Advertisement

3PR Framework for Software Project Management: People, Process, Product, and Risk

  • Kadir Alpaslan DemirEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Computer Communications and Networks book series (CCN)

Abstract

Software projects are among the most risky projects. Compared to projects in other industries, the success rates in software projects are low. One of the main reasons for low performance is attributed to ineffective project management. Even though there is an established body of knowledge in project management, the current performance in software projects calls for more research on software project management. We need new theories, models, and frameworks to establish foundations for further research. In this research, we developed a framework for software project management. The framework includes people, process, product, and risk management. It is named as 3PR framework. People management area includes communication, teamwork, leadership, organizational commitment, project manager, stakeholder involvement, and staffing and hiring. Process management area consists of requirements management, project monitoring and control, project planning and estimation, and scope management. Product management area contains configuration management and quality engineering. Risk management area includes risk assessment and risk control. Our framework recognizes the importance of people management in software development. Furthermore, process, product, and risk management are essential parts of the framework. The framework is developed based on an extensive review of literature and many industry standards. It is validated by a survey of software development and management practitioners. 3PR framework provided guidance for the development of a software project management effectiveness metric. It may also be used as a basis for development of effective software project management processes, for development of new project management metrics, for teaching software project management, and for curriculum development. In short, 3PR framework provides a foundation for further research in software project management.

Keywords

Project management survey Project success factors Project failure factors Project management challenges Risk management People management 

Notes

Disclaimer and Acknowledgements

The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the author and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of any affiliated organization or government. This study was conducted as part of a doctoral research [10] on software project management.

References

  1. 1.
    Project Management Institute (PMI) (1996) A guide to the project management body of knowledgeGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Project Management Institute (PMI) (2000) A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 2000 ednGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Project Management Institute (PMI) (2004) A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 3rd ednGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Project Management Institute (PMI) (2008) A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 4th edn. ANSI/PMI 99–001-2008Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Project Management Institute (PMI) (2013) A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 5th edn. ISBN: 978–1–935589-67-9Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Software Program Manager’s Network (SPMN) (1998) The program manager’s guide to software acquisition best practices, version 2.31. Computers & Concepts AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    CMMI Product Team, (2002) Capability maturity model integration, version 1.1, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, March 2002Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    CMMI Product Team (2006) Capability maturity model integration, version 1.2. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    CMMI Product Team (2010) CMMI for development, version 1.3. CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Demir KA (2008) Measurement of software project management effectiveness. Doctoral Dissertation, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    The Standish Group (2000) The standish group report: chaosGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Philips D (2000) The software project manager’s handbook, principles that work at work. IEEE Computer Society, Los AlamitosGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    El Emam K, Koru AG (2008) A replicated survey of IT software project failures. IEEE Softw 25(5):84–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wiegers KE (1996) Creating a software engineering culture. Dorset House Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bach J (1995) Enough about process: what we need are heroes, IEEE Software, MarchGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Curtis B, Hefley W E, Miller SA (1995) People capability maturity model, version 1.0. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Humphrey WS (1989) Managing the software process. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Humphrey WS (1996) Using a defined and measured personal software process. IEEE Softw 13(3):77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Humphrey WS (1997) Introduction to the personal software process. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kulpa M (2007) Why Should I use the People CMM? Crosstalk - J Def Softw Eng:19–22Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brooks FP Jr (1975) The mythical man-month: essays on software engineering. Addison-Wesley, ReadingCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bach J (1994) The immaturity of CMM. American Programmer, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Curtis B, HefleyW E, Miller SA (2001) People capability maturity model, Version 2.0. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Humphrey WS (1995) A discipline for software engineering. Addison-Wesley., ReadingGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    DeMarco T, Lister T (1987) Peopleware: productive projects and teams. Dorset House Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    DeMarco T, Lister T (1999) Peopleware: productive projects and teams, 2nd edn. Dorset House Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weinberg G (1994) Quality software management: volume 3 congruent action. Dorset House Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cooke-Davies TJ (2004) Measurement of organizational maturity, Innovations – project management research, Chapter 13Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sackman H, Erikson WJ, Grant EE (1968) Exploratory experimental studies comparing online and offline programming performance. Commun ACM 11(1):3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Center for Software Engineering (CSE) at USC (1999) COCOMO II model definition manual. University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, USAGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hughes B, Cotterell M (2002) Software project management, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill International (UK) Ltd, BerkshireGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    IEEE (1990) Standards coordinating committee of the computer society of the IEEE. IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology. IEEE, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Endres A, Rombach D (2003) A handbook of software and systems engineering empirical observations, laws and theories. Pearson Education, Essex, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Blum B (1992) Software engineering, a holistic view. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Turner JR (2006) Towards a theory of project management: the nature of the project. Int J Proj Manag 24:1–3. 93-95, 187-189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    IEEE (2004) Guide to the software engineering body of knowledge (SWEBOK), 2004 VersionGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) (2003) Guide to the systems engineering body of knowledgeGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (2007) Systems engineering handbookGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Department of Defense (DoD) (1995) MIL-STD-498 military standard software development and documentationGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Boehm BW (1991) Software risk management: principles and practices. IEEE Softw 8(1):32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jones C (1994) Assessment and control of software risks. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Muller R (2003) Determinants for external communications of IT project managers. Int J Proj Manag 21:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Grinter RE (1996) Understanding dependencies: a study of the coordination challenges in software development. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine, USAGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brown BB (2003) Employees’ organizational commitment and their perception of supervisors’ relations-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviors. Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Falls Church, Virginia, USAGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    LesRisk (2008) Definition of risk control. http://www.lesrisk.com/glossary.htm. Accessed 25 Sep 2016
  46. 46.
    Futrell RT, Shafer DF Safer LI (2002) Quality software project management. Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Forsberg K, Mooz H, Cotterman H (2005) Visualizing project management. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    The Standish Group (1995) The standish group report: chaos, West Yarmouth, MAGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Slevin DP, Cleland DI, Pinto JK (2002) The frontiers of project management research. Project Management Institute, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yourdon E (2003) Death March, 2nd edn. Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jones C (2004) Software project management practices: failure versus success. Crosstalk - J Def Softw Eng 17(10):5–9Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cicibas H, Unal O, Demir KA (2010) A comparison of project management software tools (PMST). In: Proceedings of the Software Engineering Research and Practice (SERP 2010), pp 560–565, July 12–15, 2010, Las Vegas, Nevada, USAGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Robertson S, Robertson J (2005) Requirements-led project management. Pearson Education, Inc., BostonGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Defense Science Board (DSB) (2000) Report of the defense science board task force on defense softwareGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Boehm BW (1981) Software engineering economics. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle RiverzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Boehm BW, Madachy R, Steece B (2000) Software cost estimation with COCOMO II, Prentice Hall PTRGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Thomsett R (1995) Project pathology: a study of project failures. American Programmer, July, 8–16Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Chowhan SS, Shekhwat N (2015) Business and management. Lulu Online PublishingGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Moe NB, Dingsøyr T, Dybå T (2009) Overcoming barriers to self-management in software teams. IEEE Softw 26(6):20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Dingsøyr T Dybå T (2012) Team effectiveness in software development. 5th international workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, (CHASE 2012)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Demir KA (2009) A survey on challenges of software project management. Proc. Software Engineering Research and Practice (SERP 2009), pp 579–585, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 13–16 July 2009Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Dingsoyr T, Faegri TE, Dyba T, Haugset B, Lindsjorn Y (2016) Team performance in software development: research results versus agile principles. IEEE Softw 33(4):106–110. doi: 10.1109/MS.2016.100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hoegl M, Gemuenden HG (2001) Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organ Sci 12:435–449. Jul-Aug 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Reel JS (1999) Critical success factors in software projects. IEEE Softw 16(3):18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Curtis B, Hefley B, Miller S (2009) People capability maturity model (P-CMM) version 2.0, Second Edition, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, July 2009, CMU/SEI-2009-TR-003Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Demir KA (2010) A simple framework for project communications. Proc. Software Engineering Research and Practice (SERP 2010), pp. 452–458, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 12–15 July 2010Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Talloo TJ (2007) Business organization and management. Tata McGraw-Hill Education, May 1, 2007Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Software DevelopmentTurkish Naval Research Center CommandIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations