1. Sarah Drummond Dept. Computer Science University of Durham, UK MSc Research An Investigation into Computer Support for Cooperative Work in Software Engineering Groups Sarah Drummond Dept. Computer Science University of Durham, UK MSc Research

2. Presentation content F Approach to the MSc –Research areas – literature survey –Criteria for success of the MSc F Environments used – groupware F Case studies –JTAP and SEG F Collecting data F Results obtained and evaluation F Conclusion

3. Research Areas F Applying CSCW to SE F Groupware is the technological component of CSCW F SE education is a sub set of SE F Groupware support for SE students

4. Literature survey F Software developed by teams F Typical SE activities identified –e.g.exchange ideas, meetings, designs, document preparation, config man F What groupware was available to support these activities – synchronous and asynchronous F Necessary to understand how people work as groups and interact with machines - HCI

5. Criteria for success F Investigate the areas of CSCW and to determine the appropriateness of existing groupware to SE education F Identify a set of requirements for collaborative working support for SE students F Formulate hypotheses on SE students use of groupware F Using case studies gather relevant data (qualitative and quantitative) to prove or disprove the hypotheses

6. Environments used F Synchronous –Desktop video conferencing (video and audio) –Shared whiteboard –Chat tool –Telephone …..! F Asynchronous –Lotus Notes –BSCW –Email

7. Case Study 1 F JTAP project - Geographically distributed final year SE students undertaking a collaborative project –18 students (6 groups of 3) developing a database over a seven week period, using synchronous (video conferencing) and asynchronous (BSCW and Lotus Notes) groupware F Met each other face to face on two occasions F Data collection methods employed: –Questionnaire –Focus groups (local students only)

8. General Results: Case Study 1 JTAP project F 5 of 6 projects were completed F Groupware not SE specific therefore students adapted the task to suit the functionality of the tool F DVC not of sufficient quality and performance F Essential to establish work protocols F Face to face meetings essential F To scale up distributed working with other HE institutions would be difficult

9. Case Study 2 F SEG project: Collocated second year SE students undertaking a year long group project using asynchronous groupware –19 week duration –Approx. 89 students = 14 groups of 6 or 7 –One tutor/customer/consultant per group –Strict deadlines for group deliverables F Data collection methods employed: –Questionnaires (web based) –Activity log –Focus groups –Observations

10. Hypothesis 1 The introduction of a WWW based asynchronous shared workspace into software engineering groupworking will aid group members to organise and coordinate their work Results summary: The workspace provided a formal setting for the practical side of SE and was felt to be helpful and useful by providing a hierarchical structure, simple configuration management and awareness of other groups members’ activities

11. Hypothesis 2 Greater use of shared workspace functionality will be made as the project progresses Results summary: The use of the workspace functions for SEG showed no significant increase in their use but the functions were used more appropriately. Not all functions were used – only the “essential” ones!

12. Hypothesis 3 Students undertake more collaboration in the earlier stages of the software lifecycle Results summary: Not possible to prove this as there is much interaction between SEG members that was not captured. But from general observations it was felt that there was more collaboration as the groups are forming, understanding the tasks in hand and the potential of each group member.

13. Hypothesis 4 Synchronous communication has an important role to play in both collocated and distributed SE groupwork Results summary: This hypothesis was in part proved to be correct. For distributed students the benefits of components such as video and audio were minimal whilst chat and whiteboard proved to be useful. For collocated students synchronous communication was less important as face-to-face interaction was possible.

14. Conclusions F The Criteria for success was fulfilled: investigations into CSCW/SE were undertaken, hypotheses formulated and case studies done. Data collected. Data was evaluated to prove or disprove the hypotheses F Groupware is in the main generic and whilst offering some tailorability do not fully support SE processes e.g. code development F SE students gained an insight into the benefits these technologies can provide and the problems that can arise when using them F SE students require communication skills – need to understand both technological and sociological factors associated with developing and using groupware

15. Further information F SEG publications: http://www.dur.ac.uk/sarah.drummond/papers F BSCW: http://bscw.gmd.de