3 ms·
> 3) Why do you consider a 20 year old paper that's only been cited 16 times to be critical reading about estimation, when a vast body of research in forecastin
by gilbetron 5y ago
> 3) Why do you consider a 20 year old paper that's only been cited 16 times to be critical reading about estimation, when a vast body of research in forecasting exists, written by people who have measurements of the accuracy of estimates to base their theoretical models on?
Have some links to this vast body?
I've encountered very few over the years that actually qualify as "science" as much of it is fake or close to fake.
http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2021/01/17/software-effort-estimation-is-mostly-fake-research/ http://shape-of-code.coding-guidelines.com/2021/01/17/softwa...
- diiq 5y agoForty volumes of the "Journal of Forecasting" would be a place to start for peer-reviewed articles, I guess https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/1099131x/current https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/1099131x/current
- diiq 5y agoI suppose if you consider software to be somehow magically different than all the other human activities which go over-time or over-budget, maybe you could claim that research doesn't apply. But I guess I'd still expect you to know about the fundamentals of the multiple researched approaches to getting experts to predict accurate numbers in the face of uncertainty and social pressure, before deciding to discount it entirely for our specific field. But it's certainly made a big difference for me in practice, and given the gushing about Steve McConnell in another comment thread, I'm not alone.