The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Chief programmer team management of production programming
Abstract
Production programming projects today are often staffed by relatively junior programmers with at most a few years of experience. This condition is primarily the result of the rapid development of the computer and the burgeoning of its applications. Although understandable, such staffing has at least two negative effects on the costs of projects. First, the low average level of experience and knowledge frequently results in less-than-optimum efficiency in programming design, coding, and testing. Concurrently, the more experienced programmers, who have both the insight and knowledge needed to improve this situation, are frequently in second- or third-level management positions where they cannot effectively or economically do the required detailed work of programming.
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
A design methodology for reliable software systems
Liskov, B. H. (1972) · Proceedings of the December 5-7, 1972, fall joint computer conference, part I on - AFIPS '72 (Fall, part I) · doi:10.1145/1479992.1480018 · Cited by 107
Modeling coordination in software construction: An analytical approach
Koushik, M. V., & Mookerjee, V. S. (1995) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.6.3.220 · Cited by 47
Metadata
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
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.
