Paper detail

A Cross-Company Ethnographic Study on Software Teams for DevOps and Microservices: Organization, Benefits, and Issues

Context: DevOps and microservices are acknowledged to be important new paradigms to tackle contemporary software demands and provide capabilities for rapid and reliable software development. Industrial reports show that they are quickly adopted together in massive software companies. However, because of the technical and organizational requirements, many difficulties against efficient implementation of the both emerge in real software teams. Objectives: This study aims to discover the organization, benefits and issues of software teams using DevOps & microservices from an immersive perspective. Method: An ethnographic study was carried out in three companies with different business, size, products, customers, and degree of globalization. All the three companies claimed their adoption of DevOps and microservices. Seven months (cumulative) of participant observations and nine interviews with practitioners were conducted to collect the data of software teams related to DevOps and microservices. A cross-company empirical investigation using grounded theory was done by analyzing the archive data. Results: The adoption of DevOps and microservices brings benefits to rapid delivery, ability improvements and burden reduction, whilst the high cost and lack of practical guidance were emerged. Moreover, our observations and interviews reflect that in software teams, the relationship between DevOps and microservices is not significant, which differs from the relationship described in the previous studies. Four lessons for practitioners and four implications for researchers were discussed based on our findings. Conclusion: Our findings contribute to the understanding of the organization, benefits and issues of adopting DevOps and microservices from an immersive perspective of software teams.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.