Global Software Engineering Teams Research Articles

A Process Framework for Global Software Engineering Teams

ContextGlobal Software Engineering (GSE) continues to experience substantial growth and is fundamentally different to collocated development. As a result, software managers have a pressing need for support in how to successfully manage teams in a global environment. Unfortunately, de facto process frameworks such as the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI®) do not explicitly cater for the complex and changing needs of global software management. ObjectiveTo develop a Global Teaming (GT) process area to address specific problems relating to temporal, cultural, geographic and linguistic distance which will meet the complex and changing needs of global software management. MethodWe carried out three in-depth case studies of GSE within industry from 1999 to 2007. To supplement these studies we conducted three literature reviews. This allowed us to identify factors which are important to GSE. Based on a gap analysis between these GSE factors and the CMMI®, we developed the GT process area. Finally, the literature and our empirical data were used to identify threats to software projects if these processes are not implemented. ResultsOur new GT process area brings together practices drawn from the GSE literature and our previous empirical work, including many socio-technical factors important to global software development. The GT process area presented in this paper encompasses recommended practices that can be used independently or with existing models. We found that if managers are not proactive in implementing new GT practices they are putting their projects under threat of failure. We therefore include a list of threats that if ignored could have an adverse effect on an organization’s competitive advantage, employee satisfaction, timescales, and software quality. ConclusionThe GT process area and associated threats presented in this paper provides both a guide and motivation for software managers to better understand how to manage technical talent across the globe.

Propinquity in global software engineering: examining perceived distance in globally distributed project teams

SUMMARYIn social psychology, propinquity refers to the physical (objective) or psychological (subjective) proximity between people. In this paper, we explore the psychological dimension of propinquity by examining the phenomenon of feeling distant from geographically distributed people, in the context of distributed software teams. The perceived distance is an important challenge faced by distributed teams, and it is frequently based on factors beyond the physical distance, such as communication and cultural differences. The purpose of this paper is to present a model to assess and make more visible the construct of ‘perceived distance’ among members of global software engineering teams. The model was applied in three real‐world cases to assess its effectiveness in uncovering hidden and useful information during the project lifecycle. The practical experience lived with the quantification of perceived distance gave us good indication that this data can benefit the practice of global software engineering. In most of the projects evaluated, project managers were not expecting the results found. We present the model, details of its applications, analysis of the results, lessons learned and practical implications for the management of distributed software projects and teams. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Methodological reflections on a field study of a globally distributed software project

Context: We describe the methodology of a field study of a globally distributed software development project in a multinational corporation. The project spanned four sites in the US and one in India, and is a representative example of the complexities and intricacies of global corporate software development. Objective: Our goal is to provide the rationale behind the methodological choices and derive insights to inform the methodology of future studies of global software engineering teams. The paper also aims to provide an illustrative case of a typical geographically distributed corporate software project, through an in-depth description that emerged by applying the methods. Method: We reflect upon the reasons for choosing each of our methods, viz., non-participant observation, site visits, interviews, and an online questionnaire. We then discuss what we learned from the experience of applying the methods. Results: During and after the study, the discussions surrounding our methodological choices yielded important insights. The dynamics of software engineering practice and the geographical distribution of the project impacted factors such as access, costs, and cultural and linguistic diversity, and influenced the choice of methods. Our experience makes a case for methodological breadth and plurality as a means to a broad understanding of a global project. This understanding could then be linked to the specific research questions under consideration. Conclusion: The in-depth contextual description of the project that emerged from our methods highlights the utility of our methodological approach and provides an illustration of the complex nature of these projects. Our systematic reflection also yielded several methodological insights and provides important implications for future empirical studies of global corporate software development. Our experience can serve as a useful resource in methodological choices for research on globally distributed software engineering teams, or collaborative knowledge work in general.