pdf - iDEA: DREXEL LIBRARIES E

Transcription

Quantitative Models For Early Prediction of Software Development Success:
A Practitioner’s Perspective
Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty
of
Drexel University
by
J. Drew Procaccino
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy
October 2002
© Copyright 2002
J. Drew Procaccino. All Rights Reserved.
ii
Acknowledgements
I thank Dr. Marvin Darter (Rider University) who, in addition to serving on my committee, has
also been instrumental in my collegiate career from both sides of the podium. Thanks also to Dr.
June Verner for her support and guidance throughout the program, including her invaluable
service as my Committee Chairperson. Thanks also to Committee members Dr. Michael Atwood
(Drexel), Dr. Scott Robertson (Drexel), and Dr. Lauren Eder (Rider University), for their
direction and support. I consider a few other faculty members of Drexel and Rider as ‘honorary’
members of my Committee because of their guidance and support during my research, and they
include Dr. Willian Evanco (Drexel), Dr. Katherine Shelfer (Drexel), Dr. David Gefen (Drexel)
and Dr. Donald Wise (Rider). Also, my thanks to Dr. Katherine McCain (Drexel) and the staff of
the Dean’s office for their administrative expertise, the College of IST’s Computer Resource
Center and Sloan Center for their expertise in all things technical, and to my colleagues in the
doctoral program, including Jodi Williams, Brian Finnegan, Lisa Morton, Yolanda Jones and
Steve Brusstar. While writing my dissertation, I moved from an adjunct to full-time faculty
position in The Department of Computer Information Systems at Rider University (Lawrenceville,
NJ), and I wish to thank the Department for its consideration and guidance while I conducted my
research, and in particular, Dr. James Dailey and Dr. William Amadio.
A special thanks to my family, including my uncle and aunt, Basil and Ann Ferrara, who have
been like grandparents to me, and my aunts, Margaret Campbell and Mary Alice Karnas, for their
many years of support. And lastly, to my mom, Jean Ann Procaccino, and my late father, John
Alan Procaccino, for their love, support and guidance, which included getting me started on this
educational path.
iii
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ ix
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... xi
1.
PROBLEM STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1
2.
DEFINING PROJECT SUCCESS......................................................................................... 5
2.1 Project Stakeholders....................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Process vs. Product ...................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Technical vs. Non-Technical Issues............................................................................. 14
2.3.1 Project Managers and Training .......................................................................... 15
2.3.2 The High-Tech Illusion ...................................................................................... 16
2.3.3 Managing Technology vs. Managing People..................................................... 17
2.3.4 Difficult Nature of Developing Software........................................................... 17
3.
NON-TECHNICAL COMPONENTS OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT ...................... 19
3.1 Sponsor/Management Support and Participation......................................................... 23
3.1.1 Sponsor/Management Components.................................................................... 23
3.2 Customer/User Support and Participation.................................................................... 32
3.2.1 Customer/User Components .............................................................................. 33
3.3 Requirements Management.......................................................................................... 42
3.3.1 Requirements Management Components........................................................... 44
4.
MAIN STUDY: OVERVIEW ............................................................................................. 54
4.1 Project Focus................................................................................................................ 54
4.1.1 Project Stakeholders........................................................................................... 55
4.1.2 Process vs. Product............................................................................................. 56
iv
4.2 Defining Project Success ............................................................................................. 56
4.2.1 Pilot Study #1: Software Practitioner’s Success Factors.................................... 57
4.3 Importance of Study..................................................................................................... 60
4.4 Anticipated Outcomes.................................................................................................. 62
5.
MAIN STUDY: RESEARCH MODELS, QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES ................ 64
5.1 Theoretical Research Model ........................................................................................ 64
5.2 Empirical Research Model........................................................................................... 65
5.3 Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 66
5.4 Support For Research Questions.................................................................................. 69
5.5 Hypotheses................................................................................................................... 73
6.
MAIN STUDY: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT ................................................... 75
6.1 Industry Contacts ......................................................................................................... 75
6.2 Distribution Mechanism............................................................................................... 76
6.3 Survey Instrument........................................................................................................ 77
6.3.1 Respondent Demographic Variables .................................................................. 78
6.3.2 General Project Variables................................................................................... 79
7.
MAIN STUDY: DATA ANALYSIS................................................................................... 84
7.1 Research Questions and Independent/Dependent Variables........................................ 84
7.2 Validity and Reliability................................................................................................ 86
7.3 Processing of The Raw Data........................................................................................ 88
7.4 Respondent and Organizational Demographics ........................................................... 90
8.
MAIN STUDY: ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS.................................................................. 93
8.1 Overview of Analytical Methods................................................................................. 93
8.1.1 Cronbach’s Alpha/Factor Analysis .................................................................... 93
8.1.2 Bivariate Correlation Analysis ........................................................................... 94
v
8.1.3 Ordinal Regression Analysis.............................................................................. 95
8.1.4 Bayesian Belief Networks.................................................................................. 96
8.2 Results of Analytical Methods..................................................................................... 98
8.2.1 Cronbach’s Alpha/Factor Analysis .................................................................... 98
8.2.2 Bivariate Correlation Analysis ......................................................................... 106
8.2.3 Ordinal Regression Analysis............................................................................ 113
8.2.4 Bayesian Belief Network ................................................................................. 126
9.
CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................ 145
10.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ......................................................... 152
LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. 154
APPENDIX A: Various Perspectives on Defining Software Development Project Success ...... 163
APPENDIX B: Summary Results of The Standish Group’s CHAOS Study [1995a]................. 165
APPENDIX C: Results From Standish Group’s Unfinished Voyages [1995b].......................... 166
APPENDIX D: Pilot Study #1: Software Practitioner’s Success Factors –
Survey Instrument.............................................................................................. 167
APPENDIX E: Pilot Study #1: Software Practitioner’s Success Factors - Descriptive Stats..... 172
APPENDIX F: Interviews With Software Practitioners ............................................................. 190
APPENDIX G: Proposed Causal Model From Procaccino, et al [2002a]................................... 195
APPENDIX H: Proposed Causal Model From Procaccino, et al [2002b]................................... 196
APPENDIX I: Pilot Study #2: Other Project Variables - Survey Instrument............................ 198
APPENDIX J: Pilot Study #2: Other Project Variables - Descriptive Statistics........................ 204
APPENDIX K: Data Dictionary of National Database (from Applied Computer Research) ..... 224
APPENDIX L: Main Study: Survey Instrument......................................................................... 226
APPENDIX M: Main Study: Data Dictionary of Survey Variables ............................................ 231
APPENDIX N: Summary of Recoded/Edited Variables............................................................. 233
APPENDIX O: Main Study: Descriptive Statistics..................................................................... 236
vi
APPENDIX P: Frequencies of Survey Responses...................................................................... 237
APPENDIX Q: Frequencies Used To Populate Bayesian Belief Network ................................. 257
APPENDIX R: Probabilities Propagated Through Proposed Bayesian BeliefNetwork ............. 372
APPENDIX S: Ordinal Regression Analysis of Critical Path From Bayesian Belief
Network ............................................................................................................. 374
APPENDIX T: Overall Impact On Project Success.................................................................... 375
VITA
........................................................................................................................................ 377
vii
List of Tables
1. Top 10 Highest Ranked Success Variables ............................................................................. 58
2. Success-Related Project Variables With Lowest Coefficient of Variation ............................. 59
3. Variables From Survey Section 1............................................................................................ 78
4. Research Questions and Independent/Dependent Variables ................................................... 84
5. Summary of Organizations and Respondents Providing Usable Responses ........................... 89
6. Automatic Recording of Irregular Responses ......................................................................... 90
7. Total Variance Explained (Sponsor/Management) ............................................................... 100
8. Rotated Component Matrix (Sponsor/Management) ............................................................ 100
9. Total Variance Explained (Customer/User) .......................................................................... 101
10. Rotated Component Matrix (Customer/User) ....................................................................... 101
11. Total Variance Explained (Requirements Management) ...................................................... 103
12. Rotated Component Matrix (Requirements Management).................................................... 103
13. Total Variance Explained (Survey Sections 1, 2 and 3)........................................................ 104
14. Rotated Component Matrix (Survey Sections 1, 2 and 3)..................................................... 105
15. Bivariate Correlations (Spearman’s) For Research Question 1............................................. 107
23. Bivariate Correlation (Spearman’s) For Practitioners’ Success Variables............................ 112
viii
24. Bivariate Correlation (Spearman’s) For Practitioners’ and Organizational
Success Variables .................................................................................................................. 113
25. Causal Relationships In Proposed Model.............................................................................. 114
26. Ordinal Regression Results For Research Question 1 (dependent variable Q4.01) .............. 116
34. Overall Ordinal Regression Results ...................................................................................... 125
35. Summary of Ordinal Regression Models .............................................................................. 126
36. Frequency of Independent Variables (Q3.02, Q3.03 and Q5.01).......................................... 128
37. Frequency Distribution For Q6.01, “Practitioners’ Overall Perception of Success” ............ 130
38. Original Probability Propagation........................................................................................... 131
39. Impact Summary For Q6.01, “Practitioners’ Overall Perception of Success” ...................... 134
40. Impact Summary For Q5.02, “Agreement on Requirements Reached” ................................ 136
41. Impact Summary For Q4.02, “Level of Customer/User Particpation Was High”................. 137
42. Impact Summary For Q4.08, “Customer/Users Made Adequate Time” ............................... 138
43. Summary of Ordinal Regression Models On Critical Path ................................................... 140
44. Summary of Variables’ Impact On Project Success.............................................................. 141
45. Summary of Project Components’ Impact On Project Success............................................. 142
ix
List of Figures
1. Framework For Defining Project Success ................................................................................. 6
2. Interrelations of Major Project Stakeholders............................................................................. 9
3. Conceptual Components of Bayesian Belief Networks .......................................................... 63
4. Theoretical Research Model.................................................................................................... 65
5. Empirical Research Model ...................................................................................................... 66
6. Proposed Correlations For Research Question 1..................................................................... 67
14. Sample Conditional Probability Table From Hugin System ................................................... 97
15. Proposed Bayesian Belief Network With Bivariate Correlation Coefficients....................... 129
16. Overall Propagated Probabilities Through Hugin’s Monitor Windows................................ 132
17. Percentage of Q6.01 When All Cases of Each Independent Variable=4 or 5 ....................... 135
20. Proposed Bayesian Belief Network With Critical Path and Non-Significant Paths.............. 139
21. Percentage of Q6.01 When All Cases of Each Project Component=4 or 5........................... 143
x
Abstract
Quantitative Models For Early Prediction of Software Development Success:
A Practitioner’s Perspective
J. Drew Procaccino
June M. Verner
This study investigated some of the early non-technical components of the software development
process from the perspective of project success. The causal relationships among these
components, as well as their relationship to software practitioners’ overall perception of project
success, were depicted through a Bayesian Belief Network. Components related to
sponsor/management, customer/users and requirements management. Data was gathered through
a survey of practitioners. This research is important because it provides graphic and quantitative
findings of the ‘downstream’ implications of the investigated components on the probability of
project success. The study’s working definition of success reflects elements of software
development that practitioners have indicated are important to them and, by extension, motivate
them. Furthermore, motivation has been shown to have the single greatest impact on staff
productivity, which has direct implications for the ability of organization to deliver software
products on time, within budget and that mets customer/user requirements.
The software industry continues to be plagued by projects that are characterized by cost overruns,
excessive time to complete (if they get completed at all), poor reliability/quality and/or failure to
meet agreed upon business objectives/requirements. The cause of most project failures has little
to do with technological issues, despite the tendency among project managers to focus on the
technical issues involved in software development. Further, there is a lack of quantitative research
into the early, on-going and non-technical components of software development projects,
specifically from the perspective of software practitioners.
xi
The proposed model provided quantitative evidence that agreement on requirements being
reached between customer/users, a high level of customer/user participation, and users that make
adequate time for requirements gathering had the three largest direct impacts on practitioners’
overall perception of project success. The chain of project components that had the largest impact
on project success was having a sponsor throughout the project, users that make adequate time for
requirements gathering, a high level of customer/user participation in the development process,
and agreement on requirements between customer/users and the development team.
