Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

Key factors that influence task allocation in global software development

Published: 01 November 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Identify factors that influence the task allocation activity of a GSD project.Implement an SLR and questionnaire survey methodologies to collect evidence.Identify 11 factors that influence the task allocation activity in a GSD project.The results indicate that the SLR findings and the industry experts feedback are aligned.The results are analyzed in relation to centralized and distributed project structures. ContextPlanning and managing task allocation in Global Software Development (GSD) projects is both critical and challenging. To date, a number of models that support task allocation have been proposed, including cost models and risk-based multi-criteria optimization models. ObjectiveThe objective of this paper is to identify the factors that influence task allocation in the GSD project management context. MethodFirst, we implemented a formal Systematic Literature Review (SLR) approach and identified a set of factors that influence task allocation in GSD projects. Second, a questionnaire survey was developed based on the SLR, and we collected feedback from 62 industry practitioners. ResultsThe findings of this combined SLR and questionnaire survey indicate that site technical expertise, time zone difference, resource cost, task dependency, task size and vendor reliability are the key criteria for the distribution of work units in a GSD project. The results of the t-test show that there is no significant difference between the findings of the SLR and questionnaire survey. However, the industry study data indicates that resource cost and task dependency are more important to a centralized GSD project structure while task size is a key factor in a decentralized GSD project structure. ConclusionGSD organizations should try to consider the identified task allocation factors when managing their global software development activities to better understand, plan and manage work distribution decisions.

References

[1]
J. Binder, Global Project Management: Communication, Collaboration and Management Across Borders, Ashgate Publishing Company, 2007.
[2]
T. Kern, L. Willcocks, Exploring information technology outsourcing relationships: theory and practice, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst., 9 (2000) 321-350.
[3]
S. Sharma, Point/CounterPoint making global software development work, IEEE Softw., 23 (2006) 62-65.
[4]
L. McLaughlin, An eye on India: Outsourcing debate continues, IEEE Softw., 20 (2003) 114-117.
[5]
E. Carmel, J.A. Espinosa, Y. Dubinsky, "Follow the sun" workflow in global software development, J. Manag. Inf. Syst., 27 (2010) 17-38.
[6]
C. Raduescu, A.Q. Gill, Towards the development of a complex adaptive project environment assessment tool, Springer, 2014.
[7]
D. Bradstreet, Dun & Bradstreet's Barometer of Global Outsourcing, Dun & Bradstreet, 2000.
[8]
S. Islam, M.M.A. Joarder, S.H. Houmb, Goal and risk factors in offshore outsourced software development from vendor's viewpoint, in: Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE 2009), 2009, pp. 347-352.
[9]
S. Deshpande, S. Beecham, I. Richardson, Springer, 2012.
[10]
S. Deshpande, S. Beecham, I. Richardson, Using the PMBOK guide to frame GSD coordination strategies, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE), 2013.
[11]
A. Lamersdorf, J. Munch, D. Rombach, A survey on the state of the practice in distributed software development: criteria for task allocation, in: Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE 2009), 2009, pp. 41-50.
[12]
A. Lamersdorf, J. Mnch, A multi-criteria distribution model for global software development projects, J. Braz. Comput. Soc., 16 (2010) 97-115.
[13]
G. Seshagiri, Point/CounterPoint GSD: not a business necessity, but a march of folly, IEEE Softw., 23 (2006) 62-65.
[14]
A. Lamersdorf, J. Munch, D. Rombach, A decision model for supporting task allocation processes in global software development, Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, 32 (2009) 332-346.
[15]
D. Wickramaarachchi, R. Lai, A method for work distribution in global software development, in: Proceedings of 2013 IEEE 3rd International Advance Computing Conference (IACC), 2013, pp. 1443-1448.
[16]
P. Jalote, G. Jain, Assigning tasks in a 24-h software development model, J. Syst. Softw., 79 (2006) 904-911.
[17]
E. Alba, J.F. Chicano, Software project management with GAs, Inf. Sci., 177 (2007) 2380-2401.
[18]
A. Mockus, D.M. Weiss, Globalization by chunking: a quantitative approach, IEEE Softw., 18 (2001) 30-37.
[19]
M.C. Lacity, J.W. Rottman, Effects of offshore outsourcing of information technology work on client project management, Strateg. Outs.: Int. J., 2 (2009) 4-26.
[20]
P. Keil, D.J. Paulish, R.S. Sangwan, Cost estimation for global software development, in: Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Economics Driven Software Engineering Research, 2006, pp. 7-10.
[21]
J. Stark, M. Arlt, D.H.T. Walker, Outsourcing decisions and models some practical considerations for large organizations, in: Proceedings of International Conference on Global Software Engineering, 2006, pp. 12-17.
[22]
M. Cataldo, M. Bass, J.D. Herbsleb, L. Bass, On coordination mechanisms in global software development, in: Proceedings of International Conference on Global Software Engineering, 2007, pp. 71-80.
[23]
N.B. Moe, D. Smite, Understanding a lack of trust in global software teams: a multiple-case study, Softw. Process: Improv. Pract., 13 (2008) 217-231.
[24]
P.J. Agerfalk, B. Fitzgerald, H.H. Olsson, E.O. Conchuir, Benefits of global software development: the known and unknown, in: Proceedings of International Conference on Software Process, 2008 International Conference on Making Globally Distributed Software Development a Success Story, 2008.
[25]
Y. Zhou, C.M. Cheung, S.-C. Hsu, A dimensional model for describing and differentiating project teams, Int. J. Proj. Manag, 35 (2017) 1052-1065.
[26]
Q. Yang, S. Kherbachi, Y.S. Hong, C. Shan, Identifying and managing coordination complexity in global product development project, Int. J. Proj. Manag., 33 (2015) 1464-1475.
[27]
A. Lamersdorf, J. Mnch, A.F. Viso Torre, C.R. Snchez, M. Heinz, D. Rombach, A rulebased model for customized risk identification and evaluation of task assignment alternatives in distributed software development projects, J. Softw.: Evolut. Process, 24 (2012) 661-675.
[28]
S. Mahmood, S. Anwer, M. Niazi, M. Alshayeb, I. Richardson, Identifying the factors that influence task allocation in global software development: preliminary results, in: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, Nanjing, China, 2015.
[29]
J. Kotlarsky, I. Oshri, Managing Component-Based Development in Global Teams, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
[30]
S. Goldman, J. Munch, H. Holz, A meta-model for distributed software development, in: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Workshop of Enabling Technologies: Infrastructure for Collaborative Enterprise, 1999.
[31]
S.-o. Setamanit, W. Wakeland, D. Raffo, Exploring the impact of task allocation strategies for global software development using simulation, Springer, 2006.
[32]
A. Gupta, I. Crk, R. Bondade, Leveraging temporal and spatial separations with the 24-hour knowledge factory paradigm, Inf. Syst. Front., 13 (2011) 397-405.
[33]
T.A.B. Pereira, V.S. dos Santos, B.L. Ribeiro, G. Elias, A recommendation framework for allocating global software teams in software product line projects, in: Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Recommendation Systems for Software Engineering, 2010, pp. 36-40.
[34]
J.D. Herbsleb, A. Mockus, An empirical study of speed and communication in globally distributed software development, IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 29 (2003) 481-494.
[35]
A. Lamersdorf, J. Munch, D. Rombach, Towards a multi-criteria development distribution model: an analysis of existing task distribution approaches, in: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE 2008), 2008, pp. 109-118.
[36]
A. Lamersdorf, J. Munch, TAMRI: a tool for supporting task distribution in global software development projects, in: Proceedings of the Fourth IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE 2009), 2009, pp. 322-327.
[37]
A. Lamersdorf, J. Munch, A. Fernndez-del Viso Torre, C. Rebate Sanchez, A risk-driven model for work allocation in global software development projects, in: Proceedings of the 2011 6th IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE), 2011, pp. 15-24.
[38]
N.C. Narendra, K. Ponnalagu, N. Zhou, W.M. Gifford, Towards a formal model for optimal task-site allocation and effort estimation in global software development, in: Proceedings of 2012 Annual SRII Global Conference (SRII), 2012, pp. 470-477.
[39]
J. Kroll, S.I. Hashmi, I. Richardson, J.L. Audy, A systematic literature review of best practices and challenges in follow-the-sun software development, in: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 8th International Conference on Global Software Engineering Workshops (ICGSEW), 2013, pp. 18-23.
[40]
G.K. Hanssen, D. Smite, N.B. Moe, Signs of agile trends in global software engineering research: a tertiary study, in: Proceedings of the 2011 Sixth IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering Workshop (ICGSEW), 2011, pp. 17-23.
[41]
