A survey on software estimation in the Norwegian industry

Kjetil Moløkken-Østvold, M. Jørgensen, S. Tanilkan, H. Gallis, Anette C. Lien, S. Hove
{"title":"A survey on software estimation in the Norwegian industry","authors":"Kjetil Moløkken-Østvold, M. Jørgensen, S. Tanilkan, H. Gallis, Anette C. Lien, S. Hove","doi":"10.1109/METRIC.2004.1357904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We provide an overview of the estimation methods that software companies apply to estimate their projects, why those methods are chosen, and how accurate they are. In order to improve estimation accuracy, such knowledge is essential. We conducted an in-depth survey, where information was collected through structured interviews with senior managers from 18 different companies and project managers of 52 different projects. We analyzed information about estimation approach, effort estimation accuracy and bias, schedule estimation accuracy and bias, delivered functionality and other estimation related information. Our results suggest, for example, that average effort overruns are 41%, that the estimation performance has not changed much the last 10-20 years, that expert estimation is the dominating estimation method, that estimation accuracy is not much impacted by use of formal estimation models, and that software managers tend to believe that the estimation accuracy of their company is better than it actually is.","PeriodicalId":261807,"journal":{"name":"10th International Symposium on Software Metrics, 2004. Proceedings.","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"117","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"10th International Symposium on Software Metrics, 2004. Proceedings.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/METRIC.2004.1357904","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 117

Abstract

We provide an overview of the estimation methods that software companies apply to estimate their projects, why those methods are chosen, and how accurate they are. In order to improve estimation accuracy, such knowledge is essential. We conducted an in-depth survey, where information was collected through structured interviews with senior managers from 18 different companies and project managers of 52 different projects. We analyzed information about estimation approach, effort estimation accuracy and bias, schedule estimation accuracy and bias, delivered functionality and other estimation related information. Our results suggest, for example, that average effort overruns are 41%, that the estimation performance has not changed much the last 10-20 years, that expert estimation is the dominating estimation method, that estimation accuracy is not much impacted by use of formal estimation models, and that software managers tend to believe that the estimation accuracy of their company is better than it actually is.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
挪威工业软件评估调查
我们提供了软件公司用于评估其项目的评估方法的概述,为什么选择这些方法,以及它们有多准确。为了提高估计的准确性,这些知识是必不可少的。我们进行了深入的调查,通过对18家不同公司的高级经理和52个不同项目的项目经理进行结构化访谈来收集信息。我们分析了有关估算方法、工作量估算准确性和偏差、进度估算准确性和偏差、交付功能和其他估算相关信息的信息。例如,我们的结果表明,平均工作量超支为41%,评估性能在过去10-20年没有太大变化,专家评估是占主导地位的评估方法,评估准确性没有受到使用正式评估模型的太大影响,并且软件经理倾向于相信他们公司的评估准确性比实际情况更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The necessity of assuring quality in software measurement data Resource estimation for Web applications A survey on software estimation in the Norwegian industry A controlled experiment for evaluating a metric-based reading technique for requirements inspection Assessing usability through perceptions of information scent
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1