The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Anchoring the software process
Abstract
Software organizations need common milestones to serve as a basis for their software development processes. The author proposes three such milestones, gives an example of their use, and discusses why they are success-critical for software projects. To avoid the problems of the previous model milestones-stakeholder mismatches, gold plating, inflexible point solutions, high risk downstream capabilities, and uncontrolled developments-software projects need a mix of flexibility and discipline. The risk driven content of the LCO, LCA, and IOC milestones let you tailor them to specific software situations and yet they remain general enough to apply to most software projects. And, because they emphasize stakeholder commitment to shared system objectives, they can provide your organization with a collaborative framework for successfully realizing software's most powerful capability: its ability to help people and organizations cope with change.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Management Challenges to Implementing Agile Processes in Traditional Development Organizations
Boehm, B., & Turner, R. (2005) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/ms.2005.129 · Cited by 632
Self-citationSplitting the organization and integrating the code: Conway's law revisited
Herbsleb, J. D., & Grinter, R. E. (1999) · Proceedings of the 21st international conference on Software engineering · doi:10.1145/302405.302455 · Cited by 425
Metadata
- Authors
- Boehm, B.
- Venue
- IEEE Software
- Published
- 1996-07
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 73-82
- ISSN
- 0740-7459 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1970925937
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 33.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Anchoring the software process. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/52.526834
- The paper
- Boehm, B. (1996). Anchoring the software process. IEEE Software. https://doi.org/10.1109/52.526834
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
