1 / 28

Communications in Software Development Projects

Communications in Software Development Projects. by Frank Tsui Southern Polytechnic State University Presented to Atlanta SPIN December 12, 2007. Why Interested in Communications?. An Interesting Quote. “ - - - an idea, no matter how great, is useless until

uta
Télécharger la présentation

Communications in Software Development Projects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Communications in SoftwareDevelopment Projects by Frank Tsui Southern Polytechnic State University Presented to Atlanta SPIN December 12, 2007

  2. Why Interested in Communications?

  3. An Interesting Quote “ - - - an idea, no matter how great, is useless until it is transmitted and understood by others - - -”

  4. Many “Attributes” Affect A Project Management Leadership Organizational structure Schedule Development Process Clarity of Goals Technology & Tools Team Experience COMMUNICATION - is an attribute that touches on many of these other attributes

  5. Increase in Software Project Size and Complexity size complexity

  6. Teamwork and Communications • As the size and complexity of software increases, teamwork is becoming a necessity: • Interaction with multiple users • Interaction among different project specialists • Requirements Analysts • System Architects • Application Designers • UI Specialists • Test Script Developers • etc. • An important aspect of teamwork is communications among the members of the team. But there are relatively few “formal studies” on aspects of communications in “software projects”

  7. Some “Sample” Past Studies • Dutoit, H.A and Bruegge, B., “ Communications Metrics for software Development,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, (1998) • Damien,D., et al, “Using Different Communications Media in requirements Negotiation,” IEEE Software, (2000) • Suchan, J, and Hayzak, G., “ The Communication Characteristics of Virtual Teams: A Case Study,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications, (2001) • Kaushik, S., “ A Study of Attributes of Communications as They relate to Software Development,” MS Thesis, Southern Poly, (2001) • Patrashkova-Volzdoska,R.R., McComb,S.A. and Green, S.G., “Examining a Curvilinear Relationship Between Communication Frequency and Team Performance in Cross-functional Project Teams,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, (2003) • Herbsleb, J.D. and Mockus, A., “ An Empirical Study of Speed and Communication in Globally Distributed Software Development,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, June, (2003) • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Ambler, S. W. “Communication on Agile Software Projects,” • www.agilemodeling.com/essays/communication.htm (2007)

  8. What is Communications? How about a simple definition? --- “Exchanging of information between or among individuals.”

  9. Aspects of Communications • Channels of communications • Structure or Style of communications • Amount of communications

  10. Channels of Communications • Face-to-Face (synchronous) • Physically next to each other • Video conference • Telephone (synchronous) • e-mail / e-group / etc. (asynchronous) • Document Exchange / Memos (asynchronous)

  11. Structure or Style of Communications Chained - formal hierarchical Wheel - central conduit All-member – direct member-member Informal: subset of all-member

  12. Volume of Communications • Number of exchanges • Size of each exchange (e.g. number of words) • Volume of exchange • ∑ (exchange x size of exchange) Sometimes volume is simply measured by person-minutes or person-hours

  13. An Initial Thought/Conjecture • More communications is better than less communications in software projects (error on the more side) • The distribution of communications would look like a double hump camel curve Req. Des Code Test

  14. Studies of Communications • Student Projects – 3 Teams • Student Projects – 9 teams • Industry Projects – 16 companies

  15. Student Project- 3 Teams • Teams 1 was the most successful team followed by team 3 • Team 1 had a very experienced and strong leader from the beginning along with a strong “build” control • Team 3 had a team leader who was “designated” by other members • Team 2 was the least successful team • Project floundered until a late emergence of a team leader

  16. Student Project – 3 TeamsCommunications Structure/ Channel/Volume Teams Structure/Style Channel Volume

  17. Student Project – 3 TeamsCommunications Volume by Team Relative Volume Of Comm. 7 652 6 5 397 4 3 248 2 1 Least successful most successful successful (Team3) (Team2) (Team1)

  18. Student Project – 3 Teams % of communications volume by task 50 40.2 40 % of Total Comm. 31.1 30 18.4 20 10.3 10 Req. Design/Code Test Proj. Mgmt

  19. Student Project – 3 TeamsDistribution of Communications by Teams 50 45 40 35 30 % of Total Comm. 25 Team1 20 Team3 15 10 Team2 5 Req. Des/code Test Proj. Mgmt

  20. Student Project – 9 TeamsProject Teams by Success and Amount of Communications 100 95 Group A = 10.5 k Success 90 Group B = 11.0k 85 80 Group C = 2.6k 75 1 k 2 k 3 k 4 k 5 k 6 k 7 k 8 k Communications in person-minutes

  21. Student Project – 9 TeamsDistribution of Communications 39.7 40 % of Total Comm. 26.5 30 23.1 20 10.7 10 Req. Des/code Test Proj. Mgmt Much less Similar Result

  22. Student Project – 9 TeamsDistribution of Communications by Groups 45 40 35 B 30 9 teams overall % of Total Comm. 25 20 15 A 10 C 5 Req. Des/code Test Proj. Mgmt

  23. What about the 16 Professional Companies?

  24. Communications Structure /Style Usage in 16 Companies Usage % in different tasks and activities Style Note this Wheel Used in 93% of the activities All-member 88% Informal 69% 50% Chain Note: different and more than one style may be used for the same activity or task

  25. Rating of Communications Styles by Activity Types Rated by Employees Activity Type Most Effective Style Least Effective Style Requirement Wheel Informal Informal Design All-member Informal Code All-member Informal Unit test Wheel Functional test Wheel Informal Informal System test Wheel & All-member

  26. Relating Amount of Communicationsto Different Project Results Volume of Communications is normalized as: # of person-hours of comm. / # of persons Relative Volume Of Comm. 6 5 4.23 4 3 2 1.83 .8 1 successful average not-successful (9 teams) (5 teams) (2 teams)

  27. Distribution of Communications by Groups 1.0 * * 2 “successful” teams .9 .8 * * * * .7 .6 Amt of Comm. .5 9 “average” teams .4 + + + .3 + + + .2 5 “not-successful” teams . .1 . . . . . Req. Des Code UT FT ST

  28. Concluding Remarks • Structure/Style of communications seem to matter • “Wheel” seems to be preferred and usually shows existence of some project leadership • Volume of communications shows strong correlation with successful teams • Matches the initial conjecture • Pattern of communications did not resemble a double humped camel as initially thought • Most teams communicated more during design and code, rather than requirements and (sometimes more in testing)

More Related