Advertisement

Empirical Software Engineering

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 818–847 | Cite as

Productivity paradoxes revisited

Assessing the relationship between quality maturity levels and labor productivity in brazilian software companies
  • Carlos Henrique C. Duarte
Article

Abstract

The adoption of quality assurance methods based on software process improvement models has been regarded as an important source of variability in software productivity. Some companies perceive that their implementation has prohibitive costs, whereas some authors identify in their use a way to comply with software development patterns and standards, produce economic value and lead to corporate performance improvement. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between quality maturity levels and labor productivity, using a data set containing 687 Brazilian software firms. We study here the relationship between labor productivity, as measured through the annual gross revenue per worker ratio, and quality levels, which were appraised from 2006 to 2012 according to two distinct software process improvement models: MPS.BR and CMMI. We perform independent statistical tests using appraisals carried out according to each of these models, consequently obtaining a data set with as many observations as possible, in order to seek strong support for our research. We first show that MPS.BR and CMMI appraised quality maturity levels are correlated, but we find no statistical evidence that they are related to higher labor productivity or productivity growth. On the contrary, we present evidence suggesting that average labor productivity is higher in software companies without appraised quality levels. Moreover, our analyses suggest that companies with appraised quality maturity levels are more or less productive depending on factors such as their business nature, main origin of capital and maintained quality level.

Keywords

Productivity Software engineering economics Software process models Software quality assurance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the Softex Society administration, for providing a compilation of historical data concerning MPS.BR appraisals, as well as to Luiz Paulo Alves Franca and some anonymous reviewers, for their helpful comments and criticism on earlier versions of this paper.

