A laboratory study of consumers' preferences and purchasing behavior with regards to software components

Abstract

Component-based software development is widely regarded as a promising approach to improving productivity and quality. However, progress in component-based software development has been slower than expected. A possible explanation for this slow progress is that there are not enough software components that can satisfy users (consumers). From this perspective, the purpose of this paper is to increase our knowledge about consumers of software components and to understand what aspects of software components are likely to affect consumer behavior. Specifically, this paper seeks to establish links between objective features of software components and consumers' preferences and purchasing behavior.The pragmatic utility of using objective features as predictors of consumers' behavior in regard to software components can be high. Since these objective features are under the direct control of producers, by understanding the relationship between the objective features and consumer behavior, producers can more effectively develop software components adapted to consumers' needs. We conducted this research in an artificial environment using a system called SofTrade, which was built for the purpose of teaching and studying the design, production, marketing, and purchasing of software components. Our results suggest that objective features of software components can be effective predictors of consumers' preferences and purchasing behavior, and therefore may provide practical guidance to software component producers regarding how to develop more marketable software components.

References

1. Adams, D.A., Nelson, R.R., and Todd, P.A. (1992). "Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 227--247.
2. Anderson, J.R. (1985). Cognitive Psychology and i Its Implications, Second Edition, New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
3. Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986). "The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 6, pp. 1173--1182.
4. Basili, V.R. and Hutchens, D.H. (1983). "An Empirical Study of a Syntactic Complexity Family," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 664--672.
5. Beach, L.R. and Mitchell, T.R. (1978). "A Contingency Model for the Selection of Decision Strategies," Academy of Management Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 439--449.
6. Benbasat, I. and Todd, P. (1993). "An Experimental Investigation of Interface Design Alternatives: Icon vs. Text and Direct Manipulation vs. Menus," International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 38, pp. 369--402.
7. Bettman, J.R. and Sujan, M. (1987). "Effects of Framing on Evaluations of Comparable and Non-Comparable Alternatives by Expert and Novice Consumers," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 141--154.
8. Brynjolfsson, E. and Kemerer, C.F. (1995). "Network Externalities in Microcomputer Software: An Economic Analysis of the Spreadsheet Market," Management Science, Vol. 42, No. 12, pp. 1627--1647.
9. Burke, R.R., Harlam, B.A., Kahn, B.E., and Lodish, L.M. (1992). "Comparing Dynamic Consumer Choice in Real and Computer-Simulated Environments," Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 71--82.
10. Carroll, J.M. and Thomas, J.C. (1988). "Fun," SIGCHI Bulletin, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 21--24.
11. Chen, D.J. and Lee, P.J. (1993). "On the Study of Software Reuse Using Reusable C++ Components," Journal of Systems Software, Vol. 20, pp. 19--36.
12. Chi, M.T., Feltovich, P.J., and Glaser, R. (1981). "Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices," Cognitive Science, Vol. 5, pp. 121--152.
13. Churchill, G.A. (1991). Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, Fifth Edition, Chicago, IL: Dryden Press.
14. Cohen, J. (1960). "A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales," Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 20, pp. 37--46.
15. Davis, F.D. (1989). "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 319--340.
16. Davis, F.D. (1993). "User Acceptance of Information Technology: System Characteristics, User Perceptions and Behavioral Impacts," International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 38, pp. 475--487.
17. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., and Warshaw, P.R. (1989). "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, Vol. 35, pp. 982--1003.
18. Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D., and Miniard, P.W. (1995). Consumer Behavior, Eighth Edition, Forth Worth, TX: Dryden Press.
19. Frakes, W.B. (1994). "Software Reuse Empirical Studies," in Schafer, M., Prieto-Diaz, R., and Matsumoto, M. (Eds.), Software Reusability, Chichester: Ellis Horwood, pp. 153--160.
20. Frakes, W.B. and Gandel, P.B. (1990). "Representing Reusable Software," Information and Software Technology, Vol. 32, No. 10, pp. 653--664.
21. Gabor, A., Granger, C.W.J., and Sowter, A.P. (1970). "Real and Hypothetical Shop Situations in Market Research," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 7, pp. 355--359.
22. Ghiselli, E.E., Campbell, J.P., and Zedeck, S. (1981), "Reliability of Measurement," in Ghiselli, E., Campbell, J., and Zedeck, S. (Eds.), Measurement Theory for the Behavioral Sciences, San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Company, pp. 183--194.
23. Glass, R.L. (1998). "Reuse: What's Wrong with this Picture?" IEEE Software, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 57-59.
24. Gould, J.D., Conti, J., and Hovanyecz, T. (1983). "Composing Letters with a Simulated Listening Typewriter," Communications of the ACM, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 295-308.
25. Hauser, J.R. and Simmie, P. (1981). "Profit Maximizing Perceptual Positions: An Integrated Theory for the Selection of Product Features and Price," Management Science, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 33--56.
26. James, L.R. and Brett, J.M. (1984). "Mediators, Moderators, and Tests for Mediation," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, No. 2, pp. 307--321.
27. Johnson, E.J. and Payne, J.W. (1985). "Effort and Accuracy in Choice," Management Science, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 395--414.
28. Kotler, P. (1997), Marketing Management, Ninth Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29. Krueger, C.W. (1992), "Software Reuse," ACM Computing Surveys, 24:2, pp. 131-183.
30. Menard, S. (1995). Applied Logistic Regression Analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
31. Mathieson, K. (1991), "Predicting User Intentions: Competing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior," Information Systems Research, 2:3, pp. 173--191.
32. Moore, G. and Benbasat, I. (1991). "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 192--222.
33. Myers, J.H. and Reynolds, W.H. (1967). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Management, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
34. Nevin, J.R. (1974). "Laboratory Experiments for Establishing Consumer Demand: A Validation Study," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 11, pp. 261--268.
35. Ozok, A.A. and Salvendy, G. (2000). "Measuring Consistency of Web Page Design and iIts Effects on Performance and Satisfaction," Ergonomics, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 443--460.
36. Prieto-Diaz, R. (1996). "Reuse as a New Paradigm for Software Development," in Sarshar, M. (Ed.), Systematic Reuse: Issues in Initiating and Improving a Reuse Program, London: Springer-Verlag, pp. 1--13.
37. Rau, P.P. and Salvendy, G. (2001). "Ergonomics of Electronic Mail Address Systems: Related Literature Review and Survey of Users," Ergonomics, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 382--401.
38. Shepperd, M. (1993). Software Engineering Metrics I: Measures and Validations, London: McGraw Hill.
39. Szajna, B. (1996). "Empirical Evaluation of the Revised TAM," Management Science, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 85--92.
40. Szyperski, C. (1997). Component Software: Beyond Object-Oriented Programming, New York, NY: ACM Press.
41. Taylor, S. and Todd, P.A. (1995). "Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models," Information Systems Research, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 144--176.
42. Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. (2000). "Why Don't Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior," MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 115--139.
43. Wichansky, A.M. (2000). "Usability Testing in 2000 and Beyond," Ergonomics, Vol. 43, No. 7, pp. 998--1006.
44. Write, P., Bartram, C., Rogers, N., Emslie, H., Evans, J., Wilson, B., and Belt, S. (2000). "Text Entry on Handheld Computers by Older Users," Ergonomics, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 702--716.
45. Zecevic, A., Miller, D.I., and Harburn, K. (2000). "An Evaluation of the Ergonomics of Three Computer Keyboards," Ergonomics, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 55--72.

Index Terms

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Management of computing and information systems

      • Software management

• Software and its engineering