MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965132133 · doi:10.3166/isi.14.4.55-75

What factors lead to software project failure and whose fault was it ?

2009· article· en· W1965132133 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
June Vener, Jennifer Sampson, Narciso Cerpa, Steven Bleistein

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLead (geology)Fault (geology)SoftwareComputer scienceSoftware engineeringReliability engineeringEngineeringProgramming languageGeologySeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While research on project failure tends to supply lists of risk and failure factors, and negative business effects, the objective of this research is to identify specific factors behind failure and who is to blame. We analyze practitioners' perspectives on 57 development and management factors for projects they considered failures across 70 failed projects. Results show that all projects reviewed suffered 6 to 48 failure factors. While no single set of factors is identified, nearly all projects suffered from organizational factors outside the project manager's control. We conclude with suggestions to minimize the most common ones.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.015
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIngénierie des systèmes d informationSame topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207