Adoption and Use of a Presence/Chat Application in Globally-Distributed 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@cs.cmu.edu

2. 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 Research Team

3. CalendarBot Rear View Mirror Experience Browser Design Code Test TeamPortal Collaboratory Project Models of Development How to distribute work across global sites. Best Practices Tools Planning Travel xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx Establishing Liaisons xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Building Trust xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx Communication Etiquette xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx Preventing Delay xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx 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 Server Crash Holidays “I Love You” Virus 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 Server Crash Holidays “I Love You” Virus 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. Messages and Logins per Day 250 Chat 200 Logins 150 100 50 0 Time “Bursty” Chat

20. Chat Groups At least 30 days of chat At least 100 messages

21. Chat Categories Cohen’s 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. Groupware’s 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. CalendarBot Rear View Mirror Experience Browser Design Code Test TeamPortal Collaboratory Project Models of Development How to distribute work across global sites. Best Practices Tools Planning Travel xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx Establishing Liaisons xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Building Trust xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx Communication Etiquette xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx Preventing Delay xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx 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. “Antidote for phone tag” Send presence and contact ability to anyone Current spec. http://www-spr.research.bell-labs.co ConnectIcon We need to finish our preparations for the review!

30. Hi Jim, We need to talk about the review tomorrow! Ann Kelly To check my availability and get my contact information, please click this link: ConnectIcon from Ann Kelly ConnectIcon

31. 3 days ago Currently in use 23 hours ago 10 minutes ago 20 hours ago 26 hours ago ConnectIcon Busy