Talk:Software development effort estimation

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done

merged by Klbrain. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 10:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. — MaxEnt 08:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ScopeMaster

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at D. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

ScopeMaster^[1]^[2]	Yes	Yes	Parametric	Requirements,User Stories,Size (COSMIC Function Points), constraints (size, duration, effort, staff), scale factors	HTML, CSV	any	Web, Any Web-based	Commercial	Proprietary

References

^ Ungan, Erdir. "Automated COSMIC Measurement and Requirement Quality Improvement Through ScopeMaster® Tool", IWSM-Mensura 2018, September 2018.
^ ScopeMaster Estimator

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

Reply 26-FEB-2019

Not done

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.

Regards, Spintendo 18:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Ungan, Erdir. "Automated COSMIC Measurement and Requirement Quality Improvement Through ScopeMaster® Tool", IWSM-Mensura 2018, September 2018.

[2] ScopeMaster Estimator

[1]

[2]