Reducing risks when creating IT products: Developing integrity criteria for IT entities

The article examines the nature and essence of conscientious behaviour by IT entities willing to guarantee the production of high-quality IT products within the framework of projects and minimise the likelihood of undesirable consequences for all participants and other stakeholders. To achieve this goal, the article analyses the signs of good faith and unfair behaviour by parties involved in relationships, including judicial practice related to protecting rights against unfair conduct by counterparties. Based on this research, criteria were formulated for the integrity of IT entities, such as the absence of intent to cause material harm to interested parties and the existence of an effective risk management system. It was discovered that the intent to harm is not only characterised by the current practices of IT companies (including the use of clearly onerous terms in contracts, the deliberate violation of existing legislation, and the exploitation of the ignorance of transaction participants), but also by the unfair actions taken in previous transactions. It was also found that responsibility for taking preventative measures to reduce risks is assigned to the parties involved in producing an IT product. In particular, research has shown that if IT companies do not proactively influence other companies before entering into agreements, there may be no universal risks. However, during the course of work, the parties may face compliance issues that could negatively impact project goals and lead to significant financial losses for those parties.

1. Bogdanova E.E. (2016). The principle of good faith: correlation of legal and moral aspects. Lex russica (Russian Law), 1: 177-182. (In Russ.)

2. Vostrenkov M.I., Sanina L.V. (2024). Review of methods for assessing the reliability of counterparties used in the organization. Global and Regional Research, 6(3): 120-129. (In Russ.)

3. Gayazov I.R. (2022). On the question of modifying computer programs. Internauka, 2-6(245): 21-32. (In Russ.)

4. Zhukov F.F. (2021). Register of unfair suppliers and the principle of good faith in civil law. Bulletin of the Tver State University. Series: Law, 2(66): 15-20. (In Russ.)

5. Zhulyeva O.E. (2024). Legal characteristics of declarations of good faith in contractual practice. Bulletin of the RESPP, 1: 142-149. (In Russ.)

6. Koshurin V.V. (2024). Criteria and methods for determining the buyer’s integrity: analysis of theory and practice. Bulletin of Science, 4(73): 107-114. (In Russ.)

7. Mikhailenko K.A., Kovaleva K.A. (2021). Review and analysis of software development. In: Actual problems of science and education in the context of modern challenges: Collection of materials II International Scientific and Practical Conference. Moscow, Institute of Educational Development and Consulting: 52-55. (In Russ.)

8. Murnikov I.V., Solovyuk D.V., Kuzmina O.V., Fedorenko I.V. (2019). Problems of monitoring the reliability of a potential counterparty. Accounting, Analysis and Audit: Problems of Theory and Practice, 22: 144-149. (In Russ.)

9. Nazarova M.G. (2022). Integrity of participants in the paid provision of services in modern conditions. University Science, 1(13): 345-347. (In Russ.)

10. Neustupova A.S., Kuzmina N.D. (2019). Assessment of the counterparty’s reliability in business transactions. Modern Problems of the Innovative Economy, 6: 110-116. (In Russ.)

11. Nikolaev A.A. (2022). Good faith as a principle of civil law. Systematization of the basic principles of good faith in civil law. Materials of the Afanasyev Readings, 3(40): 76-79. (In Russ.)

12. Nikolaenko V.S. (2024a). IT‐product: Clarification of the concept. Journal of Wellbeing Technologies, 52(3): 136-145. (In Russ.)

13. Nikolaenko V.S. (2024b). Compliance-features of creating IT-Products within the framework of IT-projects. Issues of Risk Analysis, 21(5): 97-107. (In Russ.)

14. Nikolaenko V.S. (2024c) Compliance-risks in the operation of IT products. Strategic Decisions and Risk Management, 15(4): 360-367. (In Russ.)

15. Nikolaenko V.S. (2025). Analysis of the processes of creating IT-Products as part of the implementation of IT-projects. Issues of Risk Analysis, 22(1): 68-87. (In Russ.)

16. Revina D.N. (2019). The principle of good faith in the activities of the federal service for intellectual property. In: Educational System for Improving Legal Culture. Kazan, SitIvent: 121-126. (In Russ.)

17. Ryzhikh I.V. (2020). On the question of the category of good faith in civil law. Bulletin of Economic Security, 6: 106-109. (In Russ.)

18. Tuktarova P.A., Davletshina S.M., Khamidullina D.I. (2023). Using regression models to determine the counterparty’s reliability. Information and Mathematical Technologies in Science and Management, 2(30): 121-128. (In Russ.)

19. Filippova T.A., Zharkenova S.B. (2018). The principle of good faith in the performance of obligations. Proceedings of the Altai State University, 6(104): 197-202. (In Russ.)

20. Chernyatkin A.O. (2018). Good faith of the parties when declaring a transaction invalid. Issues of Science and Education, 8(20): 92-93. (In Russ.)

21. Aven T. (2012). The risk concept - Historical and recent development trends. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 99: 33-44.

22. Beer M., Wolf T., Garizy T.Z. (2015). Systemic risk in IT portfolios - An integrated quantification approach. In: International Conference on information systems: Exploring the information frontier (ICIS), Fort Worth, December 2015. Fort Worth, USA: 1-18.

23. Brandas C., Didraga O., Bibu N. (2012). Study on risk approaches in software development project. Informatica Economica, 16(3): 148-157.

24. De Bakker K., Boonstra A., Wortmann H. (2014). The communicative effect of risk identification on project success. Project Organisation and Management, 6: 138-156.

25. Lee O.-K.D., Baby D.V. (2013). Managing dynamic risks in global IT projects: Agile risk-management using the principles of service-oriented architecture. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 12: 1121-1150.

26. Luckmann J.A. (2015). Positive risk management: Hidden wealth in surface mining. The Journal of The Southem Africa Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 115: 1027-1034.

27. Mishra A., Das S., Murray J. (2014). Managing risk in government information technology projects: Does process maturity matter? Production and Operations Management, 24(3): 365-368.

28. Nikolaenko V., Sidorov A. (2023). Analysis of 105 IT project risks. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 33: 1-20.

29. Paladino B., Cuy L., Frigo M. (2009). Missed opportunities in performance and enterprise risk management. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 20(3): 43-51.