Talk:Software development effort estimation

Formerly untitled top-post
The references are skewed heavily toward M. Jørgensen. He(?) is clearly active in the field, but seriously, 8 references, and 0 references for Boehm!?

Honestly I had never heard of him before reading this page, though I am a student of this field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Substantiation (talk • contribs) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, biased by Jørgensen, I had also not heard of him. He has peer reviewed papers, fair enough, but the discussion is biased towards his approach. We should instead start with the overview (and controversy), Is estimation possible (indicate the nay-sayers), then perhaps focus on the historical development of ideas up to current thinking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snydersware (talk • contribs) 19:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The following link, current number 25, is broken: Jørgensen, M. Grimstad, S.. "How to Avoid Impact from Irrelevant and Misleading Information When Estimating Software Development Effort". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.41.87 (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Reference for claim
The articles says "The mean effort overrun seems to be about 30% and not decreasing over time". Can you provide a reference for this claim? I am unable to substantiate it using references provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbobbin (talk • contribs) 15:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger
Proposing merging Comparison of development estimation software into this article. Lists of notable examples of a subject are to include items with Wikipedia article already (the "notable" part). The Comparison page thus has to be reduced to only three. Especially given that, it doesn't seem like there's enough reason to justify a separate, stand-alone list. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  16:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * merged by . Thanks. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 10:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * merged by . Thanks. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 10:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

This might deserve it's own page, but not as written
The main reason, in my view, for software development to have its own estimation page is that there was a sharp turn between traditional projects (such as construction of a large building, which can be extremely complex) and the building of complex software systems.

I'm pretty sure Drucker wrote about this long ago using the term "knowledge work" for the second category.

The thing about knowledge work is that you are rarely ever doing exactly the same thing twice. If the task hasn't changed, the technology for implemented the solution has probably changed under your feet.

Plus there is tremendously more scope for rework in software (and other creative arts, especially writing).

So it really does amount to a different body of lore, by the time you're anywhere close to doing it well.

But at present, there's not a syllable in the lead to bring the special nature of this beast to the attention of the reader.

And if it isn't brought to the attention of the reader in the lead (some might think this is too OR or leading), I personally have trouble justifying this to continue existing as its own page. &mdash; MaxEnt 08:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Humour?
Is this really appropriate for a wikipedia article? I appreciate that these are quotations related to software estimation but are we going to start citing quotations related to humour about other topics. Dgrierso (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

ScopeMaster
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinrhammond (talk • contribs) 16:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Reply 26-FEB-2019
Regards,  Spintendo   18:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All individual items on the list should follow the content policies equally. If the proposed item were added, it could be stated that this requirement would then not be met.
 * Please provide additional sources demonstrating the notability of this proposed entry.

Could you explain how/why this does not 'follow the content policies equally' ? What would need to change so that it could be acceptable? Many thanks. Colinrhammond (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * All of the other items from the list have blue links to their respective Wikipedia pages. The item listed above does not. Lists, whether they are stand-alone lists (also called list articles) or embedded lists, are encyclopedic content just as paragraph-only articles or sections are. Therefore, all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well. Although the format of a list might require less detail per topic, Wikipedia policies and procedures apply equally to both a list of similar things as well as to any related article to which an individual thing on the list might be linked. Spintendo  15:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you Spintendo  for explaining.  My challenge is that ScopeMaster does not have it's own page yet on Wikipedia, and as I am related to the company/product/invention I understand that I cannot create the page.  Can you suggest a course of action? Colinrhammond (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)