Stakeholder Perceptions of the Adoption of Continuous Integration -- A Case Study

Continuous integration is an important support mechanism for fast delivery of new features. However, its adoption in industry has often been problematic, partly due to social challenges. However, there is little knowledge of the exact nature of the challenges, and how different stakeholders perceive the need for and adoption of continuous integration. In this paper, we describe how the introduction of continuous integration was perceived by different stakeholders in a R&D program at Ericsson. The case provided a rare opportunity to study the adoption of continuous integration in a large distributed organization. We interviewed 27 stakeholders and found differing perceptions of continuous integration: how suitable it is for the organization, how adoption should be organized, and whether it is possible to achieve sufficient quality through automated testing. These differences of perception were mainly consequences of the geographic distribution. Based on the case study, we propose three guidelines. First, understand that the product architecture has a significant effect on the adoption. However, do not let architectural problems keep you from implementing continuous integration. Second, give the team members sufficient time to overcome the initial learning phase in the adoption. Third, avoid centralizing competencies to individual sites, and invest in cross-site communication.

[1]  Casper Lassenius,et al.  Towards Rapid Releases in Large-Scale XaaS Development at Ericsson: A Case Study , 2014, 2014 IEEE 9th International Conference on Global Software Engineering.

[2]  Casper Lassenius,et al.  Supporting a Large-Scale Lean and Agile Transformation by Defining Common Values , 2014, XP Workshops.

[3]  Mike Young,et al.  A Practical Approach to Large-Scale Agile Development: How HP Transformed LaserJet FutureSmart Firmware , 2012 .

[4]  Jean Hartley,et al.  Case study research , 2004 .

[5]  Walter Brenner,et al.  Fit for Continuous Integration: How Organizations Assimilate an Agile Practice , 2014, AMCIS.

[6]  M. Patton Qualitative research & evaluation methods , 2002 .

[7]  Foutse Khomh,et al.  Factors impacting rapid releases: an industrial case study , 2014, ESEM '14.

[8]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[9]  Jan Bosch,et al.  EXPERIENCED BENEFITS OF CONTINUOUS INTEGRATION IN INDUSTRY SOFTWARE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT: A CASE STUDY , 2013, ICSE 2013.

[10]  Jan Bosch,et al.  Automated software integration flows in industry: a multiple-case study , 2014, ICSE Companion.

[11]  Richard Berntsson-Svensson,et al.  On the journey to continuous deployment: Technical and social challenges along the way , 2015, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[12]  Mika Mäntylä,et al.  The highways and country roads to continuous deployment , 2015, IEEE Software.

[13]  Beryl Plimmer,et al.  Status Communication in Agile Software Teams: A Case Study , 2010, 2010 Fifth International Conference on Software Engineering Advances.

[14]  Graham Brooks Team Pace Keeping Build Times Down , 2008, Agile 2008 Conference.

[15]  Chandrakant D. Patel,et al.  Everything as a Service: Powering the New Information Economy , 2011, Computer.

[16]  Jez Humble,et al.  Continuous Delivery: Reliable Software Releases Through Build, Test, and Deployment Automation , 2010 .

[17]  Foutse Khomh,et al.  On Rapid Releases and Software Testing , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance.

[18]  Richard Berntsson-Svensson,et al.  Challenges When Adopting Continuous Integration: A Case Study , 2014, PROFES.

[19]  Jan Bosch,et al.  Modeling continuous integration practice differences in industry software development , 2014, J. Syst. Softw..

[20]  Christian Berger,et al.  Software & Systems Engineering Process and Tools for the Development of Autonomous Driving Intelligence , 2007, J. Aerosp. Comput. Inf. Commun..