With the release of SLIM-Suite 8.1 quickly approaching, I thought I’d take a moment to share a preview of the updated QSM Default Trend Lines and how it affects your estimates.  In this post I wanted to focus on the differences in quality and reliability between 2010 and 2013 for the projects in our database.  Since our last database update, we’ve included over 200 new projects in our trend groups.

Here are the breakouts of the percent increases in the number of projects by Application Type:

• Business Systems: 14%
• Engineering Systems: 63%
• Real Time Systems: 144%

Below you will find an infographic outlining some of the differences in quality between 2010 and 2013.

From the set of charts above, we can see some trends emerging which could indicate the changes in quality between 2010 and 2013.  By looking at the data, it’s apparent that two distinct stories are being told:

1. The Quality of Engineering Systems has Increased

Version 5.0 of the QSM's Function Point Gearing Factor table is live!

The Function Point Gearing Factor table provides average, median, minimum, and maximum gearing factors for recently completed function point projects. A gearing factor is the average number of basic work units in your chosen function unit. Originally, it was designed to be used as a common reference point for comparing different sizing metrics by mapping them to the smallest sizing unit common to all software projects. QSM recommends that organizations collect both code counts and final function point counts for completed software projects and use this data for estimates. Where there is no completed project data available for estimation, we provide customers with a starting point to help them choose an appropriate gearing factor for their chosen programming language.

For this version of the table, we looked at 2192 recently completed function point projects out of the 10,000+ in QSM's historical database. The sample included 126 different languages, 37 of which had enough data to be included in the table. Interestingly, this year we added three new languages: Brio, Cognos Impromptu Scripts, and Cross Systems Products (CSP).

One trend we noticed is that, in general, the range for gearing factors has decreased over time. Similarly, the average and median values have decreased, which we attribute to having more data to work with.

Read the full press release or visit the new table!

We are pleased to announce QSM's partnership with Digital Celerity LLC, a leader in Project and Portfolio Management (PPM) and IT Service Management expert services and solutions, for CA World 2013. 

At the event, representatives from both QSM and Digital Celerity will showcase how QSM's SLIM Suite of Tools feeds project estimation data into the CA Clarity^TM PPM tool to allow for improved planning and resource allocation. Out of the top 10 systems integrators in the world, seven rely on SLIM intelligence. By engaging in this type of top-down estimating, analytics for project planning can be fed into PPM tools such as CA Clarity^TM PPM. Resulting analytics include detailed plans for effort by labor category, time period and project size. Leveraging SLIM tools with CA Clarity^TM PPM pushes project risk identification to the earlier proposal and feasibility stages in the project lifecycle, which can significantly reduce the risk of project failure. 

The conference, which takes place April 21-24, 2013 in Las Vegas, NV, will showcase the latest and most innovative technologies for delivering optimal business results. Stop by QSM booth #115 to learn more about how SLIM enhances PPM tools.

For more details about this partnership, read the full press release.

Having worked in sales and customer service at QSM for over 17 years, I speak to hundreds of professionals each year that are directly or indirectly involved with software development projects using many different development processes. One of the things that I hear from time to time is that estimating is not as important when working with more iterative development methodologies. Some of the reasons I hear most often are that “team sizes are smaller,” “work can be deferred until the next iteration,” “we are different,” and “we are agile.”

As I dig deeper though, I find that the fundamental questions that software estimates answer are relevant, no matter what development methodology is being used. Before committing to a project, executives and managers need to determine reasonable cost, schedule, and how much they can deliver. This is when not very much is known and before any detailed planning occurs.  Estimating helps mitigate risk early in the project lifecycle. Companies also need to have reliable information in order to negotiate with clients. How can we negotiate a schedule and a budget on any project without a defensible estimate? 

When looking at QSM research based on our database of over 10,000 industry projects, a common theme that we see in failed projects is that development team performance is often not the issue. When it comes to missed schedules and budgets, many of the problems occur when expectations are too high and when estimates are not a priority. If we don’t have a reliable estimate up front before the project starts, it’s tough to plan ahead. 

Large companies often seem to have a few people in key positions with extra time on their hands. Occasionally, this time is used to invent acronyms that are supposed to embody corporate ideals. Mercifully, these usually fade away in time. A former employer of mine had two beauties: LOCOPRO (Low Cost Provider) and BEGOR (Best Guaranteer of Results). Unfortunately, besides being grating on the ear, LOCOPRO and BEGOR don’t always march in tandem. LOCOPRO deals with cost and the effort required to deliver something. BEGOR is a bit more amorphous dealing with quality and an organization’s efficiency and consistency in meeting requirements.

What are the normal requirements for a software project? Here’s my short list.

• Cost. What is being created and delivered has to be worth the expense in the mind of the person or organization that is funding it. (LOCOPRO is good)
• Schedule. The timeframe in which a project creates and delivers its software is frequently a key constraint. Meeting this is important. Consistency and predictability (BEGOR are good)
• Quality. In Business IT systems this is often an implicit requirement that is most noticed when it is absent. Real time, telecommunications, military, and life support systems are more frequently developed and tested to explicit quality standards.

The mantra of Faster/Better/Cheaper captures most organizations’ desires for Cost, Schedule, and Quality – all at the same time. If only the laws of software would cooperate! But they don’t. Software is like a balloon. You constrict it in one place (schedule, for instance) and it expands in another (cost). The problem isn’t going to disappear; but by prioritizing requirements, conscious and realistic tradeoffs can be made.

Monday morning I received an email that read:

Hi All,
You can set your clocks to it: the birds flying north for spring, daylight savings time, and this email being sent on the Sunday before the tournament begins.  That's right, March Madness is upon us my friends, and we’ve officially made it through winter. 

The message continued with details about how to participate, but as you can see, it’s time for QSM’s annual March Madness tournament.  So how do I justify spending company time filling out brackets?  By blogging about how this is actually related to project management.  As I went through the exercise of predicting the course of this tournament, I realized that many of the thoughts I had also go through the minds of project managers.

Before I reveal my picks I want to give some background information.  I’m new to this whole March Madness tournament thing.  I’m not familiar with the teams.  I don’t know the players’ strengths and weaknesses.  I didn’t watch their games earlier in the season, so I don’t know their stats.  All I know is that my significant other went to Ohio State so I want them to win.

It’s easy to get confused or overly concerned about measuring velocity. Actually, the concept is almost embarrassingly simple. Velocity in Agile is simply the number of units of work completed in a certain interval. Like in many fields, Agile proponents appropriated existing terminology.

Here is one typical definition, from agilesoftwaredevelopment.com:

In Scrum, Velocity is how much product backlog effort a team can handle in one Sprint. Velocity is usually measured in story points or ideal days per Sprint… This way, if the team delivered software for 30 story points in the last Sprint their Velocity is 30.

Velocity as a capacity planning tool used in Agile software development is calculated from the results of several completed sprints. This velocity is then used in planning future sprints.

The concept of velocity comes from physics. In physics, velocity is speed and direction, in other words, the rate of change of position of an object. Speed can be measured in many different ways.

In software, speed is frequently measured as size per unit of time (sometimes this has been called delivery rate). The measure of size could be any of the common size measures: lines of code, function points, requirements, changes, use cases, story points. The measure of time could be calendar time (month, week, day) or it could be specific to a project (sprint, release). As to direction, in software hopefully the direction is positive, but sometimes projects go backwards (for example, backing functionality out of a system).

In his book, The Functional Art, Alberto Cairo sets out to explain what data visualizations are, why it is significant to pair data and design, and how to assess whether a data visualization is "good" or not.  In the first chapter, Cairo presents an example from Matt Ridley's book, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves.  Ridley asserted that the global population was decreasing over time, using only one line chart.

Cairo  was uncomfortable with that assertion, so he used the UN and World Bank data for fertility rates (the average number of children born to a women in each country) to create a graph that used individual country population data instead of using aggregate data.  The chart below shows all the fertility rates for every country over time.

There are so many stories in the data that it's overwhelming, so Cairo created the following graphic which highlights just a few countries in order to pull out the story within the data:

Scope creep is a frequent topic of discussion among project management professionals.  A recent Project Management Institute (PMI)^® i Community Post, Fighting the Dreaded Scope Creep, reported some responses PMI members offered as their weapon of choice.  The various suggestions can be summarized by two general practices:

• Avoid making on-the-spot decisions (uninformed or politically motivated)
• Communicate the impact of the change to stakeholders and let them decide (analyze the cost, schedule, and risk impact)

Regardless of the specific practice, all of the recommended defenses included some process for change control.

I like words.  When I need to understand a topic, I pull the dictionary off the shelf (or access the online version), and look at the basic definition.  To determine why scope creep is such a formidable enemy, I looked up the word “creep”:  2. to approach slowly, imperceptibly, or stealthily; 4. to sneak up behind someone or without someone's knowledge.  A vast majority of results from a general internet search defined scope creep as “uncontrolled change.” 

If you were unable to attend our recent webinar, Using Benchmarking to Quantify the Benefits of Process Improvement, a replay is now available.

With increasing pressure to improve quality while cutting costs, process improvement is a top priority for many organizations right now; but once we've implemented a process improvement initiative, how do we accurately measure the benefits? Benchmarking is critical to determining the success of any serious process improvement program. As with any type of measurement program, it requires an initial reference point to measure progress. To set our point of comparison, we first need to perform a benchmark on a contemporary sample of projects that are representative of the typical work that we do. In this webinar, industry expert Larry Putnam, Jr. will take you through the necessary steps to perform a successful benchmark - from collecting quantitative and qualitative data to establish the initial baseline benchmark all the way through to performing follow up benchmarks on new projects and process improvement analysis.

Larry Putnam, Jr. has 25 years of experience using the Putnam-SLIM Methodology. He has participated in hundreds of estimation and oversight service engagements, and is responsible for product management of the SLIM Suite of software measurement tools and customer care programs.

Watch the webinar replay!