Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards an evidence-based theoretical framework on factors influencing the software development productivity

  • Published:
Empirical Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context:

Productivity refers to the rate at which a company produces goods, and its observation takes into account the number of people and the amount of other necessary resources to deliver such goods. However, it is not clear how to observe productivity and what influences it when the product is software since most effort spent in software development is creative and human-dependent. Besides, the outputs vary from each instance of software solutions throughout the software development process.

Objective:

To characterize software development productivity and investigate evidence-based factors aiming at understanding their influence on software development productivity.

Method:

To evolve and replicate a systematic literature review (SLR) on software development productivity measurement and prediction methods. Next, to use the Structured Synthesis Method to aggregate and describe the relationships among software productivity and correspondingly influence factors according to the results of primary studies selected by SLR protocol.

Results:

The study allowed organizing a body of knowledge through a model obtained from empirical evidence comprising 25 factors and 33 relationships regarding software development productivity based on the technical literature over the last 30 years. It uses a taxonomy for describing observations and for supporting the reasoning of uncertainty on the evidence regarding software development productivity in Software Engineering.

Conclusions:

The acquired knowledge may represent a first try towards a well-grounded theoretical framework regarding software development productivity. Based on a methodically selected set of evidence, the proposed framework intends to support practitioners and researchers on observing, deciding, and controlling software development productivity in software projects. Additionally, it can encourage researchers to identify which phenomena deserve better understanding and explanation through further empirical studies.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed A, Ahmad S, Ehsan N, Mirza E, Sarwar SZ (2010) Agile Software Development: Impact on Productivity and Quality. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation & Technology.https://doi.org/10.1109/icmit.2010.5492703.

  • Anderson TR, Ghavami PK (1999) Using Data Envelopment Analysis for Evaluating Alternative Software Development Process Configurations. In Management of Engineering and Technology, 1999. Technology and Innovation Management. PICMET ‘99. Portland International Conference on, 1:298 vol.1.

  • Aquino G, Meira S (2009) Software Productivity Measurement: Past Analysis and Future Trends. In SETP’09: Proceedings of Third International Conference on Software Engineering Theory and Practice.

  • Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH et al (2004) Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations. BMJ 328(7454):1490

    Google Scholar 

  • Avritzer A, Lima A (2009) An empirical approach for the assessment of scheduling risk in a large globally distributed industrial software project. In 2009 Fourth IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/icgse.2009.53.

  • Banker RD, Slaughter SA (1997) A field study of scale economies in software maintenance. Manag Sci 43(12):1709–1725

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Barke H, Prechelt L (2018) "some reasons why actual cross-fertilization in cross-functional agile teams is difficult," 2018 IEEE/ACM 11th international workshop on cooperative and human aspects of software engineering (CHASE). Gothenburg 2018:97–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Biolchini J, Mian PG, Natali AC, Travassos GH (2005) Systematic Review in Software Engineering: Relevance and Utility. ES 679/05. COPPE/UFRJ. https://www.cos.ufrj.br/uploadfile/es67905.pdf

  • Bjarnason E, Smolander K, Engström E, Runeson P (2016) A theory of distances in software engineering. Inf Softw Technol 70:204–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehm BW (1981) Software engineering economics. Prentice-hall, Englewood Cliffs (NJ)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Brings J, Daun M, Kempe M, Weyer T (2018) On different search methods for systematic literature reviews and maps: experiences from a literature search on validation and verification of emergent behavior. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering 2018.

  • Buitron Ruiz SL, Apa C, Pino Correa FJ, Travassos GH (2019) Sobre la Viabilidad de un Componente para Especificar Requisitos No Funcionales: Un Estudio de Síntesis Estructurada. In Proceedings of XXII Ibero-American Conference on Software Engineering, ESELAW Track 1:586–599

    Google Scholar 

  • Card DN (1985) A Software Technology Evaluation Program. In Proceedings of the 1985 ACM Thirteenth Annual Conference on Computer Science - CSC ‘85.https://doi.org/10.1145/320599.322496.

  • Carrillo de Gea JM, Nicolás J, Alemán JLF, Toval A, Ouhbi S, Idri A (2016) Co-located and distributed natural-language requirements specification: traditional versus reuse-based techniques. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 28(3):205–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang CK, Jiang H (2006) Modeling Software Project Scheduling Based on Team Productivity And Its Simulations. In Proceedings of 2006 International Symposium on Distributed Computing and Applications to Business, Engineering, and Science.

  • Chapetta WA (2020a) Supplementary material of SLR, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3862980

  • Chapetta WA (2020b) Memos of coding - factors influencing software development productivity. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3844573

  • Chapetta WA, Travassos GH (2016) Software productivity measurement and prediction methods: what can we talk about them? In Proceedings of XV SBQS - Simpósio Brasileiro de Qualidade de Software.

  • Chen P, Chern C, Chen C (2012) Software Project Team Characteristics and Team Performance: Team Motivation as a Moderator. In Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), 2012 19th Asia-Pacific, 1:565–70.

  • Chidamber SR, Kemerer CF (1991) Towards a Metrics Suite for Object-Oriented Design. In Conference Proceedings on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications - OOPSLA ‘91.https://doi.org/10.1145/117954.117970.

  • Colazo JA (2008) Following the Sun: exploring productivity in temporally dispersed teams. In, 3:1833–39.

  • Cruzes DS, Dybå T (2010) Synthesizing Evidence in Software Engineering Research. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement - ESEM ‘10. https://doi.org/10.1145/1852786.1852788.

  • Dale CJ, van der Zee H (1992) Software productivity metrics: who needs them? Information and Software Technology 34(11):731–738

    Google Scholar 

  • de Barros Sampaio SC, Barros EA, de Aquino Junior GS, Silva MJC, de Lemos Meira SR (2010) A review of productivity factors and strategies on software development. In Proceedings of the 5 International Conference on Software Engineering Advances:196–204

  • de Oliveira SB, Valle R, Mahler CF (2010) A comparative analysis of CMMI software Project Management by Brazilian, Indian, and Chinese companies. Softw Qual J 18(2):177–194

  • de Souza Carvalho WC, Rosa PF, Soares MS, da Cunha Junior MAT, Buiatte LC (2011) A comparative analysis of the agile and traditional software development processes productivity. In 2011 30th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/sccc.2011.11.

  • Di Tullio D, Bahli B (2013) The impact of software process maturity on software project performance: the contingent role of software development risk. Systèmes D’information & Management 18(3):85

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyba T, Dingsoyr T, Hanssen GK (2007) Applying Systematic Reviews to Diverse Study Types: An Experience Report. In 1st International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2007). https://doi.org/10.1109/esem.2007.59.

  • Duarte CHC, Empir Software Eng, 2017. “Productivity paradoxes revisited,” 22: 818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9453-5.

  • Dutra AC, Prikladnicki R, França C (2015) What do we know about high performance teams in software engineering? Results from a systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the 41 Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications: 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEAA.2015.24

  • Endres A, Rombach HD (2003) A handbook of software and systems engineering: empirical observations, Laws, and theories. Pearson Education.

  • Erbas C, Erbas BC (2015) Modules and transactions: building blocks for a theory of software engineering. Sci Comput Program 101(April):6–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Farshchi M, Jusoh Y, Murad A (2012) Impact of personnel factors on the recovery of delayed software projects: a system dynamics approach. Computer Science and Information Systems 9(2):627–652

    Google Scholar 

  • Felizardo KR, Mendes E, Kalinowski M, Souza EF, Vijaykumar NL (2016) Using Forward Snowballing to Update Systematic Reviews in Software Engineering. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement - ESEM ‘16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2961111.2962630.

  • Foulds LR, Quaddus M, West M (2007) Structural Equation Modelling of Large-Scale Information System Application Development Productivity: The Hong Kong Experience. In the 6th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS 2007).https://doi.org/10.1109/icis.2007.174.

  • Fritz T, Mark G, Murphy GC, Zimmermann T (2017) Rethinking Productivity in Software Engineering (Dagstuhl Seminar 17102). In Dagstuhl Reports. Vol. 7. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.

