 11/12 18/12 08/01 15/01
19 2013-02-06

20. Project schedule
Final
Results
Waterfall
model
Prototype
Prototype
Itera8ons
Itera8ons
Itera8ons
Itera8ons
Weeks
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(W44) (W45) (W46) (W47) (W58) (W49) (W50 (W51) (W02) (W03)
30/10 6/11 13/11 20/11 27/11 4/12 11/12 18/12 08/01 15/01
20 2013-02-06

21. Mo8va8ng/Demo8va8ng
factors
for
students
Individual Group
meeting new people and team atmosphere,
Internal cultures, learning new responsibility,
things project success
customer support,
External grade
challenging project
Individual Group
respecting deadlines,
personal attitude, low quality work,
Internal
overload communication issues,
lack of enthusiasm
documentation, technical
External lack of time
issues

22. DSD
Experience
# #
Year Originating countries
stud. proj.
2003 28 5 Croatia, Sweden, Canada
Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, India,
2004 20 4
Pakistan, Sweden
Austria, China, Croatia, France, India,
2005 38 6 Nigeria, Pakistan, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece,
2006 31 4
India, Iran, Pakistan, Spain, Sweden
2007 20 2 Austria, Croatia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand
Australia, Croatia, India, Iran, Italy, the
2008 37 6
Netherlands, Pakistan, Spain, Sweden
Bangladesh, Croatia, France, Germany,
2009 56 10 India, Iran, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands,
Pakistan, Sweden, Ukraine
Bangladesh, China, Croatia, France,
2010 65 9 Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Kazakhstan,
Kenya, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Sweden

23. Well,
how
did
it
go???
• Example
– We
par8cipated
in
a
contest
– Interna8onal
conference
on
So-ware
Engineering
– 50
groups
par8cipated
MDH/FER

24. Well,
how
did
it
go???
Phase
I
Seminfinals:
Phase
2:
Final:

25. V
a
F n
i c
n o
a u
v
l
e
r

26. Final
-­‐
Vancouver

27. Two
years
a-er
– Interna8onal
conference
on
So-ware
Engineering
– 60
groups
par8cipated
7
groups
From
MDH/FER/
Sofia
U

28. How
did
it
go
this
year???
Phase
I
Seminfinals:
18
teams
passed
(6
MDH/FER
S.
U)
Phase
2:
Final:

29. From
educa8on
to
research
• Wri8ng
a
proposal
for
research
funding
– Goal:
Improve
global
educa8on
(global
so-ware
engineering
educa8on)
– Aspects:
• Technical
&
processes
• Cultural
&
social
• Ethical
aspects
• Project
– Analyze
state
of
the
prac8ce
– Propose
methods
for
improvements

30. From
educa8on
to
research
• Research
Ques8ons
– How
to
tailor
course
elements
(lectures,
project
work)
to
ac8ve
best
results
• Which
elements
and
which
processes
are
the
most
important
for
a
successful
performance
of
a
distributed
project
• Which
tools
and
which
way
of
their
use
give
the
best
results
– Which
cultural/social
factors
have
to
be
processed
explicitly
and
systema8cally
to
achieve
an
efficient
project
work
– Which
ethical
principles
are
important
to
take
into
educa8on
to
achieve
a
successful
work

31. Research
Methods
• Similar
to
empirical
SE
– “Ac8on
Research”
–
par8cipa8on
and
observa8on
– Experiments
–
different
groups
performing
in
different
ways
– Quan8ta8ve
analysis
(ques8onnaires,
measuring
results)
– Qualita8ve
analysis
(interviews,
“narra8ve”
communica8on)

32. Conclusion
• Distributed
So-ware
Development
(Glbal
So-ware
Engineering)
Educa8on
– Increasing
in
Europe
– Important
to
understand
the
differences
in
pedagogical
approaches
Interdisciplinary
research