Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Distributed So-ware Development – Sweden -‐ Croa8a
4 2013-‐02-‐06
MDH Students
FER Students
Project group
Supervisors
MDH FER
Distributed project
5 2013-‐02-‐06
What would be success?
IDt Students
FER Students
Project group
MDH FER Supervisors
Project group
6 2013-‐02-‐06
Risk
IDE Students
FER Students
Project group
Supervisors
MDH FER
7 2013-‐02-‐06
What would be disaster?
IDE Students
FER Students
Supervisors
MDH FER
8 2013-‐02-‐06
What would be that? (maybe OK, but not good for the final students resultsJ)
IDE Students
FER Students
Project group
Supervisors
MDH FER
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
Way of thinking and presentning a
a
theA a
Acsbah ghjkhgjQsaf
sdfgsdfgAsg sdfgsdfgdsfg
So Difficult..
A or B maybe
a
11
WAY OF THINKING (how to argue, how to carry through a mee8ng, a
conversa8on etc.)
X o
X o
Sense for 8me
• Swedish Students
• European Students (Italian, Croa8an)
• Asian Students
Worklaod during the project
• Swedish
• Italy, Croa8a
• Asian
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
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
Cultural Challenges
• Language differences • Communica7on characteris7cs • Timing issues • Agreement and Commitment • Teamwork • Different views of teaching staff
Heterogeneity Challenges
• Different knowledge background • Different expecta8on about workload • Different expecta8on of giving credits
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 2013-02-06
Project schedule
1 (W44) 30/10
2 (W45) 6/11
3 (W46) 13/11
4 (W47) 20/11
5 (W58) 27/11
6 (W49) 4/12
7 (W50 11/12
Weeks 10
(W03) 15/01
Final Presentations
Intro., Lectures, Project presentations and assignments
Lectures & Group project plan presentations
Project status presentations
Requirements presentation
Project status presentations
8 (W51) 18/12
Group project design, presentations
Lectures Guest Lectures
Guest Lectures
9 (W02) 08/01
In reserve
20 2013-02-06
Project schedule
1 (W44) 30/10
2 (W45) 6/11
3 (W46) 13/11
4 (W47) 20/11
5 (W58) 27/11
6 (W49) 4/12
7 (W50 11/12
Weeks 10
(W03) 15/01
8 (W51) 18/12
9 (W02) 08/01
Waterfall model
Itera8ons
Prototype Prototype
Final Results
Itera8ons Itera8ons
Itera8ons
Mo8va8ng/Demo8va8ng factors for students
Individual Group
Internal meeting new people and cultures, learning new things
team atmosphere, responsibility, project success
External grade customer support, challenging project
Individual Group
Internal personal attitude, overload
respecting deadlines, low quality work, communication issues, lack of enthusiasm
External lack of time documentation, technical issues
DSD Experience Year #
stud. #
proj. Originating countries
2003 28 5 Croatia, Sweden, Canada
2004 20 4 Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, India, Pakistan, Sweden
2005 38 6 Austria, China, Croatia, France, India,
Nigeria, Pakistan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland
2006 31 4 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, India, Iran, Pakistan, Spain, Sweden
2007 20 2 Austria, Croatia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand
2008 37 6 Australia, Croatia, India, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Spain, Sweden
2009 56 10 Bangladesh, Croatia, France, Germany,
India, Iran, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Sweden, Ukraine
2010 65 9 Bangladesh, China, Croatia, France,
Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Sweden
Well, how did it go??? • Example
– We par8cipated in a contest – Interna8onal conference on So-ware Engineering
– 50 groups par8cipated
MDH/FER
Well, how did it go??? Phase I Seminfinals:
Phase 2: Final:
Final
Vancouver
Final -‐ Vancouver
Two years a-er – Interna8onal conference on So-ware Engineering
– 60 groups par8cipated
7 groups From MDH/FER/ Sofia U
How did it go this year??? Phase I Seminfinals: 18 teams passed (6 MDH/FER S. U)
Phase 2: Final:
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
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
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)
Conclusion
• Distributed So-ware Development (Glbal So-ware Engineering) Educa8on – Increasing in Europe – Important to understand the differences in pedagogical approaches
Interdisciplinary research
