MANAGEMENT OF RISK IN ENVIRONMENT OF

DISTRIBUTED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

Results of the Evaluation of a Model for Management of Risk in

Distributed Software Projects

Cirano Soares de Campos and Jorge Luis Nicolas Audy

Faculdade de Informática (FACIN), Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS)

Av. Ipiranga, n. 6681, Partenon, CEP 90.619-900, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

Keywords: Software Project Management, Distributed Software Development, Management of Risks in Software

Projects, Management of Risks in Distributed Software Projects.

Abstract: The objective of this article is to present the results of the evaluation of a model of management of risk for

organizations that work with distributed software development – GeRDDoS. The model proposes the

administration of risks properly aligned among the global unit (head office) and the distributed unit (branch)

executor of the project, emphasizing that the success of the project depends on the success of the actions

executed in both units. The model is an extension of the proposal of management of risks of the Software

Engineering Institute – SEI, which shows a continuous and interactive process for the administration of

risks, supported by coordination and communication process during the whole life cycle of the project. In

that article the results of the application of the proposed model are presented, through the analysis of the

results of a case study on the application of the model in a company for distributed software development

located in Brazil.

1 INTRODUCTION

Countless organizations for several reasons (demand

and costs, speed of responding to the market, market

and global presence, multidisciplinarity of the team,

etc., according to Audy (Audy, 2008) and Agerfalk

(Agerfalk, 2008)), they have been adopting the

model of distributed software development (DSD) or

global software development (GSD) searching for

better results.

For some researchers: Herbsleb (Herbsleb,

2001), Kliem (Kleim, 2004), Damian (Damian,

2006), Agerfalk (Agerfalk, 2008), among others, if

on one hand the adoption of the model of distributed

projects brings better results, on the other hand it

introduces in the software development

environment, new variables which can become

sources of new problems - risks.

In the context of DSD, according to some

authors: Prikladnick (Prikladnick; Audy; 2004),

Sangwan (Sangwan, 2007), Audy (Audy, 2008),

among others, the administration of risks in itself

doesn't differ from the co-located environment.

However it demands more coordination, integration

and communication. Being the adaptation or the

adoption of new models recommended. Thus, the

purpose of this article is to present the results of the

application of the model for identification and

analysis of risks in environment of distributed

software development - GeRDDoS. This, as a result

of the extension of the approach of risk

administration of the SEI (Higuera, 1994) and

applied through a case study in an organization of

distributed software development located in Brazil.

This article is structured in the following way: in

section 2 a synthesis of the GeRDDoS model is

presented; in section 3 related works is presented; in

section 4 the application of the GeRDDoS model is

presented; in section 5 the final considerations,

future studies and limitations of the research are

presented.

2 THE GERDDOS MODEL

The figure 1 presents the general structure of the

391

Soares de Campos C. and Nicolas Audy J. (2010).

MANAGEMENT OF RISK IN ENVIRONMENT OF DISTRIBUTED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT - Results of the Evaluation of a Model for Management

of Risk in Distributed Software Projects.

In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Databases and Information Systems Integration, pages

391-397

DOI: 10.5220/0002905503910397

 SciTePress

model for Identification and Analysis of Risks in

Distributed Software Development Environment -

GeRDDoS, which is divided into seven processes:

identification and analysis of global risks,

identification and analysis of local risks,

categorization and treatment, monitoring, control,

communication and coordination, and the

finalization process.

Figure 1: Structure of the GeRDDoS model.

The first process, identification and analysis of

global risks, is started with the identification activity

and preliminary analysis of the new risks in a global

way. This activity is accomplished in the global unit

(head office) and it should usually be aligned with

the IT strategic planning defined by the high

administration of the organization. The basic

declaration of global risks is the document which

works as a starting point to begin this activity.

The second process, identification and

preliminary analysis of the local risks, looks like the

previous process, because new local risks can be

identified and there can even be changes in the

existing planning of administration of risks. This

activity is accomplished in the distributed unit

(branch) chosen to execute the project. As subsidies

for this process there are: the relationship of global

risks and the basic declaration of risks of the

distributed unit (branch).

The third process consists of the categorization

and treatment of the identified risks. This phase

involves the actions of classification of the risks

according to its degree of importance, verification of

the state of the risk, discussion on the risks and the

strategies to be adopted in the treatment of the risks.

Monitoring the risks, the fourth process, consists

of the definition action and observing the metrics,

indicators and limits for each identified risk.

The fifth process consists of accomplishing the

control of the identified risks. The activities of the

control process aims at assuring that the

management of risk plan is being proceeded as

planned.

The communication and coordination process,

sixth process, consists of the supporting activities to

all the models which provide the necessary

interaction for the correct communication and

understanding of the project, as well as the

accompaniment of all the activities of the

management of risk plan of the organization.

The last process - finalization - it consists of the

closing of the cycle of administration of the project,

that firstly happens in the distributed unit (branch)

and later in the global unit (head office). When

concluding the local cycle of the administration of

risks of the project, the obtained results and the

lessons learned during the project are consolidated

and passed to the global unit (head office), which

after the closing of the global cycle form a

knowledge base to work as subsidies to the future

projects.

The extension of the GeRDDoS model in

relation to the SEI approach proposed by Higuera

(Higuera, 1994) it is exactly in the application of the

identification process and analysis of risks in a

global and local way, proposing the strategic,

tactical and operational alignment for the

management of risks. Besides, the GeRDDoS model

proposes roles, marks, events and artifacts that aid in

the process of administration of risks, and it still

illustrates each process of the model with a diagram

of activities with the objective of facilitating the

understanding of the tasks of each process.

The GeRDDoS model is a proposal for the

administration of risks in software distributed

projects, and it is the result of the master's degree

dissertation of one of the authors (Campos, 2009).

3 RELATED WORKS

In the bibliographical revision accomplished, we

looked for works which could be to correlated to the

areas management of risk in software projects and

distributed software development, proposing a

differentiation in the process of analysis of the risks

involving the two areas.

Among the proposals researched in the literature

that contemplate both areas, we highlight the

MuNDDoS (Prikladnicki; Audy; 2004) and the

ICEIS 2010 - 12th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

392

approach described by Sangwan (Sangwan, 2007).

3.1 The Management of Risk in the

MuNDDoS Model

The use of the reference model MuNDDoS for the

management of risks in DSD projects aims at

facilitating this activity. The approach contains

activities for the list of common risks in DSD

projects and a process of management of risks that

begins before the cycle of life of the project itself,

through the integration of three managerial levels:

strategic, tactical and operational (Audy, 2008).

Thus, considering that the reference model

contains activities in those three managerial levels

the creation of a model for distribution of the

software development was proposed, incorporating

specific activities of management of risk in each

stage of MuNDDoS. More specifically in the stages

of validation of the mapping of the distributed

projects, decision on which distributed units will

develop the project and project execution.

The use of the MuNDDoS model to formalize

the management of risks in DSD begins in the phase

of new projects, where the company defines the

vision in long term of distributed projects to be

developed. Once defined the projects, there are three

stages associated to the phase of allocation of

projects of the reference model. In those stages, risk

analysis, cost-benefit and the decision of places are

executed to develop the distributed projects.

Following, there is the stage of development of

projects, where the project manager should know

about the principal risks identified in the previous

stages, executed by the levels of superior decision.

The last phase of the reference model has an

evaluation and feedback stage that applied to the

management of risk, is able to document all the

rational one used during the process of management

of risks, in the three levels, so that it can feed new

cycles of management of risk and to consider the

learned lessons (Prikladnicki; Audy; 2004).

3.2 Sangwan's Approach

(Sangwan, 2007)

For the author, in projects of software development,

besides all the traditional subjects that can be

experienced in co-localized projects, the projects of

GSD possess private subjects related to the

coordination, resolution of problems, elucidation of

requirements, knowledge sharing and identification

of risks. The traditional approach of identification

and monitoring of risks are many times less effective

in a GSD context and they need to be improved.

The cycle of traditional life of administration of

risks proposed by SEI (Dorofee et al, 1996), needs

to be altered, because this cycle should be

continuous, in other words, that cycle is not only

executed in the beginning a project, there should be

mechanisms that allow the continuous execution of

that cycle during the life of the project (Sangwan,

2007).

The author proposes the use of a method called

"Profile for GSD Projects". This method describes

the capacity of the organization that will develop the

system, the needs of coordination contained in the

system to be developed and an evaluation of the

divergence degree. This divergence detaches the

areas of high risk and the evaluation works as an

entrance for the process of planning of risks. The

planning process involves appropriate strategies of

identification and mitigation for the level of

exhibition of the risk which the organization is

compatible with.

4 APPLICATION OF THE

GeRDDoS MODEL

The GeRDDoS model was applied in an

organization of distributed software development,

with the objective of: first, to evaluate the global

process of identification and analysis of risks;

second, to evaluate the local process of identification

and analysis of risks; third, to evaluate the

categorization and treatment of risks process. It also

aimed at knowing if the processes of the GeRDDoS

model helped in those activities and if they allowed

the integration of the process of administration of

risks between the global (head office) and

distributed (branch) units, and also between that

process with the strategic planning of the

organization.

In the next sections we described the research

method, the characterization of the organization, the

characterization of the project and the obtained

results.

4.1 Method of Research

The research is exploratory and qualitative, based on

a case study. According to Yin (Yin, 2005) and

Santos (Santos, 2000) the exploratory research is

usually used in the cases in which the theme was

little researched or when the revision of the

literature shows that there are only theoretical

MANAGEMENT OF RISK IN ENVIRONMENT OF DISTRIBUTED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT - Results of the

Evaluation of a Model for Management of Risk in Distributed Software Projects

393

fragments with very little relationship to the

researched theme. So, an exploratory research was

accomplished.

Besides exploratory, the defined research method

is characterized by following a qualitative strategy.

The application of the model was led by the

project management team of the chosen

organization, having the author of the research as a

support for the execution of the case study.

To collect the results of the research an analysis

protocol was used, a questionnaire with open and

closed questions, in lickert scale, characterizing an

exploratory research of transectional type according

to Yin (Yin, 2005). This instrument was organized

in eight dimensions, aiming at characterizing the

respondent, the organization, the experience of the

organization in management of risk and mainly, the

evaluation of the processes of the GeRDDoS model

which were applied in the case study.

4.2 Characterization of the

Organization

In the choice of the organization for application of

the GeRDDoS model, it was used an organization

which practiced distributed software development

(DSD) and that possessed a structure compatible

with the organizational context - offshore

insourcing. It was selected an organization that

strongly acts offering IT services in the center-north

area of Brazil.

The physical distribution of the organization

happens in 7 municipal districts of Brazilian states,

according to figure 2, in: Cuiabá (MT), Rio Branco

(AC), Macapá (AP), Manaus (AM), Maceió (AL),

Diadema (SP) and Canoas (RS).

Figure 2: Presence of the organization in Brazil.

The principal representatives of the strategic

levels (directors) and tactical one (product and

project managers) of the organization work at the

head office, located in Cuiabá (MT). Besides the

strategic and tactical levels, this unit also acts in the

operational level.

4.3 Characterization of the Project

The software project which was object of the

application of the GeRDDoS model, is a small short-

term project, (only 6 months), and the concept of

software factory of the selected organization was

used.

In the case study, the specification and

requirements team, was located in the distributed

unit (branch), and physically installed in the

customer's premises, and the implementation team

was in the global unit (head office) of the

organization.

Once the project for the case study was defined,

the distributed unit (branch) responsible for its

execution was a unit which is physically installed in

the customer's environment, Finance Secretary of

one of the states of the area of performance of the

organization. Characterizing the DSD environment

as offshore insourcing, according to authors Freitas

(Freitas, 2005) and Knob (Knob, 2007). In this unit

(branch) the collaborators of the organization were

responsible for accomplishing the phases of listing

the requirements and specification of the project.

The implementation and test phases were under the

responsibility of the team located in the global unit

(head office) of the organization. Later the

distributed team was responsible for the approval

activities and implantation together with the

customer.

Because of the period for the accomplishment of

the research and of the schedule for execution of the

project, the application of three processes of

GeRDDoS model was defined: "Identification and

analysis of global risks", "Identification and analysis

of local risks" and "Categorization and treatment",

and also the use of the "Communication and

coordination" process as a support to the application

of the other processes.

4.4 Obtained Results

Among the dimensions of the instrument of data

collection of the research - analysis protocol - in this

section we highlighted the results and analysis of

five dimensions: the characterization of the

respondents, the characterization and experience of

the organization in management of risk, the

applicability of the identification process and

analysis of global risks, the applicability of the

ICEIS 2010 - 12th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

394

identification process and analysis of local risks and

the applicability of the categorization process and

treatment.

The first dimension highlighted in this article,

aimed at identifying the profile of the people

involved in the case study. On this dimension there

were five respondents, being two of them from the

strategic level, one of them from the tactical level

and two others from the operational level of the

organization. The respondents from the strategic

level were 39 years old (average), 17 years of

experience in IT and an average of 9 years in the

organization. The respondent from the tactical level

was 28 years old, 9 years of experience in IT and 3

years working in the organization. The respondents

from the operational level were 24,5 years old

(average), approximately 2,5 years of experience in

IT and about 2 years working in the organization.

All the respondents had finished college graduation

in the area of IT, and 80% of the respondents were

post-graduated in specialization level.

The second dimension highlighted in this article,

aimed at characterizing the organization and also

aimed at identifying the organization's experience in

management of risk. In relation to the dimension of

characterization of the organization, the global unit

(head office) has over 500 employees and 16 years

of experience in the market, while the distributed

unit (branch) has between 10 and 50 employees and

more than 5 years old. Regarding the experience in

management of risk in the organization, 67% of

respondents reported that there is awareness about

the importance of management of risk in the

organization. Regarding the discussion on

management of risk in the organization, 100% of

respondents said that this is not encouraged and they

also indicated that there are no specific actions for

management of risk. Regarding the formalization of

management of risk in the organization, 100% of

respondents concluded that management of risk is

not formalized. Thus, regarding the level of

awareness about the management of risks in the

organization, we have found that the organization is

among those which have a level of awareness about

the importance of the topic, but do not put the

management of risk in their projects into practice, as

stated Audy (Audy, 2008).

The third dimension highlighted in this article,

aimed at evaluating the applicability of the

identification process and risk analysis of the global

GeRDDoS model, trying to measure the alignment

of management of risk with the strategic planning of

the organization, the activities of the actors involved,

the level of effort on its application and artifact basic

declaration of global risks. Among the respondents,

both at the strategic and tactical levels, 87% agreed

that the process facilitates the alignment of the

management of risk with strategic planning of the

organization. That is exactly what the authors

Prikladnicki (Prikladnicki; Yamaguti; 2004), Audy

(Audy, 2008) and Sangwan (Sangwan, 2007) say,

stating that the analysis and risk assessment carried

out in strategic and tactical levels must be integrated

with the risk analysis performed at the operational

level by project managers. Among the respondents,

both at strategic and tactical levels, 80% considered

that the factors, methods and techniques presented in

the process facilitated the identification and analysis

of global risks, and that the tasks assigned to each

actor are well defined and clear process. Among the

respondents, 47% considered that the level of effort

spent on the process is low, and 53% considered as

the average level of effort spent on the process.

Among the respondents, 80% agreed that the artifact

- basic declaration of global risks - is important in

the process, since it helps in the identification and

preliminary analysis of global risks. Thus we see

that the process of identification and analysis of the

global risks GeRDDoS model reached the goal of

facilitating the identification of risks at the global

level and allowing alignment between management

of risk and strategic planning organization.

The fourth dimension highlighted in this article,

aimed at evaluating the applicability of the process

of identification and analysis of local risks, trying to

measure the alignment of management of risk at the

distributed unit (branch) level with the strategic

planning of the organization, activities of the actors

involved, the level of effort on your application and

artifact basic declaration of local risks. Among the

respondents, both at the tactical and operational

levels, 67% agreed that the process facilitates the

alignment of management of risk with strategic

planning of the organization. This confirms the

proposition of the researchers Prikladnicki

(Prikladnicki; Yamaguti; 2004), Audy (Audy, 2008)

and Sangwan (Sangwan, 2007), about the

importance of aligning the actions of management of

risk between the global unit (head office) and

distributed unit (branch), and these with the

organization's strategic planning. Among the

respondents, both at tactical and operational levels,

67% considered that the factors that the methods and

techniques presented in the process facilitated the

identification and analysis of local risks, and that the

tasks assigned to each actor are well defined and

clear in the process. Among the respondents, 53%

evaluated as average the level of effort spent on the

MANAGEMENT OF RISK IN ENVIRONMENT OF DISTRIBUTED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT - Results of the

Evaluation of a Model for Management of Risk in Distributed Software Projects

395

process and 47% rated it as low stress level.

Concerning the artifact – basic declaration of local

risks - 73% of respondents agree that the artifact is

important in the process, since it helps in the

identification and preliminary analysis of local risks.

Thus, we find that the identification process and risk

analysis of local GeRDDoS model reached the goal

of facilitating the identification of risks at the local

level and of providing alignment of the management

of risk between the distributed unit (branch) and

global unit (head office), and also with the strategic

planning of the organization.

The fifth dimension highlighted in this article,

aimed at evaluating the applicability of the process

of categorization and treatment of risks, trying to

measure the actions recommended for the treatment,

mitigation strategies and if the process allows the

identification of new risks. Among the respondents,

both from the tactical and operational levels, 67%

agreed that the activities of categorization and

treatment described in the process help to mitigate

the risks and the same percentage of respondents

agree that the recommended actions contribute to the

categorization process. Regarding the strategies for

mitigating risks, the respondents, 67% consider them

sufficient. Regarding the identification of new risks,

53% disagreed that the process helps to identify new

risks, and 47% agree that the process helps to

identify new risks. The process also allowed the

generation of a plan for treatment of risks, which is

also what was proposed by Boehm (Boehem 1989),

SEI (Higuera, 1994), PMI (Project Management

Institute, 2004) and CMMI (Software Engineering

Institute, 2006), for management of risk where after

the qualitative and / or quantitative analysis phase,

the planning of risk response is prepared. Thus, we

find that, in general, the process of categorization

and treatment of risks GeRDDoS model, reached the

objective of facilitating the definition and

classification of risk treatment measures of risk,

allowing the generation of the plan for mitigating

risks.

5 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

In the context where the organizations execute their

projects with dispersed teams, the research area on

the distributed software development (DSD) or

global software development (GSD), has been

several researchers' objective aiming at

understanding how this environment has been

affecting the software production in the last decades.

These researchers have reaffirmed the problems

inherent to the software development, considering

the width of those problems in the DSD or GSD

environment, as well as the new challenges of that

new scenery.

In that context, managing problems - risks - is a

recommendation to try to minimize the impact of an

unexpected event. If in the traditional environment,

co-located, to execute this discipline was already a

challenge, authors such as: Damian (Damian, 2006),

Sangwan (Sangwan, 2007), Audy (Audy, 2008) and

Ågerfalk (Ågerfalk, 2008), affirm that in the DSD or

GSD context this becomes more critical and they

recommend an adaptation in the classic model. This

way, in this article we tried to synthesize the results

of a case study of evaluation of GeRDDoS model for

identification and analysis of risks in distributed

software development environment. This model is

an extension of the approach management of risk of

the SEI, adapted to the environment DSD or GSD.

Thus, in this paper we summarize the results of a

case study of evaluation GeRDDoS model for

identification and risk analysis in distributed

software development environment. We believe that

this article contributes to the area of software

engineering in the sub areas management of risk in

software projects and distributed software

development, combining these two areas of

knowledge and drawing attention to management of

risk in distributed software projects, and further

expanding the publications involving these subareas.

It is also believed that this article contributes

towards the vision of the complementary area of

distributed software development, referencing a

specific model for management of risk.

5.1 Limitations of the Research and

Future Studies

As factors of limitation of the research, we

highlighted: the impossibility of its generalization,

for characterizing as a qualitative research; the

application of the model through the case study in

just one project of the selected organization; the

application of the model in just one organization; the

application of only three processes of GeRDDoS

model due to the factor: time for the research; and

also, the fact of the national coverage of the selected

organization, because it does not experience the

critical factors of success in a global way.

As opportunities of future studies, we identified:

the adaptation of the proposed model to other

methodologies management of risk; the

incorporation of new techniques, methods,

identification of risks in the processes of GeRDDoS

ICEIS 2010 - 12th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

396

model; the application of the model in more than a

project of dimensions superior to the project that

was object of the case study; the application of the

model accompanying the whole global and local

cycle in at least one project; the accomplishment of

multiple case studies, applying the model in

different organizations, allowing the degree of

generalization of the results to be enlarged; the

construction of a tool prototype which can be a

support to the application of the model; and the

analysis of the impact of the understanding of

analysis of risks, using semiotics concepts and

ontology.

REFERENCES

Ågerfalk, P. J.; Fitzgerald, B.; Olsson, H. H.; Conchúir, E.

Ó., 2008. Benefits of Global Software Development:

The Known and Unknown. In: Proceedings of the

International Conference on Software Process - ICSP,

pp.1-9.

Audy, J. L. N.; Prikladnicki R., 2008. Desenvolvimento

Distribuído de Software. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier,

211p.

Boehm, B., 1989. Theory-W Software Project

Management: Principles and Examples. IEEE

Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 15, 7p.

Campos, C. S. 2009. GeRDDoS: A Proposal for a Model

for Identification and Risk Analisys in Environment

Distributed Software Development (in Portuguese).

M.Sc. Dissertation, Catholic University of Rio Grande

do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Damian, D.; Moitra, D., 2006. Global Software

Development: How Far Have We Come? IEEE

Software, Set-Out, pp. 17-19.

Freitas, A. V. P., 2005. APSEE-Global: Um Método de

Gerência de Processos Distribuídos de Software.

Dissertação de Mestrado. Universidade Federal do Rio

Grande do Sul (UFRGS). Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Gusmão, C. M. G.; Moura, H. P., 2004. Gerência de

Riscos em Processos de Qualidade de Software: uma

Análise Comparativa (in Portuguese). In: Anais do III

Simpósio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software –

SBQS, 14p.

Herbsleb, J. D.; Moitra, D., 2001. Global Software

Development. IEEE Software, vol. 18, No. 2, Mar-

Abr, pp. 16-20.

Higuera, R. P., Gluch, D. P., Dorofee, A. J., Murphy, R.

L., Walker, J. A., Willians, R. C., 1994. An

Introduction to Team Risk Management. Special

Report CMU/SEI-94-SR-1. SEI: Pittsburgh –

Pennsylvania.

Kliem, R., 2004. Managing the Risks of Offshore IT

Development Projects. Information Systems

Management Journal, vol. 21, Summer, pp. 22-27.

Knob, F. F., 2007. RiskFree4PPM: uma proposta de

processo para o gerenciamento de portifólios

distribuídos de software com o auxilio do

gerenciamento de riscos (in Portuguese). Dissertação

de Mestrado. Catholic University of Rio Grande do

Sul (PUCRS). Porto Alegre, Brazil.

Project Management Institute, 2004. A Guide to the

Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK

Guide). Pennsylvania: PMI, 3ª Ed., 405p.

Prikladnicki, R.; Audy, J. L. N. 2004. MuNDDoS: Um

Modelo de Referência para o Desenvolvimento

Distribuído de Software (in Portuguese). In: Anais do

XVIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Engenharia de Software

– SBES, 16p.

Prikladnicki, R.; Yamaguti, M. H., 2004. Risk

Management in Distributed Software Development: A

Process Integration Proposal. In: 5th IFIP Working

Conference on Virtual Enterprises, pp. 517-526.

Sangwan, R.; Bass, M.; Mullick, N.; Paulish, D. J.;

Kazmeier, J., 2007. Global Software Development

Handbook

. Florida:Auerbach Publications.

Santos, A. R., 2000. Metodologia científica: a construção

do conhecimento. 3ª.ed. Rio de Janeiro: DP&A

editora.

Software Engineering Institute, 2006. CCMI for

Development Version 1.2. Technical Report, SEI,

CMU.

Yin, R. K., 2005. Estudo de caso: planejamento e

métodos; trad. Daniel Grassi. 3ª.ed. Porto Alegre:

Bookman.

MANAGEMENT OF RISK IN ENVIRONMENT OF DISTRIBUTED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT - Results of the

Evaluation of a Model for Management of Risk in Distributed Software Projects

397