The Impact of Schedule Pressure on Software Development: A Behavioral Perspective

Timely software development has been a major issue in both information systems research and software industry. While researchers and practitioners seek better techniques to estimate and manage software schedules, it is important to understand the impact of management pressure on software development projects. This paper investigates the impact of schedule pressure on the performance in software projects. Data analysis indicates that a U-shaped function exists between time pressure and cycle time. A similar relationship is found between time pressure and development effort. Meanwhile, time pressure does not significantly affect software quality. The findings of this study will help software project managers develop effective deadline and budget setting policies

Software-Engineering Process Simulation (SEPS) model

The Software Engineering Process Simulation (SEPS) model is described which was developed at JPL. SEPS is a dynamic simulation model of the software project development process. It uses the feedback principles of system dynamics to simulate the dynamic interactions among various software life cycle development activities and management decision making processes. The model is designed to be a planning tool to examine tradeoffs of cost, schedule, and functionality, and to test the implications of different managerial policies on a project's outcome. Furthermore, SEPS will enable software managers to gain a better understanding of the dynamics of software project development and perform postmodern assessments

Advancing automation and robotics technology for the Space Station Freedom and for the U.S. economy

In April 1985, as required by Public Law 98-371, the NASA Advanced Technology Advisory Committee (ATAC) reported to Congress the results of its studies on advanced automation and robotics technology for use on Space Station Freedom. This material was documented in the initial report (NASA Technical Memorandum 87566). A further requirement of the law was that ATAC follow NASA's progress in this area and report to Congress semiannually. This report is the fifteenth in a series of progress updates and covers the period between 27 Feb. - 17 Sep. 1992. The progress made by Levels 1, 2, and 3 of the Space Station Freedom in developing and applying advanced automation and robotics technology is described. Emphasis was placed upon the Space Station Freedom program responses to specific recommendations made in ATAC Progress Report 14. Assessments are presented for these and other areas as they apply to the advancement of automation and robotics technology for Space Station Freedom

GTTC Future of Ground Testing Meta-Analysis of 20 Documents

National research, development, test, and evaluation ground testing capabilities in the United States are at risk. There is a lack of vision and consensus on what is and will be needed, contributing to a significant threat that ground test capabilities may not be able to meet the national security and industrial needs of the future. To support future decisions, the AIAA Ground Testing Technical Committees (GTTC) Future of Ground Test (FoGT) Working Group selected and reviewed 20 seminal documents related to the application and direction of ground testing. Each document was reviewed, with the content main points collected and organized into sections in the form of a gap analysis current state, future state, major challenges/gaps, and recommendations. This paper includes key findings and selected commentary by an editing team

Issues in NASA program and project management

This new collection of papers on aerospace management issues contains a history of NASA program and project management, some lessons learned in the areas of management and budget from the Space Shuttle Program, an analysis of tools needed to keep large multilayer programs organized and on track, and an update of resources for NASA managers. A wide variety of opinions and techniques are presented

Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Guide, Version 2.0

The Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Guide editorial team is pleased to announce the release of Version 2.0. Version 2.0 supersedes Version 1.0, which was released in July 2007 and was the result of a project initiated by the Lean Advancement Initiative (LAI) at MIT in cooperation with: the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE), Practical Software and Systems Measurement (PSM), and the Systems Engineering Advancement Research Initiative (SEAri) at MIT. A leading indicator is a measure for evaluating the effectiveness of how a specific project activity is likely to affect system performance objectives. A leading indicator may be an individual measure or a collection of measures and associated analysis that is predictive of future systems engineering performance. Systems engineering performance itself could be an indicator of future project execution and system performance. Leading indicators aid leadership in delivering value to customers and end users and help identify interventions and actions to avoid rework and wasted effort. Conventional measures provide status and historical information. Leading indicators use an approach that draws on trend information to allow for predictive analysis. By analyzing trends, predictions can be forecast on the outcomes of certain activities. Trends are analyzed for insight into both the entity being measured and potential impacts to other entities. This provides leaders with the data they need to make informed decisions and where necessary, take preventative or corrective action during the program in a proactive manner. Version 2.0 guide adds five new leading indicators to the previous 13 for a new total of 18 indicators. The guide addresses feedback from users of the previous version of the guide, as well as lessons learned from implementation and industry workshops. The document format has been improved for usability, and several new appendices provide application information and techniques for determining correlations of indicators. Tailoring of the guide for effective use is encouraged. Additional collaborating organizations involved in Version 2.0 include the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), US Department of Defense Systems Engineering Research Center (SERC), and National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) Systems Engineering Division (SED). Many leading measurement and systems engineering experts from government, industry, and academia volunteered their time to work on this initiative

Shuttle Ground Operations Efficiencies/Technologies (SGOE/T) study. Volume 2: Ground Operations evaluation

The Ground Operations Evaluation describes the breath and depth of the various study elements selected as a result of an operational analysis conducted during the early part of the study. Analysis techniques used for the evaluation are described in detail. Elements selected for further evaluation are identified; the results of the analysis documented; and a follow-on course of action recommended. The background and rationale for developing recommendations for the current Shuttle or for future programs is presented

Integrated payload and mission planning, phase 3. Volume 1: Integrated payload and mission planning process evaluation

The integrated payload and mission planning process for STS payloads was defined, and discrete tasks which evaluate performance and support initial implementation of this process were conducted. The scope of activity was limited to NASA and NASA-related payload missions only. The integrated payload and mission planning process was defined in detail, including all related interfaces and scheduling requirements. Related to the payload mission planning process, a methodology for assessing early Spacelab mission manager assignment schedules was defined