Subcontracting Processes in Software Service Organisations - An Experience Report

  • Jakub Rudzki
  • Tarja Systä
  • Karri Mustonen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5543)


Software systems and projects have become more and more distributed. This emphasises the need for ensured software quality, which impacts e.g. customer satisfaction, development costs, and delivery schedules. Concerns about the software quality become even more important in the case of subcontracted software projects, and in the case of multi-site projects in particular. In this paper we describe a practise-derived process to assess the potential subcontractors at their selection stage and later to evaluate the cooperation with them. For both purposes, particular criteria suites and frameworks are proposed. The criteria include software-specific and productivity metrics, but also more qualitative criteria. We report initial observations from usage of the process in industry. The assessment results are expected to help in making decisions about subcontractor selection, and later on assigning specific types of projects to specific subcontractors based on their suitability.


Customer Satisfaction Software Quality Software Service Selection Phase Cooperation 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.
    Bardhan, A.: Managing globalization of R&D: Organizing for offshoring innovation. Human Systems Management 25(2) (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harvey, M.G., Griffith, D.A.: The role of globalization, time acceleration, and virtual global teams in fostering successful global product launches. Journal of Product Innovation Management 24(5), 486–501 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoch, D.J., Roeding, C.R., Purkert, G., Lindner, S.K.: Secrets of Software Success: Management Insights from 100 Software Firms Around the World. Harvard Business Press (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Timothy, M.: Laster. Balanced Sourcing – Cooperation and Competition in Supplier Relationships. Jossey-Bass (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Power, M.J., Desouza, K.C., Bonifazi, C.: Developing superior outsourcing programs. IT Professional 7(4), 32–38 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reifer, D.J.: Seven hot outsourcing practices. IEEE Softw. 21(1), 14–16 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Assmann, D., Punter, T.: Towards partnership in software subcontracting. Comput. Ind. 54(2), 137–150 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. Capability maturity model integration (CMMI) (2007),
  9. 9.
    Chrissis, M.B., Konrad, M., Shrum, S.: CMMI Guidelines for Process Integration and Product Improvement. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. Cmmi for acquisition, version 1.2. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2007-TR-017, SEI (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Euromethod Project. Euromethod version 1 reference manual (July 1996),
  12. 12.
    ISPL Project. Ispl - information services procurement library,
  13. 13.
    Siakas, K.V., Balstrup, B.: Software outsourcing quality achieved by global virtual collaboration. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 11(3), 319–328 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Östring, P.: Profit-Focused Supplier Management: How to Identify Risks and Recognize Opportunities. Amacom (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee, J.-N., Huynh, M.Q., Kwok, R.C.-W., Pi, S.-M.: It outsourcing evolution—: past, present, and future. Commun. ACM 46(5), 84–89 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ashrafi, N.: The impact of software process improvement on quality: in theory and practice. Inf. Manage. 40(7), 677–690 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Humphrey, W.S.: Characterizing the software process: A maturity framework. IEEE Softw. 5(2), 73–79 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paasivaara, M., Durasiewicz, S., Lassenius, C.: Using scrum in a globally distributed project: a case study. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 13(6), 527–544 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fowler, M.: Cannot measure productivity (August 2003),
  20. 20.
    Kan, S.H.: Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Humphrey, W.S.: The software quality profile, (accessed in 02.2008)
  22. 22.
    Radoiu, D., Vajda, A.: Process-oriented metrics for application development outsourcing. a practitioner’s approach. Studia Univ. Babes-Bolyai, Informatica XLIX(1) (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paasivaara, M.: Communication needs, practices, and supporting structures in global inter-organizational software development projects. In: Proceedings of the IWGSD at the 25th ICSE, Portland, Oregon, pp. 59–63 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mockus, A., Herbsleb, J.: Challenges of global software development. In: METRICS 2001, Washington, DC, USA, p. 182. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carmel, E., Abbott, P.: Why ’nearshore’ means that distance matters. Commun. ACM 50(10), 40–46 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jakub Rudzki
    • 1
  • Tarja Systä
    • 2
  • Karri Mustonen
    • 1
  1. 1.Solita OyTampereFinland
  2. 2.Tampere University of TechnologyTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations