Skip to main content

An Empirical Study on Memory Bias Situations and Correction Strategies in ERP Effort Estimation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 9459))

Abstract

An Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) project estimation process often relies on experts of various backgrounds to contribute judgments based on their professional experience. Such expert judgments however may not be bias-free. De-biasing techniques therefore have been proposed in the software estimation literature to counter various problems of expert bias. Yet, most studies on de-biasing focus on systematic bias types such as bias due to interdependence, improper comparisons, presence of irrelevant information, and awareness of clients’ expectations. Little has been done to address bias due to experts’ memory. This is surprising, knowing that memory bias retrieval and encoding errors are likely to affect the estimation process outcome. This qualitative exploratory study investigates the memory bias situations encountered by ERP professionals, and the possible coping strategies to problems pertaining to those situations. Using interviews with 11 practitioners in a global ERP vendor’s organization, we explicate how experts retrieve and encode stored memory, what kind of errors they experience along the way, and what correction techniques they were using. We found that both errors due to memory retrieval and due to memory encoding seemed to lead to project effort underestimation. We also found that the most common memory correction strategy was the use of mnemonics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Erasmus, P., Daneva, M.: ERP effort estimation based on expert judgments. In: 2013 International Conference on Software Process and Product Measurement, Mensura 2013, LNCS, pp. 104–109 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Erasmus, P., Daneva, M.: ERP services effort estimation strategies based on early requirements. In: REFSQ Workshops 2015, pp. 83–99 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Halkjelsvik, T., Jørgensen, M.: From origami to software development: a review of studies on judgment-based predictions of performance time. Psychol. Bull. 138(2), 238–271 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Roy, M.M., Christenfeld, N.J.S.: Bias in memory predicts: bias in estimation of future task duration. Mem. Cogn. 35, 557–564 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jørgensen, M., Grimstad, S.: Software development estimation biases: the role of interdependence. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 38(3), 677–693 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jørgensen, M.: Relative estimation of software development effort: it matters with what and how you compare. IEEE Softw. 30(2), 74–79 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jørgensen, M., Grimstad, S.: Avoiding irrelevant and misleading information when estimating development effort. IEEE Softw. 25(3), 78–83 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jørgensen, M., Sjøberg, D.I.K.: The impact of customer expectation on software development effort estimates. Int. J. Project Manage. 22, 317–325 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yin, R.: Case Study Research Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kessel, S.: Self and Consciousness: Multiple Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Roediger, H.L.: Reconstructive Memory. In: Smelser, N.J., Baltes, P.B. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier, Oxford (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Burt, C.D.B., Kemp, S.: Construction of activity duration and time management potential. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 8, 155–168 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Handley, S.J., Thomas, K.E., Newstead, S.E.: The effect of prior experience on estimating the duration of simple tasks. Current Psychol. Cogn. 22, 83–100 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Thomas, K.E., Newstead, S.E., Handley, S.J.: Exploring the time prediction process: the effect of task experience and complexity on prediction accuracy. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 17, 655–673 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Christenfeld, R.M., McKenzie, C.: The broad applicability of memory bias and its coexistence with the planning fallacy: reply to Griffin and Buehler (2005). Psychol. Bull. 131, 761–762 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Block, R.A., Zakay, D.: Prospective and retrospective durations judgments: a meta-analytic review. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 4, 184–197 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fraisse, P.: On the relationship between time management and time estimation. Br. J. Psychol. 90, 33–347 (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Poynter, D.: Judging the duration of time intervals: a process of remembering segments of experience. In: A Life-Span Perspective, pp. 305–322 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wallace, M., Rabin, A.I.: Temporal experience. Psychol. Bull. 57, 213–236 (1960)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Koole, S., Van’t Spijker, M.: Overcoming the planning fallacy through willpower: effects of implementation intentions on actual and predicted task-completion times. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 30, 873–888 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Christenfeld, N.J.S., Roy, M.M.: Effect of task length on remembered and predicted duration. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 16, 202–207 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Byram, S.J.: Cognitive and motivational factors influencing time predictions. J. Exp. Psychol. 216–239 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Connolly, T., Dean, D.: Decomposed versus holistic estimates of effort required for software writing tasks. Manage. Sci. 43, 1029–1045 (1997)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Jørgensen, M.: Top-down and bottom-up expert estimation of software development effort. Inf. Softw. Technol. 46, 3–16 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Molokken-Ostvold, K., Jørgensen, M.: Expert estimation of web-development projects: are software professionals in technical roles more optimistic than those in non-technical roles? Empirical Softw. Eng. 10, 7–29 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Buehler, R., Griffin, D., Ross, M.: Inside the planning fallacy: the causes and consequences of optimistic time prediction. In: Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, pp. 250–270 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hinds, P.J.: The curse of expertise: the effects of expertise and debiasing methods on predictions of novice performance. J. Exp. Psychol. 205–221 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Intuitive prediction: biases and corrective procedures. In: Judgments Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, pp. 414–421 (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Buehler, R., Griffin, D., Ross, M.: Exploring the “Planning Fallacy”: why people underestimate their task completion times. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67, 366–381 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kruger, J., Evans, M.: If you don’t want to be late, enumerate: unpacking reduces the planning fallacy. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40, 586–598 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Newby-Clark, I.R., Ross, M., Buehler, R., Koehler, D.J., Griffin, D.: People focus on optimistic scenarios and disregard pessimistic scenarios while predicting task completion times. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 6, 171–182 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Taylor, S.E., Pham, L.B., Rivkin, I.D., Armor, D.A.: Harnessing the imagination. Am. Psychol. 53, 429–439 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Griffin, D., Buehler, R.: Biases and fallacies, memories and predictions: comment on Roy, Christenfeld, and McKenzie (2005). Psychol. Bull. 131, 757–760 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Buehler, R., Griffin, D., MacDonald, H.: The role of motivated reasoning in optimistic time predictions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23, 238–247 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Remus, W., O’Connor, M., Griggs, K.: Does feedback improve the accuracy of recurrent judgment forecasts? Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 66, 22–30 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Daneva, M.: ERP requirements engineering practice: lessons learned. IEEE Softw. 21(2), 26–33 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. King, N., Horrock, C.: Interviews in Qualitative Research. Sage, London (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Charmaz, K.: Constructing Grounded Theory. Sage, London (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wieringa, R.J., Daneva, M.: Six strategies for generalizing software engineering theories. Sci. Comput. Program. 100 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Roy, M., Mitten, S., Christenfield, J.: Correcting memory improves accuracy of predicted task duration. J. Exp. Psychol. 14(3) 266

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maya Daneva .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Erasmus, P., Daneva, M. (2015). An Empirical Study on Memory Bias Situations and Correction Strategies in ERP Effort Estimation. In: Abrahamsson, P., Corral, L., Oivo, M., Russo, B. (eds) Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9459. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26844-6_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26844-6_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26843-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26844-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics