The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Software development: Processes and performance
Abstract
This paper presents data that describe the effects on software development performance due to both the production methods of software development and the social processes of how software developers work together. Data from 40 software development teams at one site that produces commercial software are used to assess the effects of production methods and social processes on both software product quality and team performance. Findings indicate that production methods, such as the use of software methodologies and automated development tools, provide no explanation for the variance in either software product quality or team performance. Social processes, such as the level of informal coordination and communication, the ability to resolve intragroup conflicts, and the degree of supportiveness among the team members, can account for 25 percent of the variations in software product quality. These findings suggest two paradoxes for practice: (1) that teams of software developers are brought together to create variability and production methods are used to reduce variability, and (2) that team-level social processes may be a better predictor of software development team performance than are production methods. These findings also suggest that factors such as other social actions or individual-level differences must account for the large and unexplained variations in team performance.
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
Cites
Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60 · Cited by 10,697
Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement.
James, L. R. (1982) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.2.219 · Cited by 2,139
Levels issues in theory development, data collection and analysis
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258703 · Cited by 1,607
Suchman, L. (1995) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/223248.223263 · Cited by 991
Cited by
Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science
Hippel, E. V., & Krogh, G. V. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.2.209.14992 · Cited by 2,145
ChatDev: Communicative Agents for Software Development
Qian, C., Liu, W., Liu, H., Chen, N., Dang, Y., Li, J., Yang, C., Chen, W., Su, Y., Cong, X., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.810 · Cited by 490
Using grounded theory to study the experience of software development
Adolph, S., Hall, W., & Kruchten, P. (2011) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-010-9152-6 · Cited by 235
Reconciling perspectives: A grounded theory of how people manage the process of software development
Adolph, S., Kruchten, P., & Hall, W. (2012) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2012.01.059 · Cited by 103
Metadata
- Authors
- Sawyer, S., & Guinan, P. J.
- Venue
- IBM Systems Journal
- Publisher
- IBM
- Published
- 1998
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 552-569
- ISSN
- 0018-8670 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2169913913
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 10.34
- 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: Software development: Processes and performance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1147/sj.374.0552
- The paper
- Sawyer, S., & Guinan, P. J. (1998). Software development: Processes and performance. IBM Systems Journal. https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.374.0552
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.