See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/372486289

An empirical study for prioritizing issue of software project management

team

Article in Cognition Technology and Work · July 2023

DOI: 10.1007/s10111-023-00731-9

CITATION READS

1 288

7 authors, including:

Abdul Wahid Khan Hathal Alwageed

University of Science & Technology Bannu Stevens Institute of Technology
59 PUBLICATIONS 661 CITATIONS 19 PUBLICATIONS 707 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Faheem Khan Jawad Khan

Gachon University Hanyang University
81 PUBLICATIONS 1,073 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 315 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdul Wahid Khan on 23 July 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cognition, Technology & Work
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-023-00731-9

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

An empirical study for prioritizing issue of software project

management team
Abdul Wahid Khan1 · Muhammad Sana Ullah2 · Hathal Salamah Alwageed3 · Faheem Khan4 · Jawad Khan5 ·
Youngmoon Lee5 · Javed Khan6

Received: 23 March 2023 / Accepted: 12 June 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
Proper team management and coordination between team members have a vital role in the success of any project in dis-
tributed software organizations. The ultimate objective of this research work is to extract and prioritize challenges of Team
Management Coordination (TMO) for Software Outsourcing Vendor Organizations (SOVO) that would assist the research
community to propose a mitigation approach to enhance team management and coordination. For this purpose, a Systematic
Literature Review (SLR) is adopted to retrieve and identify all those issues which are faced by the vendor of the organization
in proper team management. In total, eleven challenges were retrieved through SLR. These challenges were classified into
three categories (proficiency, connotation, and commitment). The SLR findings were validated using a questionnaire-type
survey. Finally, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique is utilized for prioritizing identified issues and their categories
that are dependent on their relative significance. This research work helps in recognizing, categorizing, and prioritizing the
critical issues of TMO that will provide a dynamic structure of TMO for vendor organizations.

Keywords AHP · Team management coordination (TMO) · Global software development (GSD) · Offshore software
development outsourcing (OSDO)

1 Introduction

The software industry has been extended sharply across the

world for the last thirty years in the software developing
* Faheem Khan organizations to increase their profit by providing goods to
faheem@gachon.ac.kr
the market within a time constraint, employment of labor
* Youngmoon Lee from low-income countries, and starting day and night shifts
youngmoonlee@hanyang.ac.kr
(Sengupta et al. 2006; Britto et al. 2014). Such software
Jawad Khan development is completed at disseminated places of different
jkhanbk1@hanyang.ac.kr
countries as Global Software Development (GSD) (Britto
1
Department of Computer Science, University of Science et al. 2014). GSD is gradually rising for developing soft-
and Technology, Bannu 28100, Pakistan ware projects at distributed places of the world (Dreesen
2
Department of Computer Science and Information et al. 2016). Such advantages include being closer to the
Technology, Qurtuba University, Dera Ismail Khan 29050, customers geographically, prospects of global resources, a
Pakistan competitive environment, and easy access of vendors into
3
College of Computer and Information Science, Jouf global marketplaces (Chang and Ehrlich 2007; Vizcaíno
University, Sakaka, Saudi Arabia et al. 2016). Various GSD organizations earn revenues by
4
Department of Computer Engineering, Gachon University, hiring professional employees from around the world at low
Seongnam 13120, South Korea wages in an agreement between client and vendor firms from
5
Department of Robotics, Hanyang University, Ansan 15588, which the vendor provides services or products for clients
Korea to earn financial advantages (Babar et al. 2007). Based on
6
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Science geographical boundaries, software outsourcing is divided
and Technology Bannu KPK, Bannu, Pakistan

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

into onshore, near-shore, and offshore outsourcing (Khan
2011). Domestic outsourcing or onshore signifies the agree-
ment among client and vendor firms existing in the same
country and who develop software-related products for local
software companies (Galvina 2012; Stetten et al. 2010).
Offshore OSDO is an agreement between vendors and cli-
ents at distributed locations (Salla et al. 2013). OSDO is a
significant model of the GSD, which intends to build great
worth and cheap software by taking benefits of the work-
ers from small-income counties (Khan and Khan 2014a).
The motivation for adopting this type of outsourcing is the
availability of modern and advanced technology for vendor
companies. OSDO is rising frequently due to the availability
of full working day services through trained people, software
products at low cost, and easy access to information and
communication technology (Verner et al. 2014).
In OSDO, “Team” is expressed as a cluster of skillful
people inside many projects who contributed to developing
a cost-effective software project with devotion (Mohd 2014).
Teams in GSD are located at various locations of the world
to develop software projects (Ramasubbu 2013). A major
issue in GSD organizations is managing a team as employees
within the organization (Zwikael and Aviram 2007). There
are many causes of failure in the software development pro-
cess, but lack of coordination between team members is a
key issue. This paper (Dietrich et al. 2013) claimed that a
50% time is utilized for the development of coordination
between the team members as well as less coordination
between the team members in outsized projects. The objec-
tive of this research is to raise the issues related to TMO
in software project management. Without proper TMO, the
GSD project could not be accomplished. Therefore, TMO
among distributed team members is the major motivation
of this study. SLR is performed for extracting TMO issues
and performed a questionnaire survey for validation of these
issues. Then, the AHP technique is adopted for the prioriti-
zation of recognized issues.
The empirical study for prioritizing issues of software
project management team can make significant contributions
to the field of software project management. Some of these
contributions include:
• Identifying Critical Issues: The study can identify the
most critical issues that affect the performance of the
software project management team. This can help in pri-
oritizing the issues and focusing on resolving the most
critical issues first. As a result, it can lead to better pro-
ject outcomes and customer satisfaction.
• Improving Project Management Practices: The study
can help in identifying areas where the team needs to
improve their skills and knowledge. This can be achieved
through training programs, coaching, or mentoring. By
improving project management practices, the team can
13
Cognition, Technology & Work
enhance the quality of their work and deliver better pro-
ject outcomes.
• Enhancing Communication and Collaboration: The study
can help in identifying the differences in the perception
of issues among project stakeholders, including project
managers, developers, and clients. This can help in devel-
oping strategies to address these differences, leading to
better communication and collaboration between stake-
holders. Improved communication and collaboration can
lead to better project outcomes and customer satisfaction.
• Enhancing Research in Software Project Management:
The study can contribute to the existing body of knowl-
edge in software project management. By identifying
critical issues, the study can help in developing new
models or frameworks to manage these issues effectively.
It can also provide insights into the factors that contribute
to project success or failure.
• Providing a Platform for Further Research: The study
can provide a platform for further research on software
project management issues. The findings of the study can
inspire researchers to explore other related areas or con-
duct follow-up studies to validate or extend the results of
the study.
This paper provides a complete roadmap for all vendor
organizations from a team management point of view. To
achieve our objectives, basic questions are formulated that
are as follows:
RQ1. What are the critical challenges that can be pre-
vented by SOVO to expand TMO among the members of the
team during the management of software projects?
RQ2. How to assign the values to recognize, categorize,
and prioritize the critical issues identified through the SLR?
After the introduction section, the Literature review is
explained in section II. Research Methodology is written in
section III, the identified results are expressed in section IV,
threats to validity are described in section V, and the impli-
cation of the study is in section VI. Finally, the conclusion
and future research guidelines are discussed in section VII.
2 Literature review
In GSD organizations, team management is considered a
key factor within various parts of the world using the distri-
bution of tasks method in smaller units. The geographical
distance among team members affects the communication
process, which affects the effectiveness of coordination
procedures (Noll et al. 2011). Carmel and Agarwal (2001)
indicated that geographical distance produces an adverse
effect on the coordination process. Communicating the pro-
cess in dispersed teams becomes difficult because of isolated
locations in the software development process (Khan et al.
Cognition, Technology & Work
2013). Lack of non-formal communication is also a cause of
reduced coordinating processes. People’s tasks at distributed
locations and in diverse cultures also give rise to communi-
cation issues (Hekkala et al. 2008).
Time zone and physical distances at different develop-
ing locations also made hurdles for efficient coordinating
and communicating processes. Language barriers and lack
of understanding made problems for team members and
affected coordination activities (Khan and Azeem 2014).
Trustworthiness issue takes place when there is little option
for workers to work together having physical and chrono-
logical distances. Khan and Khan (2017) claimed that there
are four basic issues of the coordination process, i.e., huge
expenses upon coordinating activities, small communication
among team members, incompatible work of team mem-
bers, and low collaboration issues due to misconceptions
between team members. Khan and Khan (2012) explained at
less cost, with less complication and barriers to the qualities
of software development were discussed in Usman and Khan
(2018). A model of partnership was developed in Ali and
Khan (2016) to convert outsourced relations into compan-
ionship. A few issues of communication and coordination
are also discussed in Khan and Khan (2014b).
The data can be collected through survey (Farooqi et al.
2019), empirical approach (Laila et al. 2022), and F-Model
(Khan et al. 2022a), but in this paper, SLR (Khan et al.
2017a, 2021, 2022b, c) is performed to identify TMO chal-
lenges for software outsourcing organizations with vendors’
perspectives and apply AHP for prioritizing these issues.
From the literature review, it is deeply observed that most
authors conducted research on multiple parameters of GSD,
but still limited research is performed for recognizing, cat-
egorizing, and prioritizing the coordination challenges in
team management properly. In all the above-mentioned
papers, limited literature explains all aspects of team man-
agement and coordination challenges with novel procedures.
Prioritizing the issues extracted for TMO in software project
management is the aim of this research study that proposes
the software outsourcing vendor organizations for the barri-
ers that create issues in TMO.
The success of a software project depends on the effec-
tiveness of project management. Software project man-
agement involves planning, organizing, and controlling
resources to achieve specific software project goals. How-
ever, the complexity of software development projects
often results in several issues that affect the performance
of the software project management team. These issues can
include poor communication, unrealistic deadlines, lack of
resources, and inadequate risk management, among others.
The motivation for conducting an empirical study for pri-
oritizing issues of software project management team is to
identify the most critical issues that affect the performance
of the software project management team. Prioritizing these
issues will enable project managers to focus their efforts on
resolving the most critical issues first, which can lead to
better project outcomes.
Moreover, prioritizing the issues of software project man-
agement team can help in identifying the areas where the
team needs to improve their skills and knowledge. This can
be achieved through training programs, coaching, or mentor-
ing. It can also help in identifying the areas where additional
resources are required to improve the project’s outcome.
Furthermore, the empirical study can help in identifying
the differences in the perception of issues among project
stakeholders, including project managers, developers, and
clients. This can help in developing strategies to address
these differences, leading to better communication and col-
laboration between stakeholders.
3 Research methodology
Three methodologies are used for this research work as
shown in Fig. 1. In the first step, SLR is performed for the
identification of TMO challenges. In the second step, a
questionnaire-type survey was performed for validating the
SLR results. Finally, the AHP approach is utilized for the
prioritization of identified challenges by performing pair-
wise comparisons of those issues.
3.1 Systematic literature review (SLR)
In the first step, SLR is used for data collection of the pro-
posed research work where the goal is to highlight issues
related to the TMO issues. Niazi et al. (2016a) explained
that SLR is professionally designed for the identification,
assessment, and analyzing available research. According to
Kitchenham guidelines, planning, conducting, and report-
ing are three phases of SLR. Based on research questions, a
search string was developed for application in many online
libraries and the data is collected using exclusion and inclu-
sion criteria as represented in Table 1.
3.1.1 Digital libraries
Digital libraries find maximum research papers relating to
the proposed research topic and these were also used by
many other researchers for their research domains. Digital
libraries are used in the proposed SLR as a data source.
3.1.2 Search Strings
In this section, keywords and closely related words are
used from the proposed literature and research questions.
“OR” and “AND” operators were used to maintain the link
between these keywords and to complete the search strings.
13
 Cognition, Technology & Work

Fig. 1  Schematic diagram of

research methodology

A final search string is shown in Table 2 to find research 3.1.4 Exclusion criteria

papers by searching in nominated digital libraries.
Exclusion criteria eliminated those kinds of research papers
3.1.3 Inclusion criteria that are not linked with the research problems or not writ-
ten in English. Exclusion criteria removed the literature that
Inclusion criteria included those research papers that have does not relate to TMO challenges and all duplicated data.
been written in English and related to the topic of TMO
challenges for software outsourcing vendor organizations.

Table 2  Formulated search string of SLR

Scope Strings
Table 1  Steps in SLR
Software project ((“Global software development” OR “software
Phases Steps management project management” OR “software Out-
Vendor(s) sourcing”) AND
Planning Research question(s), Search engines, Exclusion and Challenges (Vendor OR developer OR supplier) AND
inclusion criteria, Search string(s), Quality criteria Coordination (Challenges OR barriers OR issues) AND
for selection of study Team management (Cooperation OR Coordination) AND
Conducting Selection of primary study, data extraction, and data Organization OR Management))
synthesis
Reporting Documentation of extracted findings

13
Cognition, Technology & Work

3.1.5 Quality criteria for study selection 4 Results

After the period of the final selection of publication, the
quality assessment takes place. It remained to continue
throughout the data extraction process. In this quality cri-
terion, the following threshold accepts or rejects primary
studies:
• Are research authors identified all the issues in research
papers that affect TMO in software outsourcing vendor
organizations?
• Are the results discussed in these research articles rel-
evant to our research-formulated questions?
3.1.6 Primary study selection
It includes the latest papers that are linked to the challenges
of TMO. With the help of the inclusion or exclusion proce-
dure, an immense difference was depicted between the ini-
tial and primary selection. The main theme of this step was
to select final papers for research work. All these research
results are shown in Table 3.
First, a total of 25,256 research papers are searched
using search string in mentioned digital libraries. After that,
primary selection criteria are applied for the selection of
research papers and found 365 papers. Finally, exclusion and
inclusion criteria applied for the final selection of forty-six
research papers. These research papers helped us to find out
TMO challenges.
3.1.7 Data extraction and data synthesis
SLR methodology found research papers with matching key-
words, abstract, research questions, and title of our research
paper. All the extracted coordination challenges have been
recorded in Table 4. Furthermore, extracted issues are cat-
egorized based on their research field through SLR.
4.1 Results extracted through SLR
This portion explains the outcomes of the SLR related to
issues extracted for the TMO in software project manage-
ment to justify RQ1. Challenges are listed with their fre-
quency and percentage in Table 4.
Furthermore, identified issues are categorized based on
SLR synthesis. Relevant challenges have been recorded
in one category. Total three categories have been made
as shown in Table 5. The first issue is “Ecological and
Chronological issues” and its frequency is thirty-eight
from total 46 research articles. The percentage of this chal-
lenge is 82% which is the highest among all the other chal-
lenges. The percentage of this challenge is 80%, so, this
is considered second most important challenge. Monasor
et al. (2010) stated that socio-culture issues can be a dan-
ger for coordinating individuals belonging to distributed
teams and that communication of team members is dif-
ficult which results in a shortage of mutual attentiveness.
“Lack of convergence” was found to be the third challenge
found through the SLR approach. Likewise, the lack of
convergence is a problem for coordination activities in a
distributed environment. “Poor project Management” was
regarded as the fifth challenge got through SLR method-
ology. This issue has frequency of twenty-one and its
percentage is forty-five, which is almost half of the total
selected research papers. Herbsleb (2007) stated that when
workers of teams are located at dispersed locations with
inadequate communication situation creates poor project
management. “Lack of trustworthiness” was considered
the sixth challenge extracted through the SLR approach.
Table 4  List of challenges identified through SLR
Challenge Name of issue Final %age
Papers
(N = 46)

Table 3  Search results summary CH 1 Ecological and chronological issues 38 82

CH 2 Socio-culture issues 37 80
Digital library Total papers Primary Final
selected papers CH 3 Lack of convergence 34 74
selection CH 4 Poor relationship 22 47
CH 5 Poor project management 21 45
Google scholar 5960 120 30
CH 6 Lack of trustworthiness 20 43
Springer link 846 230 09
CH 7 Lack of Time management 18 39
IEEE 20 06 03
CH 8 Lack of indulgent 17 37
CiteseerX 18,050 04 02
CH 9 Lack of skill 16 34
Wiley online library 380 05 02
CH 10 Lack of knowledge management 14 30
Total 25,256 365 46
CH 11 Technological innovation issues 10 21

13

Lack of trustworthiness challenge appears in twenty papers
out of forty-six research articles.
Nguyen et al. (2008) also gave the idea that team mem-
bers working at different geographical locations need time
to complete their assignments as compared to the workers
within the same organizations. The eighth challenge was
“Lack of indulgent” extracted through the SLR approach
that has 37% weightage. Similarly, it stated that lack of
knowledge management is a critical issue that can slow
down the communication and coordination in a distributed
environment. The last and eleventh challenge got through
SLR is the “lack of technological innovations.” This chal-
lenge has a percentage of 21%.
4.2 Questionnaire survey development
A questionnaire survey is an information-gathering
method through inquiring various questions (Hu et al.
2017). Many preceding research studies have also used this
method (Khan et al. 2012). A questionnaire survey is per-
formed through email to a different organization. Finally,
twenty-seven experts to different software organizations
responded to the proposed questionnaire survey. Eleven
significant challenges are included in the proposed survey
and added five options named “Strongly Agree,” “Agree,”
“Strongly Disagree,” “Disagree”, and “Neutral” against
every issue. Niazi et al. (2016b) stated that the addition
of the “Neutral” option in the questionnaire survey does
not have any drawbacks. Modern research scholars such
as Khan et al. (2017b) explained that the addition of a
neutral option helps give the right feedback. However, if a
neutral option is not provided, then it will drive the experts
to answer the questions just positively or negative, which
will be considered one-sided feedback.
4.2.1 Pilot testing of questionnaire
Pilot testing is essential for developing questionnaire sur-
vey authenticity and trustworthiness. This is performed to
Table 5  Categorization of issues in TMO
Category of issues Name of issues
Proficiency Ecological and Chronological issues, Socio-cul-
ture issues, Lack of skill, Lack of Knowledge
management
Connotation Lack of convergence, Poor relationship, Poor
project Management, Lack of Time manage-
ment
Commitment Lack of trustworthiness, Lack of indulgent,
Technological Innovation issues
13
Cognition, Technology & Work
evaluate the legitimacy of its material through estimating
the importance of factors and their related significance. The
ultimate form of questionnaire survey is made after inte-
grating minor changes which are suggested by the experts.
It is guaranteed that all collected data will be used just for
proposed research work and it will not be shown to other
people for any other purpose. Questionnaire survey utilized
for validation purpose is provided as a sample.
4.2.2 Data sources
Forty-five participants were invited for collecting their
valuable responses, but twenty-seven participants agreed to
feedback. A feedback process is completed in 55 days and
all of the responses are reviewed one by one and recorded
for the further research process. Further explanation of the
participants who participated in the questionnaire survey are
Experts of the organization, Size of the organization, and
Countries of the organization.
Experts are divided into three categories named as jun-
ior, intermediate, and senior. All of these experts are 9 in
each category. Sizes of organizations are termed as small,
medium, and large. Small, medium, and large organizations
are 7, 9, and 11 respectively. Countries from which our
experts in the questionnaire survey have participated are 1, 2,
and 24 and belong to Dubai, the United States, and Pakistan.
4.2.3 Validation of identified challenges
Significant challenges are validated through conducting a
questionnaire survey. Twenty-seven members of different
organizations participated in this survey and gave their feed-
back in Negative, Positive, and Neutral. The Positive option
has two subcategories “Agree” and “Strongly agree.” Simi-
larly, the Negative class has two subcategories “Disagree”
and “Strongly Disagree.” The last category was Neutral
which is impartial. Experts gave their opinion as positive
which represents that they agreed with the identified chal-
lenge. Similarly, a Negative response shows that participants
do not agree with identified challenge. The Neutral category
was also used by participants. In conclusion, more than 70%
of positive responses are considered the highest ratio as
compared to negative and neutral responses. These results
can be conducted for analyzing recognized challenges. Fur-
ther detail of questionnaire survey feedback results showed
in Table 6.
4.3 Analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
AHP is a multi-dimensional dynamic system for making
the right managerial decisions. This technique makes pri-
oritization of recognized issues and related categories of
these issues. Saaty (1988) was the first person who used
Cognition, Technology & Work

this multi-dimensional technique. This procedure is used by objective of the issue is introduced, whereas the issues and
multiple researchers in various aspects for tackling signifi- the subordinate challenges are placed in level 2 and level 3
cant challenges related to qualitative and quantitative nature correspondingly.
(Kabra et al. 2015; Albayrak and Erensal 2004). Shameem
et al. (2018) discussed different issues related to an agile
4.3.2 Decide priority weight of every issue and subordinate
methodology using the AHP approach.
issue using pairwise comparisons
Li et al. 2019) stated that AHP is a developing technol-
ogy that is adapted to categorize and analyze issues having
After breaking down the issue into a hierarchy form, the pri-
psychological and mathematical foundations. Hussain et al.
ority weights are determined by applying a pair-wise com-
(2021) used the AHP approach to prioritization the chal-
parison decision table in step 2. At every level, a pair-wise
lenges for searching the right type of deserved people for the
comparison is performed on issues with their impact and
right project from the vendors’ perspective in the domain of
dependency on the predefined standard. A 9-point standard
software project management. It is a technique for comput-
scale is used for comparison among challenges to decide
ing pair-wise comparisons, priority weights, and the rela-
the importance of one issue as compared to another issue,
tive significance of the identified issues. The AHP approach
as shown in Table 7. A pair-wise comparison table shows
helps in making judgments, recognizing, and defining prob-
overall priority weights which are determined by applying
lems. It converts multipart challenges into the simplest and
a pair-wise comparison decision matrix for every challenge
it also maintains a consistent index of identified issues. AHP
and it is relating subordinate problems.
is an organized approach that is applied to organize and ana-
lyze difficult judgments into simple ones to understand them
4.3.2.1 Break down the difficult judgment making issue
easily. The AHP technique depends upon three phases:
into hierarchical shape In this step, the issue is divided
into a hierarchical chain of interlinked judgment parts. The
• Break down the difficult judgment-making issue into
first phase of AHP must have a minimum of three levels. At
hierarchical shape.
level 1, the objective of the issue is introduced, whereas the
• Decide priority weight of every issue and sub-catego-
issues and the subordinate challenges are placed in level 2
rized issues using pair-wise comparisons.
and level 3 correspondingly.
• Test the reliability of decisions.

4.3.2.2 Decide priority weight of every issue and subor‑

4.3.1 Break down the difficult judgment making issue
into hierarchical shape
In this step, issue is divided into a hierarchical chain of inter-
linked judgment parts. It is necessary that the first phase of
AHP must have a minimum of three levels. At level 1, the
dinate issue using pairwise comparisons After breaking
down the issue into a hierarchy form, the priority weights
are determined by applying a pair-wise comparison decision
table in step 2. At every level, a pair-wise comparison is per-
formed on issues with their degree of impact and depend-
ent on the predefined standard. A 9-point standard scale is

Table 6  List of issues with Sr. no Challenge name Positive category Negative category Neutral
corresponding feedback through category
questionnaire survey
Strongly Agree % Disagree Strongly % Neutral %
agree disagree

CH 1 Ecological and chronological issues 6 18 89 2 0 7 1 4

CH 2 Socio-culture issues 6 14 74 4 2 22 1 4
CH 3 Lack of skill 7 16 85 1 0 4 3 11
CH 4 Lack of knowledge management 3 17 74 3 2 19 2 7
CH 5 Lack of convergence 4 17 78 3 1 15 2 7
CH 6 Poor relationship 4 15 70 4 1 19 3 11
CH 7 Poor project management 7 14 78 2 2 15 2 7
CH 8 Lack of time management 9 12 78 3 2 18 1 4
CH 9 Lack of trustworthiness 3 16 70 4 3 26 1 4
CH10 Lack of indulgent 5 16 78 4 0 15 2 7
CH11 Technological innovation issues 4 17 78 2 3 18 1 4

13

Table 7  Standard 9-point scale for significance
Description Equal importance Moderate impor- Strong importance Very strong impor- Extreme impor-
tance
Intensity of signifi- 1 3 5
cance
used for comparison to perform the pair-wise comparison
among challenges to decide the importance of one issue
as compared to another issue, as shown in Table 7. A pair-
wise comparison table is shaped, overall priority weights
are determined by applying a pair-wise comparison deci-
sion matrix for every challenge and it is relating subordinate
problems.
Assume, C = {C i/j = 1, 2, 3……… n}, in this example
“n” is assessing issue and every component of assessing
matrix A, i.e., a_ij (i, j = 1, 2, 3, ……, n), shows its normal-
ized relative weight that is clarified in Eq. 1 which is as
follows (Yaghoobi 2018):
A =[1a12 … a1na211 … a2n … … … … an1an21]
Where aij = 1∕aij, aij > 0 & i ≠ j
“W” sign for Weight vector which is resolved by utilizing
typical equation that is illustrated in Eq. 2
AW = 𝜆− maxW
A pair-wise comparison matrix for challenge and ƛmax
represents the biggest Eigenvalue and similarly “w” repre-
sents the weight vector. A description of the standardized
9 Points Scale for the intensity of significance is shown in
Table 7.
4.3.3 Testing reliability of decisions
In AHP technique (Ahmad and Laplante 2006), there must
be consistency in the pair-wise matrix. Consistency Ratio
(CR) and Consistency Index (CI) decide consistency of the
pair-wise comparison table with the help of Eqs. 3 and 4
respectively.
𝜆− − n
CI =
n−1
CI
CR =
RI
Table 8  Association between Size of matrix (N)
random consistency index and
matrix size Random consistency index
13
Cognition, Technology & Work
Intermediate values
tance tance
7 9 2, 4, 6, 8
In Eqs. 3 and 4, 𝜆− max represents the biggest Eigenvalue,
and “n” signifies the order of challenges. RI denotes a value
of the random index of consistency that has various val-
ues depending on challenges, as recorded in Table 8. The
acknowledged value of CR is up to 0.10. Matrix A is rea-
sonable and consistent when the determined value of CR is
estimated below 0.10. In this situation, the priority vector
(weight) of the challenge will be suitable and accepted. If
the situation is opposite and the value of CR is over 0.10,
then restart the evaluation method from phase 1 to reduce
the inconsistency level.
4.3.4 AHP application for the prioritization of challenges
(1)
The earlier section of AHP acknowledged the challenges and
validating process in TMO challenges. For performing the
AHP procedure, eleven critical challenges were identified
through SLR. These were classified into three categories,
(2) named “Proficiency,” “Connotation,” and “Commitment.”
Finally, the AHP strategy was utilized for the prioritization
of identified critical challenges after performing a pair-wise
comparison. The response of RQ2 and AHP strategy is illus-
trated in Fig. 2.
4.3.4.1 Identifying goal, challenges, and their subcatego‑
ries In this section, goals, issues, subordinate issues, and
categories of these issues have been described. Issues and
their related categories have been listed in Table 5.
4.3.4.2 Different leveled structure of issues In this step, the
proposed issue is divided into the graphic level composition.
The general target is displayed at the top level of the hierar-
chical structure, whereas categories and their corresponding
issues appeared at level 2 and level 3, correspondingly.
(3)
4.3.4.3 Performing the pair‑wise comparison and calculat‑
ing priority weight The categories are evaluated pairwise
(4) between issues inside every category and their weights are
determined as well. The feedback of experts dependent on
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10
0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
Cognition, Technology & Work

Fig. 2  Steps used in AHP

approach

pair-wise comparison of the issues and their categories are

accessible through utilizing scaling values, as recorded in Table 11  Pair-wise Comparison among issues of “Connotation” cat-
Table 7. Tables of pair-wise comparison are arranged and egory
showed proficiency category, connotation category, and Sr. no CH 5 CH 6 CH 7 CH 8
commitment category in Tables 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14,
respectively. A pair-wise comparison between “categories CH 5 1.000 6.00 3.00 8.00
of issues” is displayed in Tables 15 and 16, for performing CH 6 0.33 1.00 0.50 0.50
the pair-wise comparison and making a synthesized table CH 7 0.50 2.00 1.00 0.50
of pair-wise comparison by division of every factor of pair- CH 8 0.25 0.33 0.50 1.00
wise comparison matrix over a summation of its column.
The priority weight of each subordinate challenge is found
while calculating the average over the row. As the priority Table 12  Synthesized matrix of “Connotation” category
vector of every issue of the proficiency category is displayed
Sr. no CH 5 CH 6 CH 7 CH 8 Priority weight
in Table 10, sum of the entire priority vectors must be 1. At
this point, the priority vector represents the relative weight CH 5 0.48 0.64 0.60 0.80 0.630
of subordinate issues (issues of proficiency category). In the CH 6 0.16 0.11 0.10 0.05 0.105
proficiency category, CH4 (Lack of Knowledge manage- CH 7 0.24 0.21 0.20 0.05 0.175
ment) is considered the most significant challenge by com- CH 8 0.12 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.090
paring with CH1, CH2, and with CH3. ∑ = 1.00

Table 9  Pair-wise comparison matrix among the challenges of “Pro- Table 13  Pair-wise comparison
ficiency” group Sr. no CH 9 CH 10 CH 11
matrix among the challenges of
“Commitment” group CH 9 1.00 4.00 6.00
Serial number CH1 CH2 CH3 CH4
CH 10 0.25 1.00 3.00
CH1 1.00 2.00 0.33 0.20 CH 11 0.17 0.33 1.000
CH2 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.33
CH3 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.50
CH4 5.00 3.00 2.00 1.00

Table 14  Synthesized matrix of “Commitment” category

Sr. no CH 9 CH 10 CH 11 Priority weight
Table 10  Synthesized matrix of “Proficiency” category CH 9 0.71 0.75 0.60 0.686
Sr. no CH1 CH2 CH3 CH4 Priority weight CH 10 0.18 0.19 0.30 0.223
CH 11 0.12 0.06 0.10 0.093
CH1 0.11 0.25 0.09 0.10 0.137 ∑ = 1.00
CH2 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.117
CH3 0.32 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.270 𝜆max , CI and CR were calculated by considering Table 10 method
and value of RI was taken from Table 8. ƛmax = 3.054, CI = 0.027,
CH4 0.53 0.38 0.52 0.49 0.480
RI = 0.58, and CR = 0.05 < 0.1 [Consistency is OK]
∑ = 1.00

13
 Cognition, Technology & Work

Table 15  Pair-wise comparison matrix among “Categories of Chal- is 0.07 which is less than 0.1; therefore, the priority vectors
lenges” for the identified issues will be acceptable. ƛmax = 4.180;
Categories Proficiency Connotation Commitment CI = 0.060; RI = 0.90; CR = 0.07 < 0.1 [Consistency is
OK]. 𝜆max , CI, and CR are calculated by following same
Proficiency 1.00 6.00 8.00
method as adopted in Table 10 and the value of RI is
Connotation 0.17 1.00 3.00
taken from Table 8. ƛmax = 4.157; CI = 0.052; RI = 0.90;
Commitment 0.13 0.33 1.00
CR = 0.06 < 0.1 [Consistency is OK].

4.3.4.4 Ranking of the issues in concerned categories (local

Table 16  Synthesized matrix of “Categories of Issues” ranking of issues) With the help of priority weight (local
Categories Proficiency Connotation Commitment Priority
weight) shown in column 4 of Table 17, rankings of all
weight issues related to corresponding categories were calculated
and recorded in column 5 of Table 17.
Proficiency 0.77 0.82 0.67 0.753
Connotation 0.13 0.14 0.25 0.172
4.3.4.5 Calculation of global weight and global ranking
Commitment 0.10 0.05 0.08 0.075
of challenges From AHP, the global weight represents the
∑ = 1.00
specific issues to complete the purpose of the study. The
ƛmax = 3.075, CI = 0.037, RI = 0.58, and CR = 0.06 < 0.1 overall global weight of every issue is calculated by tak-
ing the multiplication of the local weight of every challenge
Abbreviations as CR (consistency ratio), CI and its related category. For instance, the global weight of
(consistency index), and RI (random consistency challenge CH1 is 0.753*0.137 = 0.1032. Global weight is
index) and 𝜆− max calculated are as follows: 𝜆max recorded for every issue in column No 6 of Table 17 and
(1.00 ∗ 0.630 + 6 ∗ 0.105 + 3 ∗ 0.175 + 8 ∗ 0.090∕0.630+ the global ranking of every issue is given in column 7 of
Table 17.
(0.33 ∗ 0.630 + 1 ∗ 0.105 + 0.50 ∗ 0.175 + 0.50 ∗ 0.090∕0.105+
Table 17 shows the local and global ranking of issues in
(0.50 ∗ 0.630 + 2 ∗ 0.105 + 1 ∗ 0.175 + 0.50 ∗ 0.090∕0.175+
their category and among various categories. Local rank-
(0.25 ∗ 0.630 + 0.33 ∗ 0.105 + 0.50 ∗ 0.0.175 + 1 ∗ 0.090∕0.090 = ing displays the ranking of a specific issue inside its cat-
4.056+4.248+4.257+4.122/4=4.180. egory, and the global ranking is for the ranking of an issue
Now, CI was calculated by the following method: among all three categories. In this AHP study, CH4 “Lack
− −n
CI = 𝜆n−1 = 4.180−4
4−1
= 0.180
3
= 0.060. In the above outcome of Knowledge management” was detected as the most sig-
of CI, “n” stands for overall number of issues on which nificant issue while CH11 “Technological Innovation issue”
comparison was performed. A suitable value of RI given in was considered as the least significant issue.
Table 8, that is, RI = 0.90 has value of n = 4 (total number
of challenges) considered by us. At the end, CR is calcu- 4.3.4.6 Prioritization of issue In the last step, global weight
lated in this way: CR = CI RI
0.06
= 0.90 = 0.07. In this result, CR is used to evaluate of the final rank of every issue. Table 18

Table 17  Global and local Category Category-weight Critical challenges Local-weight Local Global weight Global
weight challenges and their rank- ranking
rankings summary ing

Proficiency 0.753 CH 1 0.137 3 0.1032 4

CH 2 0.117 4 0.0881 5
CH 3 0.270 2 0.2033 2
CH 4 0.480 1 0.3614 1
Connotation 0.172 CH 5 0.630 1 0.1084 3
CH 6 0.105 3 0.0181 8
CH 7 0.175 2 0.0301 7
CH 8 0.090 4 0.0155 10
Commitment 0.075 CH 9 0.686 1 0.0515 6
CH 10 0.223 2 0.0167 9
CH 11 0.093 3 0.0070 11

13
Cognition, Technology & Work

shows the last AHP results for prioritizing the issues. The agement) has the first ranking in this category, CH3 (Lack
lack of knowledge management issue (CH4) is concluded of skill) has the second, CH1 (Ecological and Chronological
as the most significant issue among all the eleven issues, issues) has the third, and CH2 (Socio-culture issues) has the
whereas the technological innovation issue (CH11) has been fourth ranking in this category. In the second category of
concluded as the least significant issue among all the eleven Connotation, there are also four issues which are CH5, CH6,
issues. CH7, and CH8. CH5 (Lack of convergence) has the first,
CH7 (Poor project Management) has the second, CH6 (Poor
4.3.4.7 AHP results There are three categories in which relationship) has the 3rd, and CH8 (Lack of Time manage-
local issues have a different ranking as shown in Fig. 3. In ment) has the fourth priority in the connotation category.
first category of proficiency, there are four issues which are Commitment is the third category in which three issues
CH1, CH2, CH3, and CH4. CH4 (Lack of Knowledge man- have been recorded which were named CH9, CH10, and
CH11 (Lack of trustworthiness, Lack of indulgence,
Technological Innovation issues). CH9 (Lack of trust-
worthiness) has the first, CH10 (Lack of indulgence) has
the second and CH11 (Technological Innovation issues)
Table 18  Prioritization of issues has the third local ranking in the Commitment category.
Sr. no Name of issues Priority The AHP results on global weight and global Ranking are
shown in Table 17. Based on AHP results, CH4 (Lack of
CH4 Lack of knowledge management 1
Knowledge management) was regarded as the first most
CH3 Lack of skill 2
significant type of issue in comparison to all other eleven
CH5 Lack of convergence 3
issues, having maximum global weight in TMO while
CH1 Ecological and chronological issues 4
developing software in outsourcing vendor organizations.
CH2 Socio-culture issues 5
AHP results showed that CH3 (Lack of skill) is the second
CH9 Lack of trustworthiness 6
most significant type of issue in comparison to all other
CH7 Poor project management 7
eleven issues. CH5 (Lack of convergence) detects as the
CH6 Poor relationship 8
third important type of issue based on findings. CH1 (Eco-
CH10 Lack of indulgent 9
logical and Chronological issues) was the fourth signifi-
CH8 Lack of Time management 10
cant issue with comparison to all other eleven issues. CH2
CH11 Technological Innovation issues 11
(Socio-culture issues) is the fifth important type of issue.

