![](bg3.png)
Table 1: Comparative analysis of processes.
Process/
Criteria A B C D E F G H I J K L
RUP x x x x x
XP x x x x x x x x
AUP x x x x x
Extended
Workbench
Model x x x x x x x
LAGPRO x x x x x x x x x
RUP, XP and AUP define the minimum set of ele-
ments that make up a process. However, do not have
procedures to address issues related with DSD prob-
lems, which were represented by the criteria A to G.
Although the Extended Workbench and LAGPRO
have been developed for use in project developed in
distributed way, they haven’t mechanisms to show the
diversity, they talking in account only requirements
formal specification. Extended Wokbench does not
mention the factors related to collaboration and trust.
Furthermore, we didn’t found reports about the arti-
facts generated. In LAGPRO case, the activities are
not identified. Thus, it is possible to show that is ne-
cessary a process that meets these new demands gene-
rated by the distributed approach and presents a defi-
nition of process elements.
Audy et al. (Audy and Prikladnicki, 2008), point
out that in a distributed software development envi-
ronment is fundamental a common development pro-
cess for the team, because a methodology helps di-
rectly in sync, providing all team members a common
tasks and activities naming also, and a common ex-
pectations for all individual involved in the process.
According to Rocha et al. (Rocha et al., 2008),
when the context is Distributed Development, the sce-
nario changes if compared with to traditional soft-
ware development, because the variables and risks
increase. So if there is not a good methodology
for the development process, the project will have a
good chance to not correspond to the initial planning.
In their first insight into the study and use of DSD,
Rocha et al. (Rocha et al., 2008) emphasized the need
of more adequate process, since, based on research
carried out was not easy to identify process models for
the DSD. So, it reinforces the need for a development
process that effectively provide adequate support to
characteristics of DSD.
3.2 Guidelines for Software Distributed
Development Process
From the analysis described in Section 3.1 was de-
fined a set of guidelines for the definition of a soft-
ware process that meets the needs of distributed deve-
lopment, listed as follow:
• adopt hybrid management (centralized-
decentralized) related with to the activities
control;
• encourage communication between development
and integration test teams offering artifacts with
relevant information for them;
• use formal specification of tests to mitigate the
problems of ambiguity and to reduce the need for
communication;
• using a component-based architecture for develop
in a distribution way or perform the phase distri-
bution, such as development and testing, thereby
reducing communication among teams;
• support for awareness, so that the people involved
are aware of place and responsibilities assigned to
each team member;
• adopt language with low learning curve and se-
mantics to provide information to developers, for
example, the use of UML because its is known in
both academia and industry;
• provide continuous integration to reduce casual
problems of integration;
• have iterative development and frequent deliveries
to provide greater visibility of project managers;
• define an infrastructure that enables collaboration,
documentation control and artifact versions con-
trol; develop and apply test suites; and establish
method to control documentation;
• define a language to formalize the process and in-
teraction among the teams; and,
• define of a leader to foster trust and commitment
among members.
4 CONCLUSIONS
The physical distribution of teams increases the prob-
lems of development management. Cultural differ-
ences, language, time zone among other things, in-
crease the complexity of communication, coordina-
tion and control during software development.
Using a standardized process for planning, offers
support to project managers by allowing you to set
plans in accordance with the standards and quality
procedures of the organization (Berger, 2003). More-
over, the adoption an appropriate process to the char-
acteristics of organizations, provides a consistent and
predictable development (Kruchten, 1999).
Thus, we analyzed the technical, methods and
software processes found in literature that contributed
TOWARDS A PROCESS TO INFORMATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT WITH DISTRIBUTED TEAMS
495