Systems and methods for software development

• US 7,778,866 B2
• Filed: 01/14/2005
• Issued: 08/17/2010
• Est. Priority Date: 04/08/2002
• Status: Expired due to Fees

• Current Assignee: TopCoder, Inc. (Wipro Limited)
• Original Assignee: TopCoder, Inc. (Wipro Limited)
• Inventors: Hughes, John M.
• Primary Examiner(s): Smith; Jeffrey A.
• Assistant Examiner(s): LEVINE, ADAM L
• Application Number:
  US11/035,783
• Publication Number:
  US 20050160395A1
• Time in Patent Office: 2,041 Days
• Field of Search: 705/1, 705/7, 705/8, 705/9, 705/11, 705/26, 705/27, 717/100, 717/101, 717/102, 717/168, 463/9, 463/40, 463/42
• US Class Current: 705/7.42
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 8/20 Software design
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/06398 Performance of employee with respect to a job function
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/10 Office automation; Time management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0208 Trade or exchange of goods or services in exchange for incentives or rewards
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/0282 Rating or review of business operators or products
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 50/01 Social networking

Abstract

This invention relates to methods and a system for developing software. In one embodiment, a method for developing software includes communicating a specification for the design of a software program to a first plurality of developers, in response to the specification, receiving a design from a subset of the developers to a subset of the developers, facilitating a design review process for scoring the designs, selecting one design based on its score, communicating the selected design to a second plurality of software developers, in response to the design, receiving software programs from a subset of the second plurality of developers, facilitating a software review process for scoring the programs, and selecting one program based on its score. In another embodiment, a method for the distributed development of software includes providing a software development system to a distributed community of developers, the system including software development software that utilizes a structured development methodology, a communication server, and a review board for determining the quality of submitted software; accepting a request to create a software program; and facilitating the development of the program by a subset of the distributed community of developers using the software development system.

Claims

1. A computerized system for developing software programs by conducting competitions using a communications server and a review board subsystem, the system comprising:

a communications server for communicating as part of a first competition for a design of a software program a specification for the design of a software program to a first plurality of developers and for receiving from each of a subset of the first plurality of software developers, in response to the communicated specification, respective designs for the software program;

a review board subsystem for facilitating a design review process for scoring each of the received designs using an electronic document scorecard and selecting one design from the received designs based at least in part on its score in the design review process;

and wherein the communications server is also for communicating the selected design to a second plurality of software developers as part of a second competition for development of the software program designed in the first competition and receiving from each of a subset of the second plurality of software developers, in response to the communicated design, respective software programs;

and wherein the review board subsystem is also for facilitating a software review process for scoring each of the received programs using an electronic document scorecard; and

selecting one program from the received programs based at least in part on its score in the software review process.

2. The system of claim 1 wherein the software program comprises a component, an application, a module, or a library.

3. The system of claim 1 wherein each of the first plurality of software developers were rated in one or more coding competitions.

4. The system of claim 1 wherein the first plurality of developers are rated at least in part based on the score associated with their respective designs.

5. The system of claim 1 wherein the first plurality of developers and second plurality of software developers are geographically distributed.

6. The system of claim 1 where the first plurality of developers and the second plurality of developers comprise a different population of developers.

7. The system of claim 1 wherein the software program design comprises one or more design elements selected from the set of design elements comprising a requirements document, an activity diagram, a case document, test cases, a prototype, and a UML document;

and wherein the required design elements are specified in the specification for the design of the software program.

8. The system of claim 1 further comprising a management subsystem for rewarding the software developer that submitted the selected design.

9. The system of claim 8 wherein the reward is monetary.

10. The system of claim 1 further comprising a management subsystem for rewarding the software developer that submitted the selected program.

11. The system of claim 10 wherein the reward is monetary.

12. The system of claim 1 further comprising, a development posting subsystem for, prior to communicating the specification, receiving at least a portion of the specification from an entity requesting the development of the software program.

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

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

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

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

17. The system of claim 16 wherein the software review process comprises aggregating scores from each of the plurality of reviewers into a summary score for each submitted program and the selection of one program is based on the summary scores.

18. The system of claim 1 wherein the software review process is performed by a plurality of reviewers.

19. The system of claim 18 wherein each of the plurality of reviewers were rated in a computer programming competition.

20. The system of claim 19 wherein the ratings of each of the plurality of reviewers are above a predetermined minimum rating.

21. The system of claim 1 wherein the facilitated design review comprises reading submitted design documents, completing a review scorecard, and identifying changes to be incorporated into the design by the software developer who submitted the design.

22. The system of claim 21 wherein the review scorecard comprises an on-line form.

23. The system of claim 21 wherein the identified changes are designated as either mandatory or optional.

24. The system of claim 1 wherein the received program comprises one or more of source code, object code, and compiled code.

25. The system of claim 1 further comprising a distribution subsystem for distributing the selected program.

26. The system of claim 25 wherein the distribution subsystem further provides support updates for the distributed software program.

27. The system of claim 1 wherein the review board subsystem further facilitates receiving an appeal from a developer contesting the score assigned to the developer'"'"'s design.

28. The system of claim 1 wherein the review board subsystem further facilitates receiving an appeal from a developer contesting the score assigned to the developer'"'"'s program.