The Benefits of Networking

Transcription

1 The Benefits of Networking Jørgen Bøegh 1, Mads Christiansen 1, Ebba Þóra Hvannberg 2, Tor Stalhane 3 1 DELTA, Danish Electronics, Light & Acoustics Venlighedsvej Hørsholm (Hoersholm), DK - Denmark {jb, mc}@delta.dk 2 University of Iceland, Hjardarhaga 2-6, IS-107 Reykjavik, Iceland, ebba@kerfi.hi.is 3 SINTEF Telecom and Informatics N-7465 Trondheim, NORWAY Tor.Stalhane@informatics.sintef.no Abstract. A network of 18 competence centres, called ESPINODES, supports companies conducting software process improvement (SPI) experiments under the European Commission s ESSI programme. Three Nordic ESPINODES report on experiences from participating in this network. We focus on general issues using examples from our local activities. The benefits of the network as seen from the sponsor, the participants as well as their customers are discussed. 1 Introduction There are many kinds of networks in the world: franchises and networks of companies that share some service. Examples of these are McDonalds hamburger chain, airline alliances, and real estate chains. In this paper we will focus on networks of excellence in a technical area. Our experiences come from participating in a network of organisations supporting Software Process Improvement (SPI). Each node has clear responsibilities: serving regional clients that run an experiment on Software Process Improvement; serving the local industry for dissemination and general information on SPI, and finally sharing knowledge and collaborating between nodes. The intended target audience for this paper is current and future customers and participants in networks. The type of questions we would like to address is: Customers of networks: What will customers gain by contacting a network? Is it important for customers to have a one-stop-shop, e.g. their local node or the network's aggregated information or will they benefit from looking at all the nodes in the network?

2 What type of tasks will customers ask the network to do? How does the network best serve them and reach them? Participants in a network: What types of resources can participants draw from the network? Can the existence of the network make participants more visible? Can participants improve their services? Can participants offer more services? 2 ESPINODE network Since 1993, the European Commission's ESSI (European Systems and Software Initiative) programme has supported almost 400 Process Improvement Experiments (PIEs), designed to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of the software development process [1]. In 1998 the European Commission established a network of competent partners, the so-called ESSI PIE Nodes. 18 ESPINODEs distributed throughout Europe plus Israel participate in the network (see Figure 1). Fig. 1. ESPINODEs The ESPINODE network is characterised by: ESPINODEs get funding from the European Commission.

3 ESPINODEs do not have a direct commercial goal and operate only for a limited period. Each of the nodes has a great freedom to operate the way it likes within the framework specified in the contract with the Commission. The network is not centrally managed, and it does not have a steering committee or a board. There is no way to force nodes to work in a similar way or together. Common interests and our wish to fulfil our contract with the European Commission motivate us to work together. The customers of the network get to know the network through the individual nodes. This means that once a customer contacts a node of the network, we (the nodes) introduce the network to the customer. Another approach would be to brand the ESPINODE network. Then we would attract the customers through some common web-site or reference, e.g. where the home region node is introduced to the customer. This latter approach is more natural when the network is charged with producing some specific deliverable. This is for instance the case with the European Support Network of Usability Centres (URL The EUSC is a commercial network sponsored by the EC Telematics Application Programme. Nations and unions of nations have funded networks of excellence. Examples of these are COST or European Co-Operation in the field of Scientific and Technical research, and clusters that are created within the 4 th and 5 th framework programmes of the European union. SPIN or Software Process Improvement Networks throughout Europe and USA have also been successful. SPIN Groups are different in many aspects from the ESPINODE network, since the SPINs themselves mostly serve their region and do not co-operate closely between themselves. The ESPINODE network has a rich diversity because the regional influence is considerable. We have to serve local customers that may be quite different from one region to another. In addition, the nodes have different expertise and goals, which influence the actual approach to the customer. Some networks have the goal of serving a homogeneous customer base. For the ESPINODE network it is important that we respect our cultural differences and the needs and expectations of our customers. 3 Regional experiences In the following subsections we highlight the individual regional experiences of three nodes in the network. There is no particular reason for choosing those three and they are not model nodes. The presentation of each node will explain the context in which the work has started; the focus of the activities or their characteristics; and finally their experiences. We try to articulate the experiences from both the participant's and our customer's point of view. A more thorough description of the activities of each node can be found in a consolidated report [1].

4 3.1 Norway and Sweden QIS is the ESPINODE that services Norway and Sweden and is organised by SINTEF Telecom and Informatics, which is a division of SINTEF - an independent non-profit R&D organisation situated in Trondheim, Norway. At the time when the European Commission established the ESPINODE network, there was no interest among Swedish firms and SINTEF was thus assigned the responsibility of PIEs in both countries. SINTEF Telecom and Informatics was at that time engaged by the Norwegian Research Council in a program called SPIQ - Software Process Improvement for better Quality. As part of this we were already building up a network of Norwegian software companies doing process improvement and saw this as an opportunity to enlarge the network and thus get a larger area of impact. In addition, we had already considerable experience in PIE work since we had been consultants to several Norwegian companies doing SPI partly financed by the EU Commission. The ESPINODE idea provided an additional opportunity for dissemination of SPI knowledge and experience as well as marketing SINTEF services. The node started with four PIEs - two in Norway and two in Sweden. Later a fifth Swedish PIE was added, thus giving us responsibility for a total of five PIEs. Our experience being a node is mixed. We expected a lot of requests for assistance in technical matters but received mostly requests for help with administrative matters and help in tackling the EU bureaucracy. We expected a good turnout for our regional workshops and started a rather heavy marketing blitz. It turned out, however, that only the PIEs participated. On the other hand, the PIEs have stated that they found the workshops important to them both for picking up new ideas and for being kept informed on the SPI scene. This is consistent with the result of a survey performed by the Commission, which showed that contact with other companies doing SPI was of high importance to all companies engaged in SPI. Our How-to-do memos, newsletter and web pages have turned out to be successful in the sense that they are read and some of the material downloaded by people doing SPI in Scandinavia. One of the concerns of the Commission when they started the ESPINODE network for Norway and Sweden was that there had been no PIEs in Sweden before. Thus, the Norwegian-Swedish ESPINODE was assigned a special responsibility to market SPI and PIEs in Sweden. The Commission s assumption of little SPI activity in Sweden turned out to be wrong documented by looking at the Eurex web page ( Both SINTEF and the Commission assumed that the two Nordic countries Norway and Sweden were so similar that it would be easy for SINTEF to gain access to fora in Sweden which could be used to push the message of SPI to the local industry. Our experience shows that this assumption was wrong. We first tried to arrange a SPI workshop in Gothenburg, but with no success. After the EU reviewers suggestions, we then tried to piggyback on events arranged by the Swedish Computer Society in Gothenburg and Stockholm, but got only lukewarm responses. The only Swedish forum where we were able to get access was the Trondheim-Jemtland forum Vindue. The lesson learned is that it is difficult to operate without a network especially if you start to operate in another country. Even among the Scandinavian

5 countries there are great cultural differences that must be carefully dealt with to obtain success. It is also mandatory to have access to a local network. Even so, we have been able to make a considerable amount of industrial contacts with Swedish industry through contacts at Nordic events like the EuroSPI conferences. The situation was simpler in Norway, where we already had a large network established through the SPIQ program and a good working relationship with the Norwegian Computer Society - DND. All considered we feel that the work of our ESPINODE has given value for money to the software industry in Norway and Sweden in the area of SPI. There are three reasons for this: The companies in Norway and Sweden have access to a large amount of SPI knowledge through the QIS newsletter, our web pages and all the other ESPINODE web pages that are linked to it. Through the workshops, the PIEs have met other companies doing SPI and have been exchanging information and practical experiences. By encouraging and helping Scandinavian industry to participate in SPI conferences, the industry has been able to get many contacts and access to a large amount of information, which will help them in their regular SPI work. Since participation in the ESPINODE network carried a considerable cost for SINTEF - the Commission only pays about 40% of our commercial rates - we also need to see what we have got out of the participation in the ESPINODE network. In general, we think that the participation has had a positive bottom line for SINTEF. This conclusion builds on three observations: We have enlarged our industrial network, thus giving us more marketing opportunities. This goes both for Norway and Sweden - and to some degree Denmark in areas were we are not marketing services in competition with the Danish ESPINODE (PRIMERS). We have received valuable inputs from Scandinavian industry pertaining to the work in the turbulent border area between research and practicalities where consulting usually takes place. We have had the opportunity to sharpen and document our industrial experiences and have moved more theory and methods from research to practical, industrial application. 3.2 Denmark The Danish ESPINODE - PRIMERS - is hosted at DELTA Danish Electronics, Light & Acoustics. DELTA is a private self-governed company, approved by the Danish Ministry of Trade and Industry as a GTS (Approved Technology Service) Institute located in the northern part of Copenhagen. As a GTS Institute DELTA has an obligation to contribute to innovation and dissemination to industry. Participation in International R&D projects and networks ensures up-to-date information and knowledge.

