Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prioritizing and Assessing Software Project Success Factors and Project Characteristics using Subjective Data

  • Published:
Empirical Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a method for analyzing the impact software project factors have on project success as defined by project success factors that have been prioritized. It is relatively easy to collect measures of project attributes subjectively (i.e., based on expert judgment). Often Likert scales are used for that purpose. It is much harder to identify whether and how a large number of such ranked project factors influence project success, and to prioritize their influence on project success. At the same time, it is desirable to use the knowledge of project personnel effectively. Given a prioritization of project goals, it is shown how some key project characteristics can be related to project success. The method is applied in a case study consisting of 46 projects. For each project, six success factors and 27 project attributes were measured. Successful projects show common characteristics. Using this knowledge can lead to better control and software project management and to an increased likelihood of project success.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, M., and Yeh, W. 1979. Introduction to Measurement Theory. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman, D. 1991. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London, UK: Chapman-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basili, V., Zelkowitz, M., McGarry, F., Page, J., Waligora, S., and Pajerski, R. 1995. SEL's software process-improvement program. IEEE Software, November 1995, 83–87.

  • Briand, L., El Emam, K., and Morasca, S. 1996. On the application of measurement theory in software engineering. Journal of Empirical Software Engineering 1(1): 61–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briand, L., El-Emam, K., Bomarius, F. 1998. COBRA: a hybrid method for software cost estimation, benchmarking, and risk assessment. Proceedings of 20th International Conference on Software Engineering. Kyoto, Japan, 390–399.

  • Briand, L., Freimut, B., and Vollei, F. 2000. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of inspections by combining project data and expert opinion. International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering-ISSRE 2000. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chulani, S., Boehm, B., and Steece, B. 1999. Bayesian analysis of empirical software engineering cost models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25(4): July/August 1999, 573–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conte, S. D., Dunsmore, H. E., and Shen, V. Y. 1985. Software Engineering Metrics and Models. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Emam, K. 1999. Benchmarking kappa for software process assessment reliability studies. Empirical Software Engineering: An International Journal (4): 113–133.

  • Fenton, N., and Pfleeger, S. L. 1996. Software Metrics-A Rigorous and Practical Approach. London, UK: International Thompson Computer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, R. 1998. Software Runaways: Lessons Learned from Massive Software Project Failures. Prentice Hall.

  • Gray, A. R., MacDonell, S. G., and Shepperd, M. J. 1999. Factors systematically associated with errors in subjective estimates of software development effort: the stability of expert judgment. Proceedings of the Sixth International Software Metrics Symposium, 216–227.

  • Hoch, D. J., Roeding, C. R., Purkert, G., and Lindner, S. K. 2000. Secrets of software success. Boston, MA: Harward Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höst, M., and Wohlin, C. 1997. A subjective effort estimation experiment. International Journal of Information and Software Technology 39(11): 755–762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höst, M., and Wohlin, C. 1998. An experimental study of individual subjective effort estimations and combinations of the estimate. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering, Kyoto, Japan, 332–339.

  • Hughes, R. T. 1996. Expert judgment as an estimating method. Information and Software Technology, 38: 67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kachigan, S. K. 1986. Statistical Analysis-An Interdisciplinary Introduction to Univariate & Multivariate Methods. New York, NY: Radius Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson, J., and Ryan, K. 1997. A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements. IEEE Software, September/October, 67–74.

  • Khoshgoftaar, T. M., and Lanning, D. L. 1994. Are the principal components of software complexity stable across software products? Proceedings of International Symposium on Software Metrics. London UK, October 94, 61–72.

  • Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Allen, E. B., Goel, N., Nandi, A., and McMullan, J. 1996. Detection of software modules with high code debug churn in a very large legacy system. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering' 96, White Plains, NY, 364–371.

  • von Mayrhauser, A. 1990. Software Engineering: Methods and Management. Boston, MA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. A., and Booker, J. M. 1991. Elicitating and Analyzing Expert judgment. A Practical Guide. Boston, MA, Academic Press, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • NASA-SEL; Software Engineering Laboratory Database Organization and Users Guide, Revision 2; NASA-SEL Series, SEL–89–201, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, Oct. 1992.

  • Ohlsson, M. C., and Wohlin, C. 1998. Identification of green, yellow, and red legacy components. Procs. International Conference on Software Maintenance' 98, Washington, DC, 6–15.

  • Ohlsson, M. C., von Mayrhauser, A., McGuire, B., and Wohlin, C. 1999. Code decay analysis of legacy software through successive releases. Proceedings of the IEEE Aerospace Conference 1999, Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulk, M. C., Weber, C. V., and Curtis, B. 1995. The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving the Software Process, SEI Series in Software Engineering.

  • Ropponen, J., and Lyytinen, K. 2000. Components of software development risk: how to address them? a project manager survey. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26(2): 98–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepperd, M., and Cartwright, M. 2001. Predicting with sparse data. Proceedings of the IEEE International Software Metrics Symposium, London, UK.

  • Wohlin, C., and von Mayrhauser, A. 2001. Assessing project success using subjective evaluation factors. Software Quality Journal 9(1): 43–70.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Software Engineering and Computer Science, Soft Center, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Box 520, SE, 372 25, Ronneby, Sweden

    Claes Wohlin

  2. School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 99164-2752, USA

    Anneliese Amschler Andrews

Authors
  1. Claes Wohlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anneliese Amschler Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wohlin, C., Andrews, A.A. Prioritizing and Assessing Software Project Success Factors and Project Characteristics using Subjective Data. Empirical Software Engineering 8, 285–308 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024476828183

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024476828183

Search

Navigation