This is our presentation at ICSE 2018 SEIP Track on Transparency and Contracts in the Context of Continuous Integration and Delivery in the Automotive Ecosystem

1. Transparency and Contracts:
Continuous Integration and
Delivery in the Automotive
Ecosystem
Eric
Knauss
Jacob
Juul
Rogardt
Heldal
Patricia
Lago
Patrizio
Pelliccione
Rob
van der Valk
ICSE 2018, May 31, Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact speaker: eric.knauss@cse.gu.se | @oerich

2. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 2
The Automotive Ecosystem
• Currently changing
• 80-90% of innovations based on
electronics
• Complex value-chains
• Suppliers for mechanical, electrical, and
SW components
• In-house development
• Knowledge about building a car is
distributed
Motivation and Goal

3. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 3
Development Verifica1on
Feature
Func1on
Electrical Architecture
System
ComponentParallel development:
suppliers + In-house
development
“Big-bang”
integra1on!
Collabora1on based on
contracts
Pressure to change
- Shorten time-to-market
- Maintain highest quality
- Increase flexibility
Challenge
- Apply beyond scope of
local teams
- Apply beyond scope of
individual companies
 Reduce cycle times and
improve feedback
- But: What information to
share?
- Accountability, openness,
efficiency
Transparency
Motivation and Goal

4. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 4
• RQ1: What are risks and/or benefits of increasing transparency in an
inter-organizational CI&D setting?
• RQ2: (How) can sufficient information be provided in inter-organizational
CI&D collaborations?
• RQ3: Are contracts an impediment for scaling CI&D across company
boundaries?
• RQ4: Are industry-wide standards and processes shared among
organizations an enabler for inter-organizational CI&D?
Between partners in automotive value-chain that collaborate in
continuous integration and delivery
Transparency
Motivation and Goal

5. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 5
CI/CD Support Transparency Support
Often focused on
small teams
Fowler,
Neely et al.
RE differs: classic vs.
oss/seco
Robertson,
Ruhe,
Scacchi
How to scale /
include hw?
Debiche et al. Focus: emergent
developers/knowledge
Haenni et al.,
Minto et al.,
Sadi et al.,
Treude
But challenges! Eklund et al.,
Roberts,
Rogers
Less focus:
Emergent reqt-
contributors, across
org.-boundaries,
transparency
Kwan et al.,
Knauss et al.,
Linåker et al.,
Dabbish et al.,
Husseini et al.
Continuous delivery Humble et al.,
Rissanen et al.
This will be important
for the automotive
ecosystem
Damian et al.,
Boden et al.,
Kilamo et al.
Related Work

6. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 6
Research Method
Phase What it is What we did
Thematising Decide purpose and subject
matter
In-depth knowledge about CI/D and Transparency
in automotive

7. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 7
Research Method
Phase What it is What we did
Thematising Decide purpose and subject
matter
In-depth knowledge about CI/D and Transparency
in automotive
Designing Define research method in
7 steps
Interview survey, transcription, analysis
protocol, verification, reporting  Interviewee

8. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 8
Research Method
Phase What it is What we did
Thematising Decide purpose and subject
matter
In-depth knowledge about CI/D and Transparency
in automotive
Designing Define these seven steps Interview survey, transcription, analysis protocol,
verification, reporting  Interviewee
Interviewing Define interview style and
conduct interviews
Semi-structured, interview guide, select
interviewees that are knowledgeable and
cover a broad set of competencies

9. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 9
Research Method
Phase What it is What we did
Thematising Decide purpose and subject
matter
In-depth knowledge about CI/D and Transparency
in automotive
Designing Define research method in
seven steps
Interview survey, transcription, analysis protocol,
verification, reporting  Interviewee
Interviewing Define interview style and
conduct interviews
Semi-structured, interview guide, select
interviewees that are knowledgeable and cover a
broad set of competencies
Transcribin
g
Transcribe recordings …in English

10. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 10
Research Method
Phase What it is What we did
Thematising Decide purpose and subject
matter
In-depth knowledge about CI/D and Transparency
in automotive
Designing Define research method in
seven steps
Interview survey, transcription, analysis protocol,
verification, reporting  Interviewee
Interviewing Define interview style and
conduct interviews
Semi-structured, interview guide, select
interviewees that are knowledgeable and cover a
broad set of competencies
Transcribing Transcribe recordings …in English
Analysing Extract knowledge from
transcripts
Based on Saldana, Atlas.ti, coding to describe
trains of thought, use to support/negate
prepositions. Prepositions defined based on
experience in project consortium

11. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 11
Research Method
Phase What it is What we did
Thematising Decide purpose and subject
matter
In-depth knowledge about CI/D and Transparency
in automotive
Designing Define research method in
seven steps
Interview survey, transcription, analysis protocol,
verification, reporting  Interviewee
Interviewing Define interview style and
conduct interviews
Semi-structured, interview guide, select
interviewees that are knowledgeable and cover a
broad set of competencies
Transcribing Transcribe recordings …in English
Analysing Extract knowledge from
transcripts
Based on Saldana, Atlas.ti, coding to describe
trains of thought, use to support/negate
prepositions. Prepositions defined based on
experience in project consortium
Verifying Ascert validity, reliability,
generalizability
Discussed in threats to validity
Reporting ... …

12. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 12
What are risks and/or benefits of increasing transparency in an inter-
organizational CI&D setting?
Research Question 1
• Proposition 1: Increasing inter-organisational transparency of information is
a necessary condition for inter-organisational CI&D
Results (RQ1)

13. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem
Synergy
(agile collab.)
Inter-org. CI&D
Legend
Software
dependent
(direct)
Software
driven
(indirect)
Software
agnostic
Information
transparency
Positive impact (dashed = indirect)
Negative impact (dashed = indirect)
Neutral
F1.1: ➕/➖
F1.2: ➕
Fn: ➕
Fn: ➖
Fn: ➕/➖
• Proposition 1: Transparency is
necessary condition for inter-
organisational CI&D
• F1.1 Important but not necessary
• F1.2 Beneficial for synergy
(efficiency, trust, mutual
understanding
13
Results (RQ1)

14. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 14
What are risks and/or benefits of increasing transparency in an inter-
organizational CI&D setting?
Research Question 1
• Proposition 1: Increasing inter-organisational transparency of information is
a necessary condition for inter-organisational CI&D
• Proposition 2: Increased inter-organisational transparency of information is
considered positive
Results (RQ1)

15. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 15
Trust
Inter-org.
awareness
Information
sensitivity
(privacy)
Synergy
(agile collab.)
Inter-org. CI&D
Legend
Software
dependent
(direct)
Software
driven
(indirect)
Software
agnostic
Information
transparency
Positive impact (dashed = indirect)
Negative impact (dashed = indirect)
Neutral
F1.1: ➕/➖
F1.2: ➕
F2.1: ➕
F2.3: ➖
F2.2: ➕
F2.2: ➕
F2.1: ➕ Shared project
understanding
F2.2: ➕
Fn: ➕
Fn: ➖
Fn: ➕/➖
• Proposition 2: Transparency of
information is considered positive
• F2.1: Positive for shared
understanding and awareness
• F2.2: Trust is increased
• F2.3: Some information is
sensitive
Results (RQ1)

16. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) 17
Trust
Inter-org.
awareness
Information
sensitivity
(privacy)
Synergy
(agile collab.)
Inter-org. CI&D
Responsibility
split & IPR
(inter-org.)
harmonized
tooling
(Efficient)
information
sharing
Legend
Software
dependent
(direct)
Software
driven
(indirect)
Software
agnostic
Information
transparency
Positive impact (dashed = indirect)
Negative impact (dashed = indirect)
Neutral
F1.1: ➕/➖
F1.2: ➕
F2.1: ➕
F2.3: ➖
F2.2: ➕
F2.2: ➕
F3.1: ➖
F3.1: ➕
F3.2: ➕
(perception of)
physical
distance
F3.3: ➖
F3.2: ➕
F2.1: ➕
F6.1: ➕
Shared project
understanding
F2.2: ➕
Fn: ➕
Fn: ➖
Fn: ➕/➖
• Proposition 3: Typical risks
of inter-organisational
transparency (e.g. distance,
tooling, IP) can be managed
in practice.
• F3.1: Reducing physical
distance is beneficial
• F3.2: Tooling can support
information sharing
• F3.3: Difficult to manage
responsibilities and IPR
Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem
Results (RQ1)

17. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 19
Trust
Inter-org.
awareness
Project quality
Information
sensitivity
(privacy)
Synergy
(agile collab.)
Inter-org. CI&D
Responsibility
split & IPR
(inter-org.)
harmonized
tooling
(Efficient)
information
sharing
Legend
Software
dependent
(direct)
Software
driven
(indirect)
Software
agnostic
Information
transparency
Positive impact (dashed = indirect)
Negative impact (dashed = indirect)
Neutral
F1.1: ➕/➖
F1.2: ➕
F2.1: ➕
F2.3: ➖
F2.2: ➕
F2.2: ➕
F3.1: ➖
F3.1: ➕
F3.2: ➕
(perception of)
physical
distance
F3.3: ➖
F4.1: ➕
F4.2: ➕
F3.2: ➕
F2.1: ➕ Shared project
understanding
F2.2: ➕
Fn: ➕
Fn: ➖
Fn: ➕/➖
• Proposition 4: A more open
transparency policy improves
the quality of the project and
its results.
• F4.1: Overall quality
increased
• F4.2: Short feedback
loops beneficial
Results (RQ1)

18. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 20
What are risks and/or benefits of increasing transparency in an inter-
organizational CI&D setting?
Research Question 1
• Proposition 1: Increasing inter-organisational transparency of information is
a necessary condition for inter-organisational CI&D
• Proposition 2: Increased inter-organisational transparency of information is
considered positive
• Proposition 3: Typical risks of inter-organisational transparency (e.g.
distance, tooling, IP) can be managed in practice.
• Proposition 4: A more open transparency policy improves the quality of the
project and its results.
Results (RQ1)

19. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 21
(How) can sufficient information be provided in inter-organizational CI&D
collaborations?
Research Question 2
• Proposition 5: Project members have sufficient information to perform their
activities
• Proposition 6: Information overload (in terms of frequent exchange) is
unlikely to be considered a problem, if the exchanged information is precise.
Results (RQ2)

20. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 22
Trust
Inter-org.
awareness
Project quality
Information
sensitivity
(privacy)
Synergy
(agile collab.)
Inter-org. CI&D
Responsibility
split & IPR
Information
access
(inter-org.)
harmonized
tooling
(Efficient)
information
sharing
Legend
Software
dependent
(direct)
Software
driven
(indirect)
Software
agnostic
Information
transparency
Positive impact (dashed = indirect)
Negative impact (dashed = indirect)
Neutral
F1.1: ➕/➖
F1.2: ➕
F2.1: ➕
F2.3: ➖
F2.2: ➕
F2.2: ➕
F3.1: ➖
F3.1: ➕
F3.2: ➕
(perception of)
physical
distance
F3.3: ➖
F4.1: ➕
F4.2: ➕
F5.1: ➕
F5.2: ➕
F5.2: ➖
F3.2: ➕
F2.1: ➕
F6.1: ➕
Shared project
understanding
F2.2: ➕
Fn: ➕
Fn: ➖
Fn: ➕/➖
• Proposition 5: Project
members have sufficient
information
• F5.1: Members have
sufficient information
• F5.2: Holistic project
overview is needed
• Proposition 6: Information
overload is no problem
• F6.1: Understandings
through collaboration
Results (RQ2)

21. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 23
Are contracts an impediment for scaling CI&D across company boundaries?
Research Question 3
• Proposition 7: Strict contract-based collaboration can be seen as an
impediment for inter-organisational CI&D
Results (RQ3)

22. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 24
Trust
Inter-org.
awareness
Project quality
Information
sensitivity
(privacy)
Synergy
(agile collab.)
Flexible
contract
Negotiation &
competition
Inter-org. CI&D
Responsibility
split & IPR
Information
access
(inter-org.)
harmonized
tooling
(Efficient)
information
sharing
Legend
Software
dependent
(direct)
Software
driven
(indirect)
Software
agnostic
Information
transparency
Positive impact (dashed = indirect)
Negative impact (dashed = indirect)
Neutral
F1.1: ➕/➖
F1.2: ➕
F2.1: ➕
F2.3: ➖
F2.2: ➕
F2.2: ➕
F3.1: ➖
F3.1: ➕
F3.2: ➕
(perception of)
physical
distance
F3.3: ➖
F4.1: ➕
F4.2: ➕
F5.1: ➕
F5.2: ➕
F5.2: ➖
F7.1: ➕
F7.1: ➕
F7.2: ➖
F3.2: ➕
F2.1: ➕
F6.1: ➕
Shared project
understanding
F2.2: ➕
Fn: ➕
Fn: ➖
Fn: ➕/➖
• Proposition 7: Strict contract-
based collaboration: impediment
for CI&D
• F7.1: Flexible contracts
beneficial for collaboration
• F7.2: Traditional contracts
better for negotiation
Results (RQ3)

23. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 25
Are contracts an impediment for scaling CI&D across company boundaries?
Research Question 4
• Proposition 8: Effects of adopting industry-wide standards and processes in
a inter-organisational setting.
Results (RQ4)

24. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 26
Trust
Inter-org.
awareness
Project quality
Information
sensitivity
(privacy)
Synergy
(agile collab.)
Flexible
contract
Negotiation &
competition
Inter-org. CI&D
Responsibility
split & IPR
Information
access
(inter-org.)
harmonized
tooling
(adoption of)
open source &
standards
(Efficient)
information
sharing
Legend
Software
dependent
(direct)
Software
driven
(indirect)
Software
agnostic
Information
transparency
Positive impact (dashed = indirect)
Negative impact (dashed = indirect)
Neutral
F1.1: ➕/➖
F1.2: ➕
F2.1: ➕
F2.3: ➖
F2.2: ➕
F2.2: ➕
F3.1: ➖
F3.1: ➕
F3.2: ➕
(perception of)
physical
distance
F3.3: ➖
F4.1: ➕
F4.2: ➕
F5.1: ➕
F5.2: ➕
F5.2: ➖
F7.1: ➕
F7.1: ➕
F7.2: ➖
F8.1: ➕
F8.2: ➕
F3.2: ➕
F2.1: ➕
F6.1: ➕
Shared project
understanding
F2.2: ➕
Fn: ➕
Fn: ➖
Fn: ➕/➖
• Proposition 8: Industry-wide
standards and processes
beneficial.
• F8.1: Beneficial for
information sharing.
• F8.2: Maturity and
management.
Results (RQ4)

25. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 27
Trust
Inter-org.
awareness
Project quality
Information
sensitivity
(privacy)
Synergy
(agile collab.)
Flexible
contract
Negotiation &
competition
Inter-org. CI&D
Responsibility
split & IPR
Information
access
(inter-org.)
harmonized
tooling
(adoption of)
open source &
standards
(Efficient)
information
sharing
Legend
Software
dependent
(direct)
Software
driven
(indirect)
Software
agnostic
Information
transparency
Positive impact (dashed = indirect)
Negative impact (dashed = indirect)
Neutral
F1.1: ➕/➖
F1.2: ➕
F2.1: ➕
F2.3: ➖
F2.2: ➕
F2.2: ➕
F3.1: ➖
F3.1: ➕
F3.2: ➕
(perception of)
physical
distance
F3.3: ➖
F4.1: ➕
F4.2: ➕
F5.1: ➕
F5.2: ➕
F5.2: ➖
F7.1: ➕
F7.1: ➕
F7.2: ➖
F8.1: ➕
F8.2: ➕
F3.2: ➕
F2.1: ➕
F6.1: ➕
Shared project
understanding
F2.2: ➕
Fn: ➕
Fn: ➖
Fn: ➕/➖
Results (Overview)

26. van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 28
• Threats to Validity: Qualitative study with two
companies
• Key findings: More research needed!
• Manage distance
• Manage knowledge / information flow across
organizations (transparency)
• Suitable contracts needed
• New collaboration models and empirical evidence
about them are needed
Discussion
Transparency and Contracts:
Continuous Integration and
Delivery in the Automotive
Ecosystem
Eric
Knauss
Jacob
Juul
Rogardt
Heldal
Patricia
Lago
Patrizio
Pelliccione
Rob
van der Valk
ICSE 2018, May 31, Gothenburg, Sweden
Contact speaker: eric.knauss@cse.gu.se | @oerich
van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 27
Trust
Inter-org.
awareness
Project quality
Information
sensitivity
(privacy)
Synergy
(agile collab.)
Flexible
contract
Negotiation &
competition
Inter-org. CI&D
Responsibility
split & IPR
Information
access
(inter-org.)
harmonized
tooling
(adoption of)
open source &
standards
(Efficient)
information
sharing
Legend
Software
dependent
(direct)
Software
driven
(indirect)
Software
agnostic
Information
transparency
Positive impact (dashed = indirect)
Negative impact (dashed = indirect)
Neutral
F1.1: /
F1.2:
F2.1:
F2.3:
F2.2:
F2.2:
F3.1:
F3.1:
F3.2:
(perception of)
physical
distance
F3.3:
F4.1:
F4.2:
F5.1:
F5.2:
F5.2:
F7.1:
F7.1:
F7.2:
F8.1:
F8.2:
F3.2:
F2.1:
F6.1:
Shared project
understanding
F2.2:
Fn:
Fn:
Fn: /
Results (Overview)
van der Valk et al. (via Eric Knauss) Transparency and Contracts: CI/D in Automotive Ecosystem 30
Development Verifica1on
Feature
Func1on
Electrical Architecture
System
ComponentParallel development:
suppliers + In-house
development
“Big-bang”
integra1on!
Collabora1on based on
contracts