打火机专用SAN树脂工业化开发生产

介绍了15kt/a本体苯乙烯－丙烯腈（SAN)装置试生产打火机专用SAN树脂的生产情况，确定了主要工艺配方及参数：进料组成为乙苯浓度为6％－11％、丙烯腈浓度为30％－42％，聚合温度130－145℃、压力0．40－0．46MPa，搅拌转速60－90r/min，脱挥温度215－250℃、压力小于等于4kPa；并对影响打火机志用SAN树脂性能的主要工艺条件及因素进行了讨论。结果表明，聚合温度、结合丙烯腈含量、熔体流动指数、转化率是影响打火机专用SAN树脂生产工艺及产品性能的主要因素。     

Global software testing under deadline pressure: Vendor-side experiences

ContextIn the era of globally-distributed software engineering, the practice of global software testing (GST) has witnessed increasing adoption. Although there have been ethnographic studies of the development aspects of global software engineering, there have been fewer studies of GST, which, to succeed, can require dealing with unique challenges.ObjectiveTo address this limitation of existing studies, we conducted, and in this paper, report the findings of, a study of a vendor organization involved in one kind of GST practice: outsourced, offshored software testing.MethodWe conducted an ethnographically-informed study of three vendor-side testing teams over a period of 2 months. We used methods, such as interviews and participant observations, to collect the data and the thematic-analysis approach to analyze the data.FindingsOur findings describe how the participant test engineers perceive software testing and deadline pressures, the challenges that they encounter, and the strategies that they use for coping with the challenges. The findings reveal several interesting insights. First, motivation and appreciation play an important role for our participants in ensuring that high-quality testing is performed. Second, intermediate onshore teams increase the degree of pressure experienced by the participant test engineers. Third, vendor team participants perceive productivity differently from their client teams, which results in unproductive-productivity experiences. Lastly, participants encounter quality-dilemma situations for various reasons.ConclusionThe study findings suggest the need for (1) appreciating test engineers’ efforts, (2) investigating the team structure’s influence on pressure and the GST practice, (3) understanding culture’s influence on other aspects of GST, and (4) identifying and addressing quality-dilemma situations.     

Systematic analyses and comparison of development performance and product quality of Incremental Process and Agile Process

ContextAlthough Agile software development models have been widely used as a base for the software project life-cycle since 1990s, the number of studies that follow a sound empirical method and quantitatively reveal the effect of using these models over Traditional models is scarce.ObjectiveThis article explains the empirical method of and the results from systematic analyses and comparison of development performance and product quality of Incremental Process and Agile Process adapted in two projects of a middle-size, telecommunication software development company. The Incremental Process is an adaption of the Waterfall Model whereas the newly introduced Agile Process is a combination of the Unified Software Development Process, Extreme Programming, and Scrum.MethodThe method followed to perform the analyses and comparison is benefited from the combined use of qualitative and quantitative methods. It utilizes; GQM Approach to set measurement objectives, CMMI as the reference model to map the activities of the software development processes, and a pre-defined assessment approach to verify consistency of process executions and evaluate measure characteristics prior to quantitative analysis.ResultsThe results of the comparison showed that the Agile Process had performed better than the Incremental Process in terms of productivity (79%), defect density (57%), defect resolution effort ratio (26%), Test Execution V&V Effectiveness (21%), and effort prediction capability (4%). These results indicate that development performance and product quality achieved by following the Agile Process was superior to those achieved by following the Incremental Process in the projects compared.ConclusionThe acts of measurement, analysis, and comparison enabled comprehensive review of the two development processes, and resulted in understanding their strengths and weaknesses. The comparison results constituted objective evidence for organization-wide deployment of the Agile Process in the company.     

Reasons for bottlenecks in very large-scale system of systems development

ContextSystem of systems (SoS) is a set or arrangement of systems that results when independent and useful systems are to be incorporated into a larger system that delivers unique capabilities. Our investigation showed that the development life cycle (i.e. the activities transforming requirements into design, code, test cases, and releases) in SoS is more prone to bottlenecks in comparison to single systems.ObjectiveThe objective of the research is to identify reasons for bottlenecks in SoS, prioritize their significance according to their effect on bottlenecks, and compare them with respect to different roles and different perspectives, i.e. SoS view (concerned with integration of systems), and systems view (concerned with system development and delivery).MethodThe research method used is a case study at Ericsson AB.ResultsResults show that the most significant reasons for bottlenecks are related to requirements engineering. All the different roles agree on the significance of requirements related factors. However, there are also disagreements between the roles, in particular with respect to quality related reasons. Quality related hinders are primarily observed and highly prioritized by quality assurance responsibles. Furthermore, SoS view and system view perceive different hinders, and prioritize them differently.ConclusionWe conclude that solutions for requirements engineering in SoS context are needed, quality awareness in the organization has to be achieved end to end, and views between SoS and system view need to be aligned to avoid sub optimization in improvements.     

