Distributed Developers and the Non-Use of Web 2.0 Technologies

310 views

Published on

In this paper we sought to understand the role that Web 2.0 technologies play in supporting the development of trust in globally distributed development teams. We found the use of Web 2.0 technologies to be minimal, with less than 25% of our participants reporting using them and many reporting the disadvantages of adopting them. In response, we sought to understand the factors that led to the use and non-use of these technologies in distributed development teams. We adopted a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze data collected from 61 interviewees representing all common roles in systems development. We discovered six factors that influenced the use and non-use of Web 2.0 technology. We present a proclivity model to frame our findings as well as our conclusions about the interrelationships between the results of our qualitative and quantitative analyses. We also present implications for the design of collaboration tools, which could lead to greater support and usage by distributed developers. This paper was presented at the 2012 ICGSE, Porto Alegre, Brazil, on late August 2012.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
310
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Distributed Developers and the Non-Use of Web 2.0 Technologies

  1. 1. Distributed Developers and theNon-Use of Web 2.0 Technologies A Proclivity ModelUniversity of California, Irvine PUCRS University, BrazilBan Al-Ani Sabrina MarczakYi WangErik TrainerDavid Redmiles
  2. 2. Trust• Which factors influence trust in distributed development teams? B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  3. 3. Assumptions• Tools adopted by developers to support their collaboration would play a role in the development of trust• Web 2.0 technologies would be amongst the tools adopted B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  4. 4. Our intended goal• To understand the role that Web 2.0 technologies play in supporting the development of trust in globally distributed development teams B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  5. 5. Surprising finding• Less than 25% of our participants reported using Web 2.0 technologies• Many participants reported the disadvantages of adopting them B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  6. 6. New goal• To understand the factors that led to the USE and NON-USE of these technologies in distributed teams B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  7. 7. Research questions• Why do developers NOT use Web 2.0 technologies?• Who DOES use these technologies? B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  8. 8. Six factorsQUALI• Non-alignment• Lack of support• Mistrust of information B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  9. 9. Six factorsQUALI QUANTI• Non-alignment • Age• Lack of support • Experience• Mistrust of information • Communication tools B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  10. 10. Our empirical approach• Mix of QUALI and QUANTI methods• 5 fortune 500 multinational organizations• 61 interviewees B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  11. 11. The profile• 18 female, 43 male• 34 US• 18 Brazil• 2 Mexico• 1 Costa Rica, Ireland, Israel, Poland, China, Taiwan, Malaysia B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  12. 12. The profile• 21 managers• 35 developers• 5 support staff B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  13. 13. The profile• Working experience • 11 years with global teams • 12 years in the organization • 21 years in the market • 6 months working in the project • 13.5 months experience in their team• Knowledge about Web 2.0 B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  14. 14. The interview protocol• Based on a single distributed project• Participant and project background• Scenarios• Experience reports B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  15. 15. The analysis• Coded references to tools• Categorized the codes• Quali and Quanti analysis B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  16. 16. Qualitative findings• Focused on identifying the causal reasons subjects revealed for NON-USE of Web 2.0 technologies B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  17. 17. Qualitative findings• The non-alignment of the technologies to the work practices (Qual.1) B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  18. 18. Qualitative findings• The non-alignment of the technologies to the work practices (Qual.1) “the use is not billable” B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  19. 19. Qualitative findings• The non-alignment of the technologies to the work practices (Qual.1) “the use is not billable” “it is extra paperwork” B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  20. 20. Qualitative findings• The non-alignment of the technologies to the work practices (Qual.1) “the use is not billable” “it is extra paperwork” “does not extend current communication” B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  21. 21. Qualitative findings• The lack of support for these technologies (Qual. 2) B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  22. 22. Qualitative findings• The lack of support for these technologies (Qual. 2) “not available to some members” B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  23. 23. Qualitative findings• The lack of support for these technologies (Qual. 2) “not available to some members” “not adopted by some sites” B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  24. 24. Qualitative findings• The lack of support for these technologies (Qual. 2) “not available to some members” “not adopted by some sites” “prohibited by the organization” B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  25. 25. Qualitative findings• The participant’s mistrust of information provided through these technologies (Qual. 3) B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  26. 26. Qualitative findings• The participant’s mistrust of information provided through these technologies (Qual. 3) “information is not accurate” B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  27. 27. Qualitative findings• The participant’s mistrust of information provided through these technologies (Qual. 3) “information is not accurate” “many times it is not useful” B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  28. 28. Qualitative findings• The participant’s mistrust of information provided through these technologies (Qual. 3) “information is not accurate” “many times it is not useful” “anyone can write anything to everyone” B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  29. 29. Quantitative findings• Focused on 8 potential influential demographic variables • Language • Exp@GSD • Education • Managerial job • Gender • Technical job • Age • # Commun. tech. B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  30. 30. Quantitative findings• 3 influential variables • Language • Exp@GSD • Education • Managerial job • Gender • Technical job • Age • # Commun. tech. B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  31. 31. Quantitative findings• Older participants are less likely to use Web 2.0 technology (Quan.1) B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  32. 32. Quantitative findings• Those who with more experience in distributed development are more likely to use such technologies (Quan. 2) B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  33. 33. Quantitative findings• Developers who reported the use of diverse communication tools are more likely to use Web 2.0 technology (Quan. 3) B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  34. 34. The Proclivity model Group Factors Use Organizational Use Policy (Qual. 2) P3 Tool Work Alignment (Qual. 1) Usage of Other Tools (Quan. 3) P1 Exp@DSD (Quan. 2) Age (Quan. 1) Trust on Tools (Qual. 3) Individual Factors P2 B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  35. 35. Conclusions B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  36. 36. Conclusions • The work-technology alignment is positively associated with distributed developer’s trust towards collaboration tools (P1) B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  37. 37. Conclusions B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  38. 38. Conclusions • The experience of being exposed to distributed development is positively associated with distributed developer’s trust towards collaboration tools (P2) B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  39. 39. Conclusions B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  40. 40. Conclusions • The encouraging organization policies on collaboration tools are positively associated with distributed developer’s usage of traditional collaboration tools (P3) B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  41. 41. Limitations• Recruitment process• “Traditional” teams B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  42. 42. What have we learned?• Previous factors • that motivates • in-house development • small teams • that inhibits • non-adoption by a “critical mass” • time needed to explore the technology B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  43. 43. What have we learned? QUALI QUANTI• Non-alignment • Age• Lack of support • Experience• Mistrust of information • Communication tools B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  44. 44. What is new?• In-site study• Team dynamics• Role independent• Availability does not mean adoption B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  45. 45. So what?• Horizontal integration • Integrating Web 2.0 mechanisms across tools can influence team member’s attitudes towards these tools and increase usage• Vertical integration • Future designs need to consider non- developers’ needs also B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles
  46. 46. Thank you for your attention! Questions? Comments? Suggestions? Presented by Sabrina Marczak PUCRS sabrina.marczak@pucrs.br Main contact for this work Ban Al-Ani UCI balani@ics.uci.edu

×