Fig. 3  Hierarchy formation of proposed study for AHP method and TMO challenges

13

CH9 (Lack of trustworthiness) was the sixth most signifi-
cant type of issue in TMO for the development of software
for software outsourcing vendor organizations. Results of
AHP indicated that CH7 (Poor Project Management) is the
seventh significant type of issue based on global weight.
Based on global weight, poor relationship which is CH6
was the eighth important type of issue. Lack of indulgence
is the ninth significant issue in TMO. AHP study showed
that lack of time management is the tenth significant issue.
Results of AHP indicated that CH11 (lack of technologi-
cal innovations) is the eleventh and last significant issue
for TMO.
5 Threats to validity
The proposed study has a few limitations like results legiti-
mation because there can be threats to its validity. These
threats are discussed below:
• The inside risk emerges from the literature review. Few
research authors have not given the legitimate purpose
of issues that emerge in TMO.
• Validity threats can occur during the process of conduct-
ing a questionnaire survey. It is also possible that the
information provided in this study is not reliable due to
lack of time availability.
• An expected risk is related to the AHP technique that was
utilized for prioritization of the issues. Prioritizing the
process of the issues was simply dependent on the con-
versation and emotional experiences which were based
upon the expert’s supposition. Subsequently, a methodol-
ogy may deteriorate the viability of the research work,
although CR determined for each pair-wise comparison
table, showing authenticity in the prioritization process
of the issues.
• Addressing the limitations of the literature review: The
researchers can further investigate the literature to ensure
that all relevant and credible sources have been included
in the study. This will help to reduce the risk of inside
threats to the validity of the results.
• Improving the survey design: To minimize threats to the
validity of the survey, the researchers can employ rigor-
ous survey design techniques, such as random sampling,
and carefully crafted questions. This will ensure that the
information provided in the study is reliable and valid.
• Ensuring expert involvement: To minimize the risk
associated with the AHP technique, the researchers can
involve a diverse group of experts with varying back-
grounds and experiences to ensure a comprehensive
understanding of the issues. Additionally, the researchers
can use statistical measures to evaluate the consistency
13
Cognition, Technology & Work
of the expert’s opinions and ensure the accuracy of the
prioritization process.
• Increasing sample size: To improve the generalizability
of the study, the researchers can increase the sample size
to include a larger and more diverse group of partici-
pants. This will help to reduce the risk of sampling bias
and increase the validity of the study results.
• Conducting follow-up studies: To validate and extend
the findings of the study, the researchers can conduct
follow-up studies to replicate the results or investigate
other related areas. This will help to ensure the robust-
ness and generalizability of the study results.
6 Implication of study
The structure is dependent upon eleven significant issues
including the priorities which were relying upon the weights
using the AHP technique. These outcomes will help the
researcher’s performance in TMO activities, conducted in
software outsourcing vendor organizations. The reorganiza-
tion of the issues for TMO in the global environment is an
important dedication for the intellectual community. It could
help in getting more knowledge of the challenges which
could be tackled by experts for TMO in distributed ven-
dor organizations. Furthermore, AHP is a strategy utilized
for making groups of dynamic issues and this technique is
helpful to assess the rankings of the issues dependent on
their significance. The weights, the ranking of the issues,
and their categorization are significant from an administra-
tive perspective. This ranking and categorization process is
helpful for administrators, and it plays an essential role to
help vendor organizations for evaluation, improvement of
their systems, and managing behaviors to deal with TMO
challenges in the outsourcing domain.
7 Conclusion and future work
The categorization in software outsourcing projects might
threaten coordination activities in distributed firms. Here,
SLR was for the extraction of challenges and validated the
results of the literature through a questionnaire survey. For
validation purposes, a questionnaire survey method was
adopted and validated by the responses of twenty-seven
experts from different software organizations. However, an
AHP strategy was utilized for the prioritization of the issues
utilizing the feedback gathered from experts dependent on
a pair-wise comparison of the issues. Overall, eleven sig-
nificant issues were recognized from the SLR, and further
these issues were arranged into three categories, such as
proficiency, connotation, and commitment. AHP strategy is
Cognition, Technology & Work
utilized for the ranking of every issue based on the responses
of an expert.
The outcomes of this research work demonstrated that
proficiency is the most significant category and the chal-
lenges of this category like lack of knowledge management,
lack of skill, ecological and chronological issues, and socio-
culture issues have been treated as significant issues in this
category that influence upon TMO in software outsourcing
vendor organizations. The weight, the ranking of the issues,
and their categories give a scheme to dispersed organiza-
tions to assess and change their managing and coordinating
techniques for effective TMO in the outsourcing domain. In
the proposed strategy, the planning for rankings of issues
is dependent upon the judgments and opinions of various
experts.
Author contributions Conceptualization: AWK, and MSU; Methodol-
ogy: AWK and MSU; Software: FK and JK; Validation: AWK, FK, JK,
and MSU, HSA; Formal analysis: FK and JK; Investigation: FK and JK;
Resources: FK, JK, and HSA; Data curation: MF; Writing—original
draft preparation: AWK, HSA, and MSU; Writing—review and editing:
AWK, HSA, and MSU; Visualization: MF, FK, and HSA; Supervi-
sion: AWK; project administration: MF and JK; Funding acquisition:
MF and FK.
Data availability Will be provided when required.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
Ahmad N, Laplante PA (2006) Software project management tools:
making a practical decision using AHP. 2006 30th Annual IEEE/
NASA Software Engineering Workshop. IEEE, pp 76–84
Albayrak E, Erensal YC (2004) Using analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
to improve human performance: an application of multiple criteria
decision-making problem. J Intell Manuf 15(4):491–503
Ali S, Khan SU (2016) Software outsourcing partnership model: an
evaluation framework for vendor organizations. J Syst Softw
117:402–425
Babar MA, Verner JM, Nguyen PT (2007) Establishing and maintain-
ing trust in software outsourcing relationships: an empirical inves-
tigation. J Syst Softw 80(9):1438–1449
Britto R, Freitas V, Mendes E, Usman M (2014) Effort estimation in
global software development: a systematic literature review. 2014
IEEE 9th International Conference on Global Software Engineer-
ing. Shanghai, China, pp 135–144
Carmel E, Agarwal R (2001) Tactical approaches for alleviating dis-
tance in global software development. IEEE Softw 18(2):22–29
Chang KT, Ehrlich K (2007) Out of sight but not out of mind? Informal
networks, communication and media use in global software teams.
In: Proceedings of the 2007 conference of the center for advanced
studies on Collaborative research. Richmond Hill Ontario Canada,
pp 86–97
Dietrich P, Kujala J, Artto K (2013) Inter-team coordination patterns
and outcomes in multi-team projects. Proj Manag J 44(6):6–19
Dreesen T, Linden R, Meures C, Schmidt N, Rosenkranz C (2016)
Beyond the border: a comparative literature review on communi-
cation practices for agile global outsourced software development
projects. 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences. Koloa, HI, USA, pp 4932–4941
Farooqi MM, Shah MA, Wahid A, Akhunzada A, Khan F, Ali I (2019)
Big data in healthcare: a survey. Applications of intelligent tech-
nologies in healthcare. Springer, Cham, pp 143–152
Galvina Z (2012) Low degree of separation does not guarantee easy
coordination. In: 2012 38th Euromicro Conference on Software-
Engineering and Advanced Applications. Cesme, Turkey, pp
345–348
Hekkala R, Iivari N, Halonen R (2008) Too many cooks spoiling a
soup”? Making sense of a distributed, multi-party is project.
Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences (HICSS). IEEE, Waikoloa, HII, USA, pp
444–444
Herbsleb JD (2007) Global software-engineering: the future of
socio-technical coordination. Future of software-engineering
(FOSE’07). IEEE, Minneapolis, MN, USA, pp 188–198
Hu CP, Chang YY, Creswell JW (2017) Research design: qualita-
tive, quantitative and mixed methods approach. J Soc Adm Sci
4(2):205–207
Hussain M, Khan HU, Khan AW, Khan SU (2021) Prioritizing the
issues extracted for getting right people on right project in soft-
ware project management from vendors’ perspective. IEEE Access
9:8718–8732
Kabra G, Ramesh A, Arshinder K (2015) Identification and prioritiza-
tion of coordination barriers in humanitarian supply chain man-
agement. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 13:128–138
Khan SU (2011) Software Outsourcing vendors' readiness model
(SOVRM), Ph.D. dissertation. Keele University, UK
Khan AW, Khan SU (2012) Outsourcing contract management model
(OCMM). In: Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on Product-Focused Software
Development and Process Improvement (Profess). Madrid, Spain,
pp 13–15
Khan F, Kamal S, Arif F (2013) Fairness improvement in long chain
multihop wireless ad hoc networks. 2013 International Conference
on Connected Vehicles and Expo (ICCVE). IEEE, Las Vegas, NV,
USA, pp 556–561
Khan SU, Azeem MI (2014) Intercultural challenges in offshore soft-
ware development outsourcing relationships: an exploratory study
using a systematic literature revie. IET Software 8(4):161–173
Khan RA, Khan SU (2014a) Communication and coordination chal-
lenges in offshore software development outsourcing relation-
ship from vendors’ perspective: preliminary results. Sci Int
26(4):1425–1429
Khan RA, Khan SU (2014b) Communication and coordination chal-
lenges in offshore software outsourcing relationships: a systematic
literature review protocol. Gomal Univ J Res 30(1):9–17
Khan RA, Khan SU (2017) Empirical exploration of communication
and coordination practices in offshore software development out-
sourcing. Phys Comput Sci 54(1):41–54
Khan SU, Niazi M, Ahmad R (2012) Empirical investigation of success
factors for offshore software development outsourcing vendors.
IET Softw 6(1):1–15
Khan AW, Khan SU, Khan F (2017a) A case study protocol for
outsourcing contract management model (OCMM). J Softw
12(5):348–354
Khan AA, Keung JW, Abdullah AW (2017b) SPIIMM: toward a
model for software process improvement implementation and
management in global software development. IEEE Access
5:13720–13741
13

