The document is a systematic literature review focusing on managing distributed software development (DSD) by identifying existing models and tools to address the challenges faced in this domain. Key findings highlight that while human factors significantly influence DSD management, organizations often rely on traditional project management tools. The review points to a lack of comprehensive studies on the use of specific models and frameworks designed for effective management of DSD projects.

1. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Models and Tools for Managing Distributed Software
Development: a Systematic Literature Review
Catarina Costa; Camila Cunha; Rodrigo Rocha; A. César C.
França; Fabio Q. B. da Silva; Rafael Prikladnicki
<fabio@cin.ufpe.br>

2. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Models and Tools for Managing Distributed Software
Development: a Systematic Literature Review
Catarina Costa; Camila Cunha; Rodrigo Rocha; A. César C.
França; Fabio Q. B. da Silva; Rafael Prikladnicki
<fabio@cin.ufpe.br>

3. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Models and Tools for Managing Distributed Software
Development: A Mapping Study
Catarina Costa; Camila Cunha; Rodrigo Rocha; A. César C.
França; Fabio Q. B. da Silva; Rafael Prikladnicki
<fabio@cin.ufpe.br>

4. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Models and Tools for Managing Distributed Software
Development: A (preliminary) Mapping Study
Catarina Costa; Camila Cunha; Rodrigo Rocha; A. César C.
França; Fabio Q. B. da Silva; Rafael Prikladnicki
<fabio@cin.ufpe.br>

5. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Motivation
• Management of distributed software development
projects has more challenges than traditional (co-
located) development.
– Which ones?
– Human (individual or social) factors?
• However, most organizations still manage distributed
projects using the same tools used in traditional
projects.
– Really?
• There is no mapping study about the use of models
and tools to support management in DSD projects.
5

6. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Research Questions
• RQ1 – What are the existing models for
managing distributed software development?
• RQ2 – What are the existing tools which
support management activities on distributed
software development?
6

7. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Search Strings
• The PIO structure
– Population: Distributed Software Development
– Intervention: tools, models
– Outcome: project management
• Synonyms and connectors:
– (“Distributed software development” OR “Global software
development” OR “Collaborative software development” OR “Global
software engineering” OR “Globally distributed work” OR
“Collaborative software engineering” OR “Distributed development”
OR “Distributed teams” OR “Global software teams” OR “Globally
distributed development” OR “Geographically distributed software
development” OR “Offshore software development” OR Offshoring OR
Offshore OR “Offshore outsourcing” OR “Dispersed teams”) AND
(Model* OR Process* OR Framework* OR Method* OR Technique* OR
Methodolog* OR Tool* OR Software* OR Program* OR System*) AND
(“Project Management”)
7

8. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Sources
• IEEEXplore Digital Library
• ACM Digital Library
• ScienceDirect
• EI Compendex
• ICGSE 2009
– whose papers were not available on the
IEEEXplore at the time the initial search was
performed.
8

9. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
• Inclusion:
– Reported tools and models for management of
distributed software development projects
• Exclusion:
– Did not answer any of the two research questions
– Duplicated (select the most complete or recent)
– Not finished or incomplete.
9

10. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Selection Process
10
Step 1
Two researchers performed the search to identify
potentially relevant studies, based on reading titles
and excluding those papers which were clearly not
relevant.
Step 2
The two lists (one from each researcher) were
merged.
Step 3
Studies on the resulting list were evaluated according
to the selection criteria, by reading abstract and
conclusion, and creating a final list of relevant
studies.
Step 4
The data was extracted from reading the entire
content of the studies on the final list.
Similar to Tore Dybå et al. ESEM 2007.

11. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Quality Assessment
• Each study in the final list was assessed for its
quality using ten criteria.
• Two researches provided scores for each
criterion using a Likert-5 scale, varying from 4
(study fits the criterion completely) to 0 (study
does not fit the criterion).
• Discrepancies above 5% in the final score were
discussed and expert opinion was sought
whenever necessary to reach an agreement.
11

12. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Data Analysis and Synthesis
• JabRef was used to support data extraction.
• Qualitative analysis was used to systematically
extract data:
– Selective coding: to identify pieces of similar
textual data
– Axial coding: to categorize and combining coded
text
– Selective coding: to synthesize results (not
presented here)
12

13. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Results
13
Source
Search
Results
Potentially
Relevant
NotRelevant
Repeated
Incomplete
Relevant
Studies
IEEEXplore 100 51 31 0 5 15
ACM 253 33 30 0 1 2
ScienceDirect 100 11 8 0 0 3
EI Compendex 350 19 9 8 0 2
ICGSE2009 64 41 34 0 4 3
TOTAL 867 155 112 8 10 25

14. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Results
14
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Number of Studies per Year of Publication
First year of ICGSE

15. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Results
15
Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent
<26% 26%-45% 46%-65% 66%-85% >86%
# of Studies 0 0 4 13 7
% 0% 0% 17% 54% 30%

16. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Models
16
Models
Evidence
# (quality)
M1. Approach to Offshore Collaboration 1 (1E)
M2. Conceptual Model for Managing an International IS Development Project 1 (1E)
M3. Solar System 1 (1E)
M4. Framework for Supporting Management in Distributed Information Systems Development 1 (1VG)
M5. TAPER 1 (1VG)
M6. Process Maturity Framework for Managing Distributed Development 1 (1VG)
M7. Project Management Model 1 (1VG)
M8. Project Management Framework 1 (1VG)
M9: NEXTMOVE 1 (1VG)
M10. Framework to Enable Coordination in Distributed Software Development 1 (1G)

17. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Tools
17
Tools (T1-T24)
Evidence
# (quality)
TRADITIONAL
T1. E-mail 17 (10E, 6VG, 1G)
T2. Videoconference 14 (8E, 5VG, 1G)
T3. Messenger or chat 11 (7E, 4VG)
T5. Teleconference 8 (7E, 1VG)
T4. Phone 9 (6E, 3VG)
T6. Wiki 7 (4E, 3VG)
T7. Audio conference 5 (3E, 2VG)
T8. NetMeeting 4 (3E, 1VG)
T10. Virtual whiteboards 4 (2E, 2VG)
T9. Change management system 4 (2E, 1VG, 1G)
T11. Photo gallery 3 (1E, 2VG)
T13. Monitoring and Management 2 (2E)
T15. Fax 2 (2E)
T12. Team Intranet websites 3 (1E, 2VG)
T16. Electronic meeting systems 2 (1E, 1VG)
T14. Group calendars 2 (1E, 1VG)
T18. Blog 1 (1E)
T19. Lessons leaened databases 1 (1E)
T17. PowerPoint presentations 1 (1E)
T20. Voicemail 1 (VG)
SPECIFIC
T21. CAMEL 1 (VG)
T22. NEXTMOVE 1 (VG)
T23. TAMRI 1 (VG)
T24. TeamSpace 1 (VG)

18. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Conclusions
• The reported works are relatively recent
– 2002 ...
• There are few specific tools
– 4/24 – 17%
• Models and specific tools have not been
(extensively?) tested
– The only evidence are from the proposers
• Is the literature in the field mature enough for
a systematic review?
18

19. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Future Work
• This is part of a wider project ...
• ... that ultimately tries to understand the
effect of human factors on DSD.
19
(RQ1)
Challenges of
project
management in
DSD.
(RQ2)
Best Practices
used to
overcome
challenges.
(RQ3)
Tools that
support
practices or
challenges.
(RQ4)
Models or frameworks for DSD, possibly supported by tools, that
addresses challenges or support the use of best practices.

20. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Models and Tools for Managing Distributed Software
Development: a Preliminary Mapping Study
Catarina Costa; Camila Cunha; Rodrigo Rocha; A. César C.
França; Fabio Q. B. da Silva; Rafael Prikladnicki
<fabio@cin.ufpe.br>
Thank you!

21. S
O
P
E
I
Influences
Is influenced
Challenges and Solutions in Distributed Software Development Project Management: a
Systematic Literature Review by Fabio Q. B. da Silva, Catarina Costa, A. César C. França,
Rafael Prikladinicki is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, Staffordshire, UK,
2010.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available
at http://www.haseresearch.com