Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Software Project Management for Distributed Computing

Part of the book series: Computer Communications and Networks ((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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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. Project Management Institute (PMI) (1996) A guide to the project management body of knowledge

    Google Scholar 

  2. Project Management Institute (PMI) (2000) A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 2000 edn

    Google Scholar 

  3. Project Management Institute (PMI) (2004) A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 3rd edn

    Google Scholar 

  4. Project Management Institute (PMI) (2008) A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 4th edn. ANSI/PMI 99–001-2008

    Google Scholar 

  5. Project Management Institute (PMI) (2013) A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 5th edn. ISBN: 978–1–935589-67-9

    Google Scholar 

  6. Software Program Manager’s Network (SPMN) (1998) The program manager’s guide to software acquisition best practices, version 2.31. Computers & Concepts Associates

    Google Scholar 

  7. CMMI Product Team, (2002) Capability maturity model integration, version 1.1, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, March 2002

    Google Scholar 

  8. CMMI Product Team (2006) Capability maturity model integration, version 1.2. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University

    Google Scholar 

  9. CMMI Product Team (2010) CMMI for development, version 1.3. CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University

    Google Scholar 

  10. Demir KA (2008) Measurement of software project management effectiveness. Doctoral Dissertation, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, USA

    Google Scholar 

  11. The Standish Group (2000) The standish group report: chaos

    Google Scholar 

  12. Philips D (2000) The software project manager’s handbook, principles that work at work. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos

    Google Scholar 

  13. El Emam K, Koru AG (2008) A replicated survey of IT software project failures. IEEE Softw 25(5):84–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wiegers KE (1996) Creating a software engineering culture. Dorset House Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bach J (1995) Enough about process: what we need are heroes, IEEE Software, March

    Google Scholar 

  16. Curtis B, Hefley W E, Miller SA (1995) People capability maturity model, version 1.0. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University

    Google Scholar 

  17. Humphrey WS (1989) Managing the software process. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  18. Humphrey WS (1996) Using a defined and measured personal software process. IEEE Softw 13(3):77–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Humphrey WS (1997) Introduction to the personal software process. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kulpa M (2007) Why Should I use the People CMM? Crosstalk - J Def Softw Eng:19–22

    Google Scholar 

  21. Brooks FP Jr (1975) The mythical man-month: essays on software engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Bach J (1994) The immaturity of CMM. American Programmer, September

    Google Scholar 

  23. Curtis B, HefleyW E, Miller SA (2001) People capability maturity model, Version 2.0. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University

    Google Scholar 

  24. Humphrey WS (1995) A discipline for software engineering. Addison-Wesley., Reading

    Google Scholar 

  25. DeMarco T, Lister T (1987) Peopleware: productive projects and teams. Dorset House Publishing Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. DeMarco T, Lister T (1999) Peopleware: productive projects and teams, 2nd edn. Dorset House Publishing Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Weinberg G (1994) Quality software management: volume 3 congruent action. Dorset House Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cooke-Davies TJ (2004) Measurement of organizational maturity, Innovations – project management research, Chapter 13

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sackman H, Erikson WJ, Grant EE (1968) Exploratory experimental studies comparing online and offline programming performance. Commun ACM 11(1):3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Center for Software Engineering (CSE) at USC (1999) COCOMO II model definition manual. University of Southern California (USC), Los Angeles, USA

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hughes B, Cotterell M (2002) Software project management, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill International (UK) Ltd, Berkshire

    Google Scholar 

  32. IEEE (1990) Standards coordinating committee of the computer society of the IEEE. IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology. IEEE, New York

    Google Scholar 

  33. Endres A, Rombach D (2003) A handbook of software and systems engineering empirical observations, laws and theories. Pearson Education, Essex, England

    Google Scholar 

  34. Blum B (1992) Software engineering, a holistic view. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Turner JR (2006) Towards a theory of project management: the nature of the project. Int J Proj Manag 24:1–3. 93-95, 187-189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. IEEE (2004) Guide to the software engineering body of knowledge (SWEBOK), 2004 Version

    Google Scholar 

  37. International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) (2003) Guide to the systems engineering body of knowledge

    Google Scholar 

  38. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (2007) Systems engineering handbook

    Google Scholar 

  39. Department of Defense (DoD) (1995) MIL-STD-498 military standard software development and documentation

    Google Scholar 

  40. Boehm BW (1991) Software risk management: principles and practices. IEEE Softw 8(1):32–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jones C (1994) Assessment and control of software risks. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  42. Muller R (2003) Determinants for external communications of IT project managers. Int J Proj Manag 21:345–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Grinter RE (1996) Understanding dependencies: a study of the coordination challenges in software development. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine, USA

    Google Scholar 

  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, USA

    Google Scholar 

  45. LesRisk (2008) Definition of risk control. http://www.lesrisk.com/glossary.htm. Accessed 25 Sep 2016

  46. Futrell RT, Shafer DF Safer LI (2002) Quality software project management. Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  47. Forsberg K, Mooz H, Cotterman H (2005) Visualizing project management. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  48. The Standish Group (1995) The standish group report: chaos, West Yarmouth, MA

    Google Scholar 

  49. Slevin DP, Cleland DI, Pinto JK (2002) The frontiers of project management research. Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  50. Yourdon E (2003) Death March, 2nd edn. Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  51. Jones C (2004) Software project management practices: failure versus success. Crosstalk - J Def Softw Eng 17(10):5–9

    Google Scholar 

  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, USA

    Google Scholar 

  53. Robertson S, Robertson J (2005) Requirements-led project management. Pearson Education, Inc., Boston

    Google Scholar 

  54. Defense Science Board (DSB) (2000) Report of the defense science board task force on defense software

    Google Scholar 

  55. Boehm BW (1981) Software engineering economics. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  56. Boehm BW, Madachy R, Steece B (2000) Software cost estimation with COCOMO II, Prentice Hall PTR

    Google Scholar 

  57. Thomsett R (1995) Project pathology: a study of project failures. American Programmer, July, 8–16

    Google Scholar 

  58. Chowhan SS, Shekhwat N (2015) Business and management. Lulu Online Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  59. Moe NB, Dingsøyr T, Dybå T (2009) Overcoming barriers to self-management in software teams. IEEE Softw 26(6):20–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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 2009

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 2001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Reel JS (1999) Critical success factors in software projects. IEEE Softw 16(3):18–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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-003

    Google Scholar 

  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 2010

    Google Scholar 

  67. Talloo TJ (2007) Business organization and management. Tata McGraw-Hill Education, May 1, 2007

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Software Development, Turkish Naval Research Center Command, Istanbul, Turkey

    Kadir Alpaslan Demir

Authors
  1. Kadir Alpaslan Demir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kadir Alpaslan Demir .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing and Mathematics, University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom

    Zaigham Mahmood

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Demir, K.A. (2017). 3PR Framework for Software Project Management: People, Process, Product, and Risk. In: Mahmood, Z. (eds) Software Project Management for Distributed Computing. Computer Communications and Networks. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54325-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54325-3_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54324-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54325-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation