Skip to main content
Log in

Value based software reuse investment

  • Published:
Annals of Software Engineering

Abstract

A number of issues are covered in this paper. Chief among them is the need for greater discipline in understanding the economic benefits of software reuse within the context of a broader business strategy. While traditional methods fail to account for growth opportunities and flexibility generated by investments in reuse, the introduction of option pricing theory can greatly enhance the design and evaluation of software reuse projects. Similarly, the disciplines of business strategy hold promise to help to fill the void of “strategic context” within which reuse investment happens.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrews, D. and M. DeGiglio (1997), “IBM's San Francisco Project: Java Building Blocks for Business Application Developers, Progress Report,” D.H. Andrews Group, Cheshire, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, W. (1997), “IBM Creates Line of Components for Building Applications,” WebWeek, http://www.internetworld.com/print/1997/07/28/news/19970728-build. html.

  • Baldwin, C. (1987), “Competing for capital in a global environment,” Midland Corporate Finance Journal 1, 43–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C. and K. Clark (1993), “Modularity and Real Options,” Working Paper, Harvard Business School, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buffett, W. (1997), Berkshire Hathaway 1996 Annual Report, Berkshire Hathaway, Omaha, NE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, F. and M. Scholes (1973), “The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities,” Journal of Political Economy 81, May/June, 637–659.

  • Boehm, B. (1984), “Software Engineering Economics,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 10, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brealey, R. and S. Myers (1996), Principles of Corporate Finance, 5th Edn., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chriss, N. (1997), Black–Scholes and Beyond: Option Pricing Models, Irwin Press, Burr Ridge, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemons, E.K. (1991), “Evaluation of Strategic Investments in Information Technology,” Communications of the ACM 34, 1, 22–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, J., S. Ross and M. Rubinstein (1979), “Option Pricing: A Simplified Approach,” Journal of Financial Economics 7, 3, 229–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixit, A.K. (1980), “The Role of Investment in Entry Deterrence,” Economic Journal 90, March, 95–106.

  • Dixit, A.K. and R.S. Pindyck (1994), Investment under Uncertainty, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dos Santos, B.L. (1991), “Justifying Investments in New Information Technologies,” Journal of Management Information Systems 7, 4, 71–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Favaro, J. (1996a), “A Comparison of Approaches to Reuse Investment Analysis,” In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Software Reuse, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 136–145.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Favaro, J. (1996b), “When the Pursuit of Quality Destroys Value,” IEEE Software 13, 3, 93–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flatto, J. (1996), “The Application of Real Options to the Information Technology Valuation Process: A Benchmark Study,” PhD Dissertation, Department of Management Systems, University of New Haven, New Haven, CT.

  • Frakes, W. and C. Fox (1996), “Quality Improvement Using A Software Reuse Failure Modes Model,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 22, 4, 274–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griss, M., J. Favaro and P. Walton (1994), “Managerial and Organizational Issues – Starting and Running a Software Reuse Program,” In Software Reusability, W. Schäfer, R. Prieto-Díaz and M. Matsumoto, Eds., Ellis Horwood, Chichester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griss, M. and K. Wentzel (1994), “Hybrid Domain-Specific Kits for a Flexible Software Factory,” In Proceedings Software Applications Conference '94, ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 47–52.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • IBM (1997), “San Francisco Project Technical Summary,” IBM Corporation, http://www.ibm.com/ java/Sanfrancisco/index.html.

  • Index Data (1998), YAZ Development Environment, http://www.indexdata.dk.

  • Jackwerth, J.C. and M. Rubinstein (1996), “Recovering Probability Distributions from Option Prices,” Journal of Finance 51, 5, 1611–1631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, I., M. Griss and P. Jonsson (1997), Software Reuse: Architecture, Process and Organization for Business Success, Addison-Wesley/Longman, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M.C. and W.C. Meckling (1976), “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Capital Structure,” Journal of Financial Economics 3, 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, E.A., Ed. (1995), Software Reuse: A Holistic Approach, Wiley, Chichester, UK.

  • Kogut, B. and N. Kulatilaka (1994), “Operating Flexibility, Global Manufacturing, and the Option Value of a Multinational Network,” Management Science 40, 1, 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ku, B.S. (1994), “A Reuse-Driven Approach for Rapid Telephone Service Creation,” In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Software Reuse, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 64–72.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kulatilaka, N. (1988), “Valuing the Flexibility of Flexible Manufacturing Systems,” IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management 35, 4, 250–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, W. (1996), “Reuse Economics: A Comparison of Seventeen Models and Directions for Future Research,” In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Software Reuse, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, pp. 41–50.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Malan, R. and K. Wentzel (1993), “Economics of Software Reuse Revisited,” Technical Report HPL-93-31, Hewlett-Packard Technology Laboratory, Palo Alto, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, S. and R. Merton (1985), “The Role of Contingent Claims Analysis in Corporate Finance,” In Recent Advances in Corporate Finance, E. Altman and M. Subrahmanyan, Eds., Irwin Press, Burr Ridge, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. and D. Siegel (1984), “Option Pricing When the Underlying Asset Earns a Below-equilibrium Rate of Return: A Note,” Journal of Finance 39, 1, 261–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. and D. Siegel (1985), “Investment and the Valuation of Firms When There is an Option to Shut Down,” International Economic Review 26, June, 331–349.

  • McTaggart, J.M., P.W. Kontes and M.C. Mankins (1994), The Value Imperative, The Free Press, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moad, J. (1995), “Time for a Fresh Approach to ROI,” Datamation, February 15, 57–59.

  • Myers, S.C. and S. Majd (1990), “Abandonment Value and Project Life,” Advances in Futures and Options Research 4, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • OMG and X/Open (1991), “The Common Object Request Broker: Architecture and Specification,” Revision 1.1, OMG, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulin, J. (1997a), Measuring Software Reuse: Principles, Practices, and Economic Models, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulin, J. (1997b), “The Economics of Software Product Lines,” International Journal of Applied Software Technology 3, 1, 20–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prieto-Díaz, R. (1991), “Making Software Reuse Work: An Implementation Model,” Software Engineering Notes 16, 3, 61–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. (1995), “Uses, Abuses, and Alternatives to the Net-Present-Value Rule,” Financial Management 24, 3, 96–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sick, G. (1995), “Real Options,” Institute for Operations and Management Science (INFORMS), Singapore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smit, H. and L. Ankum (1993), “A Real Options and Game-theoretic Approach to Corporate Investment Strategy under Competition,” Financial Management 22, 3, 241–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, K.J., P. Chalasani and S. Jha (1997), “Software Design Decisions as Real Options,” Technical Report 97-14, Department of Computer Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigeorgis, L. (1988), “A Conceptual Options Framework for Capital Budgeting,” Advances in Futures and Options Research 3, 145–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigeorgis, L. (1991), “A Log-Transformed Binomial Numerical Analysis Method for Valuing Complex Multi-Option Investments,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 26, 3, 309–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigeorgis, L. (1996), Real Options, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Withey, J. (1996), “Investment Analysis of Software Assets for Product Lines,” Technical Report CMU/SEI-96-TR-010, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Favaro, J.M., Favaro, K.R. & Favaro, P.F. Value based software reuse investment. Annals of Software Engineering 5, 5–52 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018976424679

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018976424679

Keywords

Navigation