Process Gains and Losses in Groups in Software Drawer qrcode in Software Process Gains and Losses in Groups

5.8 Process Gains and Losses in Groups using software toinclude qr barcode for web,windows application GS1 Bar Codes Glossary What is the impact of comp qr-codes for None uter-supported communication on group productivity and how can productivity be enhanced by such processes This section. 5 Demographics, Sociology, and Psychology discusses these issues in Software qr codes terms of Steiner s model for group productivity as determined by the task to be solved, the resources available to the group, and the processes used to solve the task. The characteristics its processes can affect a group s productivity. We will examine several phenomena that affect productivity and how they can be in uenced by computer support.

Before considering speci c process gains and losses related to software development, it is worth remembering the global picture of how software development itself progressed with the advance of the technology created by open development. For example, in the case of Unix, original development was slower and far less distributed because the tools for distributed development remained inchoate. Networking capabilities like those provided by BSD 4 had a metaeffect on software development.

Version 4, for example, didn t merely improve the capabilities of an operating system. It fundamentally altered the very way in which software development collaboration could be done because it provided an infrastructure for digitally transmitting not only communication messages but also large amounts of source code between remotely located developers. This created a shared workspace where the actual production artifacts could be worked on in common.

The Internet then precipitated even more dramatic increases in the scale and rate of development. The organization of collaborative processes also had a dramatic impact on software development. One need only contrast the rate of development of the GNU GCC Compiler project, after it was managed in bazaar mode, versus its prior traditional development.

The bazaar mode of development for EGCS (the Experimental GNU Compiler System) followed the Linux development model and was initiated in 1997, while the very same project continued ongoing development according to the conventional nonbazaar mode. The two projects progressed at strikingly different rates, with the bazaar mode so dramatically outpacing the conventional one that by 1999 the original GCC project was sunset and development was placed entirely under the EGCS project. Thus, it is obviously a given that computersupported mechanisms have led to revolutionary process gains in development.

The following discussion addresses some aspects of the impact of computer support. This and subsequent sections provide additional perspectives through which to view open development..

5.8.1 Process Gains and Losses Computer-supported collabo QR for None ration enables processes that improve group productivity in a variety of ways. For example, it allows remote, parallel, relatively instantaneous communication and supports a digitized group memory, all of which facilitate problem solving. Steiner (1972) viewed group productivity as.

5.8 Process Gains and Losses in Groups a resultant of process los QR Code JIS X 0510 for None ses that subtract from a potential or ideal productivity to yield actual productivity. The ideal productivity of a group was de ned by Steiner as its productivity if a group arranges its processes to optimally utilize its available resources to solve the requirements of a task. The actual productivity of a group will be less than its ideal productivity to the extent to which the processes the group applies cause inef ciencies.

Organizing group processes optimally is more easily said than done. Even in an elementary model like that of Hohmann (1997), the basic operations of group problem solving are potentially complex tasks: identify the subtasks required to solve a problem, distribute these subtasks among the group members to work on, coordinate these distributed activities, and integrate the distributed results to complete the original task. The performance of the group depends on all these complex factors.

Some factors, like the resources available to perform a task or the nature of the task itself, may be outside the control of the group; however, groups may exercise considerable control over other aspects of their processes. For example, it is often the case that the nature of the work task in open development is already unlike that in the typical work model. The task itself is far more likely to be under the control of the workers because it has been chosen for reasons of personal interest or passion, rather than assigned by an external agent.

Of course, this is obviously less true in a corporate-sponsored environment that assigns its own workers to the project. Computer-supported collaboration may lead to process gains as well as process losses for a group. Process gains are factors that increase performance in a collaborative environment or are ef ciencies associated with the intrinsic characteristics of a process.

They include, for example, the synergies and learning that can occur in a group environment (Nunamaker et al., 1991b) or the advantages associated with parallelism in a computer-supported environment. As we have previously observed, the process gain of learning is in fact recognized as one of the most prominent self-identi ed motivators for open source participants.

The process gain represented by parallelism is the root of the famed open source given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow principle. Process losses are factors that decrease performance or are inef ciencies associated with the intrinsic characteristics of a process (Dennis, 1996). Dennis and Valacich (1993) examine the process gains and losses associated with computer communication.

Together with Nunamaker et al. (1991a, b), they identify literally dozens of potential losses. The most prominent of these include production blocking and evaluation apprehension, which we examine in the following.

Although their work was done in the context of a speci c and now somewhat dated type of interaction environment, many of the concepts and problems they addressed are still pertinent..
Copyright © . All rights reserved.