Context: Backsourcing is the process of insourcing previously outsourced activities. When companies experience environmental or strategic changes, or challenges with outsourcing, backsourcing can be a viable alternative. While outsourcing and related processes have been extensively studied in information technology, few studies report experiences with backsourcing.

Objectives: We intend to summarize the results of the research literature on the backsourcing of IT, with a focus on software development. By identifying practical relevance experience, we aim to present findings that may help companies considering backsourcing. In addition, we aim to identify gaps in the current research literature and point out areas for future work.

Method: Our systematic literature review (SLR) started with a search for empirical studies on the backsourcing of IT. From each study we identified the contexts in which backsourcing occurs, the factors leading to the decision to backsource, the backsourcing process itself, and the outcomes of backsourcing. We employed inductive coding to extract textual data from the papers identified and qualitative cross-case analysis to synthesize the evidence from backsourcing experiences.

Results: We identified 17 papers that reported 26 cases of backsourcing, six of which were related to software development. The cases came from a variety of contexts. The most common reasons for backsourcing were improving quality, reducing costs, and regaining control of outsourced activities. The backsourcing process can be described as containing five sub-processes: change management, vendor relationship management, competence building, organizational build-up, and transfer of ownership. Furthermore, we identified 14 positive outcomes and nine negative outcomes of backsourcing. Finally, we aggregated the evidence and detailed three relationships of potential use to companies considering backsourcing.

Conclusion: The backsourcing of IT is a complex process; its implementation depends on the prior outsourcing relationship and other contextual factors. Our systematic literature review may contribute to a better understanding of this process by identifying its components and their relationships based on the peer-reviewed literature. Our results may also serve as a motivation and baseline for further research on backsourcing and may provide guidelines and process fragments from which practitioners can benefit when they engage in backsourcing.

Context: There is considerable variation in the productivity of software developers. Better knowledge about this variation may provide valuable inputs for the design of skill tests and recruitment processes. Objective: This paper aims to identify properties of software development productivity distributions and gain insight into mechanisms that potentially explain these productivity differences. Method: Four data sets that contain the results of software developers solving the same programming tasks were collected. The properties of the productivity distributions were analyzed, the fits of different types of distributions to the productivity data were compared, and potential generative mechanisms that would lead to the types of distributions with the best fit to the productivity data were evaluated. Results: The coefficient of variance of the productivity of the software developers was, on average, 0.55, with the top 50% of developers having average productivity that was 2.44 times higher than the bottom 50% of developers. All productivity samples were right-skewed, with an average skew of 1.79. About 30% of the observed productivity variance was explained by non-systematic, i.e., within-developer, variance. The distributions with the best fit to the empirical productivity data were the lognormal and power-law-with-an-exponential-cutoff distributions. The analysis of the mechanisms leading to productivity differences found no support for the "rich-getting-richer" explanation proposed for other disciplines. Instead, it suggests a constant productivity difference with increasing experience. Conclusion: The substantial difference in productivity among software developers solving programming tasks indicates that a thorough evaluation of skill in the recruitment process can be rewarding. In particular, the long tail towards higher productivity values demonstrates the large gains that can be achieved by detecting and recruiting developers with very high productivity. More research is needed to understand the mechanisms leading to the large productivity differences.