Capers Jones - Software Development Patterns and Antipatterns

This is my 22nd book. As always thanks to my wife Eileen for supporting my book writing over many years.

This book is dedicated to Watts Humphrey who was a pioneer in software quality control and effective development patterns. Watts worked at IBM and then helped create the software assessment program and the capability maturity model (CMMI) for the Software Engineering Institute (SEI). Watts was an industry leader in moving organizations from harmful patterns to effective patterns.

Thanks also to the faculty of the University of Florida and to my colleagues at IBM.

Project management in every industry is a challenging occupation. But the challenges and hazards of software project management are greater than those of most other industries. This fact is proven by the large number of software project cancellations and the high frequency of software project cost and schedule overruns. Software projects run late and exceed their budgets more than any other modern industry except for defense projects.

Academic training for software project managers is still not very good even today. Some technology companies have recognized the challenges of software project management and created effective in-house training for new software project managers. These companies with effective software project management training include IBM and a number of telecom companies such as AT&T, ITT, Motorola, Siemens, and GTE. Some other technology companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Apple also have effective software project management training. Many of the companies with good software management training build complex physical devices run by software. Most are also more than 75 years old and have had software measurement programs for more than 50 years.

A few companies even offer market effective software project management training. One of these is a subsidiary of Computer Aid Inc. called the Information Technology Metrics and Productivity Institute (ITMPI). The non-profit Project Management Institute (PMI) also offers effective training for software project managers.

Several years ago, a survey of engineering technology company CEOs (computers, Telecom, electronics, medical devices, autos, and aircraft) found that they regarded their software organizations as the least professional of any of the corporate engineering organizations. This was due to the fact that software projects had higher cancellation rates, longer schedule delays, and higher cost overruns than any of the other engineering organizations.

Lyman Hamilton, a former Chairman of the ITT Corporation, gave an internal speech to ITT executives in which he mentioned that newly hired software engineers just out of college needed about 3 years of internal training before being entrusted with critical projects. Other kinds of engineers such as mechanical and electrical engineers only needed about 12 months of internal training.

Hamilton was troubled by several major software failures of projects that were terminated without being completed. He was also troubled by the dissatisfaction expressed by customers in the quality of the software the corporation produced. He was further dissatisfied by the inability of internal software executives to explain why the problems occurred and what might be done to eliminate them.

It is interesting that the failing projects were all large systems in the 10,000 function point size range. Failures in this range are common, and managerial problems are usually a key factor.

Problems, failures, and litigation are directly proportional to the overall size of software applications measured using function point metrics. shows the approximate distribution of software project results circa 2020.

Table 1.1 Normal Software Results Based on Application Size Circa 2020

Size in Function Points	Note: Costs Are Based on $10,000 per Month
Schedule in Calendar Months	Total Staffing	Productivity in Function Points per Staff Month	Cost in U.S. Dollars	Odds of Project Failure	Odds of Outsource Litigation
1	0.02	1	50.00	$200	0.10%	0.00%
10	0.40	1	25.00	$4,000	1.00%	0.01%
100	3.50	2	14.29	$70,000	2.50%	0.25%
1,000	15.00	6	11.11	$900,000	11.00%	1.20%
10,000	35.00	50	5.71	$17,500,000	31.00%	7.50%
100,000	60.00	575	2.90	$345,000,000	47.50%	23.00%

As can be seen from , large software projects are distressingly troublesome and have frequent total failures, also a high risk of litigation. Poor project management is a key contributing factor.

Some leading companies have recognized the difficulty of successful software project management and taken active steps to improve the situation. Some of these companies include IBM, AT&T, ITT, Motorola, GTE, and Siemens. Google, Apple, and Microsoft have also attempted to improve software management although Microsoft has perhaps been too rigid in some management topics such as employee appraisals.

The companies that are most proactive in software project management tend to build complex engineered products such as computers, medical devices, aircraft controls, and switching systems that depend upon software to operate. The companies also tend to be mature companies founded over 75 years ago and having effective software measurement programs that are more than 40 years old. Most were early adapters of function point metrics and also early adapters of parametric software estimation tools.

The software benchmarks studies carried out by Namcook Analytics LLC often show a significant number of serious software project management problems and issues. summarizes 41 problems noted in a benchmark study for a Fortune 500 technology corporation.

Table 1.2 Corporate Software Risk Factors Found by a Corporate Benchmark Study

1	Project management: no formal training for new managers
2	Project management: no annual benchmark studies
3	Project management: no annual training in state of the art methods
4	Project management: no training in software cost estimating
5	Project management: no training in software quality estimating
6	Project management: no training in software risk analysis
7	Project management: no training in cyber-attack deterrence
8	Project management: no training in function point metrics
9	Project management: no training in schedule planning
10	Project management: lack of accurate productivity measurements
11	Project management: lack of accurate quality metrics
12	Project management: incomplete milestone and progress tracking
13	Project management: historical data leaks by over 50%
14	Project management: managers continue to use inaccurate manual estimates
15	Project management: no widespread use of accurate parametric estimation
16	Quality control: no use of requirements models or QFD
17	Quality control: no use of automated proofs for critical features