Exploring the Impact of Task Allocation Strategies for Global Software Development Using Simulation

  • Siri-on Setamanit
  • Wayne Wakeland
  • David Raffo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3966)


We describe a hybrid computer simulation model of the software development process that is specifically architected to study alternative ways to configure global software development projects, including phased-based, module-based, and follow-the-sun allocation strategies. The model is a hybrid system dynamics and discrete event model. In this paper, test cases have been developed for each allocation strategy, and project duration under each configuration is computed under a range of plausible assumptions for key parameters. The primary finding is that although under ideal assumptions, follow-the-sun is able to produce impressive reductions in time-to-market, under more realistic assumptions the reverse is true, thus corroborating findings by other researchers. Further analysis reveals the presence of some interaction between the assumptions, but the results remain robust.


Time Zone Virtual Team Development Site Project Duration Global Software Development 
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.
    Carmel, E., Tija, P.: Offshoring Information Technology: Sourcing and Outsourcing to a Global Workforce. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carmel, E.: Global Software Teams. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gorton, I., Motwani, S.: Issues in Co-operative Software Engineering Using Globally Distributed Teams. Information and SoftwareTechnology 38, 647–655 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Herbsleb, J.D., Moitra, D.: Global Software Development. IEEE Software, 16–20 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Norbjerg, J., Havn, E.C., Bansler, J.P.: Global Production: The Case of Offshore Programming. In: Krallmann, H. (ed.) Wirtschaftsinformatik 1997, Physica-Verlag, Berlin (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    King, J.: IT’s Global Itinerary: Offshore Outsourcing Is Inevitable. Computerworld (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herbsleb, J.D., Grinter, R.E., Finholt, T.A.: An Empirical Study of Global Software Development: Distance and Speed. In: ICSE 2001, Toronto, Canada, pp. 81–90 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herbsleb, J.D., Mockus, A.: An Empirical Study of Speed and Communication in Globally Distributed Software Development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 29, 481–494 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Abdel-Hamid, T.: The Economics of Software Quality Assurance: A Simulation-Based Case Study, pp. 394–411. MIS Quarterly (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Myers, G.J.: Software Reliability: Principle and Practices. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1976)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glass, R.L.: Modern Programming Practices: A Report from Industry. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs (1982)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rus, I., Biffl, S., Halling, M.: Systematically Combining Process Simulation and Empirical Data in Support of Decision Analysis in Software Development. In: The fourteenth International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2002), Ischia, Italy, ACM, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raffo, D., Setamanit, S.: A Simulation Model for Global Software Development Project. In: The International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling, St. Louis, MO (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abdel-Hamid, T., Madnick, S.: Software Project Dynamics: An Integrated Approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1991)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martin, R.: A Hybrid Model of the Software Development Process. Systems Science Ph.D. Program. Portland State University, Portland, OR (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kraut, R.E., Streeter, L.A.: Coordination in Software Development. Communications of the ACM 38, 69–81 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Steiner, I.D.: Models for Inferring Relationships Between Group Size and Potential Group Productivity. Journal of Behavioral Science 5, 273–283 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brooks, F.P.: The Mythical Man-Month. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Curtis, B., Krasner, H., Iscoe, N.: A Field Study of the Software Design Process for Large Systems. Communications of the ACM 31, 1268–1287 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Perry, D.E., Staudenmayer, N.A., Votta, L.G.: People, Organizations, and Process Improvement. IEEE Software 11, 36–45 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herbsleb, J.D., Grinter, R.E.: Splitting the Organization and Integrating the Code: Conway’s Law Revisited. In: International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1999), Los Angeles, CA, pp. 85–95. ACM Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Allen, T.J.: Managing the Flow of Technology. MIT press, Cambridge (1977)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kraut, R.E., Egido, C., Galegher, J.: Patterns of Contact and Communication in Scientific Research Collaborations. In: Galegher, J., Kraut, R.E., Egido, C. (eds.) Intellectual Teamwork: Social Foundations of Cooperative Work, pp. 149–172. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey (1990)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jennings, E.E.: Routes to the Executive Suite. McGraw-Hill, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jarvenpaa, S.L.: Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 3 (1998)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hofstede, G.: Culture’s Consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Sage Oublications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Consortium, S.P.: Measurement for Distributed Teams. Software Productivity Consortium, Herndon, Virginia 68 (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pearce, W.B.: Trust in interpersonal communication. Speech Monographs 41, 236–244 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gudykunst, W.B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Linda, K.W., Heyman, S.: The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication style across cultures. Human Communication Research 22, 510–543 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Meyer, D.: A. Tech talk: how managers are stimulating global R&D communication. Sloan Management Review (1991)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Espinosa, J.A., Carmel, E.: The Impact of Time Separation on Coordination in Global Software Teams: A Conceptual Foundation. Software Process Improvement and Practice 8, 249–266 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hall, E.T.: Beyond Culture. Doubleday Books, New York, NY (1976)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Espinosa, J.A., Carmel, E.: Modeling the Effect of Time Separation on Coordination Costs in Global Software Teams. In: The 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wijayanayake, J., Higa, K.: Communication media choice by workers in distributed environment. Information and Management 36, 329–338 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ishii, H.: Cross-Cultural Communication and CSCW. In: Harasim, L.M. (ed.) Global Networks: Computers and International Communication, pp. 143–151. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Carmel, E., Agarwal, R.: Tactical Approached for Alleviating Distance in Global Software Development. IEEE Software, 22–29 (2001)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Keil, L., Eng., P.: Experiences in Distributed Development: A Case Study. In: The International Workshop on Global Software Development, Portland, OR USA, pp. 44–47 (2003)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jones, C.: Applied Software Measurement: Assuring Productivity and Quality. McGraw-Hill, New York (1977)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siri-on Setamanit
    • 1
  • Wayne Wakeland
    • 2
  • David Raffo
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Business AdministrationPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Systems Science PhDPortland State UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations