A Market Based Approach for Resolving Resource Constrained Task Allocation Problems in a Software Development Process

  • Murat Yilmaz
  • Rory V. O’Connor
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 301)


We consider software development as an economic activity, where goods and services can be modeled as a resource constrained task allocation problem. This paper introduces a market based mechanism to overcome task allocation issues in a software development process. It proposes a mechanism with a prescribed set of rules, where valuation is based on the behaviors of stakeholders such as biding for a task. A bid process ensures that a stakeholder, who values the resource most, will have it allocated for a limited number of times. To observe the bidders behaviors, we initiate an approach incorporated with a process simulation model. Our preliminary results support the idea that our model is useful for optimizing the value based task allocations, creating a market value for the project assets, and for achieving proper allocation of project resources specifically on large scale software projects.


Software Process Improvement Game Theory Process Simulation Mechanism Design Auction Mechanism Task Allocations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Selby, R.: Software engineering: Barry W. Boehm’s lifetime contributions to software development, management, and research. Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Pr. (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yilmaz, M., O’Connor, R.V., Collins, J.: Improving Software Development Process through Economic Mechanism Design. In: Riel, A., O’Connor, R., Tichkiewitch, S., Messnarz, R. (eds.) EuroSPI 2010. CCIS, vol. 99, pp. 177–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dittrich, Y., Floyd, C., Klischewski, R.: Social thinking-software practice. The MIT Press (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xiong, J.: New Software Engineering Paradigm Based on Complexity Science: An Introduction to NSE. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Stellman, A., Greene, J.: Applied software project management. O’Reilly Media (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nisan, N.: Algorithmic game theory. Cambridge Univ. Pr. (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    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
  9. 9.
    Grechanik, M., Perry, D.E.: Analyzing software development as a noncooperative game. In: IEE Seminar Digests, vol. 29 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cockburn, A.: The end of software engineering and the start of economic-cooperative gaming. COMSIS 1, 1–32 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cockburn, A.: Agile software development: the cooperative game. Addison-Wesley (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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
  13. 13.
    Ko, S.P., Sung, H.K., Lee, K.W.: Study to secure reliability of measurement data through application of game theory. In: Proceedings of the 30th EUROMICRO Conference, pp. 380–386. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holeman, R.: The software process improvement game. Software Engineering Education, 259–261 (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ogland, P.: The game of software process improvement: Some reflections on players, strategies and payoff. Norsk konferanse for organisasjoners bruk av informasjonsteknologi (NOKOBIT-16), 209–223 (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boehm, B., Ross, R.: Theory-W software project management principles and examples. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 15, 902–916 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sullivan, K., Chalasani, P., Jha, S.: Software design decisions as real options. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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, pp. 133–134. ACM, Pune (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sazawal, V., Sudan, N.: Modeling Software Evolution with Game Theory. In: Wang, Q., Garousi, V., Madachy, R., Pfahl, D. (eds.) ICSP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5543, pp. 354–365. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bavota, G., Oliveto, R., De Lucia, A., Antoniol, G., Gueheneuc, Y.: Playing with refactoring: Identifying extract class opportunities through game theory. In: 2010 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM), pp. 1–5. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hazzan, O., Dubinsky, Y.: Social Perspective of Software Development Methods: The Case of the Prisoner Dilemma and Extreme Programming. In: Baumeister, H., Marchesi, M., Holcombe, M. (eds.) XP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3556, pp. 74–81. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Feijs, L.: Prisoner dilemma in software testing. Computer Science Reports 1, 65–80 (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oza, N.V.: Game theory perspectives on client: vendor relationships in offshore software outsourcing, pp. 49–54 (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Klein, M., Moreno, G., Parkes, D., Wallnau, K.: Designing for incentives: better information sharing for better software engineering. In: Proceedings of the FSE/SDP Workshop on Future of Software Engineering Research, FoSER 2010, pp. 195–200. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hurwicz, L., Reiter, S.: Designing economic mechanisms. Cambridge Univ. Pr. (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhao, X., Fang, F., Whinston, A.: An economic mechanism for better internet security. Decision Support Systems 45, 811–821 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stef-Praun, T., Rego, V.: Ws-auction: Mechanism design for aweb services market. In: 26th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, ICDCS Workshops 2006, p. 41. IEEE (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Friedman, E., Parkes, D.: Pricing wifi at starbucks: issues in online mechanism design. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 240–241. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Varian, H.R.: Computational economics and finance: modeling and analysis with Mathematica, vol. 1. Telos Pr. (1996)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shalloway, A., Beaver, G., Trott, J.: Lean-agile software development: achieving enterprise agility. Addison-Wesley Professional (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Izakian, H., Abraham, A., Ladani, B.: An auction method for resource allocation in computational grids. Future Generation Computer Systems 26, 228–235 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Murat Yilmaz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rory V. O’Connor
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Lero Graduate School in Software EngineeringDublin City UniversityIreland
  2. 2.Dublin City UniversityIreland
  3. 3.Lero, The Irish Software Engineering Research CentreDublin City UniversityIreland

Personalised recommendations