Adoption and Use of a PresenceChat Application in GloballyDistributed Software Development

1
Adoption and Use of a Presence/Chat Application
in Globally-Distributed Software Development

• James Herbsleb
• Institute for Software Research, International
• School of Computer Science
• 1321 Wean Hall
• Carnegie Mellon University
• Pittsburgh, PA, USA 15213
• 1 412 268-8933
• jdh_at_cs.cmu.edu

2
Research Team

• University of Michigan
• Tom Finholt
• Mark Handel
• Carnegie Mellon University
• Alberto Espinosa

• Bell Labs Research
• David Atkins
• David Boyer
• James Herbsleb
• Stacie Hibino
• Audris Mockus
• Dewayne Perry
• Larry Votta
• Graham Wills

3
Collaboratory Project
Models of Development How to distribute work a
cross global sites.
Best Practices
Tools
Planning Travel xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx Es
tablishing Liaisons xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Building Trust
xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx Communication Eti
quette xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx
Preventing Delay xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx
xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx Using Commercial Tools
xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx

Research Team
Global Development Solutions
New Products
Hilversum Huizen
Swindon Malmesbury Chippenham
Dublin
Naperville
Nuremberg
Paris
Columbus
Brussels
Bangalore
Empirical Studies
4
Collaboration Over Distance

• Work items split across sites take much longer
• Many fewer communication paths across distance
• Much less frequent communication across distance
  
  
• Less comfortable communicating with remote
  colleagues
  
• Much more difficult to identify distant
  colleagues with needed expertise
  
• Much more difficult to communicate effectively
• Less likely to perceive themselves as part of the
  same team
  
• Common view of priorities no difference

5
RVM Application Background

• Desire to increase informal communication,
  context information
  
• Hoped to create more communication openness
• Wanted to increase feeling of teamness
• First step low fidelity prototypes
• Users unfamiliar with interactive text
• Privacy concerns surveillance tool?

6
Chat, IM, Presence AwarenessRear View Mirror
Presence Viewer
Group Chat
Option to log in at machine startup.
7
Wireless1 Organization
Swindon
Nuremberg
8
Data Collection

• Study covered 17 months
• March 2000 initial introduction
• August 2001 server shut down
• Qualitative data
• Twenty interviews
• Two focus groups
• Data from usage logs
• Who logged in each day
• Group Activity
• Group chat messages (not IM messages)

9
Initial DeploymentPlanning, Training

• Targeting Key Users
• Identifying key cross-site pairs
• Want to achieve critical mass as quickly as
  possible
  
• Installation and Training
• Hour-long sessions with each user
• Installation of RVM (and additional tools) with
  training and quick reference cards
  
• Initial training done by two-person teams at each
  site
  
• Intensive one-week push, followed by one week of
  follow-up
  
• Trained 15 users in England, 15 in Germany
• E-mail and phone support afterwards

10
Initial DeploymentAdoption Curve -- Wireless 1
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
11
Initial DeploymentUse of RVM Wireless 1
I Love You Virus
Server Crash
Holidays
100
90
Reorganizations
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
12
Adoption
Active users (rolling average)
9.8
8.4
Systems Engineering
Test
7.0
Quality
5.6
Management 1
4.2
2.8
1.4
0.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Month
13
Initial DeploymentAdoption Issues

• Reliability, usability
• Teams -- key unit for adoption
• Some users -- quick look, duck out style of use
• Individual training sessions little visible
  activity
  
• Privacy versus setup time
• Individual permissions very unwieldy

14
Retooling, Rethinking

• Changes in RVM
• Bug fixes, testing
• Group chat persistence
• Group-based security
• Deployment
• Team focus
• Targeting users
• Training and setup
• Learn how to collaborate, not just how to use the
  tool

15
Network Team
Columbus
Cary
Naperville
Denver
16
Wireless2 Teams
Dublin
Columbus
17
All GroupsUse of RVM
I Love You Virus
Server Crash
Holidays
100
90
Reorganizations
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Wireless 1 (85)
Wireless 2 (22)
Network (7)
18
What Is It Good for?A Pessimistic View . . .
Messages that pop up on screen at an inopportune
moment (sometimes from the next cubicle) are
destroying workers' concentration. Thoughtless
text scrawled and sent in haste can spark online
arguments. And in some offices, the question of
who is privileged enough to receive certain
instant messages is creating the kind of tortured
pecking order last seen in high school.
Slatalla, M., The office meeting that never ends.
New York Times, Sept. 23, 1999.
19
Bursty Chat
20
Chat Groups
At least 30 days of chat At least 100 messages
21
Chat Categories
Cohens kappa .88 Found no flaming.
22
Percentage of Message Type by Group
23
Types of Content by Time of Day
Percentage within category
24
Work Subcategories
25
Adoption IssuesPerceived Utility

• Interactive text as superfluous
• Is water cooler talk real work?
• Users perception of causes of multi-site
  problems
  
• Attribution theory explain behavior on basis of
  personal attributes or situational attributes
  
• Appeared to be tendency to explain undesirable
  behavior of distant colleagues in terms of
  personal traits
  
• If problem is personal traits, is more
  communication desirable?

26
Groupwares Critical Mass Dilemma

• Feedback from actual use by groups of real users
  to get a usable tool
  
• Social and political impacts
• Need a usable tool before you can get critical
  mass for groups of users
  
• Relatively few innovators, early adopters
• Critical mass may not be obtainable
• Possible Solutions
• Extremely tolerant users
• Developers use tool
• Management pressure
• Progressive sets of features

27
Research Issues

• The role of interactive text in supporting
  informal communication in distributed teams
  
• Do remote team members make more person
  attributions for undesirable behavior?
  
• Does providing context serve to reduce personal
  attributions?
  
• Privacy
• How far will group-based model generalize?
• What are enduring privacy concerns for different
  communities and features?
  
• Characteristics of RVM Chat that may affect
  content
  
• Chat participants have known identities (on and
  off-line)
  
• Chat always semi-public
• Persists only briefly (unlike b-board)
• Group chat less intrusive than IM?

28
Collaboratory Project
Models of Development How to distribute work a
cross global sites.
Best Practices
Tools
Planning Travel xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx Es
tablishing Liaisons xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Building Trust
xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx Communication Eti
quette xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx
Preventing Delay xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx
xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx Using Commercial Tools
xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx

Research Team
Global Development Solutions
New Products
Hilversum Huizen
Swindon Malmesbury Chippenham
Dublin
Naperville
Nuremberg
Paris
Columbus
Brussels
Bangalore
Empirical Studies
29
ConnectIcon
We need to finish our preparations for the review!

• Antidote for phone tag
• Send presence and contact ability to anyone

30
ConnectIcon
31
ConnectIcon
Busy
32
(No Transcript)