Researching Human and Organizational Factors Impact for Decisions

on Software Quality

Luis Fernández-Sanz

, Josefa Gómez-Pérez

, Teresa I. Diez-Folledo

and Sanjay Misra

Dept. of Computer Science, University of Alcalá, Edificio Politécnico, Campus Universitario, Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Covenant University, Ota Ogun, Nigeria

Keywords: Software Quality, Quality Assurance (QA), Human Resources, Organizational Factors, Stakeholders,

Quantitative Research, Qualitative Research, Decision Making Processes.

Abstract: Quality is an essential factor for European competitiveness as low price strategies based on low labour costs

can be difficult to implement. Although software quality assurance has a long tradition, there is a lack of

research on some practical aspects. In particular, the extended study of the influence of human and

organizational factors (HOF) on the quality of software development, maintenance and management has been

neglected. However, different studies have identified these as key factors in software projects with impact in

terms of cost, quality and results measuring quantitative and qualitatively their impact. As part of the Iceberg

project, funded under the Marie Curie IAPP EU-funded program, some relevant evidences of the influence of

HOF on software quality has been reviewed and analysed to discuss the challenges in this area confirming the

need of promoting deeper and wider research efforts.

1 INTRODUCTION

Software has become an essential asset for European

companies, organizations and society. Software is an

important part of ICT not only in information systems

but also as an embedded component of many products

or services. It is the distinctive part of products and

services enabling them to be competitive or

innovative. So software quality is strategic for all

European stakeholders. A compilation of incidents by

Peter Neumann (“Inside risks”) from the 1980s to

today shows there is room for improvement in

software quality. For European industry,

competitiveness in software depends on innovation

and quality given that prices cannot be reduced

without impacting the workforce. Therefore, Europe

should lead all aspects of software quality both in

research and practice.

Advances in software engineering and quality

have led to relevant techniques, methods, and tools:

process models and methods (e.g. CMMI, ISO/IEC

15504, agile methods, etc.), quality assurance

techniques and methods (software testing, review

processes, metrics, quality models, etc.), etc. Many of

them have been successfully implemented but are

extremely focused on technical aspects.

However, the workforce represents the main cost

of any project: professional software development is

mainly a social activity. Only a small percentage of

studies have addressed human factors and their

impact on software, maybe because it requires a

multidisciplinary approach, with strong links to

industry, practitioners and professional bodies.

Although software quality assurance has a long

tradition, there is a lack of research on this practical

aspect. In particular, the extended study of the

influence of human and organizational factors (HOF)

on the quality of software development, maintenance

and management has been neglected. Thus project

and corporate managers do not have the basis for

decision making methods to forecast their effects on

quality results of software development.

For example, some research works have revealed

problems in training, performance and good practice

in organizations as well as in professionals’ attitudes

in software testing or impact of training in software

professionals: unsystematic test case design leads to

35% of unnecessary cases while covering less than

50% of functions (Jones, 1998), at least 10 days of

annual training increase productivity in 8%

(Fernandez-Sanz and Misra, 2012), etc. These are

clear indications which may feed decision models for

managers to decide investment in human and

organizational aspects of software quality.

However, wider and deeper analysis is needed as

we will show in next sections. In the end, this lack of

Sanz, L., Pérez, J., Díez-Folledo, T. and Misra, S.

Researching Human and Organizational Factors Impact for Decisions on Software Quality.

DOI: 10.5220/0006003702830289

In Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Software Technologies (ICSOFT 2016) - Volume 1: ICSOFT-EA, pages 283-289

ISBN: 978-989-758-194-6

283

more comprehensive data implies a lack of firm

evidence for managers and organizations to help them

to organize and optimize the performance of the main

resource: software professionals.

The problem in particular arises from the fact that

the extended study of the influence of human and

organizational factors on the quality of software

development, maintenance and management has been

neglected in the research spheres as well as in the

industry and practitioners’ world. Obviously this

situation is a consequence of several contributing

causes, some of them related to the difficulty of this

type of research (e.g. it usually requires a cooperative

and multidisciplinary approach, with good

connections to relevant stakeholders outside the

academia as well as the need of coping with local

variations and conditions) but others with the disdain

of the researchers and industry to work on this topic

(e.g. a proposal on HOF and software quality was

poorly assessed by an EU COST program evaluator

because it was not “real research, just something to

leave to industry”). This is a paradoxical situation

because there are many evidences that confirm that

HOF are connected to the most expensive parts of

software projects. In parallel managers still insist on

investing more money in technical aspects with

reduced ROI, always trying to find and buy a "silver

bullet" normally with the shape of a new tool or

development environment. A contradictory view

when considering results of a complete study of factor

influencing productivity (Trendowicz and Münch,

2009): success of software projects still relies upon

humans while second most commonly considered

factors are tool and method but even the best tool or

method alone is not a silver bullet and cannot be a

substitute for skilled people and effective work

organization.

Obviously the ideal situation would be one where

studies calculating ROI or other economic indicators,

similar to some already created for specific software

quality assurance (SQA) or software engineering

methods or approaches (e.g. (Rico, 2004)) could be

available for guiding managers’ decisions on HOF

and software quality. However, this has not been still

possible for the general set of software quality trade-

off (Barney et al, 2012), 61% of the research is

providing non-empirically assessed solution

proposals and only 28% offers empirical evidence.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2

reviews the general panorama of the literature

contributions to the study of HOF in software quality

focusing on evaluating the impact of factors on

software quality results. Section 3 analyses some

relevant contributions to detect and discuss the

challenges in the field of HOF to overcome the poor

state of development of research. Final Section 4

outlines some conclusions and suggests actions for

future work in the area.

2 GENERAL ANALYSIS OF

CONTRIBUTIONS

Searching literature to find contributions where the

relationship between HOF and software quality is

identified and analysed is not an easy task. Terms for

searching literature databases are less precise and

concise than the ones used in m ost technical topics in

software engineering. Moreover, a term like "human"

is frequently used in the field of HCI (Human-

Computer Interaction) and the development of

effective UI (user Interfaces) thus populating search

results with a good number of references which do not

address our perspective. This trend is also seen in

compilation of contributions like (Saaed, 2014) where

26 academics and practitioners present practice

reports, discussions, inherent issues, implementation

strategies, latest research, as well as case studies from

around the world focusing on the human factors

aspect of software design and development (but not

exactly addressing software quality).

It is worth mention that there was a seminal

initiative by DeMarco and Lister with their book

Peopleware (Demarco and Lister, 1999) already in

1987, where they grouped under this expression all

people's related issues: teamwork, group dynamics,

organizational factors, with a special focus on

productivity and all types of factors related to people

who work in software projects. This happened many

years after Brooks stated in the Mythical Man Month

book (Brooks, 1975) that product quality is strongly

affected by organization structure. Others (Nygaard,

1986) (Naur, 1991) had also remarked the human, the

social side of cooperation in teams and working

environments of software development. In many

cases, HOF have been present in studies as linked to

the pair productivity and quality (Fernandez-Sanz and

Misra, 2011) but the side of quality has frequently

attracted less attention and detailed data than the

productivity one. However, an early literature review

of productivity factors in software projects also

confirmed that soft or human-related factors in

software engineering are often not analysed with

equal detail as more technical factors (Wagner and

Ruhe, 2008). This study also outlined an important

cross-relationship between quality and productivity:

the quality of the product influences motivation and

hence productivity. The relationship between social

ICSOFT-EA 2016 - 11th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications

284

issues and productivity has been also analysed in

(Yilmaz and O’Connor, 2012), where it is suggested

that social capital is essential for building highly

productive development environments.

The permanent problem is the lack of continuance

of this line of action. However, there was a new

impulse some years ago when some researchers

insisted on promoting a wider variety of research

approaches to deal with the undeniably social nature

of software development. The consideration of social

sciences methods and their adaptation to software

engineering resulted in their acceptance in the

software engineering research mainstream: e.g.

qualitative research with examples like ethnographic

methods, etc. (Dittrich et al, 2010).

Although there is not a definitive and clear review

of the research contributions to the connection

between HOF and software quality, other works have

tried to cover the relationships between HOF and

similar aspects of software engineering and

development. A systematic literature review (SLR)

that covered papers published in 2000-2010

(Pirzadeh, 2010) was carried out to identify human

factors and their impact on development process. The

SLR concludes that despite HOF impact on process

success, performance and quality, there is an evident

lack of primary and secondary studies on HOF: again

software engineering studies still tend to be mainly

focus on technical context. It also confirms that most

researchers in this area think that HOF are the centre

of development process.

The results presented in (Seth, 2015), empirically

collected in 13 software companies, suggest that the

human factor is the basis of software quality.

Regarding organizational factors, the author

concludes that structures, mode of operation and

communication channels contribute to success or

failure in the software quality construction process.

Another area which has leaded to a more intensive

study of HOF is agile development. Based on closely

related-to-HOF foundations, agile methods have

high-lighted their impact on results. Although agile

paradigm was firstly launched without a sustained

effort on sound empirical evidences, more relying on

conviction and direct observation of promoters, this

area has been finally able to produce studies in impact

publications (Dyba and Dingsoyr, 2008).

Although many works have tried to establish

relationships between psychological factors and

performance when developing or testing software,

only a few empirical studies have been carried out to

study the influence of these specific factors on

software quality. Moreover, the context of the studies

is frequently defined as a project with non-

professional participants (students). Although it is

frequently used in other disciplines like psychology,

this approach has generated a point of controversy,

attracting obvious criticism if the study is not

addressed at the behaviour of novice or non-experts

(Kitchenham et al, 2012). For instance, (Acuña et al,

2009) presents a quasi-experiment that analyses the

relationships between personality and software

product quality based on responses to questionnaires

by computing students that work in teams. Sometimes

the factor is motivation where there is a good number

of identified studies in a SLR (Beecham et al, 2008).

Cultural factors and collaboration have gained

especial relevance after the generalization of Global

Software Development (GSD) projects and the

corresponding research studies to optimize results as

well as overcome detected barriers which hinder the

performance in multinational settings (e.g. see the

tertiary study on SLR on GSD (Verner et al, 2012)).

3 ANALYSIS OF RELEVANT

CONTRIBUTIONS

Although the general review of contributions on HOF

in software quality may lead to the impression that

there is an acceptable population of contributions, this

is not the case of the studies pursuing the

determination of a clear impact relation to software

quality. It is extremely difficult to find sound work

based on the quantitative analysis of impact of HOF

in direct quality results. Obviously this varies from

one studied aspect to other.

The analysis of the quality in GSD deserves a

special mention in our review. According to (Misra

and Fernández, 2011) (Misra et al, 2013), one of its

major drawbacks is that low quality software can be

produced due to the negative impact of people issues

on this type of projects. Software is developed

through teams, from multiple geographic locations,

different cultures, languages, etc. Thus, HOF such as

communication, knowledge management,

coordination, collaboration and group awareness trust

are key to improve the quality of the software.

Connected to GSD, (Thomas et al, 1996) is one of the

few studies that empirically address the effect of

cultural diversity in software quality. The aim of that

work is at identifying cultural factors that impact on

quality, and to give recommendations and guidelines

for software process improvement.

There is little empirical evidence of the effects of

organizational factors on software quality. (Lavallée

and Robillard, 2015) provides the outcomes of a study

carried out in a professional environment. It shows

Researching Human and Organizational Factors Impact for Decisions on Software Quality

285

that certain organizational factors, that might not

affect project success, negatively affected software

quality. And quality factors can have a major impact

on maintenance costs. Similarly, other papers

(Mathew, 2007) (Leung, 2001) (Jaktman, 1998) stress

that the impact of the organizational culture on

software quality has been ignored by researchers in

academia and industry. However, there is a more

direct relationship in (Nagappan et al, 2008) where

authors investigate the relationship between

organizational structure and software quality by

proposing a set of eight measures that quantify

organizational complexity. The results of that work

provide empirical evidence that the organizational

metrics are related to, and are, effective predictors of

failure-proneness. (Ryan and O’Connor, 2013)

present an empirical study that shows how social

interaction is key in software development teams.

The influence of motivation has been theoretically

analysed in many studies (Beecham et al, 2008)

(Griesser, 1993) (Basili and Reiter, 1979). Empirical

studies on motivation are difficult to find because it is

hard to quantify. Although organizations are aware of

its importance, they normally focus on other factors

that are easier to measure.

Given the difficulty of analysis of HOF in

organizations, many studies rely on the use of surveys

and questionnaires to collect information or other

approaches like Delphi studies. Although this is a

valid instrument for this type of research, it is not as

effective as controlled experiments or quasi-

experiments.

One important observation is that empirical

research works in this area usually rely on case

studies as methodological approach. Although case

studies are very useful methods, they help to

investigate a single entity in a particular period of

time. Other disadvantage of case studies is that the

data collection and analysis are more open to

interpretation and research bias. This is why the use

of other types of empirical and theoretical research

methods is needed.

In a first revision looking for empirical studies

that connect HOF and software quality, a low

percentage (around 5%) of the revised papers carried

out controlled experiments. The searching has been

carried out looking for keywords such as empirical,

survey, quality, human factors, etc. in the main

databases (IEEExplore, ACM, Google Scholar,

Springerlink, etc.). One of these mentioned controlled

experiments is carried out in (Bernárdez et al, 2014),

where the performance of two groups of students is

compared to analyse the effects of mindfulness on the

development of conceptual models. A good example

of a quantitative study with data taken from industry

(although only in one company) and creating a

decision model can be found in (Krishnan et al,

2000): personnel capability is identified as a clear

positive and quantified impact on the quality of the

product.

One of the area where there are promising

advances is software testing. Recent interest by

industry on testing during the recent economic crisis

has been synergetic with the existing tradition of

research. Relevant connections between HOF in

testing and quality results have been detected by

contributions in the specific literature. For instance,

(Fernández-Sanz and Misra, 2012) focuses on the

proper generation of test cases and shows the results

from experiences with more than 70 software

professionals. Relevant trade-off connection was

detected: software practitioners with specific trained

in testing were better than the untrained ones in

detecting defects and in being more efficient: less

repetition of similar test cases which do not offer

detection value (average repeated test cases was more

than 50%). Moreover, it showed the inconsistency of

test case design to their own rank of priority for

functionality. Another example is the survey in (Kanij

et al, 2014) where participated more than 100

software testing practitioners concluding with

evidence that HOF are essential to improve the

performance of software testers. Also, the empirical

study shown in (Krishnan et al, 2000) remarks that

personnel capability has significant positive impact

on the quality of the product. The survey presented in

(Fernández-Sanz et al, 2009) investigates the

influence of 23 factors on testing performance. It

reveals that training and other soft factors have a

positive effect on the results. The qualitative

approaches have also started to be present in the

testing with studies working with the ethnographic

research approach (Rooksby et al, 2009) (Martin et al,

2007).

4 CONCLUSIONS

As a conclusion, we want to support that a sustained

effort on researching HOF as a key factor is essential

for making relevant informed decision for trading-off

investments in software quality. HOF are usually

overlooked in software engineering because the

relationship to software development is complex to

investigate and involve many different domains. This

is not a recent idea (Siakas and Georgiadou, 2002) but

the pass of time has not leaded to a much better

situation. Academia and researchers who are

ICSOFT-EA 2016 - 11th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications

286

frequently self-confined to strict branches of

knowledge are not much inclined to work in

multidisciplinary projects and teams. But this should

not preclude the work on HOF: our analysis confirms

they are frequently more influential in terms of costs

and effects than many other technical topics

extensively studied.

Other engineering branches even less exposed to

the influence of human resources than software

development have accepted in a natural way that they

need to study in a formal and scientific way the

impact of HOF on quality. A clear case is aviation

maintenance and inspection where the studies e.g. on

human error management (Latorella and Prabhu,

2000) (Xavier, 2005) cumulate a long path of

scientific contributions leading to its implementation

as best practices in companies and regular

compulsory training programs for all employees in

the area. Why do not we think in analysing human

errors in software development too by studying

successful methods tested in other disciplines?

Software quality would benefit from the work in

other similar engineering areas without forgetting that

it is always necessary to be cautious when adapting

them to the very specific case of software projects.

They study the factors which determine the best

results for total quality management (TQM)

(Shahraki et al, 2011) even determining that the main

explanation for TQM failure is the lack of attention to

human side (Edwards and Sohal, 2003). They are also

giving us interesting clues on the impact of HOF and

there are already studies working on the area of

software quality confirming that employee

empowerment is the factor with highest impact on

customer satisfaction (Parzinger and Nath, 2000) or

the especial role of leadership styles (Parzinger et al,

2001).

We would like to see more researchers and more

work in HOF as an inspiration for the area of software

quality. We agree with (Barney et al, 2012): without

empirical research, practitioners, managers and

researchers are unable to determine which approach

is the most suitable for a given context. HOF is the

least explored and analysed area. Greater empirical

research is needed: while there is a wide range of

proposed solutions, the lack of empirical evidence

implies only limited comparisons and evaluations are

possible between options. This research could be hard

to do if there is not a change in perceptions by experts

and funding agencies’ evaluators: they should also

review their assumptions to avoid this field remained

improperly explored, keeping software engineering

out of the largest and most important asset for

efficiency and effectiveness: people and their

organizations.

This analysis resulted from research during the

Iceberg project, aimed at providing new research

skills and broad horizons in the evaluation of

Software Quality Assurance investment oriented to

support decision-making through a model-based

process. As a continuation of this work, a specific

SLR on HOF and software quality is in progress as

well as the creation of an inventory of evidences of

impact. Both should act as basis for further work on

decision models. This database will hopefully serve

as reference of the specific identified trade-offs

between HOF and software quality given visibility to

the area, attracting new researchers and industry

managers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been partially funded by European

Commission for project ICEBERG no. 324356 (7h

Framework Programme IAPP Marie Curie program).

REFERENCES

Acuña S., Gómez M., Juristo N. 2009. How do personality,

team processes and task characteristics relate to job

satisfaction and software quality?, Information and

Software Technology, v.51 n.3, p.627-639.

Barney, S., Petersen, K., Svahnberg, M., Aurum, A., &

Barney, H. 2012. Software quality trade-offs: A

systematic map. Information and Software Technology,

54 vol. 7, 651-662.

Basili, V.R., Reiter Jr., R.W. 1979. An Investigation of

Human Factors in Software Development. Computer

12(12), pp. 21–38

Beecham S., Baddoo N., Hall T., Robinson H., Sharp H.

2008. Motivation in Software Engineering: A

systematic literature review, Information and Software

Technology, Volume 50, Issues 9–10, pp. 860-878

Beecham, S., Baddoo, N., Hall, T., Robinson, H., Sharp, H.

2008. Motivation in Software Engineering: A

systematic literature review. Information and Software

Technology 50(910), pp. 860–878

Bernárdez B., Durán A., Parejo J.A., Ruiz-Cortés A. 2014.

A controlled experiment to evaluate the effects of

mindfulness in software engineering. In Proceedings of

the 8th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on

Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement

(ESEM '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 17,

10 pages.

Brooks, F. P. 1975. The mythical man-month. Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley.

Researching Human and Organizational Factors Impact for Decisions on Software Quality

287

Demarco, T., Lister T. 1999. Peopleware: Productive

Projects and Teams, Dorset House, 2

edition

Dittrich Y., Sharp H., Theophilus H.W., De Souza C.,

Korpela M., and Singer J.. 2010. Cooperative and

human aspects of software engineering: CHASE 2010.

SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 35, 5, pp. 27-29

Dyba T., Dingsoyr T. 2008. Empirical studies of agile

software development: A systematic review,

Information and Software Technology, Volume 50,

Issues 9–10, pp. 833-859

Edwards R., Sohal A.S. 2003. The human side of

introducing total quality management: Two case studies

from Australia. International Journal of Manpower, 24,

5, pp.551-567.

Fernández-Sanz L., Villalba M.T., J Hilera J.R., Lacuesta

R. 2009. Factors with Negative Influence on Software

Testing Practice in Spain: A Survey, Volume 42 of the

series Communications in Computer and Information

Science pp 1-12.

Fernández-Sanz, L., Misra, S. 2011. Influence of human

factors in software quality and productivity. In

Computational Science and Its Applications-ICCSA pp.

257-269. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Fernandez-Sanz, L.; Misra, S. 2012. Practical Application

of UML Activity Diagrams for the Generation of Test

Cases. Proceedings of the Romanian Academy, Series

A, vol. 13, no 3, p. 251-260.

Griesser, J.W. 1993. Motivation and information system

professionals. Journal of Managerial Psychology 8(3),

pp. 21–30

Jaktman C. B. 1998. The influence of organisational factors

on the success and quality of a product-line

architecture. Proceedings of ASWEC '98: Aus. Software

Engineering Conference, pp. 2-11

Jones, T. Capers. 1998 Estimating software costs. McGraw-

Hill, Inc.

Kanij, T., Merkel, R., Grundy, J. 2014. A Preliminary

Survey of Factors Affecting Software Testers. 23rd

Australian Software Engineering Conference

(ASWEC), 2014, vol., no., pp.180-189.

Kitchenham B. A. et al. 2012. Preliminary guidelines for

empirical research in software engineering. IEEE

Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 28, no. 8,

pp. 721-734

Krishnan M. S., Kriebel C. H., Kekre S., and

Mukhopadhyay T. 2000. An Empirical Analysis of

Productivity and Quality in Software Products. Journal

Management Science, vol. 46 Issue 6, pp. 745-759

Krishnan, M. S., Kriebel, C. H., Kekre, S., Mukhopadhyay,

T. 2000. An empirical analysis of productivity and

quality in software products. Management

science, 46(6), pp. 745-759.

Latorella, K. A., Prabhu, P. V. 2000. A review of human

error in aviation maintenance and inspection.

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 26(2),

pp. 133-161.

Lavallée M, Robillard P.N. 2015. Why Good Developers

Write Bad Code: An Observational Case Study of the

Impacts of Organizational Factors on Software Quality.

International Conference on software Engineering

(ICSE2015),

pp. 16-24

Leung H. 2001. Organizational factors for successful

management of software development. Journal of

Comp. Info. Systems, vol. 42, pp. 26-37.

Martin, D., Rooksby, J., Rouncefield, M., Sommerville, I.

2007. Good Organisational Reasons for Bad Software

Testing: An Ethnographic Study of Testing in a Small

Software Company. International Conference on

Software Engineering, ICSE pp. 602-611

Mathew J. 2007. The relationship of organisational culture

with productivity and quality. A study of Indian

software organisations, vol. 29, pp. 677-95.

Misra S., Colomo-Palacios R., Pusatli T., Soto-Acosta P.

2013 A discussion on the Role of People in Global

Software Development. A discussion on the role of

people in global software development. pp. 525-531.

Misra, S. Fernández L. 2011. Quality Issues in Global

Software Development. The Sixth International

Conference on Software Engineering Advances ICSEA

Nagappan N., Murphy B, Basili V. 2008. The influence of

organizational structure on software quality an

empirical case study. Proceedings of the 30th

international conference on Software engineering, pp.

521-530

Naur, P. 1991. Computing: A Human Activity.

AddisonWesley.

Nygaard, K. 1986. Program Development as a Social

Activity. Information Processing 86. IFIP, pp. 189-

198.

Parzinger, M. J., Nath, R. 2000. A study of the relationships

between total quality management implementation

factors and software quality. Total Quality

Management, 11(3), pp. 353-371.

Parzinger, M. J., Nath, R., Lemons, M. A. 2001. Examining

the effect of the transformational leader on software

quality. Software Quality Journal, 9(4), pp. 253-267.

Pirzadeh L. 2010. Human Factors in Software

Development: A Systematic Literature Review.

Doctoral dissertation.

Rico, D. F. 2004. ROI of software process improvement:

Metrics for project managers and software engineers.

J. Ross Publishing.

Rooksby, J., Rouncefield, M., Sommerville, I. 2009.

Testing in the wild: The social and organisational

dimensions of real world practice. Computer Supported

Cooperative Work (CSCW), 18(5-6), pp.559-580.

Ryan, S and O'Connor, R. 2013. Acquiring and sharing

tacit knowledge in software development teams: An

empirical study. Information and Software Technology,

55 (9). pp. 1614-1624.

Saaed S. 2014. Human Factors in Software Development

and Design, IGI Global.

Seth F.P. 2015. Empirical Studies on Software Quality

Construction: Exploring Human Factors and

Organizational Influences. Doctoral dissertation.

Shahraki, A., Konarizadeh, M., Paghaleh, M. J., Zarei, M.

2011. HRM effects on TQM. Business Management

Dynamics, 1(3), pp. 1-12.

ICSOFT-EA 2016 - 11th International Conference on Software Engineering and Applications

288

Siakas, K. V., Georgiadou, E. 2002. Empirical measure-

ment of the effects of cultural diversity on software

quality management. Software Quality Journal,10(2),

pp. 169-180.

Thomas S. A., Hurley S. F. and Barnes D. J.. 1996. Looking

for the human factors in software quality management.

International Conference on Software Engineering:

Education and Practice, pp. 474-480

Trendowicz, A., Münch, J. 2009. Factors Influencing

Software Development Productivity—Stateofthe

Art and Industrial Experiences. Advances in computers,

77, 185-241.

Verner J. M., Brereton O. P., Kitchenham B. A., Turner M.

and Niazi M. 2012. Systematic literature reviews in

global software development: A tertiary study. 16th

International Conference on Evaluation & Assessment

in Software Engineering, pp. 2-11.

Wagner, S., Ruhe, M. 2008. A systematic review of

productivity factors in software development. language,

Technischen Universität Münche, TUM-I0832 Report

Xavier, A. J. 2005. Managing human factors in aircraft

maintenance through a performance excellence

framework. (Doctoral dissertation, Embry-Riddle

Aeronautical University).

Yilmaz, M. and O'Connor, R. 2012. Social Capital as a

Determinant Factor of Software Development

Productivity: An Empirical Study Using Structural

Equation Modeling. Int. J. Hum. Cap. Inf. Technol.

Prof. 3, 2, 40-62.

Researching Human and Organizational Factors Impact for Decisions on Software Quality

289