MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386963044 · doi:10.1515/nleng-2022-0312

An effective framework to improve the managerial activities in global software development

2023· article· en· W4386963044 on OpenAlexaff
S. Siddique, Naveed Muhammad, Atif Ali, Ismail Keshta, Muhammad Islam Satti, Azeem Irshad, Zakaria Alomari, Onome Christopher Edo, Oladapo Ayodeji Diekola

Bibliographic record

VenueNonlinear Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsNew York Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware project managementProcess managementSoftware developmentComputer scienceSoftware development processProcess (computing)SoftwareTeam software processProject managementRisk analysis (engineering)Engineering managementKnowledge managementSystems engineeringBusinessEngineeringSoftware construction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Global Software Development (GSD) is a contemporary approach to software development that offers numerous advantages, including enhanced cost-effectiveness and timely delivery. It enables access to a vast pool of skilled developers and facilitates the exchange of best practices and innovative ideas within the software industry. However, effective project management plays a vital role in ensuring successful product development. Organizations that achieve project success consistently adhere to well-defined project management methodologies, resulting in desired outcomes within predefined time frames and allocated resources. The success rate of software projects significantly increases with diligent software management efforts. Nevertheless, the distributed nature of GSD presents significant challenges related to collaboration, information dissemination, and process control, which ultimately impede effective development and compromise software quality. In this study, we identify various challenges associated with the GSD process and propose strategies to overcome obstacles to effective project management. Additionally, we introduce a comprehensive framework designed to enhance managerial activities in GSD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.260 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNonlinear EngineeringSame topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207