Paper detail

Decision Support for Increasing the Efficiency of Crowdsourced Software Development

Crowdsourced software development (CSD) offers a series of specified tasks to a large crowd of trustworthy software workers. Topcoder is a leading platform to manage the whole process of CSD. While increasingly accepted as a realistic option for software development, preliminary analysis on Topcoder's software crowd worker behaviors reveals an alarming task-quitting rate of 82.9%. In addition, a substantial number of tasks do not receive any successful submission. In this paper, we report about a methodology to improve the efficiency of CSD. We apply massive data analytics and machine leaning to (i) perform comparative analysis on alternative technique analysis to predict likelihood of winners and quitters for each task, (ii) significantly reduce the amount of non-succeeding development effort in registered but inappropriate tasks, (iii) identify and rank the most qualified registered workers for each task, and (iv) provide reliable prediction of tasks risky to get any successful submission. Our results and analysis show that Random Forest (RF) based predictive technique performs best among the alternative techniques studied. Applying RF, the tasks recommended to workers can reduce the amount of non-succeeding development effort to a great extent. On average, over a period of 30 days, the savings are 3.5 and 4.6 person-days per registered tasks for experienced resp. unexperienced workers. For the task-related recommendations of workers, we can accurately recommend at least 1 actual winner in the top ranked workers, particularly 94.07% of the time among the top-2 recommended workers for each task. Finally, we can predict, with more than 80% F-measure, the tasks likely not getting any submission, thus triggering timely corrective actions from CSD platforms or task requesters.

preprint2016arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.