Systems and methods for software development

• US 20060248504A1
• Filed: 03/14/2006
• Published: 11/02/2006
• Est. Priority Date: 04/08/2002
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: TopCoder, Inc. (Wipro Limited)
• Original Assignee: TopCoder, Inc. (Wipro Limited)
• Inventors: Hughes, John M.
• Application Number:
  US11/375,376
• Publication Number:
  US 20060248504A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 717/101
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 11/3664 Environments for testing or debugging software
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/65 Updates security arrangements therefor G06F21/57

Abstract

This invention relates to methods and a system for developing software applications using software components. In one embodiment, a method for developing an application includes facilitating online software programming contests, some of which result in the development of software components. A specification describing the software components to be used in the development of the application and the design of the software application is provided to developers and, in response to the communicated specification, assembled applications comprised of one or more of the software components are received. A review process for scoring each of the received applications is facilitated, and based on the review process, one of the received applications application is selected.

Claims

1. A computerized method for developing a software application, the method comprising:

facilitating a plurality of online software programming contests, a subset of the contests resulting in one or more software components;

communicating a specification for the design of a software application to a plurality of developers, the specification describing a plurality of the software components to be used in the development of the application;

receiving, from each of a subset of the plurality of software developers, in response to the communicated specification, an assembled application comprised of one or more of the software components;

facilitating a review process for scoring each of the received applications; and

selecting one application from the received applications based at least in part on its score in the review process.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein each of the plurality of software developers were rated in one or more coding competitions.

3. The method of claim 2 wherein the plurality of developers is selected, at least in part, based on having a minimum rating received in the one or more coding competitions.

4. The method of claim 1 further comprising associating a difficulty level with the software application.

5. The method of claim 4 wherein the developers are rated at least in part based on the difficulty level associated with the application.

6. The method of claim 1 wherein the plurality of software developers are geographically distributed.

7. The method of claim 1 wherein the assembled application comprises one or more of a requirements document, an activity diagram, a case document, test cases, a prototype, and a UML document.

8. The method of claim 1 wherein the specification is communicated using an on-line application.

9. The method of claim 1 further including rewarding the software developer that submitted the selected application.

10. The method of claim 9 wherein the reward is monetary.

11. The method of claim 9 wherein the reward is an increased skill rating.

12. The method of claim 1 further comprising, prior to communicating the specification, receiving at least a portion of the specification from an entity requesting the development of an application.

13. The method of claim 1 wherein the review process is performed by a plurality of reviewers.

14. The method of claim 13 wherein each of the plurality of reviewers were rated in a computer programming competition.

15. The method of claim 14 wherein the ratings of each of the plurality of reviewers are above a predetermined minimum rating.

16. The method of claim 13 wherein the review process comprises aggregating scores from each of the plurality of reviewers into a summary score and the selection of one application is based on the summary score.

17. The method of claim 1 wherein the review comprises one or more of reading documents, completing a review form, and identifying changes to be incorporated into the application by the software developer who submitted the application.

18. The method of claim 17 wherein the identified changes are designated mandatory or optional at the reviewers discretion.

31. The method of claim 1 wherein the received application comprises one or more of source code, object code, and compiled code.

20. A computerized system for developing software applications, the system comprising:

a contest server for facilitating a plurality of online software programming contests, a subset of the contests resulting in one or more software components;

a communications server for communicating a specification for the design of a software application to a plurality of developers, the specification describing a plurality of the software components to be used in the development of the application; and

a scoring server in communication with the communications server for scoring the received candidate applications based at least in part on a review of the submitted applications.