MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067931894 · doi:10.9876/sim.v18i3.482

The impact of Software Process Maturity on Software Project Performance: The Contingent Role of Software Development Risk

2013· article· en· W2067931894 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCairn.info · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware developmentPersonal software processTeam software processSoftware development processSoftware project managementComputer scienceSoftware peer reviewSoftware Engineering Process GroupProcess managementSoftware engineeringSoftware constructionSoftwareEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite growing efforts to improve software development processes, recurring concerns about software project performance remain largely present. The rate of software development project failure rate has been routinely documented in information systems (IS) research (Wallace, 2004; El-Masry and Rivard, 2010). The management of software development projects is often marked by inadequate planning, a poor grasp of the overall development process, and no clear management framework, even as the focus in software development shifts from a technology perspective to a more process-centric view (Slaughter, 2006). To address such concerns few CMM-based studies have examined the benefits and direct impact of software process maturity on software project performance but with mixed results. The present paper attempts to systematically examine the contingent role of software development risk on the impact of software process maturity level on software project performance. Guided by risk-based perspective in Software Engineering and CMM-based framework, an exploratory model was developed and tested. The premise of this paper is that software development risk plays a contingent role in the relationship between software process maturity and software project performance. Drawing on a sample of 107 organizations that have undergone official CMM appraisals, the results of partial least squares analysis of the data reveal initial evidence that (1) a positive effect of software process maturity level on software project performance while underscoring the negative effect of software development risk on software project performance, and (2) more importantly, the findings show that software development risk plays a contingent role software process maturity level on software project performance. For researchers, the integration of software development risk can provide a much needed linkage in the three fundamental constructs of CMM. From a managerial perspective, in order to foster a better software project performance, IS project leaders and managers should strongly emphasize devising effective software development risk assessment since a variation of this construct’s level may strengthen or weaken the relationship between software development process maturity and software project performance.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.253 · 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