Khan SU, Khan AW, Khan F, Khan MA, Whangbo TK (2021) Critical
success factors of component-based software outsourcing devel-
opment from vendors’ perspective: a systematic literature review.
IEEE Access 10:1650–1658
Khan F, Tarimer I, Taekeun W (2022a) Factor model for online edu-
cation during the COVID-19 pandemic using the IoT. Processes
10(7):1419
Khan MS, Khan AW, Khan F, Khan MA, Whangbo TK (2022b) Criti-
cal challenges to adopt DevOps culture in software organizations:
a systematic review. IEEE Access 10:14339–14349
Khan AW, Zaib S, Khan F, Tarimer I, Seo JT, Shin J (2022c) Analyzing
and evaluating critical cyber security challenges faced by vendor
organizations in software development: SLR based approach.
IEEE Access 10:65044–65054
Laila UE, Mahboob K, Khan AW, Khan F, Taekeun W (2022) An
ensemble approach to predict early-stage diabetes risk using
machine learning: an empirical study. Sensors 22(14):5247
Li RYM, Chau KW, Zeng FF (2019) Ranking of risks for existing and
new building works. Sustainability 11(10):2863
Mohd SSF (2014) Developer coordination in Software-Engineering
projects, Ph.D. dissertation. The University of New South Wales,
UK
Monasor MJ, Vizcaíno A, Piattini M (2010) A training tool for global
software development”. 2010 9th International Conference on
Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training
(ITHET). IEEE, Cappadocia, Turkey, pp 9–16
Nguyen T, Wolf T, Damian D (2008) Global software development and
delay: does distance still matte. 2008 IEEE International Confer-
ence on Global Software-Engineering. IEEE, Bangalore, India,
pp 45–54
Niazi M, Mahmood S, Alshayeb M, Qureshi AM, Faisal K et al (2016a)
Toward successful project management in global software devel-
opment. Int J Project Manage 34(8):1553–1567
Niazi M, Mahmood S, Alshayeb M, Riaz M, Faisal K et al (2016b)
Challenges of project management in global software develop-
ment: a client-vendor analysis. Inf Softw Technol 80:1–19
Noll J, Beecham S, Richardson I (2011) Global software develop-
ment and collaboration: barriers and solutions. ACM Inroads
1(3):66–78
Ramasubbu N (2013) Governing software process improvements in
globally distributed product development. IEEE Trans Softw Eng
40(3):235–250
13
View publication stats
Cognition, Technology & Work
Saaty TL (1988) “What is the analytic hierarchy process?” in Math-
ematical models for decision support. Springer, Berlin, Heidel-
berg, pp 109–121
Salla N, Juga J, Oikarinen E, Liisa FM (2013) Outsourcing decision-
making in mining industry, Un published master thesis. Oulu
Business School, Oulu University
Sengupta B, Chandra S, Sinha V (2006) A research agenda for dis-
tributed software development. In: Proceedings of the 28th inter-
national conference on Software-Engineering. New York, NY,
United States, pp 731–740
Shameem M, Kumar RR, Kumar C, Chandra B, Khan AA (2018) Prior-
itizing challenges of agile process in distributed software develop-
ment environment using analytic hierarchy process. J Softw Evol
Process. 30(11):e1979
Stetten VA, Beimborn D, Kuznetsova E, Moos B (2010) The impact
of cultural differences on IT nearshoring risks from a German
perspective. In: 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences. Honolulu, HI, USA, pp 1–10
Usman A, Khan AW (2018) Software outsourcing quality challenges
model systematic literature review (slr) protocol. Univ Sindh J Inf
Commun Technol 2(4):196–201
Verner JM, Brereton OP, Kitchenham BA, Turner M, Niazi M (2014)
Risks and risk mitigation in global software development: a ter-
tiary study. Inf Softw Technol 56(1):54–78
Vizcaíno A, García F, Piattini M, Beecham S (2016) A validated ontol-
ogy for global software development. Comput Stand Interfaces
46:66–78
Yaghoobi T (2018) Prioritizing key success factors of software projects
using fuzzy AHP. J Softw Evol Process 30(1):e1891
Zwikael O, Aviram EU (2016) Team Development–Why doesn’t it
work in project teams. In: Australia and New Zealand academy
of management. in 21st ANZAM 2007 Conference. New Zealand,
pp 1–19
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.