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

2. 2 Why Interested in Communications?

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

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

5. 5 Increase in Software Project Size and Complexity size complexity

6. 6 Teamwork and Communications As the size and complexity of software increases, teamwork is becoming a necessity: 1.Interaction with multiple users 2.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. 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)www.agilemodeling.com/essays/communication.htm

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

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

10. 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. 11 Structure or Style of Communications All-member – direct member-member Wheel - central conduit Chained - formal hierarchical Informal: subset of all-member

12. 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. 13 An Initial Thought/Conjecture 1.More communications is better than less communications in software projects (error on the more side) 2.The distribution of communications would look like a double hump camel curve Req. DesTestCode

14. 14 Studies of Communications 1.Student Projects – 3 Teams 2.Student Projects – 9 teams 3.Industry Projects – 16 companies

15. 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. 16 Student Project – 3 Teams Communications Structure/ Channel/Volume Team 1Chained – a few times Wheel – most often All-member- sometimes Face-to-face E-mail E-group 652 Team 2Chained – never used Wheel – late in project All member – most often Face-to-face E-mail E-group 248 Team 3Chained – never used Wheel – most often All-member- rarely Face-to-face E-mail E-group 397 Teams Structure/Style Channel Volume

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

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

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

20. 20 Student Project – 9 Teams Project Teams by Success and Amount of Communications Communications in person-minutes 1 k2 k3 k4 k5 k6 k7 k8 k Success 75 80 85 90 95 100 Group A = 10.5 k Group B = 11.0k Group C = 2.6k

21. 21 Student Project – 9 Teams Distribution of Communications 10 20 30 40 % of Total Comm. Req.Des/codeTestProj. Mgmt 23.1 26.5 10.7 39.7 Similar ResultMuch less

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

23. 23 What about the 16 Professional Companies?

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

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

26. 26 Relating Amount of Communications to Different Project Results 1 2 3 4 5 6 Relative Volume Of Comm. successful averagenot-successful 4.23 1.83.8 Volume of Communications is normalized as: # of person-hours of comm. / # of persons (2 teams) (9 teams)(5 teams)

27. 27 Distribution of Communications by Groups.1 Amt of Comm..2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9 Req.DesUTFT 1.0 CodeST *** ** * + + + + ++...... 2 “successful” teams 9 “average” teams 5 “not-successful” teams

28. 28 Concluding Remarks 1.Structure/Style of communications seem to matter –“Wheel” seems to be preferred and usually shows existence of some project leadership 2.Volume of communications shows strong correlation with successful teams –Matches the initial conjecture 3.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)