References

  1. ABES (Unknown Month 2007) The Brazilian Software Market [Online]. Brazilian Association of Software Companies, volumes from 2006 to 2012 . https://www.abessoftware.com.br/dados-do-setor/anos-anteriores
  2. Boehm BW (1981) Software Engineering Economics. Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  3. Boehm BW (1987) Improving software productivity. IEEE Comput 20(9):43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brynjolfsson E, Hitt LM (1998) Beyond the productivity paradox. Commun ACM 41(8):49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chrissis MB, Konrad M, Shrum S (2006) CMMI: Guidelines For process integration and product improvement. Addison-Wesley, SEI Series in Software EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  6. CMMI Institute (2013) Published Appraisal Results [Online]. https://sas.cmmiinstitute.com/pars/pars.aspx
  7. Collofello JS, Woodfield SN, Gibbs NE (1983) Software productivity measurement. In: Proc. National Computer Conference (AFIPS’83), pp 757–762Google Scholar
  8. Duarte CHC (1996) Moving software to a global platform. IEEE Spectr 33 (7):40–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duarte CHC (2002) Brazil: Cooperative Development of a software industry. IEEE Softw 19(3):84–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duarte CHC (2012) A decade of continued support to the information and communication technology sector in Brazil: The most relevant events and the role of BNDES. Revista do BNDES 19(37):91–126. in PortugueseGoogle Scholar
  11. Duarte CHC (2014) On the relationship between quality assurance and productivity in software companies. In: Proc. 2nd international workshop on conducting empirical studies in industry (CESI 2014). Hyderabad, India, pp 31–38Google Scholar
  12. Duarte CHC, Branco CEC (2001) Social and economic impacts of the Brazilian policy for information technologies. Revista do BNDES 15:125–146. in PortugueseGoogle Scholar
  13. Exame Informática (Unknown Month 2007) The Bigger and Better Brazilian Companies. Volumes from 2006 to 2012. In PortugueseGoogle Scholar
  14. Gorschek T, Davis A (2008) Requirements engineering: in search of the dependent variables. Inf Softw Technol 50(1-2):67–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griliches Z (1986) Productivity, R&D and basic research at the firm level in the 1970s. Am Econ Rev 76(1):141–154MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Herbsleb JD, Goldenson DR (1996) A systematic survey of CMM experience and results. In: Proc. 18th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1996), pp 323–330Google Scholar
  17. Herbsleb JD, Zubrow D, Goldenson DR, Hayes W, Paulk M (1997) Software quality and the capability maturity model. Commun ACM 40(6):30–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Informática Hoje (Unknown Month 2007) Anuário [Online]. Volumes from 2006 to 2012. In Portuguese. http://www.forumeditorial.com.br/
  19. ISO/IEC (1998) ISO/IEC 15504: Information Technology - Software Process Assessment. International Standards OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones C, Bonsignour O (2012) The Economics of Software Quality. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  21. Kalinowski M, et al. (2011) From software engineering research to Brazilian software quality improvement. In: Proc. 15th Brazilian Software Engineering Symposium (SBES’2011), pp 120–125Google Scholar
  22. Kamma D, Jalote P (2013) Effect of task processes on programmer productivity in model-based testing. In: Proc. 6th India Software Engineering Conference (ISEC 2013), pp 23–28Google Scholar
  23. Konrad M, Shrum S (2011) CMMI For development: Version 1.3, 3rd edn. Addison-Wesley, SEI Series in Software EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  24. Krishnan MS, Kriebel CH, Kekre S, Mukhopadhyay T (2000) An empirical analysis of productivity and quality in software products. Manag Sci 46(6):745–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levene DM, Berenson M, Stephan D, Krehbiel TC (2008) Statistics for Managers using Microsoft Excell, 5th edn. Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  26. Maxwell K, Wassenhove LV, Dutta S (1996) Software development productivity of european space, military and industrial applications. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 22 (10):706–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Montoni MA, Rocha AR, Weber KC (2009) MPS.BR: A successful program for software process improvement in Brazil. Softw Process: Improv Pract 14(5):289–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nguyen V, Huang LG, Boehm B (2011) An analysis of trends in productivity and cost drivers over years. In: Proc. 7th International Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering (PROMISE 2011), pp 1–10Google Scholar
  29. OECD (2001) Measuring Productivity: Measurement of Aggregate and Industry-Level Productivity Growth. Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  30. Paulk MC, Weber CV, Curtis B, Chrissis MB (1995) The Capability Maturity Model: Guidelines for Improving Software Processes. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  31. Petersen K (2011) Measuring and predicting software productivity. Inf Softw Technol 53(4):317–343MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pilat D (2004) The ICT Productivity Paradox: Insights from Micro Data. OECD Economic Studies 38, Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosner B (2010) Fundamentals of Bioinformatics, 7th edn. Books and CooleGoogle Scholar
  34. Rubin HA (1993) Software process maturity: Measuring its impact on productivity and quality. In: Proc. 15th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 1993), pp 468–476Google Scholar
  35. Siy HP, et al. (2001) Making the software factory work: Lessons from a decade of experience. In: Proc. 7th International Symposium on Software Metrics (METRICS 2001), pp 317–326Google Scholar
  36. Softex Society (2013) MPS.BR Evaluations [Online]. http://www.softex.br/mpsbr
  37. Staples M, et al. (2007) An exploratory study of why organizatons do not adopt CMMI. J Syst Softw 80(6):883–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Trendowicz A, Ochs M, Wickenkamp A, Münch J, Ishigai Y, Kawaguchi T (2008) An integrated approach for identifying relevant factors influencing software development productivity. In: Balancing agility and forMalism in software engineering, Springer, lecture notes in computer science, vol 5082, pp 223–237Google Scholar
  39. Tsunoda M, Monden A, Yadohisa H, Kikuchi N, Matsumoto K (2006) Productivity analysis of Japanese enterprise software development projects. In: Proc. 2006 International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2006), pp 14–17Google Scholar
  40. Valor Econômico (Unknown Month 2007) Valor 1000. Volumes from 2006 to 2012. In PortugueseGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang Y, Zhang C, Chen G, Shi Y (2012) Empirical research on the total factor productivity of Chinese software companies. In: Proc. 2012 international joint conferences on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology (WI-IAT 2012), vol 3, pp 25–29Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BNDESRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations