Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Handover of managerial responsibilities in global software development: a case study of source code evolution and quality

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Studies report on the negative effect on quality in global software development (GSD) due to communication and coordination-related challenges. However, empirical studies reporting on the magnitude of the effect are scarce. This paper presents findings from an embedded explanatory case study on the change in quality over time, across multiple releases, for products that were developed in a GSD setting. The GSD setting involved periods of distributed development between geographically dispersed sites as well as a handover of project management responsibilities between the involved sites. Investigations were performed on two medium-sized products from a company that is part of a large multinational corporation. Quality is investigated quantitatively using defect data and measures that quantify two source code properties, size and complexity. Observations were triangulated with subjective views from company representatives. There were no observable indications that the distribution of work or handover of project management responsibilities had an impact on quality on both products. Among the product-, process- and people-related success factors, we identified well-designed product architectures, early handover planning and support from the sending site to the receiving site after the handover and skilled employees at the involved sites. Overall, these results can be useful input for decision-makers who are considering distributing development work between globally dispersed sites or handing over project management responsibilities from one site to another. Moreover, our study shows that analyzing the evolution of size and complexity properties of a product’s source code can provide valuable information to support decision-making during similar projects. Finally, the strategy used by the company to relocate responsibilities can also be considered as an alternative for software transfers, which have been linked with a decline in efficiency, productivity and quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The tool can be downloaded from http://www.campwoodsw.com/sourcemonitor.html.

  2. Detailed definitions of the measures can be found in the Source Code Monitor Tool that can be downloaded from http://www.campwoodsw.com/sourcemonitor.html.

References

  • Aspray, W., Mayadas, F., & Vardi, M. Y. (2006). Globalization and offshoring of software: A report of the ACM job migration task force. New York, USA.

  • Bansiya, J., & Davis, C. G. (2002). A hierarchical model for object-oriented design quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(1), 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basili, V. R., Briand, L. C., & Melo, W. L. (1996). A validation of object-oriented design metrics as quality indicators. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 22(10), 751–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, C., Nagappan, N., Devanbu, P., Gall, H., & Murphy, B. (2009). Does distributed development affect software quality? An empirical case study of Windows Vista. In Proceedings of the 31st international conference on software engineering, pp. 85–93.

  • Briand, L., & Wüst, J. (2002). Empirical studies of quality models in object-oriented systems. Advances in computers, pp. 97–166.

  • Brooks, F. P, Jr. (1995). The mythical man-month (anniversary ed.). Boston, USA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cagnazzo, L., & Taticchi, P. (2009). Six sigma: A literature review analysis. In Proceedings of the international conference on e-activities and information security and privacy, pp. 29–34.

  • Carmel, E. (1999). Global software teams: Collaborating across borders and time zones. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall PTR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmel, E., & Tjia, P. (2005). Offshoring information technology: Sourcing and outsourcing to a global workforce. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Conchúir, E. O., Holmström, H., Ågerfalk, P. J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2006). Exploring the assumed benefits of global software development. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on global software engineering, pp. 159–168.

  • Diehl, S. (2007). Software visualization—Visualizing the structure, behaviour, and evolution of software. Berlin: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, T. L., & Sawyer, J. E. (2006). Supporting technologies and organizational practices for the transfer of knowledge in virtual environments. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 407–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbsleb, J. D., & Grinter, R. E. (1999). Splitting the organization and integrating the code: Conway’s law revisited. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on software engineering, pp. 85–95.

  • Herraiz, I., & Hassan, A. E. (2012). Making software—What really works, and why we believe it, chapter Beyond lines of code: Do we need more complexity metrics? pp. 125–141. O’Reilly Media.

  • Huckman, R. S., Staats, B. R., & Upton, D. M. (2009). Team familiarity, role experience, and performance: Evidence from Indian software services. Management Science, 55(1), 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO/IEC/IEEE-24765. (2010). Systems and software engineering—Vocabulary. International organization for standardization.

  • Jabangwe, R., Börstler, J., Šmite, D., & Wohlin, C. (2013). Empirical evidence on the link between object-oriented measures and external quality attributes: A systematic literature review. Accepted for publication at Empirical software engineering.

  • Jabangwe, R., & Šmite, D. (2012). An exploratory study of software evolution and quality: Before, during and after a transfer. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE international conference on global software engineering, pp. 41–50.

  • Kanellopoulos, Y., Antonellis, P., Antoniou, D., Makris, C., Theodoridis, E., Tjortjis, C., et al. (2010). Code quality evaluation methodology using the ISO/IEC 9126 standard. International Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, 1(3), 17–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagerström, R., Würtemberg, L. M., Holm, H., & Luczak, O. (2012). Identifying factors affecting software development cost and productivity. Software Quality Control, 20(2), 395–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, M. M. (1980). Programs, life cycles, and laws of software evolution. Proceedings of the IEEE, 68, 1060–1076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincke, R. d., Lundberg, J., & Löwe, W. (2008). Comparing software metrics tools. In Proceedings of the international symposium on software testing and analysis, pp. 131–142.

  • Lu, H., Zhou, Y., Xu, B., Leung, H., & Chen, L. (2012). The ability of object-oriented metrics to predict change-proneness: A meta-analysis. Empirical Software Engineering, 17, 200–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mens, T., & Demeyer, S. (2008). Software evolution. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mockus, A., & Weiss, D. M. (2001). Globalization by chunking: A quantitative approach. IEEE Software, 18, 30–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagappan, N., Murphy, B., & Basili, V. (2008). The influence of organizational structure on software quality: An empirical case study. In Proceedings of the 30th international conference on software engineering, pp. 521–530.

  • Nidhra, S., Yanamadala, M., Afzal, W., & Torkar, R. (2013). Knowledge transfer challenges and mitigation strategies in global software development—A systematic literature review and industrial validation. International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 333–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nurdiani, I., Jabangwe, R., Šmite, D., & Damian, D. (2011). Risk identification and risk mitigation instruments for global software development: Systematic review and survey results. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on global software engineering workshop, pp. 36–41.

  • Petersen, K., & Gencel, C. (2013). Worldviews, research methods, and their relationship to validity in empirical software engineering research. In Joint conference of the 23rd international workshop on software measurement and international conference on software process and product measurement, pp. 81–89.

  • Petersen, K., & Wohlin, C. (2009). Context in industrial software engineering research. In Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement, pp. 401–404.

  • Petersen, K., & Wohlin, C. (2010). Software process improvement through the lean measurement (SPI-LEAM) method. Journal of Systems and Software, 83(7), 1275–1287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramasubbu, N., & Balan, R. K. (2007). Globally distributed software development project performance: An empirical analysis. In European software engineering conference and the ACM SIGSOFT symposium on the foundations of software engineering, pp. 125–134.

  • Robson, C. (2011). Real world research (2nd ed.). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runeson, P., Höst, M., Rainer, A., & Regnell, B. (2012). Case study research in software engineering. New Jersey, USA: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, Y., Kaur, A., & Malhotra, R. (2009). Comparative analysis of regression and machine learning methods for predicting fault proneness models. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 35(2), 183–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, Y., Kaur, A., & Malhotra, R. (2010). Empirical validation of object-oriented metrics for predicting fault proneness models. Software Quality Journal, 18(1), 3–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spinellis, D. (2006). Global software development in the freeBSD project. In P. Kruchten, Y. Hsieh, E. MacGregor, D. Moitra, & W. Strigel (Eds.), Proceedings of the international workshop on global software development for the practitioner, pp. 73–79.

  • Verner, J., Brereton, O., Kitchenham, B., Turner, M., & Niazi, M. (2012). Systematic literature reviews in global software development: A tertiary study. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on evaluation assessment in software engineering, pp. 2–11.

  • Šmite, D., & Wohlin, C. (2011). Strategies facilitating software product transfers. IEEE Software, 28(5), 60–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Šmite, D., & Wohlin, C. (2012). Lessons learned from transferring software products to india. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, 24(6), 605–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Šmite, D., Wohlin, C., Aurum, A., Jabangwe, R., & Numminen, E. (2013). Offshore insourcing in software development: Structuring the decision-making process. Journal of Systems and Software, 86(4), 1054–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Šmite, D., Wohlin, C., Feldt, R., & Gorschek, T. (2008). Reporting empirical research in global software engineering: A classification scheme. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on global software engineering, pp. 173–181.

  • Šmite, D., Wohlin, C., Gorschek, T., & Feldt, R. (2010). Empirical evidence in global software engineering: A systematic review. Empirical Software Engineering, 15(1), 91–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wieringa, R. (2013). Case study research in information systems engineering: How to generalize, how not to generalize, and how not to generalize too much. In 25th International conference on advanced information systems engineering, CAiSE, pp. xii–xii.

  • Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., Höst, M., Ohlsson, M. C., Regnell, B., & Wesslén, A. (2012). Experimentation in software engineering: An introduction. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlin, C., & Šmite, D. (2012). Classification of software transfers. In Proceedings of the 19th Asia-Pacific software engineering conference, Vol. 1, pp. 828–837.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Swedish Knowledge Foundation under the research grant 2009/0249. We thank Professor Claes Wohlin and Dr. Darja Šmite, at Software Engineering Research Lab (SERL), for their valuable comments on the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Blekinge Institute of Technology, 371 79, Karlskrona, Sweden

    Ronald Jabangwe, Jürgen Börstler & Kai Petersen

Authors
  1. Ronald Jabangwe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jürgen Börstler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kai Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kai Petersen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jabangwe, R., Börstler, J. & Petersen, K. Handover of managerial responsibilities in global software development: a case study of source code evolution and quality. Software Qual J 23, 539–566 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-014-9247-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-014-9247-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation