Managing Distributed Software Development with Performance
Measures
Guilherme Sperandio dos Santos
1
, Renato Balancieri
2
, Gislaine Camila L. Leal
1
Elisa Hatsue M. Huzita
2
and Edwin Cardoza
1
1
Department of Production Engineering, State University of Maringá, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil
2
Department of Computing, State University of Maringá, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil
Keywords: Distributed Software Development, Organizational Performance Management.
Abstract: The Distributed Software Development (DSD) has been increasingly adopted for providing advantages over
traditional software development. But this approach presents some challenges such as communication
difficulties, cultural differences among the involved and low proximity among developers. This paper
presents a set of performance measures for management through five perspectives: financial, customer,
internal processes and, learning and growth, based on Balanced Scorecard (BSC).The fifth perspective,
geographical dispersion, has been proposed as an extension of the BSC System for DSD projects. The
performance perspectives aim measure and to support the decision making process of stakeholders through
metrics related to the attributes of quality, productivity, cost, time and geographic dispersion, fundamental
in the software project management. So, the performance measures are a mechanism to evaluate the return
on financial investment, the satisfaction of customers and employees, the performance of processes running
on the DSD, the continuous improvement of the organization and the success of the geographical dispersion.
1 INTRODUCTION
The demand for software is constantly growing, and
therebythe requirements and abilities of software
development companies also evolved. The
Distributed Software Development (DSD) has been
adopted by software development companies with
distributed teams across different locations (states or
even different continents). This approach can
provide benefits such as better utilization of
available resources, customer proximity, possibility
of 24 hours development (follow the sun), and
higher productivity. On the other hand, it brings
some challenges in the planning and carrying of
DSD projects, such as those related to
communication, coordination and cooperation.
Therefore DSD projects can be highly profitable,
but for this they require an effective planning due to
the difficulties arising by geographical dispersion, as
well as an efficient management of available
resources.
The Organizational Performance Management
(OPM) proposes to measure the critical activities
and processes performance of the business model.
The results obtained from performance measurement
system arise relevant information for the
implementation of new improvement actions and
decision making more robust (Bititci et al., 1997).
The difficulties inherent in DSD projects demand for
an effective system of management processes and
activities with a view to performance evaluation.
The Performance Measurement System is a set
of measures that can be used when adopt the strategy
of DSD, providing to the project manager the
necessary support in decision making based on
performance metrics. So, the performance
measurement system integrated to DSD strategy
supports decision making at critical design factors,
eg, time, cost, project quality and geographically
dispersed resources. These elements were proposed
as basic attributes that should be monitored by a set
of performance metrics.
The objective of this paper is to present a set of
performance measures for DSD project management
through five perspectives: Financial, Customer,
Internal Processes, Learning and Growth, and
Geographic Dispersion. The first four are from the
Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and the fifth perspective
was considered in order to meet the DSD context.
The text of this paper is organized as follows:
Section II presents the background (Distributed
Software Development, Organizational Performance
307
Sperandio dos Santos G., Balancieri R., Camila L. Leal G., Huzita E. and Cardoza E..
Managing Distributed Software Development with Performance Measures.
DOI: 10.5220/0004895703070314
In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2014), pages 307-314
ISBN: 978-989-758-028-4
Copyright
c
2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
Management and BSC). In Section III is the set of
measures proposed. Section IV presents the
discussions. Finally, in Section V are presented the
conclusions, emphasizing the contributions and
guidelines to future researches.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Distributed Software Development
The Distributed Software Development (DSD) is
different from traditional software development by
allocating geographically distributed developers,
feature that enables the development known as
follow the sun, which means producing for 24
continuous hours with teams physically distant.
Some characteristics make the DSD more interesting
than traditional ones, such as: search for experts who
reside elsewhere; reduce costs with the use of
cheaper hand labor, but still qualified; software
production more agile, among others (Huzita et al.,
2012).
Although these DSD peculiarities provide
favorable attributes to the organization, it requires
planning and management focused on the difficulties
of geographically distributed allocation. Some of
them are: difficulties of communication, cultural
differences among the involved, management and
control of projects and, low physical proximity
among developers. These difficulties reflect on
several factors in the organization, including:
strategic issues (feasibility study on the use of
distributed development or not); cultural issues
among development teams (values, principles);
technical issues (infrastructure and knowledge to
collaborative development) and, issues of
knowledge management (ability to create, store,
process and information sharing in distributed
projects) (Jimenez et al., 2009).
2.2 Organizational Performance
Management
Organizational Performance Management (OPM)
can be defined as the planning, monitoring and
evaluation of activities, processes and actors
performance that make up the organization.
According to Marçal (2008), Performance
Management aims to evaluate whether the
organization is in accordance with what was outlined
in the strategic vision and, thereby ensure the
survival and sustainable growth through a constant
organizational performance improvement.
The proposal of performance management
process is to align the organizational goals with their
strategies. The objective of this process is to provide
a system of proactive control, in which the corporate
and functional strategies are implemented in all
business processes, activities, tasks and staff. So,
this system provides feedback that allows proper
decision making (Bititci et al., 1997). Specifically,
for an environment of performance management the
main challenge is to ensure an integrated business
model that allows obtaining information /
performance metrics appropriate with the activities
progress.
2.2.1 Balanced Scorecard
The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) proposed by Kaplan
and Norton (1992), is a strategy management system
very well known and commonly applied by
organizations opting to use performance assessment
in their planning processes and organizational
management. The BSC is based on four
perspectives: financial – focused on financial and
economic variables of enterprise, customer–
represents the satisfaction and meeting needs of
external customer, internal processes – evaluates the
performance of critical areas, learning and growth –
focused on collaborators satisfaction and
knowledge.
It is also common that users of performance
measurement system propose other performance
management perspectives, for example, issues
associated with sustainability, innovation,
collaboration / cooperation, product development,
among others (Norreklit, 2000).
The main criticisms mentioned the BSC are: i)
does not incorporate methods for identifying the
critical processes of performance; ii) does not
address the definition of the characteristics of the
metrics (Schneiderman, 1999); iii), does not
demonstrate how to build the relationship between
the metrics and performance perspectives,
characterized as independent model (Norreklit,
2000), and iv) does not promote the participation of
the user information in the development process of
performance measurement.
3 PERFORMANCE MEASURES
FOR DSD PROJECTS
The difficulties and challenges found in DSD
projects demand by an effective processes and
activities management. The goal in the formulation
ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
308
of the measures was to establish metrics that
effectively support the measuring the performance
of processes and features present in DSD projects.
The measures proposed in this paper are stratified
into five perspectives. Four of them were from BSC
system and a distinguished as exclusive feature of
DSD projects: Geographical Dispersion was also
included (Ramasubbu et al., 2011).
So, in order for an effective performance
measurement in DSD projects were identified five
perspectives:
Financial: perspective proposed to monitoring
the performance of financial aspects related to
the project (profit), efficient and effective use of
geographically distributed resources (project
sites, trip number and work hours) and monitor
the performance of human resources (training
expenses).
Customer: perspective that aims to monitor the
expectations (needs) and perception (satisfaction)
of the stakeholders involved in DSD. Aims to
ensure quality and product innovation.
Internal Processes: the purpose of this
perspective is to monitor and analyze the
performance of processes / activities planned for
the DSD. Information that makes the process
more robust decision-making, foster cooperation
and ensure a more transparent communication
between the project team.
Learning and Growth: perspective proposed to
ensure human resources development and,
consequently, the product quality, internal
processes, financial return and efficiency of
distributed resources.
Geographical Dispersion: the purpose of this
perspective is to monitor the human and
technological resources to ensure project
performance, business and consumer satisfaction.
The information analysis will ensure the quality,
time and cost competitive product and coordinate
resources.
They were derived as result from research
directed for software development processes and
metrics for software. The set of metrics assigned to
software process found in the current literature were
changed and refined aiming to characterize the
specific attribute of DSD. Thereafter, for
performance evaluation was proposed 23
performance metrics distributed in: financial (5),
customer (4), internal processes (7), learning and
growth (4) and geographical dispersion (3)
perspectives.
The proposed perspective for software project
management process in DSD approach, are aligned
Figure 1: Success Attributes for perspectives of DSD
projects (Based on Kaplan and Norton, 1992).
with quality, cost, time and geographical dispersion
attributes. Figure 1, shows the relation of these four
success attributes with five perspectives that
compose DSD projects. These attributes are
considered critical success factors in DSD projects,
because good performance in them contributes to
achieve the managerial and financial goals.
The characteristics of these attributes are
described as following:
DSD Project Quality: The DSD project quality
is related to effectiveness in the process of
software development, where customer
requirements included to the final product or
service. So, the quality management seeks to
introduce improvements to the processes of
software design. Usually, to obtain quality in
development processes there must be good
communication and cooperation among
stakeholders, whether they are separated
geographically or not (IEEE Computer Society,
2004). When DSD is considered, the quality
depends greatly on the management of the
relationship among distributed development
sites.
DSD Project Costs: Software Project costs are
all expenses considered, including those related
to requirements elicitation process until delivery
of final product or conclusion of services. There
are also some costs resulting from distribution,
such as those related to: trip expenses and
information technology (IEEE Computer
Society, 2004; Kankanhalli and Tan, 2004).
Time on DSD Projects: According to PMBOK
(2004) software project time management
involves managing all tasks and processes that
make up the software project. Three processes
are essential for managing project time:
estimated duration of each process and activity,
schedule development and schedule control. The
ManagingDistributedSoftwareDevelopmentwithPerformanceMeasures
309
motivation that leads enterprises to adopt the
DSD is justly the possibility of reducing this
development time, using follow the sun.
DSD Geographical Dispersion: Geographic
dispersion among developers is one of main
characteristics of distributed software
development projects. So, to manage the
geographical dispersion is necessary to know
time zone and cultural diversity among those
involved, beyond politics, religious, customs,
laws, among others.
The metrics related to performance perspectives
for DSD are presented on the following sections.
For the definition of each one of them has been
obeyed the following format: name, formula, unity
and goals. Table 1 illustrates some metrics for the
development and management of internal process
perspective. Were proposed metrics for each of the
other perspectives, which are described in detail in
Santos e Galdamez (2013).
3.1 Measures for Financial Perspective
Measures from financial perspective make possible
to determine the fulfillment of financial goals that
the company expects to achieve from the
investments and efforts available to perform
software design. This perspective reflects the
attainment or not of the other dimensions of the
organization. So, since the internal processes are
being carried out successfully, customers will be
satisfied and the organization will be in a constant
learning and growth. Furthermore, the difficulties
imposed by geographical dispersion are being
overcome and, consequently, the expected financial
results are being attained (Kazi, Radulovic and Kazi,
2012; Parviainen, Kommeren and Rotherham, 2012;
Ramasubbu et al., 2011; Edvinsson et al., 1998;
Malone, 1997).
The following are the main characteristics of the
metrics:
Profit per Development Site: Shows the net
profits per development site. The rate of profit
generated is of great importance to justify the
financial resources invested.
Ratio Between the Financial Return on
Development Time for Each Development
Site: Obtain the contribution of each
development team to with the profit achieved by
the enterprise in the project. It allows managing
the efficiency of development sites.
Number of Hours Per Task for The Site:
Calculated by the number of hours spent to
perform certain amount of tasks designed for the
team. It allows quantifying the efficiency of each
distributed team.
Geographical Distance (Kilometers/miles)
Spent on Trips of Employees: Allows to
manage the resources allocated with trip
expenses. These expenses are common in
enterprise in which the employees are distributed
geographically. This metric returns a value with
the kilometers/miles traveled by developers in
each site.
Rate of Employee Turnover: The importance
of this metric lies on the fact that, firing and
hiring generate financial costs due to subsequent
needs as training for employees and
unemployment insurance. The measurement is
done separately for each project and site,
admissions and firing are considered only that
occurred within the period of project
development. The metric returns a percentage
regarding the turnover rate of each development
site.
3.2 Measures for Customer Perspective
The main objective of measures for customer
perspective is to control, by quantitative data the
satisfaction level of clients. They will provide data
showing client opinion about the organization (Kazi,
Radulovic and Kazi, 2012; Parviainen, Kommeren
and Rotherham, 2012; Ramasubbu et al., 2011;
Edvinsson et al., 1998; Malone, 1997).
The performance measures characteristics are
below described:
The Degree of Performance of Distributed
Teams: Calculates the performance of
distributed teams from the ratio between the
amount of requested projects and the amount of
projects completed by team.
The Degree of Interaction among Distributed
Teams: Measures the communication ability
among developers. Communication tools such as
e-mail and others, to register the measurements
could be used.
Customer (internal) Satisfaction with his/her
Development Team: Denotes for all distributed
team, the member satisfaction with the team to
which he/she belongs. The data obtained from
the metric provides the project manager with
important data for the allocation or changing
member of each one of distributed teams, since it
is defined based on a good relationship among
collaborators.
Relationship Between Amount of Faults
Found in Components Designed and
ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
310
Table 1: Measures Internal Processes Perspective in DSD (Parviainen, Kommeren and Rotherham, 2012; Ramasubbu et al.,
2011; Edvinsson et al., 1998; Malone, 1997).
