In this paper we sought to understand the role that Web 2.0 technologies play in supporting the development of trust in globally distributed development teams. We found the use of Web 2.0 technologies to be minimal, with less than 25% of our participants reporting using them and many reporting the disadvantages of adopting them. In response, we sought to understand the factors that led to the use and non-use of these technologies in distributed development teams. We adopted a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze data collected from 61 interviewees representing all common roles in systems development. We discovered six factors that influenced the use and non-use of Web 2.0 technology. We present a proclivity model to frame our findings as well as our conclusions about the interrelationships between the results of our qualitative and quantitative analyses. We also present implications for the design of collaboration tools, which could lead to greater support and usage by distributed developers. This paper was presented at the 2012 ICGSE, Porto Alegre, Brazil, on late August 2012.

1. Distributed Developers and the
Non-Use of Web 2.0 Technologies
A Proclivity Model
University of California, Irvine PUCRS University, Brazil
Ban Al-Ani Sabrina Marczak
Yi Wang
Erik Trainer
David Redmiles

2. Trust
• Which factors influence trust in distributed
development teams?
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

3. Assumptions
• Tools adopted by developers to support
their collaboration would play a role in the
development of trust
• Web 2.0 technologies would be amongst
the tools adopted
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

4. Our intended goal
• To understand the role that Web 2.0
technologies play in supporting the
development of trust in globally distributed
development teams
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

5. Surprising finding
• Less than 25% of our participants reported
using Web 2.0 technologies
• Many participants reported the
disadvantages of adopting them
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

6. New goal
• To understand the factors that led to the
USE and NON-USE of these technologies
in distributed teams
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

7. Research questions
• Why do developers NOT use Web 2.0
technologies?
• Who DOES use these technologies?
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

8. Six factors
QUALI
• Non-alignment
• Lack of support
• Mistrust of information
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

9. Six factors
QUALI QUANTI
• Non-alignment • Age
• Lack of support • Experience
• Mistrust of information • Communication tools
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

10. Our empirical approach
• Mix of QUALI and QUANTI methods
• 5 fortune 500 multinational organizations
• 61 interviewees
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

11. The profile
• 18 female, 43 male
• 34 US
• 18 Brazil
• 2 Mexico
• 1 Costa Rica, Ireland, Israel, Poland, China,
Taiwan, Malaysia
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

12. The profile
• 21 managers
• 35 developers
• 5 support staff
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

13. The profile
• Working experience
• 11 years with global teams
• 12 years in the organization
• 21 years in the market
• 6 months working in the project
• 13.5 months experience in their team
• Knowledge about Web 2.0
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

14. The interview protocol
• Based on a single distributed project
• Participant and project background
• Scenarios
• Experience reports
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

15. The analysis
• Coded references to tools
• Categorized the codes
• Quali and Quanti analysis
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

16. Qualitative findings
• Focused on identifying the causal reasons
subjects revealed for NON-USE of Web 2.0
technologies
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

17. Qualitative findings
• The non-alignment of the technologies to
the work practices (Qual.1)
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

18. Qualitative findings
• The non-alignment of the technologies to
the work practices (Qual.1)
“the use is not billable”
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

19. Qualitative findings
• The non-alignment of the technologies to
the work practices (Qual.1)
“the use is not billable”
“it is extra paperwork”
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

20. Qualitative findings
• The non-alignment of the technologies to
the work practices (Qual.1)
“the use is not billable”
“it is extra paperwork”
“does not extend current communication”
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

21. Qualitative findings
• The lack of support for these technologies
(Qual. 2)
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

22. Qualitative findings
• The lack of support for these technologies
(Qual. 2)
“not available to some members”
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

23. Qualitative findings
• The lack of support for these technologies
(Qual. 2)
“not available to some members”
“not adopted by some sites”
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

24. Qualitative findings
• The lack of support for these technologies
(Qual. 2)
“not available to some members”
“not adopted by some sites”
“prohibited by the organization”
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

25. Qualitative findings
• The participant’s mistrust of information
provided through these technologies (Qual. 3)
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

26. Qualitative findings
• The participant’s mistrust of information
provided through these technologies (Qual. 3)
“information is not accurate”
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

27. Qualitative findings
• The participant’s mistrust of information
provided through these technologies (Qual. 3)
“information is not accurate”
“many times it is not useful”
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

28. Qualitative findings
• The participant’s mistrust of information
provided through these technologies (Qual. 3)
“information is not accurate”
“many times it is not useful”
“anyone can write anything to everyone”
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

29. Quantitative findings
• Focused on 8 potential influential
demographic variables
• Language • Exp@GSD
• Education • Managerial job
• Gender • Technical job
• Age • # Commun. tech.
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

30. Quantitative findings
• 3 influential variables
• Language • Exp@GSD
• Education • Managerial job
• Gender • Technical job
• Age • # Commun. tech.
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

31. Quantitative findings
• Older participants are less likely to use
Web 2.0 technology (Quan.1)
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

32. Quantitative findings
• Those who with more experience in
distributed development are more likely to
use such technologies (Quan. 2)
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

33. Quantitative findings
• Developers who reported the use of
diverse communication tools are more
likely to use Web 2.0 technology (Quan. 3)
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

34. The Proclivity model
Group Factors Use
Organizational Use
Policy (Qual. 2)
P3
Tool Work Alignment
(Qual. 1)
Usage of Other Tools
(Quan. 3)
P1
Exp@DSD (Quan. 2) Age (Quan. 1)
Trust on Tools (Qual. 3) Individual Factors
P2
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

35. Conclusions
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

36. Conclusions
• The work-technology
alignment is positively
associated with distributed
developer’s trust towards
collaboration tools (P1)
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

37. Conclusions
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

38. Conclusions
• The experience of being
exposed to distributed
development is positively
associated with
distributed developer’s
trust towards
collaboration tools (P2)
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

39. Conclusions
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

40. Conclusions
• The encouraging
organization policies on
collaboration tools are
positively associated with
distributed developer’s
usage of traditional
collaboration tools (P3)
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

41. Limitations
• Recruitment process
• “Traditional” teams
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

42. What have we learned?
• Previous factors
• that motivates
• in-house development
• small teams
• that inhibits
• non-adoption by a “critical mass”
• time needed to explore the technology
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

43. What have we learned?
QUALI QUANTI
• Non-alignment • Age
• Lack of support • Experience
• Mistrust of information • Communication tools
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

44. What is new?
• In-site study
• Team dynamics
• Role independent
• Availability does not mean adoption
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

45. So what?
• Horizontal integration
• Integrating Web 2.0 mechanisms across tools
can influence team member’s attitudes towards
these tools and increase usage
• Vertical integration
• Future designs need to consider non-
developers’ needs also
B. Al-Ani, O.Yi Wang, S. Marczak, E. Trainer, D. Redmiles

46. Thank you for your attention!
Questions?
Comments?
Suggestions?
Presented by
Sabrina Marczak
PUCRS
sabrina.marczak@pucrs.br
Main contact for this work
Ban Al-Ani
UCI
balani@ics.uci.edu