![](bga.png)
and the option to continue iterations (expand
development) and deliver the full system
functionality.
To demonstrate the usefulness of the approach, we
calculated the static discounted Net Present Values
of selected schedules in a project case study, and
then we compared these values with those resulting
from the Real Options application. The analysis
results highlighted how Real Options can provide
increased managerial flexibility as they force
management to consider investment risks associated
with the alternative project scheduling decisions, as
unexpected events in one stage or iteration may
affect not only the iteration completion/delivery
times but also the work continuity in project
resources. Furthermore, this study discussed that
applying Real Options can be useful to discover
knowledge concerning the value of candidate
schedules to be adopted in iterative/incremental
projects in a retrospective manner and, thus to
enable decision makers/ project managers to better
manage the scheduling alternatives.
For future work, we are interested in moving the
approach one step forward by considering Real
Options as a possible tool to be applied in the
selection and prioritization of features to be
delivered in each software iteration/increment. It is
also our intent to experiment and apply the approach
into real scale incremental/iterative projects,
exploiting the full scope of Real Options
methodology, tools and techniques. Such exploration
will demonstrate the required input data and how
they can be collected to realize the approach in
complex software projects.
REFERENCES
Akker, J. M. van den, Brinkkemper, S., Diepen, G.,
Versendaal, J., 2008. Software Product Release
Planning through Optimization & What-If Analysis.
Information and SW Technology, 50(1-2), 101-111.
Amram, M., Kulatilaka, N., 1999. Real Options:
Managing Strategic Investment in an Uncertain
World. Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Benaroch, M. 2002. Managing Information Technology
Risk: A Real Options Perspective. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 19(2), 43–84.
Costa, H. R., Barros, M. O., Travassos, G. H., 2007.
Evaluating Software Project Portfolio Risks. Journal
of Systems & Software, 80(1), 16-31.
EDSER, 2006. Proceedings of 8th Int. Workshop on
Economics - Driven Software Engineering Research
(EDSER). In conjunction with the 28th Int. Conf. on
Software Engineering, Shanghai, 2006, SIGSOFT-
ACM (www.cs.virginia.edu/~sullivan/EDSER-8).
Gerogiannis, V. C., Ipsilandis P. G., 2007. Multi Objective
Analysis for Timeboxing Models of Software
Development. In Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Conf. on
Software & Data Technologies, ICSOFT 2007,
Barcelona, July 2007, INSTICC Press, pp. 145-153.
Greer, D., Ruhe, D., 2004. Software Release Planning: an
Evolutionary & Iterative Approach. Information & SW
Technology, 46(4), 243-253.
Jalote, P., Palit, A., Kurien, P., Peethamber, V. T., 2004.
Timeboxing: a Process Model for Iterative Software
Development. Journal of Systems & Software, 70(1-2),
117-127.
Mookerjee, V. S., Chiang, I. R., 2002. A Dynamic
Coordination Policy for Software System
Construction. IEEE Transactions on Software
Engineering, 28(7), 684 – 694.
Myers, S. C., 1977. Determinants of Corporate Borrowing.
Journal of Financial Economics. Vol. 5(2). 147-175.
Schwartz, S., Trigeorgis, L., 2000. Real Options &
Investment under Uncertainty: Classical Readings and
Recent Contributions. MIT Press Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Stapleton, J., 2003. DSDM: Business Focused
Development. Addison-Wesley.
Sullivan, K., Chalasani, P., Jha, S., & Sazawal, V., 1999.
Software Design as an Investment Activity: a Real
Options Perspective. In Trigeorgis, L. (ed.), Real
Options & Business Strategy: Applications to
Decision Making, Risk Books, 215-261.
Tiwana, A., Keil, M., Fichman, R, 2006. Information
Systems Project Continuation in Escalation Situations:
a Real Options Model. Decision Sciences, 37(3), 357-
391.
Wu, L. C., Ong,C. S., Hsu, Y.W., 2007. Active ERP
Implementation Management: a Real Options
Perspective. Journal of Systems & Software. In Press
(doi:10.1016/j.jss.2007.10.004).
EVALUATING SCHEDULES OF ITERATIVE/INCREMENTAL SOFTWARE PROJECTS FROM A REAL OPTIONS
PERSPECTIVE
233