  • Glaser B (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Sociology Pr.

  • Gralha C, Damian D, Wasserman A, Goulão M, Araújo J (2018) The evolution of requirements practices in software startups, 2018 IEEE/ACM 40th international conference on software engineering (ICSE), Gothenburg, 2018, pp. 823–833.

  • Gregor (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. The Mississippi Quarterly 30(3):611

    Google Scholar 

  • Günsel A, Açikgöz A (2013) The effects of team flexibility and emotional intelligence on software development performance. Group Decis Negot 22(2):359–377

  • Haenni R 2005, July. Shedding new light on Zadeh's criticism of Dempster's rule of combination. In: 7th international conference on information fusion (Vol. 2, pp. 6-pp). IEEE

  • Hanakawa N, Morisaki S, Matsumoto K (1998) A learning curve based simulation model for software development. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Software Engineering.https://doi.org/10.1109/icse.1998.671388.

  • Hannay JE, Benestad HC (2010) Perceived Productivity Threats in Large Agile Development Projects. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, 15:1–15:10. ESEM ‘10. New York, NY, USA: ACM.

  • Hannay JE, Sjoberg DIK, Dyba T (2007) A systematic review of theory use in software engineering experiments. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 33(2):87–107

    Google Scholar 

  • He MAB, Yang YA, Wang QA, Li MA (2008) An investigation on performance of software enhancement projects in China. In, 67–74.

  • Hernandez CA (2009) Theoretical coding in grounded theory methodology. Grounded Theory Review 8 (3)

  • Hernandez-Lopez A, Colomo-Palacios R, Garcia-Crespo A (2012) Productivity in Software Engineering: A Study of Its Meanings for Practitioners: Understanding the Concept under Their Standpoint. In Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI), 2012 7th Iberian Conference on, 1–6.

  • Hernández-López A, Colomo-Palacios R, García-Crespo A (2013) Software engineering job productivity — a systematic review. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 23(03):387–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-López A, Colomo-Palacios R, Soto-Acosta P, Lumberas CC (2015) Productivity measurement in software engineering: a study of the inputs and the outputs. International Journal of Information Technologies and Systems Approach 8(1):46–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes R, Allen M, Craig M (2018) Dimensions of experientialism for software engineering education. In proceedings of the 40th international conference on software engineering: software engineering education and training (ICSE-SEET '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 31–39.

  • Hsu JS, Hung YW (2013) Exploring the interaction effects of social capital. INFORMATION & MANAGEMENT 50(7):415–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang J, Sun H, Li Y (2015) An Empirical Study of the Impact of Project Factors on Software Economics. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM). https://doi.org/10.1109/ieem.2015.7385605.

  • Jeffery DR (1987) A software development productivity model for MIS environments. The Journal of Systems and Software 7(2):115–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffery R, Staples M, Andronick J, Klein G, Murray T (2015) An empirical research agenda for understanding formal methods of productivity. Inf Softw Technol 60:102–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson P, Ekstedt M (2007) In search of a unified theory of software engineering. In international conference on software engineering advances (ICSEA 2007), 1–1.

  • Johnson P, Ekstedt M (2016) The Tarpit--a general theory of software engineering. Inf Softw Technol 70:181–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Jøsang A, Pope S (2012) Dempster’s rule as seen by little colored balls. Comput Intell 28(4):453–474

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kamma D, Sasi KG (2014) Effect of Model-Based Software Development on Productivity of Enhancement Tasks -- An Industrial Study. In 2014 21st Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference. https://doi.org/10.1109/apsec.2014.20.

  • Kang D, Jung J, Bae D (2011) Constraint-based human resource allocation in software projects. Software: Practice & Experience 41(5):551–577

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny M, Fourie R (2015) Contrasting classic, Straussian, and constructivist grounded theory: methodological and philosophical conflicts. Qual Rep 20(8):1270–1289

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan MS, Kriebel CH, Kekre S, Mukhopadhyay T (2000) An empirical analysis of productivity and quality in software products. Manag Sci 46(6):745–759

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuchar T, Vondrak I (2013) Simulating Human Resource Capability and Productivity in Software Process Simulations. In Proceedings of 25th European Modeling and Simulation Symposium, EMSS 2013, 255–63.

  • Lavazza L, Morasca S, Tosi D (2016) An Empirical Study on the Effect of Programming Languages on Productivity. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, 1434–39. SAC ‘16. New York, NY, USA: ACM.

  • Lee L, Xia (2010) Toward agile: an integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative field data on software development agility. The Mississippi Quarterly 34(1):87

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang T, Wu JC, Jiang JJ, Klein G (2012) The impact of value diversity on information system development projects. Int J Proj Manag 30(6):731–739

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindman J, Hammouda I (2018) Support mechanisms provided by FLOSS foundations and other entities. Journal of Internet Services and Applications 9(1):8

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu JY, Chen H, Chen CC, Sheu TS (2011) Relationships among Interpersonal Conflict, Requirements Uncertainty, and Software Project Performance. International Journal of Project Management 29(5, SI):547–556

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu L, Kong X, Chen J (2015) How project duration, upfront costs, and uncertainty interact and impact on software development productivity? A simulation approach. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management 8(1):39

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Martin C, Chavoya A, Meda-Campana ME (2014) A Machine Learning Technique for Predicting the Productivity of Practitioners from Individually Developed Software Projects. In 15th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking, and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD).https://doi.org/10.1109/snpd.2014.6888690.

  • MacCormack A, Kemerer CF, Cusumano M, Crandall B (2003) Trade-offs between productivity and quality in selecting software development practices. IEEE Software 20(5):78–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Fernandez S, Santos PSM, Ayala CP, Franch X, Travassos GH (2015) Aggregating Empirical Evidence about the Benefits and Drawbacks of Software Reference Architectures. In 2015 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM).https://doi.org/10.1109/esem.2015.7321184

  • Maxwell KD, Forselius P (2000) Benchmarking software development productivity. IEEE Softw 17(1):80–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell KD, Van Wassenhove L, Dutta S (1996) Software development productivity of European Space, military, and industrial applications. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 22(10):706–718

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer AN, Barton LE, Murphy GC, Zimmermann T, Fritz T (2017) The work-life of developers: activities, switches, and perceived productivity. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 43(12):1178–1193

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller J (2000) Applying meta-analytical procedures to software engineering experiments. The Journal of Systems and Software 54(1):29–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller J (2005) Replicating software engineering experiments: a poisoned chalice or the holy grail. Inf Softw Technol 47(4):233–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Moazeni R, Link D, Boehm B (2014) COCOMO II Parameters and IDPD: Bilateral Relevances. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Software and System Process - ICSSP 2014.https://doi.org/10.1145/2600821.2600847.

  • Mohapatra S (2011) Maximising productivity by controlling influencing factors in commercial software development. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education: An Official Publication of the Information Resources Management Association 3(2):160

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro LFS, de Oliveira KM (2011) Defining a catalog of indicators to support process performance analysis. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 23(6):395–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Morasca S, Russo G (2001) An Empirical Study of Software Productivity. In the 25th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference. COMPSAC 2001.https://doi.org/10.1109/cmpsac.2001.960633.

  • Morisio M, Romano D, Stamelos I (2002) Quality, productivity, and learning in framework-based development: an exploratory case study. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 28(9):876–888

    Google Scholar 

  • Munch J, Armbrust O (2003) Using Empirical Knowledge from Replicated Experiments for Software Process Simulation: A Practical Example. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2003. ISESE 2003. 10.1109/isese.2003.1237961

  • Munir H, Runeson P, Wnuk K (2018) A theory of openness for software engineering tools in software organizations. Information and Software Technology 97:26–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Myrtveit I, Stensrud E (1999) Benchmarking COTS projects using data envelopment analysis. In, 269–78.

  • Nguyen V, Huang L, Boehm B (2011) An Analysis of Trends in Productivity and Cost Drivers over Years. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering - Promise ‘11.https://doi.org/10.1145/2020390.2020393.

