ETRI Journal

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (한국전자통신연구원)
권호 표지

Perceived Subjective Features of Software Components: Consumer Behavior in a Software Component Market

  • Received : 2008.11.06
  • Accepted : 2009.04.07
  • Published : 2009.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Component-based software reuse has been generally regarded as a promising approach to improving software productivity and quality within software development. However, progress in component-based software reuse has been slower than expected. Much of the software reuse literature points to the lack of software components that can maximize users' benefits as the most important source of the slow progress. Considering that the underlying processes behind component-based software reuse are strikingly similar to commercial software marketing, this paper attempts to identify the aspects of software components that consumers value and to establish relationships between the identified aspects and consumer behavior in the software component market. More specifically, this paper focuses on the perceived subjective features of software components. This study was conducted in a web-based artificial market environment called "SofTrade."

Keywords

References

  1. M.D. McIlroy, “Mass Produced Software Components,” P. Naur and B. Randell (eds.), Software Engineering; Report on a Conference by the NATO Science Committee, Brussels, Belgium, NATO Scientific Affairs Division, 1968, pp. 138-150.
  2. A. Lynex and P.J. Layzell, “Organisational Considerations for Software Reuse,” Annals of Software Engineering, vol. 5, 1998, pp. 105-124. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018928608749
  3. C. Szyperski, Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming, New York, NY, ACM Press, 1997.
  4. J.M. Favaro, K.R. Favaro, and P.F. Favaro, “Value Based Software Reuse Investment,” Annals of Software Engineering, vol. 5, 1998, pp. 5-52. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018976424679
  5. WB. Frakes, “Software Reuse Empirical Studies,” W. Schafer, R. Prieto-Diaz, and M. Matsumoto (eds.), Software Reusability, Chichester, UK, Ellis Horwood, 1994, pp. 153-160.
  6. R.L. Glass, “Reuse: What's Wrong with This Picture?” IEEE Software, vol. 15, no. 2, 1998, pp. 57-59. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.663785
  7. W.B. Frakes and P.B. Gandel, “Representing Reusable Software,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 32, 1990, pp. 653-664. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-5849(90)90098-C
  8. J.S. Poulin, “Reuse: Been There, Done That,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 42, no. 5, 1999, pp. 98-100. https://doi.org/10.1145/301353.301440
  9. CW. Church, “Technology Issues of Software Reuse,” M. Sarshar (ed.), Systematic Reuse: Issues in Initiating and Improving a Reuse Program, London, U.K.: Springer-Verlag. 1996, pp. 64-69
  10. D. Judicibus, “Reuse: A Cultural Change,” M. Sarshar (ed.), Systematic Reuse: Issues in Initiating and Improving a Reuse Program, 1996, London, U.K.: Springer-Verlag, pp. 44-51.
  11. D.J. Reifer, Practical Software Reuse, Chichester, NY, Wiley, 1997.
  12. B.H. Barnes and T.B. Bollinger, “Making Reuse Cost-Effective,” IEEE Software, vol. 8, no. 1, 1991, pp. 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.62928
  13. W.B. Frakes and C.J. Fox, “Quality Improvement Using a Software Reuse Failure Modes Model,” IEEE Tran. Software Engineering, vol. 22, 1996, pp. 274-279. https://doi.org/10.1109/32.491652
  14. S.J. Hong and F.J. Lerch, “A Laboratory Study of Consumers' Preferences and Purchasing Behavior with Regards to Software Components,” ACM SIGMIS Database, vol. 33, no. 3, 2002, pp. 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1145/569905.569909
  15. J.F. Engel, R.D. Blackwell, and P.W. Miniard, Consumer Behavior, 8th ed., Fort Worth, TX, Dryden Press, 1995.
  16. C.W. Krueger, “Software Reuse,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 24, 1992, pp. 131-183. https://doi.org/10.1145/130844.130856
  17. J.R. Hauser and P. Simmie, “Profit Maximizing Perceptual Positions: An Integrated Theory for the Selection of Product Features and Price,” Management Science, vol. 27, 1981, pp. 33-56. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.27.1.33
  18. P. Kotler, Marketing Management, 9th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1997.
  19. F.D. Davis, R.P. Bagozzi, and P.R. Warshaw, “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,” Management Science, vol. 35, 1989, pp. 982-1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
  20. G. Moore and I. Benbasat, “Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation,” Information Systems Research, vol. 2, 1991, pp. 192-222. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192
  21. C.R. Plouffe, J.S. Hulland, and M. Vandenbosch, “Research Report: Richness Versus Parsimony in Modeling Technology Adoption Decisions: Understanding Merchant Adoption of a Smart Card-Based Payment System,” Information Systems Research, vol. 12, 2001, pp. 208-222. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.2.208.9697
  22. V. Venkatesh, “Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model,” Information Systems Research, vol. 11, 2000, pp. 342-365. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
  23. S. Taylor and P.A. Todd, “Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models,” Information Systems Research, vol. 6, 1995, pp. 144-176. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.6.2.144
  24. R.R. Burke et al., “Comparing Dynamic Consumer Choice in Real and Computer-Simulated Environments,” J. Consumer Research, vol. 19, 1992, pp. 71-82. https://doi.org/10.1086/209287
  25. A. Gabor, C.W.J. Granger, and A.P. Sowter, “Real and Hypothetical Shop Situations in Market Research,” J. Marketing Research, vol. 7, 1970, pp. 355-359. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150294
  26. J.R. Nevin, “Laboratory Experiments for Establishing Consumer Demand: A Validation Study,” J. Marketing Research, vol. 11, 1974, pp. 261-268. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151141
  27. D.K. Gode and S. Sunder, “Allocative Efficiency of Markets with Zero-Intelligence Traders: Market as a Partial Substitute for Individual Rationality,” J. Political Economy, vol. 101, 1993, pp. 119-137. https://doi.org/10.1086/261868
  28. D.K. Gode and S. Sunder, “Lower Bounds for Efficiency of Surplus Extraction in Double Auctions,” D. Friedman J. Rust (eds.), The Double Auction Market, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1993, pp. 199-219.
  29. L. Jones and L. Koehly, “Multidimensional Scaling,” G. Keren, and C. Lewis (eds.), A Handbook for Data Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences, Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993, pp. 95-163.
  30. W.B. Frakes and S. Isoda, “Success Factors of Systematic Reuse,” IEEE Software, vol. 11, no. 5, 1994, pp. 14-19. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.311045
  31. R. Nickerson, “Why Interactive Computer Systems Are Sometimes Not Used by People Who Might Benefit from Them,” Int'l J. Man-Machine Studies, vol. 15, 1981, pp. 469-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(81)80054-5
  32. A.L. Paxton and E.J. Turner, “The Application of Human Factors to the Need of the Novice User,” Int'l J. Man-Machine Studies, vol. 20, 1984, pp. 137-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(84)80014-0
  33. J.W. Payne, “Contingent Decision Behavior,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 92, 1982, pp. 382-402. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.2.382
  34. N.C. Goodwin, “Functionality and Usability,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 30, 1987, pp. 229-233. https://doi.org/10.1145/214748.214758
  35. K.B. Monroe, Pricing: Making Profitable Decisions, 2nd ed., New York, NY, McGraw-Hill, 1990.
  36. K. Bollen and R. Lennox, “Conventional Wisdom on Measurement: A Structural Equation Perspective,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 110, 1991, pp. 305-314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305
  37. R.J. Rummel, Applied Factor Analysis, Evanston, IL, Northwestern University Press, 1970.
  38. S. Menard, “Applied Logistic Regression Analysis,” Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications, 1995.
  39. J.W. Payne, J.R. Bettman, and E. Johnson, “The Adaptive Decision Maker,” New York, NY, Cambridge University Press, 1993.
  40. R.E. Petty and J.T. Cacioppo, "The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion," L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, New York, NY, Academic Press, vol. 19, 1986, pp. 123-205.
  41. J.R. Bettman and M. Sujan, “Effects of Framing on Evaluations of Comparable and Non-comparable Alternatives by Expert and Novice Consumers,” J. Consumer Research, vol. 14, 1987, pp. 141-154. https://doi.org/10.1086/209102
  42. G. Keinan, “Decision Making under Stress: Scanning of Alternatives under Controllable and Uncontrollable Threats,” J. Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 52, 1987, pp. 639-644. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.639