IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v19y2008i1p71-92.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Pair Versus Solo Programming Under Different Objectives: An Analytical Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Milind Dawande

    (School of Management and the School of Computer Science, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75083)

  • Monica Johar

    (The Belk College of Business, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina 28223)

  • Subodha Kumar

    (Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195)

  • Vijay S. Mookerjee

    (School of Management, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75083)

Abstract

This study compares the performances of pair development (an approach in which a pair of developers jointly work on the same piece of code), solo development, and mixed development under two separate objectives: effort minimization and time minimization. To this end, we develop analytical models to optimize module-developer assignments in each of these approaches. These models are shown to be strongly NP-hard and solved using a genetic algorithm. The solo and pair development approaches are compared for a variety of problem instances to highlight project characteristics that favor one of the two practices. We also propose a simple criterion that can reliably recommend the appropriate approach for a given problem instance. Typically, for efficient knowledge sharing between developers or for highly connected systems, the pair programming approach is preferable. Also, the pair approach is better at leveraging expertise by pairing experts with less skilled partners. Solo programming is usually desirable if the system is large or the effort needed either to form a pair or to code efficiently in pairs is high. Solo programming is also appropriate for projects with a tight deadline, whereas the reverse is true for projects with a lenient deadline. The mixed approach (i.e., an approach where both the solo and pair practices are used in the same project) is only indicated when the system consists of groups of modules that are sufficiently different from one another.

Suggested Citation

  • Milind Dawande & Monica Johar & Subodha Kumar & Vijay S. Mookerjee, 2008. "A Comparison of Pair Versus Solo Programming Under Different Objectives: An Analytical Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 71-92, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:19:y:2008:i:1:p:71-92
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.1070.0147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0147
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.1070.0147?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fred Glover & Eugene Woolsey, 1974. "Technical Note—Converting the 0-1 Polynomial Programming Problem to a 0-1 Linear Program," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 180-182, February.
    2. John Seely Brown & Paul Duguid, 1991. "Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 40-57, February.
    3. Zvi Drezner, 2003. "A New Genetic Algorithm for the Quadratic Assignment Problem," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 320-330, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yu, Wantao & Ramanathan, Ramakrishnan & Nath, Prithwiraj, 2017. "Environmental pressures and performance: An analysis of the roles of environmental innovation strategy and marketing capability," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 160-169.
    2. Foad Iravani & Sriram Dasu & Reza Ahmadi, 2012. "A Hierarchical Framework for Organizing a Software Development Process," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(6), pages 1310-1322, December.
    3. Richard Vidgen & Xiaofeng Wang, 2009. "Coevolving Systems and the Organization of Agile Software Development," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 355-376, September.
    4. Ravi Sen & Joobin Choobineh & Subodha Kumar, 2020. "Determinants of Software Vulnerability Disclosure Timing," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(11), pages 2532-2552, November.
    5. Rakesh R. Mallipeddi & Subodha Kumar & Chelliah Sriskandarajah & Yunxia Zhu, 2022. "A Framework for Analyzing Influencer Marketing in Social Networks: Selection and Scheduling of Influencers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(1), pages 75-104, January.
    6. Thomas Kude & Sunil Mithas & Christoph T. Schmidt & Armin Heinzl, 2019. "How Pair Programming Influences Team Performance: The Role of Backup Behavior, Shared Mental Models, and Task Novelty," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(4), pages 1145-1163, December.
    7. Rachaniphorn Ngotngamwong, 2014. "Pair Tests in a High School Classroom," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(4), pages 21582440145, December.
    8. Shubham Gupta & Abhishek Roy & Subodha Kumar & Ram Mudambi, 2023. "When Worse Is Better: Strategic Choice of Vendors with Differentiated Capabilities in a Complex Cocreation Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(5), pages 2833-2851, May.
    9. Dong, Su & Johar, Monica S. & Kumar, Ram L., 2023. "An optimization approach for hybrid workflows in platform-enabled private service marketplaces," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 310(2), pages 874-890.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Silva, Allyson & Coelho, Leandro C. & Darvish, Maryam, 2021. "Quadratic assignment problem variants: A survey and an effective parallel memetic iterated tabu search," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(3), pages 1066-1084.
    2. Michael Kaethler, 2019. "Curating creative communities of practice: the role of ambiguity," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Buchheim, Christoph & Crama, Yves & Rodríguez-Heck, Elisabeth, 2019. "Berge-acyclic multilinear 0–1 optimization problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(1), pages 102-107.
    4. Verena Brinks, 2016. "Situated affect and collective meaning: A community perspective on processes of value creation and commercialization in enthusiast-driven fields," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(6), pages 1152-1169, June.
    5. Francesco Rullani, 2005. "The Debate and the Community. “Reflexive Identity” in the FLOSS Community," LEM Papers Series 2005/18, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    6. Duniesky Feitó Madrigal & Alejandro Mungaray Lagarda & Michelle Texis Flores, 2016. "Factors associated with learning management in Mexican micro-entrepreneurs," Estudios Gerenciales, Universidad Icesi, vol. 32(141), pages 381-386, December.
    7. Guido Fioretti, 2007. "A connectionist model of the organizational learning curve," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, March.
    8. Ankita Tandon & Unnikrishnan K. Nair, 2015. "Enactment of knowledge brokering: Agents, roles, processes and the impact of immersion," Working papers 183, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode.
    9. Andrea Morrison, 2005. "Inside the Black Box of ‘Industrial Atmosphere’: Knowledge and Information Networks in an Italian wine local system," Working Papers 97, SEMEQ Department - Faculty of Economics - University of Eastern Piedmont.
    10. Emmanuelle Vaast & Geoff Walsham, 2009. "Trans-Situated Learning: Supporting a Network of Practice with an Information Infrastructure," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 547-564, December.
    11. Weiling Ke & Lele Kang & Chuan-Hoo Tan & Chih-Hung Peng, 2021. "User Competence with Enterprise Systems: The Effects of Work Environment Factors," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 860-875, September.
    12. Alvesson, Mats & Sveningsson, Stefan, 2011. "Management is the solution: Now what was the problem? On the fragile basis for managerialism," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 349-361.
    13. Cédric Dalmasso & Sebastien Gand & Frederic Garcias, 2017. "Enterprise social networks for the benefit of ambidextrous organisation? The case of a major oil company," Post-Print hal-03698884, HAL.
    14. Dupouet, Olivier & Yildizoglu, Murat, 2006. "Organizational performance in hierarchies and communities of practice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 668-690, December.
    15. Wirth, Steffen, 2014. "Communities matter: Institutional preconditions for community renewable energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 236-246.
    16. Franke, Nikolaus & Shah, Sonali, 2003. "How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 157-178, January.
    17. Pawel Kalczynski & Jack Brimberg & Zvi Drezner, 2022. "Less is more: discrete starting solutions in the planar p-median problem," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 30(1), pages 34-59, April.
    18. Levent Yilmaz, 2011. "Toward Multi-Level, Multi-Theoretical Model Portfolios for Scientific Enterprise Workforce Dynamics," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 14(4), pages 1-2.
    19. Sarah Mokaddem & Sinda Mhiri, 2017. "Le Co-working comme alternative émergente pour promouvoir le « bien-être » au travail," Post-Print hal-01867742, HAL.
    20. Frédéric CREPLET, 2004. "Les Portails d’entreprise : une réponse aux dimensions de l’entreprise « processeur de connaissances »," Working Papers of BETA 2004-07, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:19:y:2008:i:1:p:71-92. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.