Improving Software Development Process through Economic Mechanism Design

  • Murat Yilmaz
  • Rory V. O’Connor
  • John Collins
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 99)


We introduce the novel concept of applying economic mechanism design to software development process, and aim to find ways to adjust the incentives and disincentives of the software organization to align them with the motivations of the participants in order to maximize the delivered value of a software project. We envision a set of principles to design processes that allow people to be self motivated but constantly working toward project goals. The resulting economic mechanism will rely on game theoretic principles (i.e. Stackelberg games) for leveraging the incentives, goals and motivation of the participants in the service of project and organizational goals.


Game Theory Software Development Software Project Stackelberg Game Software Development Process 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    O’Connor, R.V.: Human aspects of information technology development. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 8(1) (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO/IEC: Amendment to ISO/IEC 12207-2008 - Systems and software engineering Software life cycle processes (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pressman, R.S., Ince, D.: Software engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singh, R.: International Standard ISO/IEC 12207 software life cycle processes. Software Process Improvement and Practice 2, 35–50 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conradi, R.: Software process improvement: results and experience from the field. Springer, New York (2006)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Persse, J.R.: Process Improvement Essentials. O’Reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Acuna, S.T., Juristo, N., Moreno, A.M., Mon, A.: A Software Process Model Handbook for Incorporating People’s Capabilities. Springer, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Royce, W.: Managing the development of large software systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE Wescon, vol. 26 (1970)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Basili, V.R., Turner, A.J.: Iterative enhancement: A practical technique for software development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 4, 390–396 (1975)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boehm, B.: A spiral model of software development and enhancement. Computer 21, 61–72 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Madachy, R.J.: Software Process Dynamics. Wiley-IEEE Press, Chichester (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levy, L.S.: Taming the tiger: software engineering and software economics. Springer, New York (1987)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Biffl, S., Boehm, B., Erdogmus, H.: Value-based software engineering. Springer, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dittrich, Y., Floyd, C., Klischewski, R.: Social thinking-software practice. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yu, E.: Social Modeling and i*. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dixit, A.K., Skeath, S.: Games of Strategy. W. W. Norton & Company (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Osborne, M.J., Rubinstein, A.: A course in game theory. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Binmore, K.G.: Playing for real. Oxford University Press, US (2007)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boehm, B., Ross, R.: Theory-W software project management principles and examples. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 15, 902–916 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lagesse, B.: A Game-Theoretical model for task assignment in project management. In: 2006 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, Singapore, pp. 678–680 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grechanik, M., Perry, D.E.: Analyzing software development as a noncooperative game. In: IEE Seminar Digests, vol. 29 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cockburn, A.: Agile software development: the cooperative game. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baskerville, R.L., Levine, L., Ramesh, B., Pries-Heje, J.: The high speed balancing game: How software companies cope with internet speed. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 16, 11–54 (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sullivan, K., Chalasani, P.: Software design decisions as real options (1997)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vajja, K.K., TV, P.: Quality attribute game: a game theory based techniquefor software architecture design. In: Proceeding of the 2nd Annual Conference on India Software Engineering Conference, Pune, India, pp. 133–134. ACM, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sazawal, V., Sudan, N.: Modeling Software Evolution with Game Theory. Trustworthy Software Development Processes, 354–365Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hazzan, O., Dubinsky, Y.: Social perspective of software development methods: The case of the prisoner dilemma and extreme programming. In: Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering, pp. 74–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Feijs, L.: Prisoner dilemma in software testing. Computer Science Reports 1, 65–80 (2001)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oza, N.: Game theory perspectives on client: vendor relationships in offshore software outsourcing, 54 (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hurwicz, L., Reiter, S.: Designing economic mechanisms. Cambridge Univ. Pr., Cambridge (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Myerson, R.B.: Perspectives on mechanism design in economic theory. American Economic Review 98, 586–603 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hayek, F.A.V.: The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review 35, 519–530 (1945)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harsanyi, J.C.: Games with incomplete information played by ”Bayesian” players, I-III: part i. The Basic Model & Management Science 50, 1804–1817 (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mitleton-Kelly, E.: Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organisations. Emerald Group Publishing (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ryan, S., O’Connor, R.V.: Development of a team measure for tacit knowledge in software development teams. Journal of Systems and Software 82, 229–240 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Beecham, S., Baddoo, N., Hall, T., Robinson, H., Sharp, H.: Motivation in software engineering: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology 50, 860–878 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ziv, H., Richardson, D., Klosch, R.: The uncertainty principle in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE’97 (1997)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Barki, H., Hartwick, J.: Interpersonal conflict and its management in information system development. MIS Quarterly, 195–228 (2001)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang, X., Dhaliwal, J.S., Gillenson, M.L., Moeller, G.: Sources of conflict between developers and testers in software development. In: AMCIS 2008 Proceedings, p. 313 (2008)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stackelberg, H.V., Peacock, A.T.: The theory of the market economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1952)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bloem, M., Alpcan, T., Basar, T.: A stackelberg game for power control and channel allocation in cognitive radio networks. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Performance Evaluation Methodologies and Tools, Nantes, France, pp. 1–9 (2007)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pita, J., Jain, M., Ordez, F., Tambe, M., Kraus, S., Magori-Cohen, R.: Effective solutions for real-world stackelberg games: when agents must deal with human uncertainties. In: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Budapest, Hungary, vol. 1, pp. 369–376 (2009)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ichiishi, T., Yamazaki, A.: Cooperative Extensions of the Bayesian Game. World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore (2006)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rasch, R.H., Tosi, H.L.: Factors affecting software developers’ performance: An integrated approach. MIS Quarterly 16, 395–413 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Murat Yilmaz
    • 1
  • Rory V. O’Connor
    • 2
    • 3
  • John Collins
    • 4
  1. 1.Lero Graduate School in Software EngineeringDublin City UniversityIreland
  2. 2.Dublin City UniversityIreland
  3. 3.Lerothe Irish Software Engineering Research Centre 
  4. 4.University of MinnesotaMinneapolis

Personalised recommendations