More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

article

An Empirical Analysis of Productivity and Quality in Software Products

Authors:

M. S. Krishnan,

Tridas MukhopadhyayAuthors Info & Claims

Management Science, Volume 46, Issue 6

Pages 745 - 759

Published: 01 June 2000 Publication History

Abstract

We examine the relationship between life-cycle productivity and conformance quality in software products. The effects of product size, personnel capability, software process, usage of tools, and higher front-end investments on productivity and conformance quality were analyzed to derive managerial implications based on primary data collected on commercial software projects from a leading vendor. Our key findings are as follows. First, our results provide evidence for significant increases in life-cycle productivity from improved conformance quality in software products shipped to the customers. Given that the expenditure on computer software has been growing over the last few decades, empirical evidence for cost savings through quality improvement is a significant contribution to the literature. Second, our study identifies several quality drivers in software products. Our findings indicate that higher personnel capability, deployment of resources in initial stages of product development especially design and improvements in software development process factors are associated with higher quality products.

References

[1]

Albrecht, A., J. Gaffney. 1983. Software function, source lines of code, and development effort prediction: A software science validation. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. SE-9(6) 639-647.

Digital Library

[2]

Banker, R. D., S. Datar, C. F. Kemerer, 1991. A model to evaluate variables involving the productivity of software maintenance projects. Management Sci. 37(1) 1-18.

Digital Library

[3]

Banker, R. D., S. Datar, C. F. Kemerer, D. Zweig. 1993. Software complexity and software maintenance costs. Comm. ACM 36 81-93.

Digital Library

[4]

Banker, R. D., S. Datar, C. F. Kemerer, D. Zweig, R. J. Kauffman, R. Kumar. 1992. An empirical test of object based output measurement metrics in Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE) environment. J. Management Inform. Systems 8(3) 127-150.

Digital Library

[5]

Banker, R. D., S. Datar, C. F. Kemerer, D. Zweig, R. J. Kauffman, R. Kumar, S. Slaughter. 1997. A field study of scale economies in software maintenance. Management Sci. 43(12) 1709-1725.

Digital Library

[6]

Belsley, D. A., E. Kuh, R. E. Welsch. 1980. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. Wiley, New York.

[7]

Blackburn, J. D., G. Scudder, L. N. van Wassenhove. 1996. Improving speed and productivity of software development. Working paper, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France.

[8]

Bowman, K. R., L. R. Shenton. 1975. Ominibus contours for departures from normality based on root(b₁) and b₂. Biometrika 62 243-250.

[9]

Boehm, B. W. 1981. Software Engineering Economics. Prentice-Hall, Inc., NJ.

[10]

Broadman, J. G., D. L. Johnson. 1994. Estimating process improvements returns. Proceedings of the Risk, Metrics, and Cost Estimating Workshop. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.

[11]

Conte, S. D., H. E. Dunsmore, V. Y. Shen. 1986. Software Engineering Metrics and Model. Benjamin-Cummings, Reading MA.

[12]

Cook, R. D., S. Weisberg. 1982. Residuals and Influence in Regression. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.

[13]

Crosby, Philip B. 1979. Quality is Free. McGraw-Hill, New York.

[14]

Curtis, W., M. I. Kellner, J. Over. 1992. Process modelling. Comm. ACM 35 75-90.

Digital Library

[15]

Davidson, R., J. MacKinnon. 1981. Several tests for model specifications in the presence of alternative hypotheses. Econometrica 49 781-793.

[16]

Demarco, T. 1995. Why Does Software Cost so much and Other Puzzles of the Information Age. Dorset House Publishing, New York.

[17]

Farr, W. 1996. Software reliability modeling survey. M. R. Lyu, ed. Handbook of Software Reliability Engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York 71-115.

[18]

Fenton, N. E. 1994. Software Metrics: A Rigorous Approach. Chapman & Hall, New York.

[19]

Garvin, David A. 1987. Competing on the eight dimensions of quality. Harvard Bus. Rev. 65 (Nov-Dec) 101-117.

[20]

Greene, W. H. 1993. Econometric Analysis, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.

[21]

Gyrna, F. 1988. Quality costs. Quality Control Handbook, 4th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.

[22]

Harter, D. E., M. S. Krishnan, S. A. Slaughter. 2000. Effects of process maturity on quality, cycletime and effort in software product development. Management Sci. 46(4).

[23]

Hausman, J. A. 1978. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 46 1251-1272.

[24]

Humphrey, W. S. 1989. Managing the Software Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

[25]

Humphrey, W. S. 1992. Introduction to software process improvement. Technical report, CMU/SEI-TR-92-7, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

[26]

Jones, C. 1991. Applied Software Measurement: Assuring Productivity and Quality. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.

[27]

Keil, M. 1995. Pulling the plug: Software project management and the problem of project escalation. MIS Quart. 19(4) 421-447.

Digital Library

[28]

Kemerer, C. F. 1987. An empirical validation of software cost estimation models. Comm. ACM 30(5) 416-429.

Digital Library

[29]

Kemerer, C. F. 1995. Software complexity and software maintenance: A survey of empirical research. Ann. Software Engrg. 1 1-20.

[30]

Kmenta, Jan. 1986. Elements of Econometrics. Macmillan, New York.

[31]

Kriebel, C. H. 1979. Evaluating the quality of information systems. Proc. BIFOA Sympos. Bensberg/Colonge, Federal Republic of Germany, Sept. 18-20.

[32]

Krishnan, M. S., M. Kellner, C. H. Kriebel, T. Mukhopadhyay, K. Srinivasan. 1997. Cost, quality and customer satisfaction of software products. Quality Management Series. Uday Karmarkar and Phill Lederer, eds. Kluwer Publications, NJ., Forthcoming.

[33]

Krishnan, M. S., M. Kellner, C. H. Kriebel, T. Mukhopadhyay, K. Srinivasan, 1999. Measuring process consistency: Implications for reducing software defects. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. 25(6) 800-815.

Digital Library

[34]

Maxwell, K., Wassenhove, Luk. V., S. Dutta. 1999. Performance evaluation of general and company specific models in software development effort estimation. Management Sci. Forthcoming.

[35]

Moore, G. C., I. Benbasat. 1991. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inform. Systems Res. 2(3) 192-221.

Digital Library

[36]

Mukhopadhyay, T., S. Kekre. 1992. Software effort models for early estimation of process control applications. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. 18(10) 915-924.

Digital Library

[37]

Nunnally, J. 1967. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.

[38]

Park, R. E. 1992. Software size measurement: A framework for computing source statements. Technical report, SEI-92-TR-20, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

[39]

Paulk, M. C., Bill Curtis, M. B. Chrissis, C. V. Weber. 1993a. Capability maturity model, version 1.1. IEEE Software, 18-27.

Digital Library

[40]

Paulk, M. C., Bill Curtis, M. B. Chrissis, C. V. Weber, S. M. Garcia, M. Chrissis, M. Bush, 1993b. Key practices of the capability maturity model, version 1.1. Technical report, CMU/SEI-93-TR-25, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

[41]

PRICE Newsletter. 1994. Today's information source for tomorrow's international computer aided parametric estimating. 18(1).

[42]

Slaughter, S. A., D. E. Harter, M. S. Krishnan. 1998. Evaluating the cost of software quality. Comm. ACM 41(8) 67-73.

Digital Library

[43]

White, H. 1980. Heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48 817-838.

Cited By

Benaroch MLyytinen K(2023)How Much Does Software Complexity Matter for Maintenance Productivity? The Link Between Team Instability and DiversityIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2022.322211949:4(2459-2475)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TSE.2022.3222119
August TChen WZhu K(2021)Competition Among Proprietary and Open-Source Software FirmsManagement Science10.1287/mnsc.2020.367467:5(3041-3066)Online publication date: 1-May-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3674
Chapetta WTravassos G(2020)Towards an evidence-based theoretical framework on factors influencing the software development productivityEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-020-09844-525:5(3501-3543)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10664-020-09844-5
Show More Cited By

An Empirical Analysis of Productivity and Quality in Software Products
1. Applied computing
2. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Management of computing and information systems

Recommendations

Empirical Study of Embedded Software Quality and Productivity
HASE '07: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE High Assurance Systems Engineering Symposium

On a day-for-day basis, software managers struggle with the quality of the software process applied to their software engineering projects. Oftentimes the measurement and analysis needed to determine software process and product quality and to derive ...
Empirical study of software productivity and quality
A Study of Employee Competency in Software Process Management
ISESS '97: Proceedings of the 3rd International Software Engineering Standards Symposium (ISESS '97)

This paper presents the findings of a questionnaire survey conducted in a company to assess its employees' competency in software process management. An overview of employee competency and its definition in the context of the survey are given. The ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Management Science

Management Science Volume 46, Issue 6

June 2000

129 pages

ISSN:0025-1909

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

INFORMS

Linthicum, MD, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 June 2000

Received: 14 May 1999

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

48
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 24 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Benaroch MLyytinen K(2023)How Much Does Software Complexity Matter for Maintenance Productivity? The Link Between Team Instability and DiversityIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2022.322211949:4(2459-2475)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TSE.2022.3222119
August TChen WZhu K(2021)Competition Among Proprietary and Open-Source Software FirmsManagement Science10.1287/mnsc.2020.367467:5(3041-3066)Online publication date: 1-May-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3674
Chapetta WTravassos G(2020)Towards an evidence-based theoretical framework on factors influencing the software development productivityEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-020-09844-525:5(3501-3543)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10664-020-09844-5
Chari KAgrawal M(2018)Impact of incorrect and new requirements on waterfall software project outcomesEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-017-9506-423:1(165-185)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10664-017-9506-4
Qiu YGopal AHann I(2017)Logic Pluralism in Mobile Platform EcosystemsInformation Systems Research10.1287/isre.2016.066428:2(225-249)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1287/isre.2016.0664
Da Silva LTavares AFerreira VCosta Ade Souza GMagalhães CDa Silva FBener ATurhan BBiffl S(2017)Autonomy in software engineeringProceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement10.1109/ESEM.2017.35(229-234)Online publication date: 9-Nov-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/ESEM.2017.35
Fris MZwikael OGregor S(2017)QPLANDecision Support Systems10.1016/j.dss.2017.02.00896:C(92-102)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.dss.2017.02.008
Parthasarathy SSharma S(2017)Impact of customization over software quality in ERP projectsSoftware Quality Journal10.1007/s11219-016-9314-x25:2(581-598)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11219-016-9314-x
C. Duarte C(2017)Productivity paradoxes revisitedEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-016-9453-522:2(818-847)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10664-016-9453-5
Senot CChandrasekaran AWard PTucker AMoffatt-Bruce S(2016)The Impact of Combining Conformance and Experiential Quality on Hospitals’ Readmissions and Cost PerformanceManagement Science10.1287/mnsc.2014.214162:3(829-848)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2016
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2141
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents