Where did I read that productivity study? (2nd attempt)

Sep 14, 2006 4 Replies

Hello all,



I first posted this on comp.programming and comp.software-eng but that thread instantly decayed into "LOC bad!" and then into a discussion about wearing sandals, with or without socks. So I thought I'd try again in c.a.e. Anyway, here's my original question:


--------------------



A few weeks ago I ran across a link to a study about how much software (SLOC) could be produced by a team in a year. If I remember the figures right, team productivity declined after about 70,000 or 75,000 SLOC per year, with teams of 3 to 10 programmers, although larger teams



(up to 40 members IIRC) could produce up to 180,000 SLOC per year at a cost multiplier of between 1.5 (or 1.25) and 3.9. Again, all of these are barely remembered figures. Problem is, I can't remember how or where I found the study. Might have been linked in a newsgroup article, but I can't be sure.



Anyway, does this study ring a bell? I'd like to find it again, and have enough sense to bookmark it if it is as interesting as I vaguely recall that it was. Many thanks!



With socks! :-)

An excellent place to start is with Dave Wheeler's sloccount. Follow the references on his site.

Say sloccount to Google and you will be lucky.

John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639 Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632 PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : john.carter@tait.co.nz New Zealand "We have more to fear from The Bungling of the Incompetent Than from the Machinations of the Wicked." (source unknown)

You may well be talking about this link:

formatting link

The 180 KSLOC/annum is in there. This whole page tends to the optimistic, though, talking about projects that have been completed within 12 months, but does not compare the number of these projects to the number that have failed to complete within 12 (or 24 or 120) months. I'd certainly not wager any important parts of my anatomy on the outcome of a project that put too much emphasis on these figures in its estimation.

Cheers, Alf

Thanks for the reply. Turns out the article I had in mind was the one at

formatting link
but I found Dave Wheeler's stuff interesting also.

formatting link

A thousand thanks! That's the one. Now I'll read it again and see if my quest was worth it. I think it was mostly a case of "I just read this and now I can't find it!". Anyway, thanks for your help.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required