Measures Formula Unity Goals
Number of worked
hours in tasks by
development site
∑
∑
Manage effort of
distributed teams
Number of faults
from performed test
by development site
⁄
Manage the
quality of
processes carried
out by distributed
teams
Number of delivered
components by
development site by
year
100
%
Manage output of
distributed teams
Change performed
within the given time
100
%
Manage
development time
oriented to change
Number of faults
found from
corrective
maintenance by
development site
⁄
Manage the
process quality
carried out by
distributed teams
Attainment of the
activities within
given time
Monitor the tasks
will be
implemented
within established
time
Reason among
planned effort and
real effort on code
generation step
within given time by
site
Ensure the
adequate use of
effort on tasks
Delivered by the Site: Calculates the amount of
faults found in components designed and
delivered by the site, in order to ensure final
customer satisfaction by quality control of sites
service.
3.3 Measures for Internal Process
Perspective
The use of software process metrics is important to
quantify the activities performance to determine the
gap within them, and so define improvements for
critical process quality.
Following some of its features are described.
Number of Hours Worked on Tasks per
Development Site: The metric allows managers
to quantify the efficiency in performing tasks
designed to the site, based on the amount of tasks
designed for the team on total hours worked by
the team throughout the project.
Number of Faults From Performed Tests by
Development Site: It is a metric that represents
the number of faults found by tests performed
per development site.
Number of Components Delivered by
Development site at One Year: Allows the
manager to verify the contribution of each
distributed team to the project. The metric also
provides data to compare the yield of all
development sites.
Changes Done Within the Time Limit Given:
It aims to manage for each team distributed the
efficiency to perform the changes addressed for
each one.
Number of Faults Found in Corrective
Maintenance Per Development Site: The
metric measures the number of faults found
during corrective maintenance. The value
corresponds to failures generated per
development site.
Attainment of Activities Within the Time
Limit: The metric allows to manage the
attainment of tasks within the time limit
ManagingDistributedSoftwareDevelopmentwithPerformanceMeasures
311
predetermined. Features reference to a
deliverable of projects. Deliverable could be
calculated as output using function point
technique or sprints from Agile Methods (for
example).
Relationship Between Planned Effort by Real
Effort in Code Generation Step in a Given
Time by Sites: It is very important to measure
the performance of the code generation process,
since it is responsible for the translation of the
detailed design representation to the
programming language. Values generated less
than "1" shows that, according to schedule was
used an excessive time and effort in the code
generation process.
3.4 Measures for Learning and Growth
Perspective
This perspective aims at long-term to measure the
growth of the organization, because alongside
financial progress, enables the evolution on staff
training as well as the structural and technological
capacity of organization. The performance measures
allow monitoring actions that aim to measure the
progress through staff training, as well as new
investments in structural capital of the company
(Edvinsson et al., 1998; Malone, 1997).
Characteristics of the metrics are described as
follow:
Persons Qualified to Play Project Manager
Role for Each Development Site: Measuring
the team members skills, it is possible to identify
potential candidates for management and the
needed investment to train employees. It makes
possible to distribute more appropriately whose
with skills and experience to manage teams. So,
best qualified teams should be established.
Number of Workout Aiming at Education and
Training of Employees Per Development Site:
Investment in training is aimed at training and
organizational growth. The metric provides a
value corresponding to the number of training
carried out in a year and destined for each
distributed team.
Percentage of Workout Destined to Sites:
Generates the percentage of value regarding to
training that is targeted to distributed teams. If
this value is equal 100%, all training investment
is destined for the site in a matter. The metric is
important for sharing evenly among distributed
teams the resources for training.
Research and Development (R&D)
Investment Per Distributed Site: The resources
invested in R&D for each site is calculated.
Investment in R&D enables, through of basic or
applied research, innovation in products and
services that enable continued organization
growth in terms of scientific and technological
development.
3.5 Measures for Geographical
Dispersion Perspective
The performance measures for geographical
dispersion perspective provide the visualization of
the magnitude of the kinds of dispersion that
characterize the distributed development
environment (Ramasubbu et al., 2011
).
The metrics characteristics are described as
follow:
Geographical Distance among Team
Members: Provides for the project manager the
geographical distance that separate team
members. These data are important to manage
communication, time zone and cultural
differences among team members. The
calculation can be done with any number of
distributed teams and also members.
Number of Workplaces: It provides the number
of geographically distributed sites those are
being used or will be used by project. If the value
generated is high, it implies in difficulties for
project management due to temporal and cultural
differences among distributed teams.
Unequal Experience Distribution among Sites:
It makes possible to calculate the difference on
the experience among distributed teams. If it is
well managed, it contributes for establishment of
more efficient teams.
4 DISCUSSIONS
This section presents a qualitative analysis of
proposed metrics considering the five perspectives
presented on section 3.
The “Profit per development site” metric is
important to make possible analysis of the project
viability and allows to determine the contribution of
each site with the enterprise earning. The “ratio
between the financial return on development time
for each development site” metric provides
information concerned to effort spent in each site
when compared with the earning from project. They
consist in important data for adequate distributed
team management. It is important measure the
efficiency while performing the tasks for these do
ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
312
not extend for longer than necessary. The delay of
the completion of the project could lead to fewer
profits and possible failure of it. The “number of
working hours per task for the site” metric informs
the time amount expended in activities for each site.
Due to geographically distributed allocation, in DSD
projects there is common travel spending by
employees. For that, “kilometers/miles spent with
employees travel” metric help to determine the
viability of DSD project. The "index of employee
turnover" metric is critical to identify corrective
actions on the sites since the site that presents high
turnover will have a negative impact on the cost and
time of project development.
The choice for use of distributed sites for
software development occurs, mainly due to the
need for an agile production and qualified teams.
The "degree of performance of distributed teams"
metric can measure the efficiency of teams. The
"degree of interaction among distributed teams"
metric becomes essential to estimate the difficulty of
interaction among distributed teams, since
development should be effectively cooperative even
with the geographical distance and the dependence
of the communication media. The good relationship
between those involved is an indispensable element
in DSD projects, especially among those belonging
to the same distributed team. The "Customer
(internal) satisfaction with his/her development
team" metric measures this attribute. The
"relationship between amounts of design faults of
delivered components by site development" metric is
very important to manage the quality of site
production, since the index generated by it allows an
analysis concerned to the qualification of the project
teams.
The "number of hours worked on tasks per
development site" metric allows to quantify the
efficiency of distributed teams in carrying out their
tasks. It enables a comparative analysis of the
performance of each distributed team. The software
project manager must have control on the number of
faults found in testing or corrective maintenance. In
DSD case, monitoring should occur according to site
distribution. It can be measured using the "number
of failures in tests carried out by development site"
metric and "number of faults found in corrective
maintenance by development site". In project
developed with several teams, calculate the
contribution of each one of them becomes essential
for effective management. For this, the "number of
components delivered by development site per year"
metric allows this measurement.
The "changes done within the time limit" metric
supports in managing a common bottleneck in
productive systems: do changes. In DSD case, the
metric allows managing the efficiency of each site.
Projects that go beyond set up time for conclusion
possibly have their earnings reduced. For that, the
"attainment of activities within the time limit" metric
measures the sufficiency of productive capacity to
conclude the project within the preset time. This
measurement could be carried separately for each
distributed site or also taking into account the
aggregate output of all sites involved.
The "persons qualified to Project Manager role"
metric is essential due to the importance of project
manager. When considering projects DSD, this
position requires the ability to coordinate teams
despite the geographical distance. The qualification
of employees is important for the success of the
organization which depends on of their employees
performance.
The "number of workout session that aims to
education and training of employees per
development site" metric allows the calculation of
the investment due to the number of distributed sites.
In its turn, the "percentage allocated to workout
session per sites" metric allows that the investment
in training is evenly distributed among the teams.
The "research and development (R&D) investment
per distributed site" metric measures the amount of
resources invested in research and development
according to the amount of sites distributed, that is
necessary when considering a long-term growth.
The geographical distance among teams
members is the feature that makes the DSD so
advantageous as complex to be managed. The
"geographical distance between team members"
metric allows the project manager based on this data
to evaluate and so understand the diversity that
involves employees in DSD projects. Teams at
different sites require to be considered cultural
differences as well as religious, politics, laws,
among others. The "number of workplaces" metric
returns the number of different sites that are located
for a project.
A team with experience in software development
will probably be more efficient than an
inexperienced team. With the "unequal distribution
of experience among sites" metric can be obtained
the level of experience discrepancy between
distributed teams and, with it, take action so that
better balanced teams are established.
Therefore, as can be observed in the above
discussions, these metrics will provide project
manager the necessary support to mitigate the
difficulties related to communication, coordination
ManagingDistributedSoftwareDevelopmentwithPerformanceMeasures
313
and control aspects in DSD. The following subset of
metrics: "degree of interaction among distributed
teams", "persons qualified to project manager role"
and "relationship between amounts of design faults
of delivered components by development site"
illustrate the use of measurements presented herein
for each of the mentioned aspects. Furthermore, this
set of measures will also provide a better
organizational performance evaluation, ensuring
thereby a strategic and operational planning based
on data/facts. So, a favorable environment can be
created making possible for the enterprise to offer
products with better quality, less time and
development cost and also with greater return on
investment that yields higher profit and better client
satisfaction.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The increasing demand for software products, leads
to finding ways to provide improvements in both
production and the product delivered. Given the
characteristics of DSD, project managers continue
with the challenge of identifying elements that return
information about the performance of their team.
The paper presented a set of measures that can be
used to evaluate the performance and, consequently,
support in managing organizational performance.
The presented metrics were obtained from the
literature and provide a metric baseline for DSD,
using as reference a consolidated model for
managing performance, the BSC.
A future work proposed by researchers’ team is
to implement and analysis the performance
evaluation system in a software development
enterprise which adopts DSD approach, and so
releases the results opportunely. Another research
opportunity relates to the integration of proposed
metrics with techniques for estimating the
complexity and modularizes activities.
It is also considered by our research group
develop a tool with these metrics. So project
manager will have automated support for
organizational performance management.
REFERENCES
Bititci, U. S. et al., 1997. Integrated performance
measurement systems: a development guide,
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 17, 5, 522 – 534.
Edvinsson, L., Malone, M. S., 1998. Intellectual Capital.
São Paulo: Makron Books (Portuguese).
Huzita, E. H. M., Leal, G. C. L., Balancieri, R., Tait, T. F.
C., Cardoza, E., Penteado, R. R. M., Vivian, R. L.,
2012. Knowledge and Contextual Information
Management in Global Software Development:
Challenges and Perspectives. In: 2012 IEEE Seventh
International Conference on Global Software
Engineering Workshops, 43-48.
IEEE Computer Society, 2004.Guide to the Software
Engineering Body of Knowledge –SWEBOK.
Jimenez, M., Piattini, M., Vizcano, A., 2009. A
Challenges and Improvements in Distributed Software
Development: A Systematic Review. Advances in
Software Engineering. January 2009. doi:10.1155/
2009/710971.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., 2004.A Review of Metrics
for Knowledge Management Systems and Knowledge
Management Initiatives. In: 37th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences – 2004. 8p.
Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P., 1992.The Balanced
Scorecard – Measures that Drive Performance.
Harvard Business Review, (January-February): 71-79.
Kazi, L., Radulovic, B., Kazi, Z., 2012. Performance
Indicators in Software Project Monitoring: Balanced
Scorecard Approach. IEEE 10th Jubilee International
Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics –
September 2012, Subotica, Serbia. University of Novi
Sad, Technical faculty “Mihajlo Pupin”, Zrenjanin,
Serbia., 23-24.
Marçal, C. A. M., 2008. Assessment of Business
Performance: the next step for the implementation of
the Management System. Dissertation of FGV, 136 p
(Portuguese).
Norreklit, H. 2000. The Balance on the balanced
scorecard - a critical analysis of some of its
assumptions. Management Accounting Research,
London, v.11, n.1, p.65-88, Mar.
Parviainen, M. T., Kommeren, R., Rotherham, J.,
2012.Metrics and Measurements in Global Software
Development. International Journal on Advances in
Software, 5, 3 and 4, 284-288.
PMBOK 2004. Project Management Body of Knowledge
Guide. Project Management Institute (PMI) Publishing
Division.
Ramasubbu, N., Cataldo, M., Balan, R. K.,Herbsleb, J. D.,
2011.Configuring Global Software Teams: A Multi-
Company Analysis of Project Productivity, Quality,
and Profits, ACM Digital Library, ICSE, pp.4.
Schneiderman, A.M. 1999. Why balanced scorecards fail.
Journal of Strategic Performance Measurement, New
York, p.6-10, Jan. Special Edition.
Siqueira, F. L., Silva, P. S. M., 2004. The Characteristics
of Distributed Software Development. In: Simpósio
Brasileiro de Sistemas de Informação, Porto Alegre,
1-2 (Portuguese).
Santos, G. S.; Galdamez, E. V. C. Management of
Organizational Performance in Distributed Software
Development. Technical Report, 2013, 54p
(Portuguese).
ICEIS2014-16thInternationalConferenceonEnterpriseInformationSystems
314
