Classification of management business processes in software companies

Managerial business processes in software development companies have been studied, considering the industry specifics and the applied business models of software development management. Under the conditions of sanctions and the need for import substitution of foreign software, such companies are becoming the most important market participants. The purpose of the study is to classify management processes, including its performers and owners, depending on the software company type: product, outsourcing, consulting, or full-cycle. The research methodology is based on an analysis of software development lifecycle, differences between project and product approaches, as well as the functional classification
of business processes. The study results showed that the project-based business model of software development prevails in consulting and outsourcing companies developing software, the product-based one prevails in product companies, while the combination of both business models is typical for full-service companies. The presented classification identifies three groups of managerial business processes: unique for a particular business model, typical for both models, and typical related to auxiliary processes. The theoretical significance of the study lies in developing knowledge about software development companies management, which contributes to improving the efficiency of their activities and accelerating economy digitalization. The study results can be used to develop specialized decision support systems and improve software lifecycle management methodologies.

1. Vodolazsky K.D., Vasilenko N.V. Features of management of software development companies as the most important segment of the IT sector of the modern economy. Bulletin of Eurasian Science. 2023;4(15). (In Russian).

2. Vodolazsky K.D., Vasilenko N.V. Approaches to the classification of IT companies in the context of the digital transformation of the Russian economy. Innovation and investment. 2023;6:388–392. (In Russian).

3. Tokarev B.E. Comparative analysis of the application of product management in startups of various types. In: Smart Nations: Global Trends in the Digital Economy: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. 2022;1:468–475. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94873-3_59

4. Springer O., Miler J. A Comprehensive Overview of Software Product Management Challenges. Empirical Software Engineering. 2022;27:106–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-022-10134-5

5. Kirchmer M. High Performance Through Business Process Management: Strategy Execution in a Digital World. Springer; 2017. 221 p.

6. Ilyasova S.A. Business processes: the concept, types and approaches to modeling. Mergers and Acquisitions Agency. 2023;1(16):14–16. (In Russian).

7. Ebert C. Software Product Management. IEEE Software. 2014;31:21–24. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2014.72

8. Ruhe G., Claes W. Software Project Management in a Changing World. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2014. 477 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55035-5

9. Project Management Institute. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK). 7th ed. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute; 2021. 370 p.

10. Wagenblatt T. Software Product Management. Walldorf: Springer International Publishing; 2019. 475 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19871-8

11. Tsurkan M.V., Nikolaenko V.S. Universal maturity model of project management: project integration management. Management today. 2019;2:150–157. (In Russian).

12. Demirkesen S., Ozorhon B. Impact of Integration Management on Construction Project Management Performance. International Journal of Project Management. 2017;8(35):1639–1654. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPROMAN.2017.09.008

13. Al-Rubaiei Q.H.S., Nifa F.A.A., Musa S. Project Scope Management Through Multiple Perspectives: A Critical Review of Concepts. AIP Conference Proceedings. 2017;1. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5055427

14. Lock D. Project Management. 10th ed. Routledge; 2020. 574 p.

15. Kudryavtseva E.P. Comparative analysis of standards in the field of project management from the point of view of quality management. Ars Administrandi. 2010;1:66–73. (In Russian).

16. Samimi E., Sydow J. Human Resource Management in Project-Based Organizations: Revisiting the Permanency Assumption. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2021;1(32):49–83. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMOM.2012.043962

17. Manata B., Miller V.D., Mollaoglu S., Garcia A.J. Documenting the Interactive Effects of Project Manager and TeamLevel Communication Behaviors in Integrated Project Delivery Teams. Project Management Journal. 2022;1(53):33–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/87569728211047296

18. Nikolaenko V.S. The maturity model of project management: project risk management. Innovations in management. 2021;1(27):38–47. (In Russian).

19. Lehtinen J., Aaltonen K., Rajala R. Stakeholder Management in Complex Product Systems: Practices and Rationales for Engagement and Disengagement. Industrial Marketing Management. 2019;1(79):58–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.08.011

20. Tripathi N. Startup Ecosystem Effect on Minimum Viable Product Development in Software Startups. Information and Software Technology. 2019;1(114):77–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2019.06.008

21. Trinidad P., Benavides D., Ruiz-Cortes A. Improving Decision Making in Software Product Lines Product Plan Management. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. 2004.

22. Block S. Challenges in Establishing a Large-Scale Agile Framework in the Enterprise. Springer; 2023. 339 p.

23. Antonova E.A., Bendikov M.A. Features of the software market and its marketing. Applied Computer Science. 2008;5(17):3–14. (In Russian).

24. Bykadorov I.A., Pudova M.V. Dynamic model of software marketing. In: Information technologies in applied research. Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University of Economics and Management “NINH”; 2015. Pp. 12-48. (In Russian).

25. Liu C. Software Project Demonstrations as Not Only an Assessment Tool but Also a Learning Tool. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin. 2006;38:423–427. https://doi.org/10.1145/1121341.1121473