Advertisement

Research Objective, Hypotheses and Methodology

  • Sanjay Mohapatra
Chapter

Abstract

In literature survey, we have seen that benchmarking exercise is necessary for an organization to remain competitive in the market. This helps an organization not only to remain competitive, but also to service its customers in an efficient manner. Thus, it becomes a requirement in the business to have such benchmarking. Through benchmarking, we can find the gap between best-in-class performance in the industry and the performance of the organization in study, analyse the reasons for such gap and take steps for improving performance. While carrying out benchmarking exercise, many focus areas can be selected. Some of the focus areas can be accounting practices, strategic alliances, billing practices being followed, productivity, etc. The focus area is decided based on the importance of benchmarking; this study is devoted to benchmarking productivity and quality of the end products. The study is conducted in the software industry and especially in software development projects.

Keywords

Project Manager Development Project Project Team Defect Density Testing Tool 
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.

References

  1. Baroudi WS (1985) A discipline for software engineering. ReadingGoogle Scholar
  2. Boehm B (1981) Software engineering economics (original COCOMO). Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  3. Case AF (Fall 1985) Computer-aided software engineering. Database 17(1):35–43Google Scholar
  4. Chrysler E (1978) Some basic determinants of computer programming productivity. Communications ACM 21:472–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Curtis B (1980) Measurement and experimentation in software engineering. Proceedings IEEE 1103–1119Google Scholar
  6. Curtis B (1981) Substantiating programmer variability. Proc IEEEGoogle Scholar
  7. Cusumano M, Kemerer CF (1990) A quantitative analysis of U.S. and Japanese practice and performance in software development. Manage Sci 36:1384–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldstein M, Rockart V (1984) The cleanroom approach to quality software development. Wiley Series in Software Engineering PracticeGoogle Scholar
  9. Holmes JS (2003) Optimizing the software life cycle. ASQ Software Quality Professional5.4, pp 14–23Google Scholar
  10. Jalote P (2001) CMM in practice process for executing software projects at Infosys. Addidon-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  11. Kriebel CH (1979) Evaluating the quality of information systems. In: Szyperski N, Grochla E (eds) Design and implementation of computer based information systems, Chapter 2. Sitjhoff & Noordhoff, The Netherlands, pp 29–43Google Scholar
  12. Lambert GN (1984) A comparative study of systems response time on programmer development productivity. IBM Syst J 23:36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McGarry MC (1984) An empirical study of process discipline and software quality. Ph.D. discussion, University of PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  14. Mcguire EG (2004) Factors affecting quality of software project management: an empirical study based on the Capability maturity Model. Software Qual J, Spronger Netherlands, ISSN 0963–9314Google Scholar
  15. Mohanty SN (1981) Software cost estimation: present and future. Software Pract Exp 11:103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mohapatra S, Mohanty B (2001) Achieving quality in software projects through requirement management—an experience based approach. IECON’01 Special Session on Software Engineering—IEEEGoogle Scholar
  17. Mohapatra S, Mohanty B (2001) Distribution center management model—as an integral part of supply chain management. In: Second international workshop on conceptual modelling approaches for e-BusinessGoogle Scholar
  18. Mohapatra S, Mohanty B (2003) Quantitative software quality management an experience report at Infosys. In: The 15th Brazilian symposium on software engineering—SBESGoogle Scholar
  19. Mohapatra S, Mohanty B (2003) Return on investment through monitoring cost of quality at Infosys. WCREGoogle Scholar
  20. Mohapatra S, Bhashyam MR, Srinivas P (2000) Software process improvement, a case study at Infosys. In: Second annual international software testing conference, IndianaGoogle Scholar
  21. Nance R (1992) Software quality indicators: an holistic approach to measurement. In: Proc. 4th Ann. Software Quality Workshop, Alexandria Bay, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Paulk MC (2006) Factors affecting personal software quality. J Defence Software Eng 19:9–13Google Scholar
  23. Pressman RS (1996) Software engineering: a practitioner’s approach. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  24. Scacchi W (1995) Understanding software productivity. Advances in Software Engineering and Knowledge engineering, pp 37–70Google Scholar
  25. Thadhani AJ (1984) Factors affecting programmer productivity during application development. IBM Systems J. 19–35Google Scholar
  26. Vosburg J, Curtis B, Wolverton R, Albert B, Malec H, Hoben S, Liu Y (1984) Productivity factors and programming environments. Proceedings 7th International Conference Software Engineering, IEEE Computer Society, pp 143–152Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanjay Mohapatra
    • 1
  1. 1.Xavier Institute of ManagementBhubaneswarIndia

Personalised recommendations