Human judgement and software metrics: vision for the future
Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics
Quantifying forecast quality of IT business value
Science of Computer Programming
ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)
PROFES'12 Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Product-Focused Software Process Improvement
A longitudinal analysis of ICT project success
Proceedings of the South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Conference
What will it take? A view on adoption of model-based methods in practice
Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM)
Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering
The LEGO strategy: Guidelines for a profitable deployment
Computer Standards & Interfaces
Software process improvement in a financial organization: An action research approach
Computer Standards & Interfaces
Hi-index | 0.00 |
In 1994, Standish published the Chaos report that showed a shocking 16 percent project success. This and renewed figures by Standish are often used to indicate that project management of application software development is in trouble. However, Standish's definitions have four major problems. First, they're misleading because they're based solely on estimation accuracy of cost, time, and functionality. Second, their estimation accuracy measure is one-sided, leading to unrealistic success rates. Third, steering on their definitions perverts good estimation practice. Fourth, the resulting figures are meaningless because they average numbers with an unknown bias, numbers that are introduced by different underlying estimation processes. The authors of this article applied Standish's definitions to their own extensive data consisting of 5,457 forecasts of 1,211 real-world projects, totaling hundreds of millions of Euros. The Standish figures didn't reflect the reality of the case studies at all.