Advertisement

A Case Study on the Success of Introducing General Non-construction Activities for Project Management and Planning Improvement

  • Topi Haapio
  • Jarmo J. Ahonen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4034)

Abstract

The creation of a proper work breakdown structure (WBS) is essential in performing successful project effort estimation and project management. The use of WBS is required on the level 1 of CMMI. There is, however, no standard WBS available. In this paper, the results of a pilot project in which new activities were introduced into the TietoEnator’s WBS are reported. The activities were non-construction activities which are necessary but not directly related to the actual software construction. The study shows that the success of the introduction of such activities very much depends on the naming of the activities and how they are introduced to the employees. Additionally, it turned out that the pre-thought set of non-construction activities included activities that should not have been in the set at all as individual activities.

Keywords

Project Group Project Activity Software Project Effort Estimation Software Process Improve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wilson, D.N., Sifer, M.J.: Structured planning—project views. Software Engineering Journal 3, 134–140 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wolverton, R.W.: The cost of developing large-scale software. IEEE Transactions on Computers 23, 615–636 (1974)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boehm, B.: Software Engineering Economics. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1981)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    SEI: Capability maturity model integration (CMMI), version 1.1, staged representation. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2002-TE-029, ESC-TR-2002-029, CMU/SEI (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haapio, T.: The effects of non-construction activities on effort estimation. In: Proceedings of the 27th Information Systems Research in Scandinavia (IRIS’27) (2004), Available at: http://w3.msi.vxu.se/users/per/IRIS27/iris27-1021.pdf
  6. 6.
    MacDonell, S.G., Shepperd, M.J.: Using Prior-Phase Effort Records for Re-estimation During Software Projects. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS 2003), pp. 1–13. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boehm, B., Horowitz, E., Madachy, R., Reifer, D., Clark, B., Steece, B., Brown, A., Chulani, S., Abts, C.: Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hale, J., Parrish, A., Dixon, B., Smith, R.K.: Enhancing the cocomo estimation models. IEEE Software 17, 45–49 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blackburn, J.D., Scudder, G.D., Van Wassenhove, L.N.: Improving speed and productivity of software development: A global survey of software developers. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 22, 875–885 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Collier, B., DeMarco, T., Fearey, P.A.: Defined process for project post-mortem review. IEEE Software 13, 65–72 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brady, S., DeMarco, T.: Management-aided software engineering. IEEE Software 11, 25–32 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jalote, P.: CMM In Practice: Processes for Executing Software Projects at Infosys. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering, 6th edn. Pearson Education, Harlow (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zahran, S.: Software Process Improvement. Addison-Wesley, London (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee, H.Y., Jung, H.W., Chung, C.S., Lee, J., Lee, K., Jeong, H.: Analysis of interrater agreement in iso/iec 15504-based software process assessment. In: APAQS 2001: Proceedings of the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on Quality Software, p. 341. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Damian, D., Zowghi, D., Vaidyanathasamy, L., Pal, Y.: An industrial experience in process improvement: An early assessment at the australian center for unisys software. In: Proceedings of the 2002 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, ISESE 2002, pp. 111–126. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rautianen, K., Lassenius, C., Vähäniitty, J., Pyhäjärvi, M., Vanhanen, J.: A tentative framework for managing software product development in small companies. In: HICSS 2002: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2002), vol. 8, p. 251. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McBride, T., Henderson-Sellers, B., Zowghi, D.: Project management capability levels: An empirical study. In: APSEC 2004: Proceedings of the 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC 2004), pp. 56–63. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yoo, C., Yoon, J., Lee, B., Lee, C., Lee, J., Hyun, S., Wu, C.: An integrated model of ISO 9001: 2000 and CMMI for ISO registered organizations. In: APSEC 2004: Proceedings of the 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC 2004), pp. 150–157. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    SEI: Capability maturity model integration (CMMI), version 1.1, continuous representation. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2002-TR-028, ESC-TR-2002-028, CMU/SEI (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Järvinen, P.: On Research Methods. Opinpajan Kirja, Tampere, Finland (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iivari, J.: A paradigmatic analysis of contemporary schools of is development. European Journal of Information Systems 1, 249–272 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    March, S.T., Smith, G.F.: Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support Systems 15, 251–266 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly 28, 75–105 (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kitchenham, B., Pickard, L., Pfleeger, S.L.: Case studies for method and tool evaluation. IEEE Software 12, 52–62 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fenton, N.E., Pfleeger, S.L.: Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach, 2nd edn. PWS Publishing Company, Boston (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Topi Haapio
    • 1
  • Jarmo J. Ahonen
    • 2
  1. 1.TietoEnator Telecom & MediaKuopioFinland
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of KuopioKuopioFinland

Personalised recommendations