1996
DOI: 10.1016/s0378-7206(96)01073-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Standardization, requirements uncertainty and software project performance

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
98
0
14

Year Published

2000
2000
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 115 publications
(114 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
2
98
0
14
Order By: Relevance
“…According to reference [31], project success involves two components, e.g., project management success and product success. Project performance is the degree, to which the software project achieves success in the perspectives of process and product [32]. Process performance referred to time and budget, and product performance referred to requirements as shown in Table 1.…”
Section: Project Successmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to reference [31], project success involves two components, e.g., project management success and product success. Project performance is the degree, to which the software project achieves success in the perspectives of process and product [32]. Process performance referred to time and budget, and product performance referred to requirements as shown in Table 1.…”
Section: Project Successmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on Principle Components Analysis of questionnaireitems completed by project managers, Nidumolu (1996) Nidumolu found evidence to suggest that total project RU, defined as being the sum of the project's scores on these three dimensions, is negatively associated with ultimate project and 'product' performance. He also found that the use of appropriate software development standards reduced the negative effects of RU on both these outcome variables.…”
Section: Some Major Formulations Of Requirements-uncertaintymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Os assuntos variam desde tipologias de incertezas (NIDUMOLU, 1996;SHENHAR, 1993;SHENHAR, 2001;SONG;DI BENEDETTO, 2001;TATIKONDA;ROSENTHAL, 2000); até estratégias de gerenciamento de incertezas (CHUN, 1994;DOCTOR;NEWTON;PEARSON, 2001;HUCHZERMEIER;LOCH, 2001;SOLT;BAILEY, 2008;NIDUMOLU, 1995;SOMMER;LOCH, 2004;THOMKE;REINERTSEN, 1998). E dentro do assunto de incertezas, surge também o assunto de gerenciamento de riscos, e da mesma forma, um amplo leque de temas se apresenta: como técnicas e ferramentas de gestão de riscos (COX, 2008;DEL CANO;DE LA CRUZ, 2002;DEY;OGUNLANA, 2004;KUMAR, 2002;WANG E CHOU, 2003;SADEH, 2007) e fatores de riscos SALM;LOVE, 2004;BANNERMAN, 2008;HUANG, 2007; ROPPONEN; LYYTINEN, 1997;SICOTTE et al, 2006).…”
Section: Lista De Figurasunclassified
“…CRAWFORD; WARD, 2006;BARNES et al, 2001;DITTRICH;DUYSTERS, MAN, 2007;HÖYSSA;BRUNN;HUKKINEN, 2004;XIA, 2010;NIDUMOLU, 1996;PERMINOVA;GUSTAFSSON;WIKSTRÖM, 2008;SOMMER;LOCH, 2004;TATIKONDA;ROSENTHAL, 2000;YEO E QIU, 2003), e também outra linha que trata de gestão ágil de projetos.…”
Section: Lista De Figurasunclassified