Relating Reflection Workshop Results with Team Goals

• Autorzy: Kopczyńska S.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12921/cmst.2014.20.04.129-138

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Agile software development promotes constant learning from experience. Consequently, the feedback of project team members helps to improve and adapt to new future challenges. A reflection workshop is one of the methods that aim to introduce this concept. However, there still exists the question of how to handle reflection results so that the gathered feedback is addressed. In this paper we present our approach, called RefGoal. It aims to treat the results of reflection workshops in a systematic manner. The core of our idea is to align these results with the goals of the organization in which the project is being run. Thereafter, we report the results of our exploratory case study. Its goal was to preliminarily evaluate feasibility of the proposed idea in the context of three software development teams working on tailor-made web applications. The results show that the cost of using RefGoal for reflection workshops is about the same as that of a typical workshop (at max. 1.5 h), and that there exists a considerable number of insights that lead to valuable updates of team goals. Based on the results, we also uncovered some open questions, regarding handling reflection workshop results, which require addressing in the near future.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

reflection workshop; retrospective; GQM+ Strategies; project goals; agile

• Wydawca: Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry Scientific Publishers OWN, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Czasopismo: Computational Methods in Science and Technology
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: Vol. 20, No. 4
• Strony: 129--138
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 22 poz., rys.

Twórcy

autor

Kopczyńska S.

• Poznan University of Technology, Institute of Computing Science Piotrowo 2, 60-965 Poznań, Poland E-mail: [e-mail]

Bibliografia

• [1] E. Derby, D. Larsen, Agile Retrospectives: Making Good Teams Great, Pragmatic Bookshelf Series Pragmatic Programmers, LLC, 2006.
• [2] D.A. Schön, The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action, volume 5126, Basic books, 1983.
• [3] K. Beck, C. Andres, Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change (2nd Edition), Addison-Wesley Professional, 2004.
• [4] V. Basili, A. Trendowicz, M. Kowalczyk, J. Heidrich, C. Seaman, J. Münch, D. Rombach, Aligning Organizations Through Measurement, Springer, 2014.
• [5] V. R. Basili, The Experience Factory and its Relationship to Other Improvement Paradigms, [In:] Proceedings of the 4th European Software Engineering Conference on Software Engineering (ESEC ’93).
• [6] P. Runeson, M. Host, A. Rainer, B. Regnell, Case Study Research in Software Engineering: Guidelines and Examples, Wiley, 2012.
• [7] J. Nawrocki, L. Olek, M. Jasinski, B. Pali´swiat, B. Walter, B. Pietrzak, P. Godek, Balancing agility and discipline with XPrince, [In:] Proceedings of RISE 2005 Conference (in print), volume 3943 of LNCS, pages 266-277 Springer Verlag, 2006.
• [8] S. Kopczynska, J. Nawrocki, M. Ochodek, Software development studio – Bringing industrial environment to a classroom, [In:] Software Engineering Education based on Real-World Experiences (EduRex), 1st Internat. Workshop on, pages 13-16 IEEE, 2012.
• [9] K. Charmax, Constructing Grounded Theory, SAGE Pulications, 2006.
• [10] E. Gottesdiener, Reguirements by Collaboration, Addison-Wesley, 2002.
• [11] N.P. Napier, L. Mathiassen, R.D. Johnson, Combining Perceptions and Prescriptions in Requirements Engineering Process Assessment: An Industrial Case Study, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35(5), 593-606, (September 2009).
• [12] PRINCE2, Managing successful projects with PRINCE2, Office of Government Commerce (OGC), Stationery Office Bookssher, 2009.
• [13] P.C. Blumenfeld, E. Soloway, R.W. Marx, J.S. Krajcik, M. Guzdial, A. Palincsar, Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning, Educational Psychologist 26(3-4), 369-398 (1991).
• [14] T. Dingsøyr, G.K. Hanssen, Extending agile methods: postmortem reviews as extended feedback, [In:] Advances in Learning Software Organizations, pages 4-12 Springer 2003.
• [15] O. Salo, K. Kolehmainen, P. Kyllönen, J. Löthman, S. Salmijärvi, P. Abrahamsson, Self-Adaptability of Agile Software Processes: A Case Study on Post-iteration Workshops, [In:] Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering, volume 3092 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 184-193, Springer 2004.
• [16] B. Collier, T. DeMarco, P. Fearey, A Defined Process For Project Postmortem Review, IEEE Softw.13(4), 65-72 (1996).
• [17] F.F. Fajtak, Kick-Off Workshops and Project Retrospectives, [In:] Professional Knowledge Management, volume 3782 of LNCS, pages 76-81 Springer 2005.
• [18] T. Dingsøyr, Postmortem reviews: purpose and approaches in software engineering, Information and Software Technology 47(5), 293-303 (2005).
• [19] R. Scupin, The KJ method: A technique for analyzing data derived from Japanese ethnology, Human organization 56(2), 233-237 (1997).
• [20] T. Schümmer, M. Mühlpfordt, J.M. Haake, Computer Supported Reflection of Good Practice, [In:] Collaboration and Technology, volume 6257 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 65-80, Springer 2010.
• [21] M. Margaritis, N. Avouris, G. Kahrimanis, On Supporting Users’ Reflection During Small Groups Synchronous Collaboration, [In:] Groupware: Design, Implementation, and Use, volume 4154 of LNCS, pages 140-154, Springer 2006.
• [22] E. Bjarnason, A. Hess, R. Berntsson Svensson, B. Regnell, J. Doerr, Reflecting on Evidence-Based Timelines, Software, IEEE 31(4), 37-43 (2014).