1
1
1. Problem Statement
The software industry continues to be plagued by projects that are characterized by cost overruns,
excessive time to complete (if they get completed at all), poor reliability/quality and/or failure to
meet agreed upon business objectives/requirements [Barki, et al 1993; Jones 1995; Standish
Group 1995a; McConnell 1996; Glass 1998; Verner, et al 1999; Jiang and Klein 2000;
Ravichandran and Rai 2000]. Poor project outcomes continue despite numerous studies that
document and dissect failed projects [Lyytinen 1988; Barki, et al 1993; Standish Group 1995a;
Brooks 1995; Jones 1995; Nidumolu 1996; Amoako-Gyampah, et al 1997; Jiang, et al 2001].
Successful software development projects are usually defined as having met the agreed upon
business objectives/requirements, and completed on time and within budget [Keider 1974; Pinto
and Slevin 1988; Standish Group 1995a; Jones 1995; Clavadetscher 1998; Baccarini 1999;
Linberg 1999; Leffingwell and Widrig 2000; Wohlin, et al 2000].
Even though there is a tendency among project managers to focus on the technical issues
involved in software development, including those related to hardware and software (such as
programming language and compilers) [DeMarco and Lister 1999], the cause of most project
failures has little to do with technological issues [DeMarco 1991; McConnell 1996; Warne and
Hart 1996; Linberg 1999; Sumner 1999; DeMarco and Lister 1999]. Although research suggests
that failed projects suffer from the poor management of people-related problems rather than
technical problems [DeMarco 1991; McConnell 1996; Linberg 1999; Sumner 1999; DeMarco
and Lister 1999], it is important to analyze project failures from all perspectives. Poor software
development practices places organizational resources, such as time, money and the pool of
software practitioners (programmers, database developers, system analysts, etc.) at risk.
Practitioners become burned out, de-motivated and are likely to have decreased personal
2
productivity. This may lead to increased staff turnover, which again leads to lower (team)
productivity. The end-result is that time, money and organizational goodwill are placed at further
risk. Unfortunately, commonly used productivity and cost metrics only provide project managers
with a ‘snap shot’ of the current state of the project. These metrics do not provide managers with
information related to project components that would help to explain, “how the software has
evolved into [its present] state” [Curtis 1980]. These metrics also do not explain anything about
the motivation or lack of it among the members of the development team.
There is a general lack of quantitative research into the early, on-going and non-technical
components of software development projects, specifically from the perspective of software
practitioners. Amongst others, the relationships between some of a development project’s major
non-technical risks, and the corresponding quantitative evaluation of the potential of projects to
meet cost, time and functionality objectives, have not been widely examined in the IS literature
[Jiang and Klein 2000]. Furthermore, quantifying risk is an important first step in assessing risk
[Barki, et al 1993]. This study is intended to determine if quantitative findings can support the
construction of a causal model of software development that would support (or refute) widely
published anecdotal evidence regarding early non-technical components that contribute to project
success. The quantitative findings of this study are based on information gathered through
surveying software practitioners regarding recently completed development projects in which
they were professionally involved. Categories of components related to some of the early aspects
of the development process include sponsor/management support and participation, customer/user
support and participation, and requirements analysis. Survey responses are measured on a fivepoint Likert scale, ranging from 5 (‘agree’) to 1 (‘disagree’). Literature review and interviews with software practitioners provide support for the development
3
of a causal model. The form of the model is a probability-based Bayesian Belief Network, which
is based on mathematical rules of calculating conditional probabilities, given at least some
amount of empirical evidence. Graphically, the model is composed of several causal ‘sub’relationships. Essentially, the frequencies of the responses to each of the questions within the
survey instrument, taking into account the various independent/dependent relationships among
those variables, are used to populate the proposed Bayesian model. Each project component
included within the model is represented as a survey question. Through the ability to generate and
quickly update complicated quantitative relationships on modern desktop computers, the
completed model can easily perform ‘what-if’ analysis in order to isolate the probable effect of a
component (variable) on overall project success from the perspective of software practitioners
(given the collected empirical data), which is this model’s ultimate dependent variable).
