Managing Software Development Project Size: Overcoming the Effort-Boxing Constraint

Abstract

The motivation for this work is derived from the current interest in speeding up development schedules for information technology(IT) projects. A keyimplication of the shift to more rapid development methods is the growing emphasis on fixed time and fixed effort delivered during such projects. However, there appears to be little work that addresses the impacts of dealing with bound effort levels. The result of binding time and effort is to deprive project managers of the normal parameters that are used in trade-offs. The paper introduces a quantitative analytical framework for modeling effort-boxed development in order to uncover the effects on the overall development effort and the potential leverage that can be derived from incremental delivery in such projects. Models that predict product size as an exponential function of the development effort are used in the paper to explore the relationships between effort and the number of increments, thereby providing new insights into the economic impact of incremental approaches to effort-boxed software projects.

Keywords

software development information technologyprojects effort-boxed development

References

Beck

(1999). Extreme programming explained: Embrace change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.

Benediktsson

, & Dalcher

(2004). New insights into effort estimation for incremental software development projects. Project Management Journal, 35(2), 5–12.

Boehm

B. W.

(1981). Software engineering economics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Boehm

B. W.

, Abts

, Brown

A. W.

, Chulani

, Clark

B. K.

, Horowitz

, Madachy

, Reifer

, & Steece

(2000). Software cost estimation with COCOMO II. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Boehm

B. W.

, & Turner

(2003). Balancing agility and discipline. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison Wesley.

Clark

, Devnani-Chulani

, & Boehm

B. W.

(1998). Calibrating the COCOMO II post-architecture model. Proceedings of ICSE 1998. IEEE Press.

Cusumano

M. A.

, & Selby

R. W.

(1995). Microsoft secrets: How the world's most powerful company creates technology, shapes markets, and manages people. New York: Free Press.

Dalcher

(1994). Falling down is part of growing up; the study of failure and the software engineering community. Proceedings of 7th SEI Education in Software Engineering Conference (pp. 489–496). New York: Springer-verlag.

Dalcher

(2002). Life cycle design and management. In Stevens

(Ed.), Project management pathways: A practitioner's guide. High Wycombe: APM Press.

10.

Denne

, & Cleland-Huand

(2003). The incremental funding method: Data-driven software development. IEEE Software 21(3).

11.

Denne

, & Cleland-Huand

(2004). Software by numbers—Low-risk, high-return development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

12.

Fairley

R. E.

, & Willshire

M. J.

(2005). Iterative rework: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Computer, 36(9), 34–41.

13.

Jones

(1994). Assessment and control of software risks. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

14.

Jones

(2000). Software assessments, benchmarks and best practices. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.

15.

Kan

S. H.

(2003). Metrics and models in software quality engineering, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

16.

Pressman

R. S.

(2005). Software engineering: A practitioner's approach, 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

17.

Standish Group. (2000). Chaos 2000. Dennis, MA: Standish Group.

18.

Stapleton

(1997). DSDM dynamic systems development method. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.

19.

Thomas

(2001). IT projects sink or swim. British Computer Society Review.

20.

Vliet

H. V.

(2000). Software engineering: Principles and practice, 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley.