Inconsistency of expert judgment-based estimates of software development effort
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?
In a study involving seven experienced software professionals estimating effort for sixty software development tasks over three months, the mean difference of effort estimates of the same task by the same estimator was as much as 71%, with correlation between corresponding estimates being 0.7.
“The authors find that the mean difference of the effort estimates of the same task by the same estimator was as much as 71%, with the correlation between the corresponding estimates being 0.7.”
From A benchmarking framework and dataset for learning to defer in human-AI decision-making (2025) · cites this paper as [32]
Cites
When shall we use our heads instead of the formula?
Meehl, P. E. (1957) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0047554 · Cited by 310 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A benchmarking framework and dataset for learning to defer in human-AI decision-making
Alves, J. V., Leitão, D., Jesus, S., Sampaio, M. O. P., Liébana, J., Saleiro, P., Figueiredo, M. A. T., & Bizarro, P. (2025) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-025-04664-y · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“This is observed, for example, in a study involving seven experienced software professionals 32 , these were tasked with estimating the effort needed to complete sixty software development tasks over a period of three months.”
Influential
- Authors
- Grimstad, S., & Jørgensen, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Oslo (NO)
- Simula Research Laboratory (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Grimstad, Stein
- ORCID
- Jørgensen, Magne
- Venue
- Journal of Systems and Software
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-11
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1770-1777
- ISSN
- 0164-1212 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2075392286
- Cited by
- 72
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 16.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Systems and Software (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Reliability and Analysis Research
- Keywords
- software effort estimation, expert opinion, estimation accuracy, software professionals, cost overruns, time to market
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