A.B. Marques, R. Rodrigues, T. Conte, Systematic literature reviews in distributed software development: a tertiary study, in: Proceedings of 2012 IEEE Seventh International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE), 2012, pp. 134-143.
[42]
J. Verner, O.P. Brereton, B. Kitchenham, M. Turner, M. Niazi, Systematic literature reviews in global software development: a tertiary study, in: Proceedings of International Conference on Evaluation & Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2012), 2012, pp. 2-11.
[43]
B. Kitchenham, C. Charters, Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literarature Reviews in Software Engineering, Keele University and Durham University Joint Report, Keele University and Durham University (2007).
[44]
B. Kitchenham, C. Charters, Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering, Keele University and Durham University Joint Report EBSE 2007-001, Keele University and Durham University, 2007.
[45]
S. Mahdavi-Hezavehi, M. Galster, P. Avgeriou, Variability in quality attributes of service-based software systems: a systematic literature review, Inf. Softw. Technol., 55 (2013) 320-343.
[46]
T. Dyb, T. Dingsyr, Empirical studies of agile software development: a systematic review, Inf. Softw. Technol., 50 (2008) 833-859.
[47]
P. Achimugu, A. Selamat, R. Ibrahim, M.N. r. Mahrin, A systematic literature review of software requirements prioritization research, Inf. Softw. Technol., 56 (2014) 568-585.
[48]
D. Dermeval, J. Vilela, I.I. Bittencourt, J. Castro, S. Isotani, P. Brito, Applications of ontologies in requirements engineering: a systematic review of the literature, Requir. Eng., 21 (2016) 405-437.
[49]
W. Ding, P. Liang, A. Tang, H. Van Vliet, Knowledge-based approaches in software documentation: a systematic literature review, Inf. Softw. Technol., 56 (2014) 545-567.
[50]
A. Strauss, J. Corbin, Basics of Grounded Theory Methods, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1990.
[51]
M. Niazi, M. Babar, Ali, De-motivators for software process improvement: an analysis of Vietnamese practitioners' views, in: Proceedings of International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES 2007), vol. 4589, 2007, pp. 118-131.
[52]
M. Niazi, M. Ali-Barbar, J.M. Verner, Software Process Improvement barriers: a cross-cultural comparison, Inf. Softw. Technol., 52 (2010) 1204-1216.
[53]
D.A. Dillman, J.S. Smyth, L.M. Christian, Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, Wiley, 2014.
[54]
C. Palomares, C. Quer, X. Franch, Requirements reuse and requirement patterns: a state of the practice survey, Empir. Softw. Eng. (2016) 1-44.
[55]
S.L. Pfleeger, B. Kitchenham, Principles of survey research, part 1: turning lemons into lemonade, 2001.
[56]
M. Spreen, Rare populations, hidden populations, and link-tracking designs: what and why?, Bull. Sociol. Methodol., 36 (1992) 34-58.
[57]
R. Atkinson, J. Flint, Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populationssnowball research strategies, University of Surrey, 2001.
[58]
W.P. Vogt, R.B. Johnson, Dictionary of Statistics & Methodology: A Nontechnical Guide for the Social Sciences, Sage, 2011.
[59]
J. Chen, J. Xiao, Q. Wang, L.J. Osterweil, M. Li, Perspectives on refactoring planning and practice: an empirical study, Empir. Softw. Eng., 21 (2016) 1397-1436.
[60]
J. Dietrich, K. Jezek, P. Brada, What Java developers know about compatibility, and why this matters, Empir. Softw. Eng., 21 (2016) 1371-1396.
[61]
R.M. d. Mello, P.C. da Silva, G.H. Travassos, Investigating probabilistic sampling approaches for large-scale surveys in software engineering, J. Softw. Eng. Res. Dev., 3 (2015) 1-26.
[62]
H. Coolican, Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology, Routledge, 2009.
[63]
S.U. Khan, M. Niazi, R. Ahmad, Factors influencing clients in the selection of offshore software outsourcing vendors: an exploratory study using a systematic literature review, J. Syst. Softw., 84 (2011) 686-699.
[64]
S.U. Khan, M. Niazi, A. Rashid, Barriers in the selection of offshore software development outsourcing vendors: an exploratory study using a systematic literature review, J. Inf. Softw. Technol., 53 (2011) 693-706.
[65]
M. Niazi, K. Cox, J. Verner, An empirical study identifying high perceived value requirements engineering practices, in: Proceedings of Fourteenth International Conference on Information Systems Development (ISD'2005) Karlstad University, Sweden, August 1517, 2005, pp. 731-743.
[66]
K. Cox, M. Niazi, J. Verner, An empirical study of Sommerville's requirements engineering practices, IET Softw. J., 3 (2009) 339-355.
[67]
V. Eye, Alexander, E.Y. Mun, Analyzing Rater Agreement Manifest Variable Methods, Psychology Press, 2006.
[68]
M. Yilmaz, R.V. O'Connor, A Market Based Approach For Resolving Resource Constrained Task Allocation Problems in a Software Development Process, Springer, 2012.
[69]
A.B. Marques, J.R. Carvalho, R. Rodrigues, T. Conte, R. Prikladnicki, S. Marczak, An ontology for task allocation to teams in distributed software development, in: Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 8th International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE), 2013, pp. 21-30.
[70]
R. Kneuper, CMMI: Improving Software and Systems Development Processes Using Capability Maturity Model Integration, 2008.
[71]
C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Host, M.C. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, A. Wesslen, Experimentation in Software Engineering, Springer, 2012.
[72]
P. M. Institute, "PMI, Project management book of knowledge - PMBOKguide and standards http://www.pmi.org/PMBOK- Guide- and- Standards.aspx ", ed, 2014.
[73]
D. Trewin, "Small Business in Australia," Report 1321.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/C639A01ED725ADABCA256C54000336D1/$File/13210_2001.pdf2002.
[74]
M. Niazi, M. Ali-Babar, S. Ibrahim, An empirical study identifying high perceived value practices of CMMI level 2, in: Proceedings of International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement, PROFES 2008, Italy, vol. 5089, 2008, pp. 427, 441.
[75]
A. Rainer, T. Hall, Key success factors for implementing software process improvement: a maturity-based analysis, J. Syst. Softw., 62 (2002) 71-84.
[76]
A. Solinski, K. Petersen, Prioritizing agile benefits and limitations in relation to practice usage, Softw. Qual. J., 24 (2016) 447-482.
[77]
A.E. Milewski, Global and task effects in information-seeking among software engineers, Empir. Softw. Eng., 12 (2007) 311-326.
[78]
T.C. Lethbridge, Studying software engineers: data collection techniques for software field studies, Empir. Softw. Eng., 10 (2005) 311-341.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Counteracting sociocultural barriers in global software engineering using group activitiesJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.258736:5Online publication date: 25-Apr-2024
  • (2023)Ownership in the Hands of Accountability at Brightsquid: A Case Study and a Developer SurveyProceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3611643.3613890(2008-2019)Online publication date: 30-Nov-2023
  • (2023)A systematic decision-making framework for tackling quantum software engineering challengesAutomated Software Engineering10.1007/s10515-023-00389-730:2Online publication date: 26-Jul-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Information and Software Technology
Information and Software Technology  Volume 91, Issue C
November 2017
198 pages

Publisher

Butterworth-Heinemann

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 November 2017

Author Tags

  1. Empirical study
  2. Global Software Development
  3. Systematic Literature Review
  4. Task Allocation

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 14 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Counteracting sociocultural barriers in global software engineering using group activitiesJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.258736:5Online publication date: 25-Apr-2024
  • (2023)Ownership in the Hands of Accountability at Brightsquid: A Case Study and a Developer SurveyProceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3611643.3613890(2008-2019)Online publication date: 30-Nov-2023
  • (2023)A systematic decision-making framework for tackling quantum software engineering challengesAutomated Software Engineering10.1007/s10515-023-00389-730:2Online publication date: 26-Jul-2023
  • (2023)A new taxonomy of global software development best practices using prioritization based on a fuzzy systemJournal of Software: Evolution and Process10.1002/smr.262936:3Online publication date: 7-Nov-2023
  • (2022)The Influence of Cost Drivers on Effort Estimation in Distributed Software DevelopmentProceedings of the 26th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering10.1145/3530019.3531331(399-407)Online publication date: 13-Jun-2022
  • (2022)Digital Twin-enabled AI Enhancement in Smart Critical Infrastructures for 5GACM Transactions on Sensor Networks10.1145/352619518:3(1-20)Online publication date: 22-Jul-2022
  • (2020)Identifying Software Cost Attributes of Software Project Management in Global Software DevelopmentProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Intelligent Systems: Theories and Applications10.1145/3419604.3419780(1-5)Online publication date: 23-Sep-2020
  • (2020)Designing engineering onboarding for 60+ nationalitiesProceedings of the 15th International Conference on Global Software Engineering10.1145/3372787.3390504(76-80)Online publication date: 26-Jun-2020
  • (2020)Unraveling the semantic evolution of core nodes in a global contribution networkProceedings of the 12th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining10.1109/ASONAM49781.2020.9381373(594-601)Online publication date: 7-Dec-2020
  • (2020)RETRACTED ARTICLE: Identification and prioritization of DevOps success factors using fuzzy-AHP approachSoft Computing - A Fusion of Foundations, Methodologies and Applications10.1007/s00500-020-05150-w27:4(1907-1931)Online publication date: 6-Jul-2020
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media