The ‘what-if’ analysis mentioned above facilitates investigations to determine (1) the ‘critical
path’ (of chain of events) of proposed components that lead to project success, (2) the general
category of investigated software development (sponsor/management support and participation,
customer/user support and participation or requirements analysis) that has the largest collective
impact (both direct and indirect) on project success, and (3) the single investigated component of
software development that has the largest impact on project success. These findings are important
because they can assist managers in early evaluation of on-going projects and enable them to
address the investigated development issues. ‘What-if’ analysis, as well as the proposed Bayesian
model itself, can help graphically and quantitatively demonstrate the potential ‘downstream’
implications of the actions (or inactions) of management on the development process, particularly
in regard to important non-technical aspects. This study is also intended to enlighten project
managers in regard to the importance of practitioners’ overall perception of project success and
practitioner motivation. This is an important relationship to both the developing organization and
4
the customer because motivation has been shown to be the single greatest contributor to staff
productivity [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996]. Moreover, productivity has direct implications for
the cost (of which practitioners represent the single largest source) and time to develop software.
5
2. Defining Project Success
The complex nature of finding a definition of success due to the need to consider product
stakeholders is important when looking at software development projects. This discussion is
organized as follows. Section 2.1: Project Stakeholders is presented first, followed by a
comprehensive definition of project success, including two different major perspectives, (1) the
process/product perspective (Section 2.2) and, (2) the technical/non-technical perspective
(Section 2.3).
A concisely focused definition of project success within the context of software development is
required in order to conduct this study. However, it is first appropriate to present a discussion of
some considerations and components of project success. Specifically, there are three major
factors that influence the notion of project ‘success’ (see Figure 1) and any analysis intended to
lead to a working definition of project success must consider the following:
•
The perspective of one or more project stakeholders, influenced by the culture,
practices and system-related goals of the organization being asked to define success
[Klein and Jiang 2001],
•
The development process and/or the resulting software product,
•
The Non-technical and/or technical focus.
The difficulty of measuring (and defining) all relevant success metrics (including those related to
strategic advantage, advances in knowledge and process improvements [Klein and Jiang 2001])
and the project’s particular stage in the lifecycle [Pinto and Mantel 1990] add complexity to the
factors in the above list. A simplified version of these factors and their interactions are depicted in
Figure 1. Stakeholder perspective influences his/her perception of project success, as all aspects
of project development are filtered through this perception. As a result, “Various stakeholders” is
shown as the outermost rectangle in Figure 1. The next rectangle includes the particular definition
and metrics that are used to define success. Process and product-related factors of the
6
development process can be considered in relation to a particular stage of the product lifecycle.
Lastly, after considering the stage of the lifecycle, the non-technical and/or technical factors of
development can be considered.
Figure 1: Framework For Defining Project Success
Projects that meet agreed upon business objectives, and are completed on time and within budget
make up the generally accepted industry ‘standard’ organizational/managerial definition of
project success [Keider 1974; Pinto and Slevin 1988; Standish Group 1995a; Jones 1995;
Clavadetscher 1998; Baccarini 1999; Linberg 1999; Leffingwell and Widrig 2000; Wohlin, et al
2000]. This definition has traditionally been used because it is, in part, relatively easy to measure
[Pinto and Slevin 1988]. User satisfaction is the single most widely cited measure of system
success in the information systems literature [Jiang, et al 2001].
