Measuring and predicting software productivity: A systematic map and review
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Traditional metrics such as lines of code, number of tasks, or bugs fixed have been criticized for lacking validity and context.
“traditional metrics such as lines of code, number of tasks, or bugs fixed have been criticized for lacking validity and context (Petersen, 2011; Ralph & Tempero, 2018).”
From Developer Productivity With and Without GitHub Copilot: A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Case Study (2026) · cites this paper as Petersen, 2011
Cites
Systematic Mapping Studies in Software Engineering
Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., & Mattsson, M. (2008) · Electronic Workshops in Computing · doi:10.14236/ewic/ease2008.8 · Cited by 3,239 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Hence, the mapping related questions are concerned with the structure of the area, and the review related questions with the evidence [4].”
BackgroundSelf-citationApplying Systematic Reviews to Diverse Study Types: An Experience Report
Dyba, T., Dingsoyr, T., & Hanssen, G. K. (2007) · First International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2007) · doi:10.1109/esem.2007.59 · Cited by 391 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update
Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S., & Kuzniarz, L. (2015) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2015.03.007 · Cited by 2,669 · see citing works
Self-citationAmpatzoglou, A., Bibi, S., Avgeriou, P., Verbeek, M., & Chatzigeorgiou, A. (2019) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2018.10.006 · Cited by 305 · see citing works
On using grey literature and google scholar in systematic literature reviews in software engineering
Yasin, A., Fatima, R., Wen, L., Afzal, W., Azhar, M., & Torkar, R. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2971712 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Significant Productivity Gains through Programming with Large Language Models
Weber, T., Brandmaier, M., Schmidt, A., & Mayer, S. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3661145 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
“Afairlysimple but common way is to use the Lines of Code (LoC), which a developer creates, deletes, or modifies, as a proxy for productivity [41].”
InfluentialMind the Gap: On the Relationship Between Automatically Measured and Self-Reported Productivity
Beller, M., Orgovan, V., Buja, S., & Zimmermann, T. (2021) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/ms.2020.3048200 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
“Two main methods on assessing productivity have thus far emerged: 1) The automated measurement of product or process features to assess productivity, such as the lines of code written per day [3], sometimes called traditional”
Developer Productivity With and Without GitHub Copilot: A Longitudinal Mixed-Methods Case Study
Stray, V., Brandtzæg, E. G., Wivestad, V., Barbala, A., & Moe, N. B. (2026) · Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.24251/hicss.2026.880 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“Productivity is generally defined as ” the ratio of output divided by input ” (Petersen, 2011, p.318).”
Influential
- Authors
- Petersen, K.
- Affiliations
- Ericsson (Sweden) (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Petersen, Kai
- ORCID
- Petersen, Kai
- Venue
- Information and Software Technology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-04
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 317-343
- ISSN
- 0950-5849 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1994885765
- Cited by
- 128
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 16.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Information and Software Technology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Efficiency Analysis Using DEA
- Keywords
- software productivity measurement, data envelopment analysis, simulation-based prediction, statistical process control, reference projects, software development performance, threats to validity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
