Relating Reflection Workshop Results with Team Goals
Poznan University of Technology, Institute of Computing Science
Piotrowo 2, 60-965 Poznań, Poland
E-mail: sylwia.kopczynska@cs.put.poznan.pl
Received:
Received: 31 May 2014; revised: 17 October 2014; accepted: 06 November 2014; published online: 10 January 2015
DOI: 10.12921/cmst.2014.20.04.129-138
Abstract:
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.
Key words:
agile, GQM+Strategies, project goals, reflection workshop, retrospective
References:
[1] E. Derby, D. Larsen, Agile Retrospectives: Making Good
Teams Great, Pragmatic Bookshelf Series Pragmatic Program-
mers, 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: Em-
brace Change (2nd Edition), Addison-Wesley Professional,
2004.
[4] V. Basili, A. Trendowicz, M. Kowalczyk, J. Heidrich, C. Sea-
man, 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 Re-
search 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 develop-
ment 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 Pulica-
tions, 2006.
[10] E. Gottesdiener, Reguirements by Collaboration, Addison-
Wesley, 2002.
[11] N.P. Napier, L. Mathiassen, R.D. Johnson, Combining Percep-
tions 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: post-
mortem reviews as extended feedback, [In:] Advances in Learn-
ing Software Organizations, pages 4-12 Springer 2003.
[15] O. Salo, K. Kolehmainen, P. Kyllönen, J. Löthman, S. Salmi-
järvi, P. Abrahamsson, Self-Adaptability of Agile Software
Processes: A Case Study on Post-iteration Workshops, [In:]
Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engi-
neering, 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).
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.
Key words:
agile, GQM+Strategies, project goals, reflection workshop, retrospective
References:
[1] E. Derby, D. Larsen, Agile Retrospectives: Making Good
Teams Great, Pragmatic Bookshelf Series Pragmatic Program-
mers, 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: Em-
brace Change (2nd Edition), Addison-Wesley Professional,
2004.
[4] V. Basili, A. Trendowicz, M. Kowalczyk, J. Heidrich, C. Sea-
man, 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 Re-
search 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 develop-
ment 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 Pulica-
tions, 2006.
[10] E. Gottesdiener, Reguirements by Collaboration, Addison-
Wesley, 2002.
[11] N.P. Napier, L. Mathiassen, R.D. Johnson, Combining Percep-
tions 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: post-
mortem reviews as extended feedback, [In:] Advances in Learn-
ing Software Organizations, pages 4-12 Springer 2003.
[15] O. Salo, K. Kolehmainen, P. Kyllönen, J. Löthman, S. Salmi-
järvi, P. Abrahamsson, Self-Adaptability of Agile Software
Processes: A Case Study on Post-iteration Workshops, [In:]
Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engi-
neering, 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).
