Motivation in Software Engineering: A Systematic Review Update A. César C. França, Tatiana B. Gouveia, Pedro C. F. Santos, Celio A. Santana, Fabio Q. B. da Silva Abstract-Background/Aim – Given the relevance and importance that the understanding of motivation has gained in the field of software engineering, this work was carried out in order to update the results of a literature review carried out in 2006 on motivation in software engineering. Method – Based on guidelines for this specific type of study, we replicated the original study protocol. Results – The combination of manual and automatic searches retrieved 6,534 papers, of which 53 relevant papers were selected for data extraction and analysis. Conclusions – Studies address motivation using several viewpoints and approaches and, even though the number of researches increased in this area, the overall understanding of what actually motivates software engineers does not seem to have significantly advanced in the last five years. Paper presented at Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, Durham, 2011. http://www.haseresearch.com

1. Motivation in Software Engineering:
A Systematic Review Update
A. César C. França, Tatiana B. Gouveia, Pedro C. F. Santos, Celio A. Santana,
Fabio Q. B. da Silva
Center of Informatics
Federal University of Pernambuco
Recife, Brazil
cesarfranca@gmail.com, {tbg2,pcfs, casj, fabio }@cin.ufpe.br

2. Context
“Motivation”...
• …is believed to be a source of many benefits for projects in
general
– Performance, productivity, retention, etc.
• …has more than one hundred different theoretical
definitions
• ...has been studied in software engineering since the 80´s
(Beecham, et al., 2008)
( Golembiewski, 2000)
(Toledo & Unger, 1980

3. Background
Motivation in Software Engineering: A Systematic Review
Beecham et al (2008)
From Beecham et al (2008)
1980 ... 2006
peer reviewed
studies
92 Relevant
Papers
Based on the guidelines presented by Kitchenham (2004).

4. Background
Motivation in Software Engineering: A Systematic Review
Beecham et al (2008)
Some conclusions...
• Motivation is context dependent
and varies from one engineer to another.
• The most commonly cited motivator was the job itself
– but they found fewer work on what it is about the job that Software Engineers find motivating.
• Surveys often aimed at how Software Engineers feel about “the organization”
– rather than “the profession‟.
• There is no clear understanding of the Software Engineers´ job,
– what motivates Software Engineers,
– how they are motivated, or
– what are the outcomes and benefits of motivated Software Engineers.

5. Our Objectives
(1) update data available on motivation in software engineering;
(2) compare our results with the original study.
Pre-conditions:
• Same research questions
• Same data sources*
• Same search string**
• Same selection criteria
• Same quality assessment form
• Same extraction and synthesis procedure
* We did not have access to 1 of the
original data sources (Inspec). On the
other hand, we added 4 alternative
data sources.
** Our search string was based on
the same keywords of the Original
Study, although we did not compose
specific strings to match each
research question. Instead, we
compose only one generic string
Following the Original Study protocol, available at Beecham et al. (2006)

6. Review Method

7. Review Method
Automated Search: String
String Validation:
(1) All seven papers published in 2006 found in the
Original Study were retrieved;
(2) We previously selected a set of five known papers,
published after March 2006t, they were all retrieved;
(3) we run our string again, with no time restrictions,
and we looked into our results for a set of 45
randomly selected studies from the original study. All
papers were retrieved.
Our search string was based on the
same keywords of the Original Study,
although we did not compose
specific strings to match each
research question. Instead, we
compose only one generic string

8. Review Method
Automated Search: Data Sources
Added Sources ( )
4,723 papers 46 papers
 SD, CSX, COMP
 IEEE, GS, ISI
 ACM, JSTOR, SL
 SCP
We did not have access to 1 of
the original data sources
(Inspec). On the other hand,
we added 4 alternative data
sources.

9. Review Method
Manual Search
1811 papers 44 papers
Search strategies to increase coverage (Google Scholar):
(1) We snow-balled for all papers in which the Original Study
is cited (SB OS)
(2) We snow-balled for all the papers in which one or more of
the 92 primary studies of the Original Study are cited (SB
PS).
 Manual Search

10. 1. Search Results
6534 papers
2. Filtering based on Title and Abstract:
391 papers
3. Removing duplications
292 papers
4. Inclusion/Exclusion criteria
53 papers
Study Selection
Same of the Original Study
Review Method
+
+ +
Experienced in SLR
Specialist in Motivation

11. Quality Assessment
Review Method
Carried out by 2 researchers and
double checked by a third one
Clarifying itens...
+ +
Experienced in SLR
Specialist in Motivation
Same of the Original Study

12. Review Method
Extraction & Synthesis
1. Syntactical data were extracted:
– title, authors, year, publisher, source type, study type, keywords, geographical location of subjects,
type of subjects
2. passages which answered each research question were transcribed
3. an open coding procedure
4. similar codes were condensed according to themes categories as in an axial coding procedure
– We used the same categories of the Original Study whenever made sense
5. frequencies of citation for each category were accounted

13. Results
Sources
Original Study Our Study
• ACM SIGMIS Computer Personnel Research Conference: 8 papers
• 15 distinct conferences
• 23 distinct Journals
1980 2006 2006 2010

14. Results
Study Type
Original Study Our Study
1980 2006 2006 2010

15. Results
Temporal Distribution
Original Study Our Study
1980 2006 2006 2010

16. Results
Countries
Original Study Our Study
1980 2006 2006 2010

17. Results
RQ1: What are the characteristics of Software Engineers?
Observations:
• Sixteen papers provided answers to RQ1
• Three new characteristics were found in the
present study
– Ch. 17: Competent in Management
– Ch. 18: Flexible/Team Worker
– Ch. 19: Have fear of punishment
• These characteristics do not consistently describe
software engineers.
– Several characteristics seem to be conflicting
e.g. Introverted x Team Worker.
– The Original Study reached similar results.
• Two characteristics described in the original study
do not appear in the present study
– Ch.7: Need for involvement in personal goal setting
– Ch. 13: Marketable

18. Results
RQ2: What (de)motivates Software Engineers to be more
(less) productive?
Observations:
• Twenty five papers provided some answer to RQ2
• Eight New motivators were found
– M. 22: Team quality
– M. 23: Creativity/Innovation
– M. 24: Fun (playing)
– M. 25: Professionalism (high professional environment)
– M. 26: Having an Ideology
– M. 27: Non-financial benefits (availability of perks)
– M. 28: Penalty Policies
– M. 29: Good relationship with users/customers
• Two motivators described in the original study do
not appear in the present study
– M.19: Appropriate working conditions
– M.21: Sufficient resources

19. Results
RQ2: What (de)motivates Software Engineers to be more
(less) productive?
Observations:
• Only seven papers helped on finding de-
motivators.
• The only new de-motivator that appeared in this
study was D. 16 Task Complexity

20. Results
RQ3: What are the external signs or outcomes of (de)motivated
Software Engineers?
Observations:
• Eight papers provided answers to RQ3.
• Papers about retention not always present it as an
outcome of motivation.
• Only two external signs were added to the original
list.
– Ext. 7: Organizational Commitment
– Ext. 8: Benevolence
• Four external signs described in the original study
do not appear in the present study
– Ext.2: Project Delivery Time
– Ext.4: Budgets
– Ext5.: Absenteeism
– Ext.6: Project Success

21. Results
RQ4: What aspects of Software Engineering (de)motivate Software
Engineers?
Observations:
• Six papers provided answers to RQ4.
• Only three (de)motivating aspects were added to
the original list.
– Asp. 10: Creativity
– Asp.11: Relationship with users/customers
– De-asp.2: Boredom (repetitive tasks)
• Five motivating aspects described in the original
study do not appear in the present study
– Asp.3: Change
– Asp.5: Benefit
– Asp.6: Science
– Asp.7: Experiment
– Asp.9: Lifecycle

22. Results
RQ5: What models of motivation exist in Software Engineering?
Observations:
• Sixteen papers provided answers to RQ5.
• The MOCC model of motivation in software
engineering (Sharp, et al., 2009), constructed
based on the findings from the original study, has
been cited twice.

23. Discussion
General Observations:
• The overall understanding of how software
engineers are actually motivated does not seem to
have significantly advanced in the last five years
• There is no consensus about the characteristics of
software engineers
• Motivation may be a key for retaining people
• Evidence about the actual effect of any motivator
on the expected outcomes is generally weak.
• High presence of studies on Open Source Software
(OSS) projects,
• Motivation x Agile Development
(antecedent or consequence?)
Lessons Learned
• Researches in software engineering does not always
seem to be careful with the “motivation” construct.
• Having access to a complete and detailed review
protocol is extremely important!
• The quality assessment we carried out is focused on
the quality of the report, rather than properly on
the strength of the evidence .
• The complexity of the human-technological setting
of software engineering projects makes the
construction of evidence indeed hard .
• It is very important to project managers be aware of
the specific characteristics of the individuals in their
context.

24. Conclusion
Limitations
• Even though some adaptations were necessary
to use the Original Study protocol, we were as
careful as possible
• The amount of published work on motivation in
software engineering is still wispy, which may
provide only a partial view of the sought
potential answers
• the USA still leads the amount of research
carried out on motivation on software
engineering
Future Work
• Future research should focus on a deeper
analysis of the relationship between motivators
and outcomes, in order to provide more reliable
results
• Qualitative research could also contribute to the
development of a clear and grounded
understanding of motivation in software
engineering
We are currently running a qualitative ethnographic study in
three distinct organizations, in pursuit of answers to
some of the same questions explored here.

25. Motivation in Software Engineering:
A Systematic Review Update
A. César C. França, Tatiana B. Gouveia, Pedro C. F. Santos, Celio A. Santana,
Fabio Q. B. da Silva
Center of Informatics
Federal University of Pernambuco
Recife, Brazil
cesarfranca@gmail.com, {tbg2,pcfs, casj, fabio }@cin.ufpe.br

26. Motivation in Software Engineering: A Systematic Review Update by A. César C. França,
Tatiana B. Gouveia, Pedro C. F. Santos, Celio A. Santana, Fabio Q. B. da Silva is licensed under
a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, Durham, 2011.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available
at http://www.haseresearch.com