  • Oliveira E, Conte T, Cristo M, Valentim N (2018) Influence factors in software productivity—a tertiary literature review. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering: 1795–1810

  • Otero LD, Centeno G, Otero CE, Reeves K (2012) A DEA–Tobit analysis to understand the role of experience and task factors in the efficiency of software engineers. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 59(3):391–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Pai DR, Subramanian GH, Pendharkar PC (2015) Benchmarking software development productivity of CMMI level 5 projects. Inf Technol Manag 16(3):235–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Paiva, E., Barbosa, D., Lima, R., & Albuquerque, A. (2010). “Factors that Influence the Productivity of Software Developers in a Developer View.” In: Innovations in Computing Sciences and Software Engineering, pp. 99–104. Dordrecht: Springer, Netherlands.

  • Petersen K (2011) Measuring and predicting software productivity: a systematic map and review. Information and Software Technology 53(4):317–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Prechelt L (2000) An empirical comparison of seven programming languages. Computer, no 10: 23–29

  • Putnam LH, Myers W (1992) Measures for Excellence: Reliable Software on Time, Within Budget. Prentice-Hall.

  • Rahman A, Stallings J, Williams L (2018) Defect Prediction Metrics for Infrastructure as Code Scripts in DevOps. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings, 414–15. ACM.

  • Ramasubbu N, Balan RK (2008) Globally Distributed Software Development Project Performance. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on India Software Engineering Conference - ISEC ‘08. https://doi.org/10.1145/1342211.1342217.

  • Ramasubbu N, Cataldo M, Balan RK, Herbsleb JD (2011) Configuring Global Software Teams: A Multi-Company Analysis of Project Productivity, Quality, and Profits. In Proceeding of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering - ICSE ‘11. https://doi.org/10.1145/1985793.1985830.

  • Ramasubbu N, Bharadwaj A, Tayi GK (2015) Software process diversity: conceptualization, measurement, and analysis of impact on project performance. SSRN Electronic Journal.https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2627173.

  • Ramírez-Mora SL, Oktaba H (2017) Productivity in agile software development: a systematic mapping study. In: 2017 5th international conference in software engineering research and innovation (CONISOFT), pp. 44–53.

  • Ramírez-Mora SL, Oktaba H, Patlán Pérez J (2020) Group maturity, team efficiency, and team effectiveness in software development: A case study in a CMMI-DEV Level 5 organization. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process 32(4):e2232

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez D, Sicilia MA, García E, Harrison R (2012) Empirical findings on team size and productivity in software development. The Journal of Systems and Software 85(3):562–570

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothenberger MA, Kao Y, Van Wassenhove LN (2010) Total quality in software development: an empirical study of quality drivers and benefits in Indian software projects. Inf Manag 47(7-8):372–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadowski C, Zimmermann T (2019) Rethinking productivity in software engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-4221-6.

  • Santos G, Kalinowski M, Rocha AR, Travassos GH, Weber KC, Antonioni JA (2010) “MPS.BR: a tale of software process improvement and performance results in the Brazilian software industry.” In 2010 Seventh International Conference on the Quality of Information and Communications Technology.https://doi.org/10.1109/quatic.2010.75.

  • Santos PSM, Travassos GH (2013) On the representation and aggregation of evidence in software engineering: a theory and belief-based perspective. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 292:95–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2013.02.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos PSM (2015) Evidence representation and aggregation in software engineering using theoretical structures and belief functions, D.Sc. Thesis, UFRJ/COPPE. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bd61/3f9daba33372fe5ed6faee3c2833a9e7ae4f.pdf.

  • Santos PSM, Travassos GH (2017a) Structured Synthesis Method: The Evidence Factory Tool. In 2017 ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM).https://doi.org/10.1109/esem.2017.68.

  • Santos PSM, Travassos GH (2017b) Evidence of usage-based Reading effects by using the structured synthesis method. RT-ES 753/17. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ/COPPE). https://www.cos.ufrj.br/uploadfile/publicacao/2793.pdf

  • Santos PSM, Beltrão AC, Souza BP, Travassos GH (2018) 2018. On the benefits and challenges of using KANBAN in software engineering: a structured synthesis study. Journal of Software Engineering Research and Development 6:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40411-018-0057-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scacchi W (1991) Understanding software productivity: towards a knowledge-based approach. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 01(03):293–321

    Google Scholar 

  • Schluter T, Birkholzer T (2012) Modeling and Analysis of Software Development Management as Closed Loop Control. In 2012 International Conference on Software and System Process (ICSSP).https://doi.org/10.1109/icssp.2012.6225966.

