Advertisement

Abstract

Task allocation is one central aspect in planning and managing global software development projects. To date several models that support task allocation have been proposed, including cost models and risk-based approaches. However, systematic integration of such models and a guiding process for task allocation activities is widely missing. In this article, we integrate existing models that reflect different viewpoints and abstraction levels of task allocation decisions. Based on the integrated approach, we sketch a process for systematic evaluation and selection of task assignments that defines the model interfaces and the sequential order of their use. In detail, the approach presented here integrates a risk model that is able to identify the possible risks for each assignment individually, an optimization model that uses Bayesian networks to suggest assignment alternatives with respect to multiple criteria, and an effort overhead model that is able to estimate the project effort for each assignment alternative. All three models are significantly grounded in empirical studies. Besides the introduction of all three models and the description of the process, the article provides an example application, sketches related work, and presents an overview of future work.

Keywords

Bayesian Network Causal Model Task Assignment Task Allocation Bayesian Network Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Grinter, R.E., Herbsleb, J.D., Perry, D.E.: The geography of coordination: Dealing with Distance in R&D Work. In: Proc. ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP 1999), pp. 306–315 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mockus, A., Weiss, D.M.: Globalization by Chunking: A Quantitative Approach. IEEE Software 18(2), 30–37 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lamersdorf, A., Münch, J., Rombach, D.: A survey on the state of the practice in distributed software development: Criteria for task allocation. In: Proceedings Fourth International Conference on Global Software Engineering, pp. 41–50 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bass, M., Paulish, D.: Global Software Development Process Research at Siemens. In: Third International Workshop on Global Software Development (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keil, P., Paulish, D.J., Sangwan, R.: Cost Estimation for Global Software Development. In: International Workshop on Economics Driven Software Engineering, Shanghai, China, pp. 7–10 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herbsleb, J.D., Mockus, A.: An Empirical Study of Speed and Communication in Globally-Distributed Software Development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 29(6), 481–494 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smite, D., Moe, N.B.: Understanding a Lack of Trust in Global Software Teams: A Multiple-Case Study. In: Münch, J., Abrahamsson, P. (eds.) PROFES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4589, pp. 20–34. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carmel, E., Abbott, P.: Why ‘nearshore’ means that distance matters. Communications of the ACM 50(10), 40–46 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Palmer, J., Speier, C., Buckley, M., Moore, J.E.: Recruiting and retaining IS personnel: factors influencing employee turnover. In: ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research, pp. 286–288 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lamersdorf, A., Münch, J., Rombach, H.D.: A Decision Model for Supporting Task Allocation Processes in Global Software Development. In: PROFES 2009, LNBIP, vol. 32, pp. 332–346. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lamersdorf, A., Münch, J.: TAMRI: A Tool for Supporting Task Distribution in Global Software Development Projects. In: International Workshop on Tool Support Development and Management in Distributed Software Projects, collocated with the IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering, ICGSE 2009, pp. 322–327 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lamersdorf, A., Münch, J.: Studying the Impact of Global Software Development Characteristics on Project Goals: A Causal Model. The Open Software Engineering Journal (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Münch, J., Lamersdorf, A.: Systematic Task Allocation Evaluation in Distributed Software Development. In: Meersman, R., Herrero, P., Dillon, T. (eds.) OTM 2009 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 5872, pp. 228–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lamersdorf, A., Münch, J., Rombach, H.D.: Towards a Multi-criteria Development Distribution Model: An Analysis of Existing Task Distribution Approaches. In: Third IEEE International Conference on Global Software Development, pp. 109–118 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Edwards, H.K., Kim, J.H., Park, S., Al-Ani, B.: Global Software Development: Project Decomposition and Task Allocation. In: International Conference on Business and Information (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Setamanit, S., Wakeland, W.W., Raffo, D.: Planning and Improving Global Software Development Process Using Simulation. In: International Workshop on Global Software Development for the Practitioner (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Setamanit, S., Wakeland, W.W., Raffo, D.: Using simulation to evaluate global software development task allocation strategies. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 12(5), 491–503 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sooraj, P., Mohapatra, P.K.J.: Developing an Inter-site Coordination Index for Global Software Development. In: International IEEE Conference on Global Software Engineering, pp. 119–128 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Raghvinder, S., Bass, M., Mullick, N., Paulish, D.J., Kazmeier, J.: Global Software Development Handbook. Auerbach Publications, London (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prikladnicki, R., Audy, J.L.N., Evaristo, R.: A Reference Model for Global Software Development: Findings from a Case Study. In: International IEEE Conference on Global Software Engineering, pp. 18–28 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ralyte, J., Lamielle, X., Arni-Bloch, N., Leonard, M.: A Framework for Supporting Management in Distributed Information Systems Development. In: Second International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science, pp. 381–392 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ebert, C., Murthy, B.K., Jha, N.N.: Managing Risks in Global Software Engineering: Principles and Practices. In: International Conference on Global Software Engineering, pp. 131–140 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smite, D.: Project Outcome Predictions: Risk Barometer Based on Historical Data. In: International IEEE Conference on Global Software Engineering, pp. 103–112 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Boehm, B., Abts, C., Brown, A., Chulani, S., Clark, B., Horowitz, E., Madachy, R., Reifer, D., Steece, B.: Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Betz, S., Mäkiö, J.: Amplification of the COCOMO II regarding Offshore Software Projects. In: Workshop on Offshoring of Software Development-Methods and Tools for Risk Management at the Second International Conference on Global Software Engineering (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Madachy, R.: Distributed Global Development Parametric Cost Modeling. In: Wang, Q., Pfahl, D., Raffo, D.M. (eds.) ICSP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4470, pp. 159–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fenton, N., Marsh, W., Neil, M., Cates, P., Forey, S., Tailor, M.: Making Resource Decisions for Software Projects. In: International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 397–406 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Briand, L.C., El Emam, K., Bomarius, F.: COBRA: A Hybrid Method for Software Cost Estimation, Benchmarking, and Risk Assessment. In: International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 390–399 (1998)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Trendowicz, A., Heidrich, J., Münch, J., Ishigai, Y., Yokoyama, K., Kikuchi, N.: Development of a Hybrid Cost Estimation Model in an Iterative Manner. In: International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 331–340 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ansgar Lamersdorf
    • 1
  • Jürgen Münch
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Kaiserslautern 
  2. 2.Fraunhofer IESE 

Personalised recommendations