This thesis consists of both theoretical and practical aspects. It reflects the principles of DSR by taking its steps into carrying out research and embodies the results as in the following structure:
Table 1.Thesis structure conducted in DSR
DSR stage Section Content
Problem identification and motivation
Chapter 1.1 Background ideas motivating the research Chapter 2 Literature review on relevant topics of this
the-sis. These topics are about computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW), particularly collab-orative systems and issue tracking system, serv-ing as the foundation for research
Objectives of a solution Chapter 1.2 Research questions and projected outcomes of the thesis
Design and develop-ment
Chapter 3.1 Design decisions of the proposed solution in practitioner’s perspective, connected with liter-ature in previous sections. The system context and features are explained through the use of practical templates in requirements engineering Demonstration Chapter 3.2 Architecture and demonstration of the system are addressed with UML diagrams and pictures Evaluation Chapter 3.3 Evaluation process is introduced and its results
are also given
Chapter 4 Results of this thesis are discussed by figuring out its limitations and prospects in future Communication None The thesis is published
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter provides literature review related with CSCW and its sub-fields. Different sources of materials are discussed to answer what CSCW is, and how its application domains including collaboration tools and issue tracking system intervene in software production processes.
2.1 Computer-supported Cooperative Work
CSCW was invented by Irene Greif and Paul Cashman in 1984 to describe how computers can support people in their work, especially at that time the world witnessed a massive rise of personal computers and minicomputers with huge potential to assist human in more sophisticated, interactive ways. Since then, many researchers and developers from different fields have embraced this area. Grudin considers it ”an effort by technologist to learn from economists, social psychologists, anthropologists, organizational theorists, educators, and anyone else who could shed light on group activity” [9]. From the col-laboration of these different specialists, CSCW”looks at how groups work and seeks to discover how technology (especially computers) can help them work”. Ellis et al. reckon that CSCW, as the study of such systems, is a multidisciplinary field [10]. Dourish also agreed that, in its essence, CSCW has”a highly diverse discipline”[11].
2.1.1 Characteristics
The history of CSCW witnesses different definitions from different scientists. The objec-tive of CSCW is to improve work efficacy, then there are two aspects of interests: group working process and technology. Subsequently, Kevin Mills observed that researchers in CSCW also adopt two respective viewpoints: work-centric and technology-centric [12].
Greif defines CSCW as”a distinct and identifiable research field focused on the role of the computer in support of group work”[13]. This viewpoint accentuates the technology that aids teamwork. Meanwhile, Bannon and Schmidt claimed that CSCW is ”an endeavor to understand the nature and characteristics of cooperative work with the objective of designing adequate computer based technologies”. Through this concept, they put more emphasis on the social aspect, where better insight of cooperative work will lead to bet-ter design of compubet-ter systems to support the work itself [14]. Wilson concludes that CSCW is”a generic term, which combines the understanding of the way people work in
groups with the enabling technologies of computer networking, and associated hardware, software, services and techniques”[15].
Today’s worldwide market pushes many software companies to increase effectiveness in production process, amplify product quality and reduce the time to launch their products to market. With growing complexity of problems, CSCW brings new research attempts to combine the effort of individuals in collaborative activities [16].
According to Bannon and Schmidt, most practitioners view CSCW as leverage point to build novel application, and equate the term CSCW with groupware [14]. Ellis et al.
define groupware as”computer-based systems that support groups of people engaged in a common task (or goal) and that provide an interface to a shared environment” [10].
These two broad concepts usually overlap each other.
To conceptualize CSCW systems, Johansen introduced the CSCW Matrix in 1988. Two dimensions are taken into consideration: time (interactions among users are synchronous or asynchronous) and space (users are at the same place or dispersed) [17]. It is suggested that there are four categories of CSCW systems, as depicted in the image below.
Figure 2.Time-space CSCW matrix by Johansen, image by Wikipedia [17]
There are three key areas that need attending to support group interactions [10] [18]:
• Communication:Exchange of information.
• Collaboration: The effort to complete a shared goal, being done interactively be-tween two or more people.
• Coordination: The effort made individually but interdependently before getting combined. Coordination is the overhead when several parties are performing a task to achieve a common goal.
2.1.2 Benefits and Drawbacks
Kamel and Davison examined that there are generally four categories of problems that impair traditional face-to-face group interactions. CSCW systems are designed to miti-gate subsequent inefficiencies. The table below summarizes these four categories (time, space/distance, cost, and behaviour-related problems) with respective CSCW solutions [19].