  • Scholtes I, Mavrodiev P, Schweitzer F (2016) From Aristotle to Ringelmann: a large-scale analysis of team productivity and coordination in open source software projects. Empirical Software Engineering 21(2):642–683

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer G (1976) A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press

  • Smets P (2007) Analyzing the combination of conflicting belief functions. Information fusion 8(4):387–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan T, Li Q, Boehm B, Yang Y, He M, Moazeni R (2009) Productivity trends in incremental and iterative software development. In 2009 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1109/esem.2009.5316044.

  • Stol K, Goedicke M, Jacobson I (2016) Introduction to the special section—general theories of software engineering: new advances and implications for research. Inf Softw Technol 70(February):176–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Teasley SDL, Covi A, Krishnan MS, Olson JS (2002) Rapid software development through team collocation. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 28(7):671–683

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornberg R, Charmaz K (2014) Grounded Theory and Theoretical Coding. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, 153–69

  • Trendowicz A, Münch J (2009) Factors influencing software development productivity - state of the art and industrial experiences. Adv Comput 77:185–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsunoda M, Monden A, Yadohisa H, Kikuchi N, Matsumoto K (2009) Software development productivity of Japanese Enterprise applications. Information technology & management 10(4):193–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsunoda M, Ono K (2014) Pitfalls of Analyzing a Cross-Company Dataset of Software Maintenance and Support. In 15th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking, and Parallel/Distributed Computing (SNPD).https://doi.org/10.1109/snpd.2014.6888729.

  • Vasilescu B, Posnett D, Ray B, van den Brand MG, Serebrenik A, Devanbu P, Filkov V (2015) Gender and tenure diversity in GitHub teams. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 3789–3798.

  • Wagner S, Ruhe M (2008) A Systematic Review of Productivity Factors in Software Development. In Proc. 2nd International Workshop on Software Productivity Analysis and Cost Estimation (SPACE 2008). Technical report ISCAS-SKLCS-08-08, State Key Laboratory of Computer Science, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences.

  • Wang H, Wang H, Zhang H (2008) Software productivity analysis with CSBSG data set. In 2008 International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/csse.2008.1178.

  • Weber, K. C., Araújo, E.R.R., Rocha, A.R.C., Machado, C.A.F., Scalet, D., and Salviano, C.F., 2005. “Brazilian software process reference model and assessment method.” In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 402–11.

  • Wohlin, C., 2014. Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and replication in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE '14). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268

  • Xiong W (2008) Analyzing a paradox in Dempster-Shafer Theory. In: Fifth International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (Vol. 5, pp. 154–158).

  • Xu P a, Yao Y b (2013) Knowledge sharing in offshore software development, a vendor perspective. J Glob Inf Technol Manag 16(1):58–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz M, O’Connor RV, Clarke P (2016) Effective social productivity measurements during software development — an empirical study. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 26(03):457–490

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh L (1984) Review of Shafer’s mathematical theory of evidence. AI Mag 5:81–83

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Prof. Kai Petersen, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden, for promptly sharing his SLR lab package with us. Prof. Travassos is a CNPq Researcher (grant 304234/2018-4).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. PESC/COPPE, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

    Wladmir Araujo Chapetta & Guilherme Horta Travassos

  2. DIMCI/DMTIC, National Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

    Wladmir Araujo Chapetta

Authors
  1. Wladmir Araujo Chapetta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guilherme Horta Travassos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wladmir Araujo Chapetta.

Additional information

Communicated by: Kelly Blincoe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chapetta, W.A., Travassos, G.H. Towards an evidence-based theoretical framework on factors influencing the software development productivity. Empir Software Eng 25, 3501–3543 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-020-09844-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-020-09844-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation