Jump to content


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.

Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.


Research Question

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 ashlie


  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • Local time:03:55 AM

Posted 08 October 2006 - 03:17 PM

I am currently an accounting student and I have a rather complex question about how time is spent on internally developed software. My question deals with the ratio of time that is spent on coding, testing, and design. More specifically, I was wondering if anyone has seen a ratio of 2-3% of time spent on coding? I would appreciate all the help i could get. Thank you!

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)


#2 BanditFlyer


  • Members
  • 283 posts
  • Local time:01:55 AM

Posted 14 October 2006 - 02:46 AM

Out of the three you mentioned, I haven't seen coding as low as 2%. It takes me more time than design. Most projects I've worked on took more time for coding than design. But many fellow employees seemed to think that we wasted too much time in meetings doing design, so it seems to me that perhaps they were more competent at coding than me(and relatively less so at design).

Testing is probably more than 60%.

#3 jgweed


  • Members
  • 28,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:04:55 AM

Posted 14 October 2006 - 10:20 AM

I think it rather depends on the project in question. Some projects may be called "enhancements" to a pre-existing programme, and these are relatively quick to design, code, and test. Generally in this situation, design and coding take as much time as testing (because the testing must include a lot of interface work---dropping a module into a programme can have unforseen ramifications in other parts).
If the project concerns something entirely new, then the definition of needs and design can take a much longer time than in the previous example. Getting the process correct, and defining user needs as clearly as possible (it is not always an easy task to understand needs and translate these into a do-able programme) can save a great deal of recoding time in media res. The more complex the process, though, the more time must be spend to the actual coding of the programme; even with team effort, creating the different modules to the programme and making sure each works comfortably with the other parts, can require quite a bit of time. If you get the first steps right, and make sure your test cases are correct and the test data pertinent, the the testing phase becomes more of a tweaking exercise.


Edited by jgweed, 14 October 2006 - 10:24 AM.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users