Table 2.Problems in face-to-face group interactions and CSCW solutions [19]
Category Problem CSCW solution
Time-related Too much time spent in arranging meet-ings
Group calendar Insufficient time spent in analysing issues
during meetings
Distributed meeting systems Too much time in travelling to distant
meetings
Teleconferencing systems Too much time wasted in the collection
and tabulation of anonymous votes during meetings
Electronic voting systems
Difficulty in collecting and analysing multiscaled data from meeting members
Electronic survey tools Poor use of time in meetings due to poor
task focus
Electronic meeting agenda Too much time spent on filling in forms
and searching for documents
Workflow automation
Space/distance-related
Long distances between meeting partici-pants require long distance travel
Distributed meeting systems Shortage of meeting space Room scheduler
Rigid/inflexible table design Modular tables Paper documents occupy too much space Workflow automation Cost-related Expensive meeting space Teleconferencing systems
High travel costs Distributed meeting systems
High storage and human costs in archiv-ing and maintainarchiv-ing paper documents
Workflow automation
Behaviour-related
Lack of active participation in group in-teraction
Idea generation, categoriza-tion and evaluacategoriza-tion tools Lack of group cohesion Distributed meeting systems Intercultural difficulties Automatic translation Poor expression and miscomprehension Electronic communication High moderator influence through control
of procedural matters
Automated meeting or proto-col facilitation
Discussion domination and yielding to higher normative status
Yielding to group pressure
Nonetheless, Kamel and Davidson still acknowledged potential drawbacks in the process of CSCW system adoption [19]:
• Even though asynchronous communication systems optimize participants’ time, there is very little peer pressure to participate. Hence, participation often only oc-curs at the last moment, if at all.
• Distributed meeting replacing face-to-face reduces intimacy and restricts media richness.
• In theory, CSCW use can reduce travel-related costs. In practice, however, this may not really reduce cost, but indeed prompt better interactions leading to better decisions for the same cost.
• The expense of implementing or acquiring CSCW systems must be taken into ac-count. In the process, additional problems can arise, resulting in additional cost.
• In some CSCW systems, voting, idea generation, categorization and evaluation take place anonymously to avoid influence from dominant figures and promote active participation from lower-status members. Nevertheless, anonymity can be misused if used to criticize, causing subsequent conflicts, thus requiring strict and effective management.
• Individuals from different cultures have different ways of conducting interactions.
Especially in cross-cultural environments, if users are unable or unwilling to adapt their interaction style to fit a technology, the adoption will likely become a failure.
2.1.3 Challenges and Strategies
Ackerman explained that there is a social-technical gap, which means”the great divide between what we know we must support socially and what we can support technically”, since human activity is highly flexible, nuanced and contextualized. As a consequence, computer systems that support these activities should be flexible, nuanced and contex-tualized at a similar level likewise. It is a pivotal challenge for CSCW researchers to understand and close the gap [20].
In addition, members of organizations may have differing and multiple goals, leading to possible conflicts [20]. Koch and Gross also agreed that capturing requirements for a collaborative system is difficult, since there are many groups and aspects to consider.
Identifying accurately the needs of all group is extremely difficult, not to mention that these requirements are volatile as the research iteration progresses [21].
Thus, there is a critical mass problem for CSCW systems. Put it differently, both adequate number of users and high level of engagement are prerequisites for the success of the system. In order to secure active participation, a clear balance between effort and benefits for all users is negotiated to motivate the norms of CSCW system use [20] [21].
To overcome such challenges, CSCW systems should be constructed in ways that accom-modate particular to general, and harmonize the interests of different stakeholders. Ger-son observed the trends of hyper-distribution (decreasing face-to-face interactions and overcoming geographical barriers) andhyper-accessibility(increasing number of objects and tasks capable of communicating with one another across boundaries). Then, Gerson introduced two rules of thumb for CSCW developers: easier customization and easier reconciliation [22].
Generally, customization facilitates standardized coordination mechanism that suits con-textualized articulation work. Such a CSCW system must be modifiable by users, so that changing circumstances and idiosyncrasies can be reflected in the system easily and quickly. Establishing reconciliation notably involves participant review, which means aggregating of individual views to make a unified decision. Prime examples for this ap-proach are bulletin boards, blogs, forums, wikis. These modes offer collective messaging in threads and even editable shared content, and have flourished remarkably [22]. Such strategies matched several suggested proposals stated by Ackerman and Koch previously, which include user-friendly interface, good integration, information awareness and pri-vacy, flexibility to handle exceptions [20] [21].