1. 1
Appendices of: Systematic Mapping Study about Teams in Software Engineering
HASE Technical Report Nº. 2013-002
Danilo Monteiro Ribeiro, Elisa Sattyam, Fernando Kenji, Marcos Cardoso, Rodrigo Lopes
Center of Informatics
Federal University of Pernambuco
Recife, Brazil
danilomonteiroo, elisa.sattyam, fkenjikamei, marcos.cardoso, digolopes [@gmail.com]
SUMÁRIO
APPENDIX I. DEINIÇÕES DOS FATORES QUE AFETAM O
DESENVOLVIMENTO DISTRIBUIDO DE SOFTWARE............1
1) Processo................................................................. 1
2) Comprometimento................................................. 1
3) Tipo de tarefa......................................................... 1
4) Comunicação ......................................................... 1
5) Performance .......................................................... 1
6) Confiança............................................................... 1
7) Cultura ................................................................... 1
8) Produtividade......................................................... 1
9) Dispersão ............................................................... 1
10)Complexidade na tarefa......................................... 2
11)Familiaridade da tarefa ......................................... 2
APPENDIX II. PROPOSIÇÕES DOS FATORES QUE
AFETAM O DESENVOLVIMENTO DISTRIBUIDO DE
SOFTWARE 2
APPENDIX I.Deinições dos fatores que afetam
o desenvolvimento distribuido de software
1) Processo
[Definição]: “The four dimensions of team work are drawn
from the Team Climate Inventory (Anderson and West,
1994), which has been repeatedly validated as a
measurement instrument for team processes and has
consistent psychometric properties (Agrell and Gustafson,
1994; Ragazzoni, Baiardi, Zotti, Anderson, and West,
2002). This study uses a 14-item Team Climate Inventory
instrument which has been validated (Kivimaki and
Elovainio, 1999).”
2) Comprometimento
[Definição]: “The items assessing commitment to clan are
drawn from Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982).”
3) Tipo de tarefa
[Definição]: não definido.
4) Comunicação
[Definição]: Communications enhances shared-team
identity (Hinds and Mortensen, 2005).
5) Performance
[Definição]: Team performance is assessed by
Effectiveness and Efficiency measures developed by Hoegl
and Gemuenden (2001).
6) Confiança
[Definição]: "The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to
the actions of another party based on the expectation that
the other will perform a particular action important to the
trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that
other party" (Mayer et al.1995)
7) Cultura
[Definição]: Culture influences the common understanding
between teammates due to diversity in people’s
assumptions, behaviours, expectations about leadership
practices, team norms, attitudes towards hierarchy, sense of
time, and communication styles. (Duarte and Snyder 2001,
Herbsleb and Moitra 2001).
8) Produtividade
[Definição]: “We measured productivity using the
following ratio of output and input parameters, where Code
Sizeis measured using KLOC (and Function Points), and
Total Project Effort is measured using person hours:” [03]
9) Dispersão
[Definition]: “Configurational Dispersion, which is a key
focus of this study, was assessed using three measures:
Number of Sites, Personnel Imbalance, and Experience
Spread.
(…)
Number of Sites. Number of locations where team
members work.
Personnel Imbalance. Extent of unevenness in distribution
of personnel across locations.

2. Human Aspects in Software Engineering
http://www.haseresearch.com
Technical Report N. 2012-003
Available at …
2
Experience Spread (configurational). Extent of unevenness
in work experience of personnel across locations.”[03]
10) Complexidade na tarefa
[Definição]: Para [01], a complexidade na tarefa envolve o
seu tamanho e a complexidade da estrutura.
“Task Size. We measured task size as the number of
thousands of lines of software instructions (i.e., software
code added, deleted, or changed) written for the MR. As
the software product was written in one programming
language, lines of code provides a reasonable measure of
software size. Naturally, we expect that more software
instructions will take longer to develop.
Structural Complexity. Structural complexity can be
evaluated by measuring characteristics that make software
difficult to understand and change (Curtis et al.1979). As
the number of modules affected increases, it becomes more
difficult to understand how the parts being modified will
affect other parts of the system (Darcy et al. 2005,
Herbsleb and Mockus 2003) which increases the amount of
information that developers need to process to implement
the MR, thus increasing its complexity (Wood 1986).
Therefore, we measured the structural complexity of the
task as the number of modules impacted by the MR.
Because each delta affects a single module, information
about which modules were affected by an MR is readily
available in our data set.”
11) Familiaridade da tarefa
[Definição]: “Task Familiarity. Prior empirical studies
have measured task familiarity simply as prior work
experience in a similar task (Littlepage et al. 1997,
Reagans et al. 2005). To be effective in their work,
software developers need to understand the existing
software product base and the application domain in which
the new software will operate (Boehm 1981, Brooks 1995,
Curtis et al. 1988, Walz et al. 1993)”
APPENDIX II. Proposições dos fatores
que afetam o desenvolvimento distribuido de
software
[Proposição] Tipo de tarefa afeta positivamente a
comunicação
“The findings show that that task type seems
to be one of the most important factors in
promoting comunication among the team
members.” [04]
[Proposição]: Comprometimento afeta positivamente a
performace.
“Alternatively, the factors of commitment to
clan, trust, and team processes were each
significant for team performance and project
success.” [05]
[Proposição]: Processo afeta positivamente a
performance
“Alternatively, the factors of commitment to
clan, trust, and team processes were each
significant for team performance and project
success.” [05]
[Proposição]: Comunicação afeta positivamente a
performance
“Alternatively, the factors of commitment to
clan, trust, and team processes were each
significant for team performance and project
success.” [05]
[Proposição]: Cultura afeta positivamente a
comunicação
A comparison of the clusters by cultural
groups indicates that culture
may have some relationship to the type of
communication patterns that occur within a
group. [05]
[Proposição]: Comunicação afeta positivamente a
performance
“higher performing cluster had more
communication behaviors than any other
cluster, and their communication activities
were more evenly distributed
among the different types of communication
activities.” [05]
“Like Bandow (2001), Dirks and Ferrin
(2001) we found that when virtual teams lack
trust, there may be significant problems with
the performance and behaviour of the team
members.” [03]
[Proposição]: Cultura afeta positivamente a confiança
“On the basis of our results, we believe that
the problem with poor socio-cultural fit may
have been exacerbated by a lack of face-to-
face interaction and too little socialization.”
[09]
[Proposição]: Confiança afeta positivamente a
produtividade
“All the projects reported a decrease in
productivity and quality, and that team

3. Human Aspects in Software Engineering
http://www.haseresearch.com
Technical Report N. 2012-003
Available at …
3
morale was undermined, as a result
of an absence of trust.” [03]
[Proposição]: Comunicação afeta positivamente a
confiança
“From our study we found that poor
socialization, lack of face-to-face meetings,
too little communication, and poor socio-
cultural fit were reported by
all the projects” [03]
[Proposição]: Familiaridade afeta positivamente a
performance
“Our results show that while familiarity is
generally beneficial for performance, it
can also complement or offset different
elements of complex work environments.”
[01]
[Proposição]: Complexidade afeta negativamente a
performance
“Our results show that while familiarity is
generally beneficial for performance, it
can also complement or offset different
elements of complex work environments.”
[01]
[Proposição]: Cultura não afeta a performance
“The cultural differences variable was not
significant in distinguishing high-
performing from low-performing teams, as
demonstrated in Tables 1 and 2” [05]