6 The obligation to disseminate knowledge is done partly by organising courses and seminars and partly by running an experience exchange network. The experience exchange network (Datatechnical Forum) was established in 1973 and comprises about 75 Danish companies. The network runs 10 experience exchange groups covering areas like methods and tools, quality management, software process improvement (i.e. the Danish SPIN group), project management, and testing. In addition, DELTA is a leading consulting company in the area of software process evaluation and improvement. Software process evaluations are based on the Bootstrap approach. DELTA has conducted more than 50 commercial evaluations. This has lead to a detailed understanding of the state-of-practice in the Danish software industry. DELTA was also the leading partner in a large (2.6 MEuro) national SPI effort [2]. DELTA was already deeply involved in SPI projects for Danish industry and had long-term experience in network activities. In addition, we felt that the experiences already accumulated at DELTA could be valuable for SPI projects in the framework of ESSI projects. This explains the background and motivation for creating a Danish ESPINODE. In the ESSI context DELTA supported three PIEs. The type of support was twofold. Firstly, a general support was related to the specifics of European Commission funded PIEs, including identification and refinement of project goals, reporting to the Commission and presentation of project results. Second, DELTA was a subcontractor to the PIEs and carried out specific consulting services related to process improvement. These two approaches to the PIEs provided a very close relation and enabled identification of problems early in the projects. Early in the process, we formed a PIE-club - a small network for experience exchange among the PIEs. We believed that this could be a forum of considerable inspiration for the PIEs in order to show new possibilities in their daily work. Although the projects were quite different, we knew that the difficult parts of SPI projects are related to communication, diffusion and adoption, and not so much to the technical issues. As with SPI it also takes time to build a network that creates benefits. The first meetings were used to tell the others about their projects. The purpose was also to try to focus on areas of common interest. Unfortunately one of our PIEs was very impatient and didn t feel they could benefit from listening to technical discussions outside the scope of their project. They would rather work at home if the time spent in the network were just added to their work-hours. This attitude to networking resulted in a network that never really provided the anticipated benefits and having only two PIEs in a network didn t really make any sense. Conclusion networks are totally dependent on the members and their interest in and commitment to the network. The two PIEs interested in networking continued in the Danish SPIN group, one of the experience exchange groups organised by DELTA within Datatechnical Forum. The 4 to 6 annual full-day meetings attract 15 to 25 delegates from a variety of companies in Denmark. The web pages provided by PRIMERS included a Paper of the month which has been very popular among the other nodes and the attached PIEs although they were published less frequent than every month. The PIEs may only regard the ESPINODE as a service centre, but there are more benefits. Being part of the international network DELTA had access to knowledge

7 available at other ESPINODES. In cases where DELTA did not immediately have the answer to questions raised, it was possible to seek information and assistance elsewhere. These extra resources considerably strengthened DELTA s support to the PIEs. DELTA also benefited from being part of the ESPINODE network at a more general level. First, a good network of personal contacts was established which again resulted in closer collaboration with other ESPINODES. In the heterogeneous group of ESPINODES, one cannot expect to find a common interest in everything. Therefore, we found it most efficient to establish collaborations on a case by case basis. These common activities included setting up a joint workshop and other dissemination actions. Only the future will show how far the ESPINODE network will be developed, but until now, it has at least provided new opportunities. 3.3 Iceland The ESPINODE in Iceland, called ESPICE, is at the University of Iceland. At the university there is considerable experience in software engineering. There was no formal association with industry, and no formal activity of software process improvement was going on when the node was established. Because of the small society it was relatively easy to reach the clients and associations and people that could disseminate the activities of the node. Individual professors have done consulting for industry but there is no institute on software engineering. There is also a close relationship with the Continuing education institute of the University of Iceland that can offer training in software engineering in co-operation with the node. There was one PIE attached to the node. The major activities of the Icelandic node have been workshops that each focus on one single theme. Each workshop consists of a lecture, tutorials, and demonstrations of tools. Exchange of views and opinions among members of the workshop is an important component and the workshops are pragmatic and hands on. Although many of the companies are well aware of the importance of standard, and defined methods, only a few have an ISO certificate and most are newcomers to software process improvement. Little consulting is presently offered in Iceland in this area. The experience of the ESPINODE network has been positive. As a network member, we have established new relationships with mature service providers of SPI and setup a basis for a technical and commercial co-operation. We have also relied on other network members to answer questions on behalf of our clients, thus taking advantage of the expertise of the network. As a national node we have succeeded in creating an awareness of SPI and 22 companies have attended our workshops. We have also introduced the activities to quality associations and a governmental advisory board on information technology. However, at this time of writing we can not measure to what extent our customers have improved their software processes or attempted to do so. In a small society, it is important that companies have access to foreign resources. Because of the size of the industry, say in Denmark, Norway or Sweden, there is access to more experienced consultants in the area of SPI. Therefore, the ESPINODE

8 network proved to be a good opportunity to transfer knowledge from other more experienced countries. 4 Benefits We believe that networking is the future. In Silicon Valley people quite openly share information even between companies that are in direct competition. One reason is that employees change job more often in Silicon Valley than generally is the case in Europe. If a company cannot prevent information from leaking it may just as well use it as an opportunity. It is well known that the growth rate in Silicon Valley is higher than average and one reason is the culture of open exchange of information that makes companies more competitive. If I share my knowledge with 10 people, they are more likely to share their information with me. This means that I have the experiences from 10 people. When a network is based on mutual trust and common interests it will lead to a win-win situation. At the beginning of our work in the ESPINODE network we analysed whom the beneficiaries of our networks were, what types of activities we wanted to carry out, who would do it and how we would measure our success. We also did a brief analysis of the environment and the context of our work including assumptions, hindrances and opportunities. The analysis was carried out using the Soft Systems Methodology [3]. This analysis was important since it helped us to focus our work. As a result of this analysis we formed a few working groups with defined objectives. Furthermore, informal activities between participants take place, for example by asking for resources, experiences, advice etc. It is important that the activities of the network directly support the primary activities of each of the nodes. It is difficult to motivate the nodes to do something only for the network's sake. Both the customers and the participants of the network are beneficiaries. The sponsor of the network, i.e. the European Commission should also benefit. We think the Commission benefits, since the nodes support many of the administrative activities. Also, research activities funded by the Commission are more likely to be widely disseminated and exploited with the aid of a network. It is evident that the nodes differ greatly. Some nodes have long experience of providing services while others have little experience. Some nodes have a clientele that is capable and motivated. Those nodes often have the objective to service customers that are already convinced of the importance of SPI. Others have customers with low awareness pertaining to the importance of SPI. These nodes have the objective to raise awareness of SPI and to increase the number of companies that are involved in SPI. The ESPINODEs have benefited from the network in having access to a broader set of competencies and opportunities to share ideas. The customers of the ESPINODEs have benefited in terms of the increased attention and focus from the ESPINODEs.

9 ESPINODE Resource Pool ESPINODE looking for information ESPINODEs submits information to maintainer Maintainer Distributed Resource Repository Fig. 2. Resources The inter ESPINODE services have been fairly well structured. A discussion forum and a pool of references to resources were established (see Figure 2). The resources include links to relevant web pages, books, articles and experts within the community. The ESPINODEs are responsible for adding information to the resource pool by filling in and submitting a web-based form to the maintainer of the specific topic. The maintainer - another ESPINODE - is responsible for keeping the information up-todate. Currently no information on the number of accesses to these resources is available to us. In order to understand the needs of our customers we did a marketing survey during the first year of the network. The major benefit of the network is that customers get better service from their local node because they can focus on specific local problems and they can consult other nodes. Examples of questions have been: What resources are there on teams and teamwork in software development? How do governments in other countries support their institutes and department with the procurement process? We have found that customers of the network mainly access their local node. Analysis of web-logs for all three ESPINODEs have, however, shown that local websites on SPI are accessed from abroad, although there is no evidence that they are from customers of other nodes. If customers should benefit directly from other nodes then the nodes and the network would have to add services: Each node could advertise its focus or speciality. Currently, there is most often only a list of upcoming events.

10 The network has to provide a search tool in order to look for something specific at the nodes. The network could provide an on-line help-desk where participants place questions that are redirected to appropriate nodes. 5 Recommendations In this section, we try to summarise from our experience, our recommendations to organisers of networks: Personal relations are important for the success of a network; the Internet is not enough. The network's success depends on the willingness of its participants to share information. Marketing has to be one of the primary tasks, especially in the beginning. Don't expect this to be easy, since the network has to decide what it needs to market first. An analysis of the beneficiaries, goals, actors, activities, including deliverables and the context has to be done early on and updated regularly. Within a network, a subset of nodes is bound to work together on some tasks. Some of the tasks are highly structured and decided by the network as a whole, i.e. top-down. Other tasks are more bottom-up, that is unstructured and initiated by some subset of nodes. High performance requirements are a driving force for people to work together in a team, and a network is organised by a team of people [4]. At the beginning, the nodes set performance targets for themselves. As a network, we have been aware of the requirement that the co-operation should deliver results. To potential customers of the network, we can only recommend that they actively search for networks that fit their needs. It is also the responsibility of the customers to let the network know how it can provide better services and what it does well. It is difficult to decide or recommend what type of structure or organisation for a network is the most important. Doing scenarios as a part of an analysis can help the network to visualise the best organisation. 6 Conclusions We have shared our experience from being participants in a network and hopefully shed a light on how it has benefited our customers. We hope that the paper will both motivate discussions on networks and also convince those that haven't used a network to do so in their work. While it is not necessary for a network to live forever, there is a drawback that many of the networks have a lifetime of 2-3 years. This is sometimes apparent from

11 the web-sites that haven't been updated for some time, although the original material continues to be valuable. Our network is different from the McDonalds, airlines and real estate networks. They are based on a certain level of control and common discipline in order to work. Our network is purely based on interests in SPI and to improve our local business. There is only a minimum of controlling elements built into the network and we entirely rely on finding common interests and good personal relations. To create a network, a framework and a clear scope is needed. This must be developed among the key interested parties and communicated to others with the same interests in order to attract their attention to the network. Setting up measurable goals for the network up front is difficult, as the common interests may not be clear at that time. Identifying the beneficiaries and clarifying their interests in an open way helps. But we believe that one of the major benefits of networking is the unpredictable mixture of common interests and good personal relations. Then spontaneous formation of subgroups based on common interests eventually emerges and the network shows its true value. If we look at the story told, we can see the necessity of networks. The Norwegian ESPINODE had difficulties in penetrating the Swedish community mainly due to lack of access to a local network. In Denmark the PIE-club network became obsolete much too early because the benefits of networking was not realised among all the members of the network. If the interests are not clear to the entire network or the commitment is not present, the network will fail. The size of the network is also important. At the European level the network proved to be a good opportunity to transfer knowledge from more experienced countries in the area of SPI such as Denmark, Sweden and Norway and to smaller societies such as Iceland where there is less variety of expertise because of the small population. References 1. ATB-Bremen, with contributions from all ESPINODEs, ESPINODE, Consolidated report. Issue No. 2, Period May, 1998-April, 1999, 2. J. Johansen and L. Mathiasen. Lessons Learned in a National SPI Effort. The Danish SPI Initiative: Centre for Software Process Improvement. Paper for ISCN Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. Soft systems methodology in action. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Katzenbach, J. R., Smith, D. K., The Wisdom of Teams. McGraw-Hill, 1998.