Using Data Envelopment Analysis in software development productivity measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ever-increasing size and complexity of software systems make the cost of developing and maintaining software important. Unfortunately, the process of software production has not been particularly well understood. This article helps clarify the relationship between postimplementation function points (FP) and the corresponding development effort for software development projects in a large Canadian bank. Knowledge of this relationship enables evaluations of the productivity of completed projects and, in particular, provides a predictive tool for future projects. The empirical analysis employs a combination of traditional regression models and Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). The regression analyses show a log-linear relationship between project size and development effort, which is subsequently used in the DEA models. The DEA models identify best performers and use these as benchmarks, but are not limited to the constant returns to scale assumption of the regression analyses and are capable of including the delivery time as a nondiscretionary input. Finally, by including data from the International Software Benchmarking Standards Group (ISBSG) repository in the DEA models, the bank's projects are benchmarked not only against its own best performers but also against what is globally feasible. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".