People Management Problems and Practices in Software Development

Projects: A Systematic Literature Review

Marcelo Falkowski Burkard and Lisandra Manzoni Fontoura

Programa de P

os-Graduac¸

ao em Ci

encia da Computac¸

ao, Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM), Brazil

Keywords:

People Management, Problems, Practices, Systematic Literature Review.

Abstract:

In the literature related to software engineering, it is possible to observe a large volume of work related to

technology and processes. Comparatively, little has been done in people management, making it difﬁcult

for project managers to manage teams effectively and solve people-related problems. This study conducts a

systematic literature review (SLR) to survey the people management problems faced in software development.

In addition, we identify the solutions to these problems. We searched four major bibliographic databases and

identiﬁed 2736 primary studies between 2016 and 2022, resulting in 35 selected articles. So, we have grouped

problems and solutions by similarity to facilitate analysis. We identiﬁed 9 groups of problems and 11 groups of

solutions. Communication, motivation, technical skills, and knowledge problems are most frequently reported.

Regarding the solutions, the most cited are team building, feedback, and training practices. The problems and

practices identiﬁed consolidate the knowledge and experience obtained in several software projects and can

help managers in people management activities in software projects.

1 INTRODUCTION

People are one of the fundamental elements for the

execution of software development projects. Their

importance is recognized by both traditional and agile

approaches to project management.

Many works about technologies and processes

have been published, but few empirical studies ex-

plore people management.

According to Mishra and Misra (2010), the suc-

cess of projects depends mainly on the individuals

who make up the team, so organizations must seek

and employ the best practices in people management

to achieve excellence.

Best practices lead organizations to ever higher

performance. According to Kerzner (2006), best prac-

tices guide continuous improvements, leading to the

adoption of new best practices. So, the practice’s ap-

plicability depends on the project’s characteristics to

which it will be applied. Therefore, it is up to the

manager to assess when and where to use it.

The main objective of this SLR is to explore stud-

ies related to people management in software devel-

opment to identify problems and practices used to

solve them. So, this work seeks to create a new ar-

tifact for use by software project managers in their

activities, compiling recent literature and facilitating

the search for practices that ﬁt the work context of

each manager.

This article presents the results of an SLR in stud-

ies published from 2016 to 2022 and was conducted

following a predeﬁned protocol detailed in the follow-

ing sections. First, we describe the methodology, de-

tailing the steps followed in the study in Section 2.

Then, in Section 3, we discuss the results. Finally, we

present our conclusions and ideas for future work in

Section 4.

2 METHODOLOGY

We follow the review protocol proposed by Kitchen-

ham and Charters (2007) to perform the SLR. This

protocol is based on research questions, search string,

inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary search pro-

cess, and study selection process, which are detailed

below.

This work conducts an SLR to map people man-

agement problems and practices in software develop-

ment projects, seeking recent literature to answer the

questions:

• RQ1: What people management problems were

cited by the authors of the primary study that af-

Burkard, M. and Fontoura, L.

People Management Problems and Practices in Software Development Projects: A Systematic Literature Review.

DOI: 10.5220/0011985300003467

In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2023) - Volume 2, pages 179-186

ISBN: 978-989-758-648-4; ISSN: 2184-4992

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

179

fect software development projects?

• RQ2: What practices related to people manage-

ment were cited by the authors of the primary

study and that tend to solve problems in software

development projects?

Based on these questions and the work objectives,

we have deﬁned the search string shown in 1.

Table 1: Search string also used on engines.

Search string

(“software development” OR “software project”

OR “software engineering”) AND (“human re-

source” OR “human resources” OR “people fac-

tor”) AND (“productivity” OR “performance”)

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on

those proposed by Kitchenham and Charters (2007)

with adjustments according to the research questions

of this RSL. Table 2 presents the adopted criteria.

Table 2: Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

ID Inclusion crite-

ria

ID Exclusion criteria

IC1 primary study EC1 not primary study

IC2 related to

software devel-

opment

EC2 not answer re-

search questions

IC3 related to human

factors

EC3 presented as a

book

IC4 published be-

tween 2016 and

2022

EC4 published before

2016

IC5 published in En-

glish

EC5 not published in

English

EC6 duplicate study

EC7 with less than 15

score points

We performed the primary search in four

databases: ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Sci-

elo, and ScienceDirect. Only libraries that could ex-

port ﬁles in the BibTeX format with a summary in-

cluded were considered. The results were exported in

ﬁles in the BibTeX format, including abstracts and all

metadata. ACM found 969, IEEE found 328, Scielo

found 2, and ScienceDirect found 1437 articles.

The selection of studies was divided into three

stages. In the ﬁrst stage, we imported the BibTeX

ﬁles into the tool StArt

, which automatically iden-

tiﬁed 241 duplicate articles. They were rejected ac-

cording to the EC6, resulting in 2495 non-duplicated

State of the Art through SLR - available at

http://lapes.dc.ufscar.br

articles. 239 articles were published before 2016 or

did not have a publication date, all were rejected ac-

cording to the EC4. The StArt tool assigns a score to

each article according to the number of occurrences

of keywords in the title (5 points), abstract (3 points),

and keywords (2 points); 2051 articles with less than

15 points were rejected according to the EC7.

In the second stage, we read the title and abstract

of the selected articles. 134 articles were rejected ac-

cording to the EC2, resulting in 71 articles were se-

lected at the end of this stage.

In the third stage, we read all articles and excluded

36 according to criteria EC1, EC2, EC3, and EC5. At

the end of the process, 35 articles were selected.

3 RESULTS

This section presents the results found for each of the

research questions.

3.1 Research Question 1

RQ1: What people management problems were cited

by the authors of the primary study that affect soft-

ware development projects?

The problems cited in the primary studies were

analyzed and categorized into 9 groups according to

their similarities to facilitate the analysis.

3.1.1 Communication

Communication refers to how one person relates to

another. Shameem et al. (2020) and Margareth and

Mulyanto (2021) cite that the incorrect choice of com-

munication tools can cause communication break-

downs and misunderstanding between the sent mes-

sage and the receiver’s understanding.

de Magalh

aes (2017), Wang et al. (2018), Bass

(2016), Machuca-Villegas et al. (2022) and Shameem

et al. (2020) argue that a big team makes communica-

tion difﬁcult and, thus, this occurs with low frequency.

And, for communication to occur with reasonable fre-

quency, Stylianou and Andreou (2016) mention that

there is an increase in communication overhead, that

is, an increase in time spent organizing communica-

tion instead of performing productive work.

de Magalh

aes (2017) shows that the lack of ade-

quate feedback is one of the leading causes of demo-

tivation and burnout in the development team.

3.1.2 Motivation

According to Machuca-Villegas et al. (2022), moti-

vation moves a person towards action. Franc¸a et al.

ICEIS 2023 - 25th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

180

(2020) argue that motivation refers to the desire to

work and is signaled by people’s attitude towards their

work, directly inﬂuencing their performance. Lack

of motivation is a threat to both the development and

the management team (Garc

ıa et al., 2017). Low mo-

tivation levels also affect productivity, effectiveness,

and team learning (Fatema and Sakib, 2017). de Ma-

galh

aes (2017) mentions little autonomy and lack of

adequate feedback as one of the reasons for low mo-

tivation. Bass et al. (2018) complement: employment

policies, work-life balance, common technical chal-

lenges, innovation, number of hours, rewards, good

management, adequate working conditions, work in-

volvement with others, and quality of work generated.

In addition to being one of the causes, low quality

of work and generated products is also pointed out by

Bass et al. (2018) as one of the effects of low motiva-

tion. Bass et al. (2018) also presents a correlation be-

tween motivation and turnover in organizations - mo-

tivated professionals tend to remain in their current

jobs; in contrast, professionals with low motivation

tend to generate attrition and dismissal.

Team motivation depends on choosing appropriate

strategies. Shameem et al. (2020) comment that the

lack of motivational strategies impacts the work, mak-

ing it impossible to escalate the use of agile method-

ologies in software development. Bass et al. (2018)

propose using gamiﬁcation, mechanics, and charac-

teristics typical of games for monitoring and man-

aging software development professionals to improve

their motivation and engagement.

3.1.3 Technical Skills and Knowledge

Regarding technical factors that inﬂuence productiv-

ity in software development, Meyer et al. (2017) list:

the domain of programming language and tools, soft-

ware size, complexity, and product quality.

Fatema and Sakib (2017) claim that selecting peo-

ple with the right technical skills for a project is one

of the most complex activities in project management.

Nigar (2017) and da Cunha et al. (2016) mention

that it is not enough to have technical knowledge. The

lack of skill (experience or practice) in applying that

knowledge also negatively impacts software delivery.

Regarding the evolution of knowledge and skills,

Kula et al. (2021) argue that greater team stability

is positively related to the development of skills and

technical knowledge.

3.1.4 Geographic Aspects

Especially when it comes to large global organiza-

tions or companies using outsourcing, geographic as-

pects play an essential role in the productivity of de-

velopment teams. Outsourcing is the process of ac-

quiring products or services from a third-party sup-

plier. Bass (2016) divides it into two categories: on-

shore, in which the supplier is located in the same ter-

ritory as the customer, and offshore, which involves

a geographically remote supplier, usually separated

from the customer by a signiﬁcant temporal distance

(time zone) and culture differences. In contrast, some

organizations create their structures in an offshore for-

mat which helps build a presence in emerging markets

while beneﬁting from lower costs. However, Qahtani

(2020) and Shameem et al. (2020) warn that cultural

differences can have a negative impact on team per-

formance.

Related to the lack of rapport between teams and

the difﬁculty of collaboration, Bass et al. (2018) argue

that language differences and the reduction of over-

lapping work schedules caused by differences in time

zones generates communication delays.

Communication difﬁculty due to cultural differ-

ences generates a cascade effect that impacts other

aspects, according to Britto et al. (2019). They exem-

plify that low cultural adequacy can even make train-

ing difﬁcult.

3.1.5 Commitment

Commitment is related to engagement and persever-

ance. Machuca-Villegas et al. (2022) characterize it

as the level of individual responsibility that a person

assumes to carry out the activities that make up the

delivery of a team. Kula et al. (2021) identify that

commitment is one of the main factors that promote

the team’s effectiveness and, therefore, helps deliv-

eries to occur on time. Professionals with a higher

level of commitment and technical expertise tend to

identify better and assess risks, which increases the

chances of project success.

Regarding productivity, Oliveira et al. (2016)

identiﬁed that managers tend to perceive greater pro-

ductivity in professionals who combine focus, com-

mitment, and proactivity with tasks delivered with-

out delay and with good quality. Everyone should

take responsibility for the results obtained, fulﬁll their

duties, and, eventually, admit their own mistakes to

improve the software development process Machuca-

Villegas et al. (2022).

Tam et al. (2020) show that in projects that follow

the waterfall methodology, customer involvement oc-

curs mainly at the beginning and end of the project.

In contrast, in agile projects, customer involvement

must be high throughout the project’s life cycle - the

customer must also be “agile”.

People Management Problems and Practices in Software Development Projects: A Systematic Literature Review

181

3.1.6 Satisfaction

According to Machuca-Villegas et al. (2022), job sat-

isfaction can be determined by the difference between

what people want and what they have in their work.

Therefore, we have dissatisﬁed professionals when

expectations regarding certain aspects are not met.

Franc¸a et al. (2020) argue that satisfaction refers

to pleasant emotions concerning work and directly

inﬂuences the performance of software development

teams as it increases their desire to stay in the organi-

zation and be present at work. de Magalh

aes (2017)

cite aspects that generate job satisfaction: personal

and professional growth, recognition, opportunities,

salary, and relationships with colleagues.

3.1.7 Team Stability

Analyzing factors perceived as contributing to on-

time deliveries, Kula et al. (2021) list: team stability,

represented by low turnover and team familiarity, that

is, the amount of time that members work with each

other. The authors argue that both factors are related

to improving coordination and adaptability in case of

environmental changes (Kula et al., 2021). Therefore,

project managers should focus on keeping teams sta-

ble and supporting the team in development to achieve

better deliveries.

One challenge of keeping teams stable for long pe-

riods is employee turnover. Since job changes are

a natural phenomenon in the market and high staff

turnover has a negative impact on productivity and

quality during software development, it is up to the

manager to mitigate turnover risks. Bass et al. (2018)

correlate low motivation and high turnover rates.

Another contributing factor to turnover rates pre-

sented by Bass et al. (2018) is the nature of the work

performed - companies in the outsourcing sector have

a higher turnover expectation for the development

team than companies in other segments.

3.1.8 Focus

One of the developer proﬁles featured in the work of

Meyer et al. (2017) is called a focused developer, who

feels more productive when he has worked concen-

trated on a single task at a time.

Last-minute meetings are characterized as a cause

of constant change of focus, which, as identiﬁed by

Oliveira et al. (2016), impacts achieving the state of

“ﬂow” desired by developers. Kohl et al. (2020) inter-

viewed developers and concluded that small context

changes lasting less than 3 minutes do not disconnect

the developer from the previous task. For example,

running a script that takes 15 seconds does not gener-

ate impacts related to loss of focus.

3.1.9 Autonomy

Especially about the team’s autonomy in deﬁning and

assigning responsibilities, Machuca-Villegas et al.

(2022) mention this as a factor with a high impact

on the performance of individuals during software de-

velopment: the greater the team’s autonomy in self-

management and deﬁning who will be responsible for

a task, the greater the team’s motivation and produc-

tivity. In contrast, several authors argue that task as-

signment is a resource allocation problem, and there-

fore an optimized solution should be sought through

mathematical models (Song et al., 2020)(Chiang and

Lin, 2020).

3.2 Research Question 2

RQ2: What practices related to people management

were cited by the authors of the primary study and

that tend to solve problems in software development

projects?

The practices cited in the primary studies were an-

alyzed and categorized into 12 groups according to

their similarities to facilitate the analysis.

3.2.1 Team Assembly

According to Zaouga et al. (2019) and Meyer et al.

(2017), the manager must ensure the assignment of

members to a project considering the project’s techni-

cal speciﬁcities and the individual’s capacity.

Angelis (2019) argues that professionals whose

qualiﬁcation just ﬁts to project’s needs should be

sought for the correct assembly of the team, rather

than overqualiﬁed professionals, for example. This

makes the project ﬂow, and professionals have an ad-

equate level of challenge, avoiding problems of satis-

faction and motivation.

In addition to the importance of technical skills,

Caulo et al. (2021) and da Cunha et al. (2016) argue

that the personality traits of individuals also impact

the performance of software development teams.

Identifying the most suitable professionals for the

project begins in the recruitment phase. Nastiti and

Setyohadi (2020) state that unclear job descriptions

are one of the leading causes of incorrect hires, as the

attracted candidate proﬁle is not very adherent to the

project’s actual needs. Therefore, it is up to the man-

ager to ensure adequate job descriptions. Regarding

the selection process, Nastiti and Setyohadi (2020) re-

inforce that professional selection should focus on ed-

ucational aspects and candidates’ experience, which

ICEIS 2023 - 25th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

182

can be evaluated during interviews. Paredes-Valverde

et al. (2018) propose an ontology that covers aspects

that should be evaluated during selection.

Ideally, the team should be heterogeneous, mean-

ing that no one person should have the same exper-

tise as another. Thus, it adds diversity to discussions

and improves the quality of decisions. Schloegel et al.

(2016) argue that the team must have age diversity

among its members and technical breadth.

Finally, Fatema and Sakib (2017), Bass et al.

(2018), Wang et al. (2018), and Stylianou and An-

dreou (2016) emphasize the importance of maximiz-

ing delivery while minimizing communication over-

head. It is up to the manager to ﬁnd the balance point

from which adding new members reduces the amount

of software delivered.

3.2.2 Feedback

Feedback is information an agent provides regarding

someone’s performance or understanding. Hattie and

Timperley (2007). Zaouga et al. (2019) characterize

the activity of providing feedback as part of the pro-

cess of managing the project team.

According to Bass et al. (2018), software devel-

opers consider the practice of feedback as a form

of recognition, and the lack of feedback is a com-

munication problem that directly impacts motivation

and, consequently, the quality of the team’s delivery

de Magalh

aes (2017). Fatema and Sakib (2017) and

Machuca-Villegas et al. (2022) agree that adequate

feedback is among the main factors that inﬂuence the

productivity of software development teams.

3.2.3 Training

As identiﬁed by Shahzad et al. (2017), employees ex-

pect the organization to be committed to constantly

training its professionals. In contrast, Bass et al.

(2018) add that the manager should challenge team

members to learn new skills.

The ﬁrst step to guarantee the team’s qualiﬁcation

is the effective management of competencies, accord-

ing to Song et al. (2020) and Angelis (2019). With

this, gaps in knowledge and professionals who can

become eventual technical disseminators can be iden-

tiﬁed. Training should not be limited to hard skills.

ardenas-Castro et al. (2019) argue that psycholog-

ical training improves human skills and well-being

within the team, and its results are more useful in the

early stages of the project than when compared to the

production stages.

Nicolaescu et al. (2020) suggest training in con-

junction with career monitoring and succession plan-

ning, to keep professionals motivated.

3.2.4 Resource Allocation Optimization

During the software project planning stage, the

project manager must solve a “puzzle”: the allocation

problem in software projects.

Aiming to create an optimized minimum sched-

ule,

Angel Vega-Vel

azquez et al. (2018) present mod-

els that balance time and costs. Furthermore, Chiang

and Lin (2020) add to their model the skills of the

people involved to improve the accuracy of the esti-

mates. Finally, Nigar (2017) introduces a mathemati-

cal model that considers ﬁve factors: project duration,

task fragmentation, robustness, cost, and stability.

As an alternative to models that consider a lim-

ited number of constraints, Shen et al. (2020) propose

to increase the number of variables considered. Shen

et al. (2018) propose an algorithm based on machine

learning to dynamically allocate individuals, consid-

ering aspects such as the ability and motivation to

learn and the evolution of technical proﬁciency over

time.

Finally, Song et al. (2020) propose a model for op-

timizing resource allocation considering speciﬁcs of

the corporate culture of Chinese state-owned compa-

nies.

3.2.5 Performance Monitoring

According to Nicolaescu et al. (2020), it is a key ac-

tivity for managers to measure and monitor perfor-

mance in software development. Oliveira et al. (2016)

argue that the measures can be used to compare the

efﬁciency of different developers in the same organi-

zation, helping to assemble and adjust teams.

According to Zaouga et al. (2019), performance

metrics provide good-quality feedback to improve the

professional’s performance.

Nastiti and Setyohadi (2020) suggest that perfor-

mance measurement can be done through KPIs (key

performance indicators) previously agreed upon with

the team. Traditionally, performance is related to

efﬁciency and productivity. C

ardenas-Castro et al.

(2019) argue that it’s essential that the performance

indicators agreed upon also assess individual soft

skills, thus promoting more collaboration.

The indicators can be made available on a board

or online tool visible to the entire team so that a team

trained in interpreting the indicators can monitor each

other’s performance (Fatema and Sakib, 2017).

3.2.6 Use of Agile Practices

Machuca-Villegas et al. (2022) state that team mem-

bers should be empowered to make decisions and or-

ganize themselves to establish and achieve goals. To

People Management Problems and Practices in Software Development Projects: A Systematic Literature Review

183

have self-organization maturity related to attribution,

autonomy, and deﬁnition of work methods, de Ma-

galh

aes (2017) suggests using methods such as Ex-

treme Programming and Scrum.

In organizations whose teams do not employ such

agile methods and there is a strong dependence on the

manager’s role, Shahzad et al. (2017) suggest that the

latter constantly questions the team if there is a better

way of doing things.

Pair programming is an agile practice consisting

of two programmers sharing the same workstation,

one writing the code while the other analyzing the

work done. Caulo et al. (2021) and Fatema and Sakib

(2017) list pair programming as a practice perceived

as related to increased productivity.

3.2.7 Job Rotation

Before the 1950s, most work strategies in tradi-

tional industries were characterized by simpliﬁcation,

specialization, and repetition. Currently, in knowl-

edge industries, such as software development, these

same characteristics are recognized for generating

monotony, fatigue, and, consequently, a decrease in

the performance of individuals de Magalh

aes (2017).

Job rotation is moving individuals on software

projects within the same organization. Santos (2017)

characterizes movements in two formats: job-to-

job (playing a new role within the organization)

and project-to-project (moving to another project or

team).

Franc¸a et al. (2020) point out that this can be a

positive practice in terms of motivation and satisfac-

tion of individuals, making professionals constantly

challenged to learn new skills.

In contrast, Kula et al. (2021) indicate that man-

agers should try to keep stable teams where members

can build long-term familiarity with on-time deliver-

ies and performance optimization. Therefore, it is up

to the manager to ﬁnd the balance between motivation

generated by new opportunities and performance op-

timization resulting from maintaining a stable team.

3.2.8 Personality Assessments

Angelis (2019) presents empirical results that support

the claim that personality traits impact the productiv-

ity of software development teams. The project man-

ager can use psychometric tests with the support of

professionals in the ﬁeld of psychology to identify the

proﬁles of individuals.

The Big Five categorization model divides human

proﬁles into ﬁve major areas: extroversion, agreeable-

ness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness.

Caulo et al. (2021) propose that proﬁles with a higher

degree of kindness and conscientiousness correspond

to people with greater productivity in software devel-

opment.

Furthermore, Meyer et al. (2017) proposes a new

categorization of software development professionals

using six categories: social developer, solitary de-

veloper, focused developer, balanced developer, lead

developer, and goal-oriented developer. The author

presents suggestions on how to work with each pro-

fessional.

3.2.9 Communication

The impacts of inefﬁcient communication are widely

discussed in the literature; more is needed regarding

good practices to ensure good communication.

Bass (2016) suggests online tools for the virtual

representation of Kanban boards, this being a practice

highly related to monitoring practices.

As for the frequency of communication, Mar-

gareth and Mulyanto (2021) indicate that the com-

munication frequency positively impacts productivity.

Therefore, the team must maintain ﬂuid communica-

tion and avoid static communication protocols.

3.2.10 Rewards

Related to rewards and incentives for the development

team, Bass et al. (2018) cites practices that can hap-

pen in conjunction with constant performance evalu-

ations: salary increases and promotions of competent

personnel.

In addition, Fatema and Sakib (2017) mentions

that at times when there is a need for overtime, small

recognitions are appropriate for the team.

3.2.11 Social Encounters

Shahzad et al. (2017) states that companies with a cul-

ture that has routines of social encounters where ev-

eryone gathers promote a culture of innovation and

collaboration.

3.2.12 Onboarding

Onboarding members to globally distributed project

teams can take longer than when the entire team is

in one location. Britto et al. (2019) mention, as

an example, projects of high complexity and legacy

code for which remote mentoring during a period of

4-6 months may be insufﬁcient. The authors sug-

gest prioritizing the hiring of mentors who can pass

on knowledge face-to-face and synchronously to in-

crease the speed of the team’s progress and look for

mentors with good communication skills.

ICEIS 2023 - 25th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

184

4 CONCLUSIONS

This study aimed to conduct an SLR to identify prob-

lems arising from people management in software de-

velopment projects and what practices can be em-

ployed to solve them.

Frequent problems included communication, mo-

tivation, technical skills, knowledge, and geography.

We also look for practices that are frequently used

to solve problems related to human resource manage-

ment. Practices related to team assembly, feedback,

training, resource allocation optimization, and perfor-

mance monitoring were the most cited.

In future work, we can identify which, among the

practices mapped in this work, are characterized as

best practices. In addition, best practices can be vali-

dated with specialists in the ﬁeld, and a catalog detail-

ing each of these practices and related problems they

are intended to solve can be drawn up, to facilitate

managers’ search for practices that ﬁt their context of

work.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the Brazilian Army and its Army Strategic

Program ASTROS for the ﬁnancial support through

the SIS-ASTROS GMF project (898347/2020).

REFERENCES

Angelis, L. (2019). Statistical analysis in the research of hu-

man factor in software engineering: Invited talk paper.

In Proceedings of the 9th Balkan Conference on Infor-

matics, BCI’19, New York, NY, USA. Association for

Computing Machinery.

Bass, J. M. (2016). Artefacts and agile method tailor-

ing in large-scale offshore software development pro-

grammes. Information and Software Technology,

75:1–16.

Bass, J. M., Sarah, B., Razzak, M. A., and Noll, J. (2018).

Employee retention and turnover in global software

development: Comparing in-house offshoring and off-

shore outsourcing. In 2018 IEEE/ACM 13th Inter-

national Conference on Global Software Engineering

(ICGSE), pages 77–86.

Britto, R., Smite, D., Damm, L.-O., and B

orstler, J. (2019).

Performance evolution of newcomers in large-scale

distributed software projects: An industrial case study.

In 2019 ACM/IEEE 14th International Conference on

Global Software Engineering (ICGSE), pages 1–11.

Caulo, M., Francese, R., Scanniello, G., and Tortora, G.

(2021). Relationships between personality traits and

productivity in a multi-platform development context.

In Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineer-

ing, EASE 2021, page 70–79, New York, NY, USA.

Association for Computing Machinery.

Chiang, H. Y. and Lin, B. M. T. (2020). A decision model

for human resource allocation in project management

of software development. IEEE Access, 8:38073–

38081.

ardenas-Castro, C., Gil Julio, J. C., and Rodr

ıguez, P.

(2019). Soft skills training: Performance psychology

applied to software development. In 2019 IEEE/ACM

12th International Workshop on Cooperative and Hu-

man Aspects of Software Engineering (CHASE), pages

115–116.

da Cunha, J. A. O., da Silva, F. Q., de Moura, H. P., and

Vasconcellos, F. J. (2016). Towards a substantive the-

ory of decision-making in software project manage-

ment: Preliminary ﬁndings from a qualitative study.

In Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International

Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and

Measurement, pages 1–10.

de Magalh

aes, C. V. (2017). Toward understanding work

characteristics in software engineering. ACM SIG-

SOFT Software Engineering Notes, 41(6):1–6.

Fatema, I. and Sakib, K. (2017). Factors inﬂuencing pro-

ductivity of agile software development teamwork:

A qualitative system dynamics approach. In 2017

24th Asia-Paciﬁc Software Engineering Conference

(APSEC), pages 737–742.

Franc¸a, C., da Silva, F. Q. B., and Sharp, H. (2020). Moti-

vation and satisfaction of software engineers. IEEE

Transactions on Software Engineering, 46(2):118–

140.

Garc

ıa, F., Pedreira, O., Piattini, M., Cerdeira-Pena, A., and

Penabad, M. (2017). A framework for gamiﬁcation

in software engineering. Journal of Systems and Soft-

ware, 132:21–40.

Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback.

Review of educational research, 77(1):81–112.

Kerzner, H. (2006). Gest

ao de Projetos-: As Melhores

aticas. Bookman editora.

Kitchenham, B. and Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for

performing systematic literature reviews in software

engineering. Technical Report EBSE 2007-001, Keele

University and Durham University Joint Report.

http://www.dur.ac.uk/ebse/resources/Systematic-

reviews-5-8.pdf.

Kohl, K., Vasilescu, B., and Prikladnicki, R. (2020). Multi-

tasking Across Industry Projects: A Replication Study,

page 93–100. Association for Computing Machinery,

New York, NY, USA.

Kula, E., Greuter, E., Van Deursen, A., and Georgios, G.

(2021). Factors affecting on-time delivery in large-

scale agile software development. IEEE Transactions

on Software Engineering, pages 1–1.

Machuca-Villegas, L., Gasca-Hurtado, G. P., Puente, S. M.,

and Tamayo, L. M. R. (2022). Perceptions of the hu-

man and social factors that inﬂuence the productivity

of software development teams in colombia: A sta-

tistical analysis. Journal of Systems and Software,

192:111408.

People Management Problems and Practices in Software Development Projects: A Systematic Literature Review

185

Margareth, A. R. and Mulyanto, A. (2021). Designing

project management application to support developer

productivity using goal directed design approach. In

2021 International Conference on Data and Software

Engineering (ICoDSE), pages 1–6.

Meyer, A. N., Zimmermann, T., and Fritz, T. (2017). Char-

acterizing software developers by perceptions of pro-

ductivity. In 2017 ACM/IEEE International Sympo-

sium on Empirical Software Engineering and Mea-

surement (ESEM), pages 105–110.

Mishra, A. and Misra, S. (2010). People management in

software industry: The key to success. SIGSOFT

Softw. Eng. Notes, 35(6):1–4.

Nastiti, P. and Setyohadi, D. B. (2020). Identiﬁcation of

critical factors on structure and conduct using scp

framework: Evidence from indonesian ict industry.

In 2020 17th International Joint Conference on Com-

puter Science and Software Engineering (JCSSE),

pages 24–29.

Angel Vega-Vel

azquez, M., Garc

ıa-N

ajera, A., and Cer-

vantes, H. (2018). A survey on the software project

scheduling problem. International Journal of Produc-

tion Economics, 202:145–161.

Nicolaescu, S. S., Florea, A., Kifor, C. V., Fiore, U., Cocan,

N., Receu, I., and Zanetti, P. (2020). Human capital

evaluation in knowledge-based organizations based on

big data analytics. Future Generation Computer Sys-

tems, 111:654–667.

Nigar, N. (2017). Model-based dynamic software project

scheduling. In Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint

Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering,

ESEC/FSE 2017, page 1042–1045, New York, NY,

USA. Association for Computing Machinery.

Oliveira, E., Conte, T., Cristo, M., and Mendes, E. (2016).

Software project managers’ perceptions of productiv-

ity factors: Findings from a qualitative study. In Pro-

ceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Sym-

posium on Empirical Software Engineering and Mea-

surement, ESEM ’16, New York, NY, USA. Associa-

tion for Computing Machinery.

Paredes-Valverde, M. A., del Pilar Salas-Z

arate, M.,

Colomo-Palacios, R., G

omez-Berb

ıs, J. M., and

Valencia-Garc

ıa, R. (2018). An ontology-based ap-

proach with which to assign human resources to soft-

ware projects. Science of Computer Programming,

156:90–103.

Qahtani, A. M. (2020). An empirical study of agile test-

ing in a distributed software development project. In

Proceedings of the 2020 3rd International Conference

on Geoinformatics and Data Analysis, ICGDA 2020,

page 110–114, New York, NY, USA. Association for

Computing Machinery.

Santos, R. E. (2017). Uses, beneﬁts, and limitations of job

rotation in software engineering. ACM SIGSOFT Soft-

ware Engineering Notes, 41(6):1–6.

Schloegel, U., Stegmann, S., Maedche, A., and van Dick, R.

(2016). Reducing age stereotypes in software devel-

opment: The effects of awareness- and cooperation-

based diversity interventions. Journal of Systems and

Software, 121:1–15.

Shahzad, F., Xiu, G., and Shahbaz, M. (2017). Organi-

zational culture and innovation performance in pak-

istan’s software industry. Technology in Society,

51:66–73.

Shameem, M., Kumar, R. R., Nadeem, M., and Khan, A. A.

(2020). Taxonomical classiﬁcation of barriers for scal-

ing agile methods in global software development en-

vironment using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Ap-

plied Soft Computing, 90:106122.

Shen, X., Guo, Y., and Li, A. (2020). Cooperative coevo-

lution with an improved resource allocation for large-

scale multi-objective software project scheduling. Ap-

plied Soft Computing, 88:106059.

Shen, X.-N., Minku, L. L., Marturi, N., Guo, Y.-N., and

Han, Y. (2018). A q-learning-based memetic algo-

rithm for multi-objective dynamic software project

scheduling. Information Sciences, 428:1–29.

Song, X., Liu, J., Cao, Y., and Long, H. (2020). Optimiza-

tion of human resource allocation problem consider-

ing costs reduction and balance in chinese state-owned

enterprise. In Proceedings of the 2020 4th Interna-

tional Conference on Management Engineering, Soft-

ware Engineering and Service Sciences, ICMSS 2020,

page 211–215, New York, NY, USA. Association for

Computing Machinery.

Stylianou, C. and Andreou, A. S. (2016). Investigating

the impact of developer productivity, task interdepen-

dence type and communication overhead in a multi-

objective optimization approach for software project

planning. Advances in Engineering Software, 98:79–

96.

Tam, C., da Costa Moura, E. J., Oliveira, T., and Varaj

ao,

J. (2020). The factors inﬂuencing the success of on-

going agile software development projects. Inter-

national Journal of Project Management, 38(3):165–

176.

Wang, L., Huang, M., and Liu, M. (2018). How

founders’ social capital affects the success of open-

source projects: A resource-based view of project

teams. Electronic Commerce Research and Applica-

tions, 30:51–61.

Zaouga, W., Rabai, L. B. A., and Alalyani, W. R. (2019).

Towards an ontology based-approach for human re-

source management. Procedia Computer Science,

151:417–424.

ICEIS 2023 - 25th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

186