Evidence-Based Software Processes

  • Barry Boehm
  • Jo Ann Lane
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6195)


Many software projects fail because they commit to a set of plans and specifications with little evidence that if these are used on the project, they will lead to a feasible system being developed within the project’s budget and schedule. An effective way to avoid this is to make the evidence of feasibility a first-class developer deliverable that is reviewed by independent experts and key decision milestones: shortfalls in evidence are risks to be considered in going forward. This further implies that the developer will create and follow processes for evidence development. This paper provides processes for developing and reviewing feasibility evidence, and for using risk to determine how to proceed at major milestones. It also provides quantitative result on ”how much investment in evidence is enough,” as a function of the project’s size, criticality, and volatility.


Evidence-based development feasibility evidence Incremental Commitment Model evidence-based reviews risk assessment risk management 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Al Said, M.: Detecting Model Clashes During Software Systems Development. Doctoral Thesis. Department of Computer Science, University of Southern California (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beck, K.: Extreme Programming Explained. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boehm, B.: Anchoring the Software Process. IEEE Software, 73–82 (July 1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boehm, B., et al.: Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boehm, B., Lane, J.: Incremental Commitment Model Guide, version 0.5 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boehm, B., Lane, J.: Using the ICM to Integrate System Acquisition, Systems Engineering, and Software Engineering. CrossTalk, 4–9 (October 2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boehm, B., Port, D., Al Said, M.: Avoiding the Software Model-Clash Spiderweb. IEEE Computer, 120–122 (November 2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Glass, R.: Software Runaways. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maranzano, J., et al.: Architecture Reviews: Practice and Experience. IEEE Software (March/April 2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pew, R., Mavor, A.: Human-System Integration in the System Development Process: A New Look. National Academy Press, Washington (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Royce, W.: Software Project Management. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Royce, W., Bittner, K., Perrow, M.: The Economics of Iterative Software Development. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Standish Group 2009. CHAOS Summary (2009),
  15. 15.
    Schwaber, K., Beedle, M.: Agile Software Development with Scrum. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barry Boehm
    • 1
  • Jo Ann Lane
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations