ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
A systematic review of theory use in studies investigating the motivations of software engineers
Full text PdfPdf (321 KB)
Source
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) archive
Volume 18 ,  Issue 3  (May 2009) table of contents
Article No. 10  
Year of Publication: 2009
ISSN:1049-331X
Authors
Tracy Hall  Brunel University, Middlesex, UK
Nathan Baddoo  University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
Sarah Beecham  University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
Hugh Robinson  The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
Helen Sharp  The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 69,   Downloads (12 Months): 361,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1525880.1525883
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Motivated software engineers make a critical contribution to delivering successful software systems. Understanding the motivations of software engineers and the impact of motivation on software engineering outcomes could significantly affect the industry's ability to deliver good quality software systems. Understanding the motivations of people generally in relation to their work is underpinned by eight classic motivation theories from the social sciences. We would expect these classic motivation theories to play an important role in developing a rigorous understanding of the specific motivations of software engineers. In this article we investigate how this theoretical basis has been exploited in previous studies of software engineering. We analyzed 92 studies of motivation in software engineering that were published in the literature between 1980 and 2006. Our main findings are that many studies of software engineers' motivations are not explicitly underpinned by reference to the classic motivation theories. Furthermore, the findings presented in these studies are often not explicitly interpreted in terms of those theories, despite the fact that in many cases there is a relationship between those findings and the theories. Our conclusion is that although there has been a great deal of previous work looking at motivation in software engineering, the lack of reference to classic theories of motivation means that the current body of work in the area is weakened and our understanding of motivation in software engineering is not as rigorous as it may at first appear. This weakness in the current state of knowledge highlights important areas for future researchers to contribute towards developing a rigorous and usable body of knowledge in motivating software engineers.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Adams, J. S. 1963. Toward an understanding of inequity, J. Abnormal Social Psych. 67, 422--436.
2
3
4
5
6
 
7
Bartol, K. M. and Martin, D. C. 1982. Managing information systems personnel: A review of the literature and managerial implications. MIS Quart. 6, 49--70.
 
8
 
9
 
10
Beecham, S., Baddoo, N., Hall, T., Robinson, H., and Sharp, H. 2006. Protocol of a systematic literature review of motivation in software engineering. Tech. rep. 453, School of Computer Science, Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, University of Hertfordshire. http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/~ssrg/MOMSEProto.htm.
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
15
 
16
Checchio, R. A. 1990. Creating a motivating environment in software development. Experience with the management of software projects 1989. In Proceedings of the 3rd IFAC/IFIP Workshop. 81--86.
 
17
 
18
 
19
20
 
21
 
22
23
 
24
 
25
26
 
27
28
29
 
30
Frangos, S. A. 1997. Motivated humans for reliable software products. Microprocess. Microsyst. 21, 10, 605--610.
 
31
32
 
33
Garza, A. I., Lunce, S. E., and Maniam, B. 2003. Career anchors of Hispanic information systems professionals. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Decision Sciences Institute. 1067--1072.
 
34
35
 
36
Goldstein, D. K. and Rockart, J. F. 1984. An examination of work-related correlates of job satisfaction in programmer/analysts. MIS Quart. 8, 2, 103--115.
 
37
Hackman, J. R. and Oldman, G. R. 1976. Motivation Through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory. Academic Press, New York.
 
38
Hall, M., Camacho, F., Dugan, E., and Balkrishman, R. 2002. Trust in the medical profession: Conceptual and measurement issues. Health Serv. Res. 37, 5,1419--1439.
 
39
 
40
Hertel, S., Niedner, S., and Hermann, G. 2003. Motivation of software developers in Open Source projects: An Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Res. Policy 32, 1159--1177.
 
41
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B. B. 1959. Motivation to Work (2nd Ed.). Wiley, New York.
 
42
Hoffman, A. 2002. A conceptualisation of trust in international relations. Eur. J. Int. Relations 8, 3, 375--401.
 
43
Honda, K., Azuma, M., Komatubara, A., and Yokomizo, Y. 1985. Research on work environment for software productivity improvement. In Proceedings of the IEEE Compouter Society 9th International Computer Software and Applications Conference. 241--248.
44
 
45
 
46
Igbaria, M., Meredith, G., and Smith, D. C. 1995. Career orientations of information systems employees in South Africa. J. Strategic Inform. Syst. 4, 4, 319--340.
47
48
49
 
50
Kitchenham, B. 2004. Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. Keele University and National ICT Australia Ltd., 1--28.
 
51
52
53
 
54
Lee, P. C. 2002a. Career plateau and professional plateau: Impact on work outcomes of information technology professionals. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research. 25--38.
55
56
57
 
58
 
59
Locke, E. A. 1968. Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organisation Behav. Hum. Perform. 3, 157--189.
 
60
Luo, Y. 2002. Building trust in cross-cultural collaborations. J. Manage. 28, 5, 669--694.
 
61
 
62
Maslow, A. 1954. Motivation and Personality. Harper & Row, New York.
63
 
64
McClelland, D. C. 1961. The Achieving Society. Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ.
 
65
 
66
 
67
Miller, W. C., Couger, J. D., and Higgins, L. F. 1993. Comparing innovation styles profile of IS personnel to other occupations. In Proceedings of the IEEE 26th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 378--386.
68
 
69
Nadler, D. and Lawler, E. 1983. Quality of work life: Perspective and directions. Organisational Dynam. 11, 3, 20--23.
70
 
71
Ouchi, W. G. 1981.Theory Z: How American Business can meet the Japanese Challenge. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
 
72
Peters, L. 2003. Managing software professionals. In Proceedings of the IEMC Conference: Managing Technologically Driven Organizations. IEEE, 61--6.
 
73
74
 
75
76
77
 
78
Roberts, J., Hann, I., and Slaughter, S. 2004. Understanding the motivations, participation and performance of open source software developers: A longitudinal study of the Apache projects. Carnegie Mellon University working paper.
 
79
Robson, C. 2002. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers (2nd Ed.). Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.
80
81
 
82
Schein, E. H. 1990. Career Anchors. Pfeiffer, San Diego, CA.
 
83
Schein, E. H. 1996. Career anchors revisited: Implications for career development in the 21st century. Academ. Manage. Executive 10, 4, 80--88.
 
84
Skinner, B. F. 1976. Walden Two. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
85
86
87
88
 
89
Tanner, F. R. 2003. On motivating engineers. In Proceedings of the Engineering Management Conference (IEMC'03). 214--218.
90
91
 
92
Thomas, S. A., Hurley, S. F., and Barnes, D. J. 1996. Looking for the human factors in software quality management. Int. Softw. 28, 1, 19--38.
 
93
 
94
Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and Motivation. Wiley, New York.
 
95
 
96
Zawacki, R. A. 1992. Motivating the IS people of the future. Inform. Syst. Manage. 9, 2, 73--75.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Tracy Hall: colleagues
Nathan Baddoo: colleagues
Sarah Beecham: colleagues
Hugh Robinson: colleagues
Helen Sharp: colleagues