Performance on agile teams: Relating iteration objectives and critical decisions to project management success factors

ContextWhile project management success factors have long been established via the golden triangle, little is known about how project iteration objectives and critical decisions relate to these success factors. It seems logical that teams’ iteration objectives would reflect project management success factors, but this may not always be the case. If not, how are teams’ objectives for iterations differing from the golden triangle of project management success factors?ObjectiveThis study identifies iteration objectives and the critical decisions that relate to the golden triangle of project management success factors in agile software development teams working in two-week iterations.MethodThe author conducted semi-structured interviews with members across three different agile software development teams using a hybrid of XP and Scrum agile methodologies. Iteration Planning and Retrospective meetings were also observed. Interview data was transcribed, coded and reviewed by the researcher and two independently trained research assistants. Data analysis involved organizing the data to identify iteration objectives and critical decisions to identify whether they relate to project management success factors.ResultsAgile teams discussed four categories of iteration objectives: Functionality, Schedule, Quality and Team Satisfaction. Two of these objectives map directly to two aspects of the golden triangle: schedule and quality. The agile teams’ critical decisions were also examined to understand the types of decisions the teams would have made differently to ensure success, which resulted in four categories of such decisions: Quality, Dividing Work, Iteration Amendments and Team Satisfaction.ConclusionThis research has contributed to the software development and project management literature by examining iteration objectives on agile teams and how they relate to the golden triangle of project management success factors to see whether these teams incorporate the golden triangle factors in their objectives and whether they include additional objectives in their iterations. What’s more, this research identified four critical decisions related to the golden triangle. These findings provide important insight to the continuing effort to better assess project management success, particularly for agile teams.     

Individual empowerment of agile and non-agile software developers in small teams

ContextEmpowerment of employees at work has been known to have a positive impact on job motivation and satisfaction. Software development is a field of knowledge work wherein one should also expect to see these effects, and the idea of empowerment has become particularly visible in agile methodologies, in which proponents emphasise team empowerment and individual control of the work activities as a central concern.ObjectiveThis research aims to get a better understanding of how empowerment is enabled in software development teams, both agile and non-agile, to identify differences in empowering practices and levels of individual empowerment.MethodTwenty-five interviews with agile and non-agile developers from Norway and Canada on decision making and empowerment are analysed. The analysis is conducted using a conceptual model with categories for involvement, structural empowerment and psychological empowerment.ResultsBoth kinds of development organisations are highly empowered and they are similar in most aspects relating to empowerment. However, there is a distinction in the sense that agile developers have more possibilities to select work tasks and influence the priorities in a development project due to team empowerment. Agile developers seem to put a higher emphasis on the value of information in decision making, and have more prescribed activities to enable low-cost information flow. More power is obtained through the achievement of managing roles for the non-agile developers who show interest and are rich in initiatives.ConclusionAgile developers have a higher sense of being able to impact the organisation than non-agile developers and have information channels that is significantly differently from non-agile developers. For non-agile teams, higher empowerment can be obtained by systematically applying low-cost participative decision making practices in the manager–developer relation and among peer developers. For agile teams, it is essential to more rigorously follow the empowering practices already established.     

Betting system for formative code review in educational competitions

Using competitions to motivate students is a well-known practice that has proved to be successful. Nevertheless, grading students only through their results in the competition could unfairly limit the range of grades that each student can get: regardless of the quality of the different teams participating, one student must necessarily win the tournament, another must be second, and so on until the last place. In fact, player rankings are relative assessments that are conditioned by the performance of every student. In this paper, we propose solving this issue by making students do a code review before betting on the competition. By betting, the grade of students depends both on the performance of their own solution and the one they bet on. This way, grades represent not only coding skills, but also code analysis skills, widening the attainable range of grades and allowing for a fairer grade distribution. As a result, students that are not so proficient in coding are rewarded if they demonstrate they can do a good analysis of the source code written by others, which is a very valuable skill in the professional world. We provide a case study in an undergraduate course, showing positive results.     

世界化纤发展趋势

对纤维的需求不断增长，天然纤维缺口将愈来愈大，均为化纤发展带来了机遇。化纤工业竞争激烈，主要趋势为扩大规模提高效率。无人化、环保化也是一种趋势。同时也发展了一些与下游名牌产品联系在一起的小型专业厂．高技术、高性能纤维发展较快．在技术方面，认为纤维超细化、废弃物回收重新纺制纤维，注意环保，设备增容、高效化，高性能纤维开发等是主要趋势．     

试论我国锦纶生产发展方向

回顾了锦纶发展简史，综述了国内锦纶生产现状，并论述了我国锦纶生产发展方向，必须大力发展原料工业；加快老企业的设备改造；使其达到规模经济，大力发展差别化、高附加值、功能性纤维。同时，提出了锦纶各品种的发展趋向。     

Managing knowledge on communication and information flow in global software projects

Communication is a key success factor of distributed software projects. Poor communication has been identified as a main obstacle to successful collaboration. Global projects are especially endangered by information gaps between collaborating sites. Different communication styles, technical equipment, and missing awareness of each other can cause severe problems. Knowledge about actual and desired channels, paths, and modes of communication is required for improving communication in a globally distributed project. However, many project participants know little about communication and information flow in their projects. In this contribution, we focus on knowledge about communication and information flow. It is acquired by modelling on‐going and desired flows of information, including documented and non‐documented channels of information flow. We analyzed a distributed software project from the information flow perspective. Based on the findings, we developed specific techniques to improve information flow in distributed software development according to the FLOW Method. In a second distributed project, we evaluated one of the techniques. We found the FLOW mapping technique to be suitable for effectively spreading knowledge about communication and information flow in global software projects.