| Sampling Factors: |
Location (Not Relevant: Most projects are distributed among Russia (Omsk, Moscow, Dubna), USA (Seattle), and Vietnam (Ho Chi Min) locations but follow the same management and engineering practices. No effect on work conditions.)
Customer (Not Relevant: he same Customer for all projects, different departments/personalities from the Customer side don”t affect the way of work due to the common GSSM department from the Customer side that unifies the communication procedures)
Size (Not Relevant: No effect on work conditions, which is confirmed with sub-processes statistical control data)
Organizational Structure (Not Relevant: The parts of the same org. unit. No effect on work conditions)
Type of Work: New Development/Prototyping (Risky projects) and Development/Maintenance can be considered as significant factor due to business criticality. The type of work makes effect on work conditions only in case of business-critical new development/prototyping projects
Peer Review Type: Formal Peer Review practices constitute significant part of the Classic BDC process and can be simplified for projects where highest possible quality (i.e. low Post-Delivery Defect Density predicted range) is not required |
| Sampling Factor Values: |
Stable (Type of Work): Normal long-lasting project
Risky (Type of Work): Business critical development and/or prototype
Formal (Peer Review Type): Review report is required
Informal (Peer Review Type): Only review record is required |
| Subgroups: |
Formal: Formal
91 People, 6 Basic Units
– Stable
– Formal
Informal: Informal
73 People, 7 Basic Units
– Informal
– Stable
Risky: Risky
42 People, 4 Basic Units
– Risky
– Informal |