4.5 Article

Software project management in high maturity: A systematic literature mapping

Journal

JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE
Volume 148, Issue -, Pages 56-87

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.10.002

Keywords

Quantitative project management; High maturity project management; Maturity models

Funding

  1. CAPES
  2. FAPERJ [E-26/010.000883/2016, E-26/010.001644/2016, E-26/201.670/2017]
  3. UNIRIO [PQ-UNIRIO 01/2016]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

High maturity in software development involves statistically controlling the performance of critical sub-processes and using the predictability thus gained to manage projects with better planning precision and monitoring control. Maturity models such as CMMI mention statistical and other quantitative methods, techniques, and tools supporting high-maturity project management, but do not provide details about them, their use or their available types. Thus, knowledge is lacking on how to support software process improvement initiatives to select and apply statistical and other quantitative methods, techniques and tools in this context. The goal of this study is to identify various methods, techniques, and tools which can assist in high-maturity software project management. By conducting a systematic literature mapping, we identified 108 papers describing 153 contributions. We describe the contributions identified, classifying them by their type, their software technology maturation phase, the method by which they were evaluated, the development methods and characteristics which they support, and the process/indicator areas to which they were applied. We hope this work can help fill the knowledge gap on the statistical and other quantitative methods, techniques and tools actually being proposed, evaluated, experimented with and adopted by organizations to support quantitative high-maturity software project management. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available