Considerable resources are wasted on software projects delivering less than the planned benefits. Herein, the objective is to synthesize empirical evidence of the adoption and impact of benefits management (BM) in software development, and to suggest directions for future research. A systematic review of the literature is performed and identified 4836 scientific papers of which the authors found 47 to include relevant research. While most organizations identify and structure benefits at the outset of a project, fewer organizations report implementing BM as a continuous process throughout the project lifecycle. Empirical evidence gives support for positive impact on project outcome from the following BM practices: identifying and structuring benefits, planning benefits realization, BM during project execution, benefits evaluation and the practice of having people responsible for benefits realization. The authors suggest four research directions to understand (1) why BM practices sometimes not are adopted, (2) BM in relation to other management practices, (3) BM in agile software development and (4) BM in the context of organizations' value creation logics.

Context: There is considerable variation in the productivity of software developers. Better knowledge about this variation may provide valuable inputs for the design of skill tests and recruitment processes. Objective: This paper aims to identify properties of software development productivity distributions and gain insight into mechanisms that potentially explain these productivity differences. Method: Four data sets that contain the results of software developers solving the same programming tasks were collected. The properties of the productivity distributions were analyzed, the fits of different types of distributions to the productivity data were compared, and potential generative mechanisms that would lead to the types of distributions with the best fit to the productivity data were evaluated. Results: The coefficient of variance of the productivity of the software developers was, on average, 0.55, with the top 50% of developers having average productivity that was 2.44 times higher than the bottom 50% of developers. All productivity samples were right-skewed, with an average skew of 1.79. About 30% of the observed productivity variance was explained by non-systematic, i.e., within-developer, variance. The distributions with the best fit to the empirical productivity data were the lognormal and power-law-with-an-exponential-cutoff distributions. The analysis of the mechanisms leading to productivity differences found no support for the "rich-getting-richer" explanation proposed for other disciplines. Instead, it suggests a constant productivity difference with increasing experience. Conclusion: The substantial difference in productivity among software developers solving programming tasks indicates that a thorough evaluation of skill in the recruitment process can be rewarding. In particular, the long tail towards higher productivity values demonstrates the large gains that can be achieved by detecting and recruiting developers with very high productivity. More research is needed to understand the mechanisms leading to the large productivity differences.

Context Empirical research in software engineering contributes towards developing scientific knowledge in this field, which in turn is relevant to inform decision-making in industry. A number of empirical studies have been carried out to date in software engineering, and the need for guidelines for conducting and evaluating such research has been stressed.

Objective: The main goal of this mapping study is to identify and summarize the body of knowledge on research guidelines, assessment instruments and knowledge organization systems on how to conduct and evaluate empirical research in software engineering.

Method: A systematic mapping study employing manual search and snowballing techniques was carried out to identify the suitable papers. To build up the catalog, we extracted and categorized information provided by the identified papers.

Results: The mapping study comprises a list of 341 methodological papers, classified according to research methods, research phases covered, and type of instrument provided. Later, we derived a brief explanatory review of the instruments provided for each of the research methods.

Conclusion: We provide: an aggregated body of knowledge on the state of the art relating to guidelines, assessment instruments and knowledge organization systems for carrying out empirical software engineering research; an exemplary usage scenario that can be used to guide those carrying out such studies is also provided. Finally, we discuss the catalog’s implications for research practice and the needs for further research.