An additional success consideration for many software development managers of is that a project
does not result in cancellation. In the strict sense of intention to design, construct and deliver a
completed software-based product, termination should be considered a failure, at least to some
extent. Regardless of whether a project is considered to be a failure or not, cancellation is clearly
7
not the most desirable outcome for any project stakeholder. Although not directly related to this
study, it is interesting to note that there is some debate regarding the relationship between project
termination and project failure. Although the Standish Group’s [1995a] widely cited research
equates project cancellation with failure, there may be many useful lessons to be learned from an
abandoned project [Ewusi-Mensah 1997]. Boehm [2000] suggests that canceling a project should
not necessarily equate to project failure, as many projects fail due to changing conditions and
“assumptions” [Pinto and Mantel 1990]. Several important software development factors may be,
at least partially, beyond the control of a project manager, including the level of user
participation, the lack of organizational resources and changing requirements (particularly in a
“climate of rapid change”). Boehm [2000] also suggests that the notion of cancellation can be
viewed as caused by bad management, and this encourages managers of failing projects to
continue developing the project in order to not be perceived as a bad manager. Such perceptions
can damage the manager’s career. However cancellation, may be a sign of good management as
the cancellation of a project as early as possible may conserve organizational resources that are at
risk due to an “infeasible project” [Boehm 2000]. Further, canceling the project may also allow
for these resources to be utilized more effectively elsewhere. (In general, cancelled or late
projects tend to be associated with larger systems, where a ‘large’ project refers to 5,000
functions points or approximately 500,000 source lines of procedural code. [Jones 1995]).
However, in the American culture, there can be an emotional stigma associated with risky
projects, as “owning up to risks is often confused with defeatism” [Boehm and DeMarco 1997].
In the forward for Bob Glass’, ComputingFailure.com [2001], Tom DeMarco said:
“Our cultures guide us to think only of success, to concentrate on winning, not losing.
The Plan For Success mentality sounds great, but it makes risk management almost
impossible. And risk management is your most effective tool in a risk-intensive world. To
do real risk management, you have to develop a deep understanding of the factors that
have undone those who have gone before you, understand how these factors acted and
what measures proved insufficient to contain them. If such factors proved fatal to your
predecessors, they may prove equally fatal to you.”
8
Such a cultural climate may cause software development managers to be reluctant to admit that
their project is facing some degree of risk. As a result, it is hardly surprising that risk may not be
effectively managed, even though many researchers have described the potential negative impacts
of inadequate assessment of project risk on the software development process [Ginzberg 1981;
Boehm 1991; McConnell 1996; Keil, et al 2000a]. Too often software managers have had their
development staff grind away at a project in the face of an unrealistic schedule [Pressman 1996;
Glass 2001a]. This ‘risk-challenged’ mentality is often combined with overly optimistic
practitioners, who believe they can accomplish more in a given period of time than is possible
[McConnell 1996]. Clearly, many, if not all, of the project stakeholders are unlikely to look upon
such projects as a success.
2.1
Project Stakeholders
The variety of project stakeholders adds additional parameters and associated complexity to the
task of defining project success. Figure 2 is based on a schema for system evaluation developed
by Klein and Jiang [2001], and it includes the following typical project stakeholders:
Senior/Executive Management:
Oversee project managers, provide political support
for this project, and may interact with MIS
management, project managers and/or customer/users.
Project Manager:
Oversee the project development team and interacts
with customer/users.
Customer/user:
Pays for and/or uses the completed software system.
Software Practitioner:
Includes programmers, database designers and system
analysts.
Referring to Figure 2, Senior Management interacts with the Software Project Manager, who
interact with both Developers/IT Professionals and the Customer and Users. Developers and IT
Professionals interact with their Software Project Manager and the Customer and Users. Finally,
the Customer and Users interact with the Software Project Manager and Developers and IT
9
Professionals. In some instances, there is also interaction between Senior Management and the
Customer and Users.
Figure 2: Interrelations of Major Project Stakeholders
(dotted lines indicates path not always present)
Each of these groups brings different backgrounds, and has different expectations and
understanding of any metric that might be collected in order to evaluate success [Ginzberg 1981;
Klein and Jiang 2001; Jiang, et al 2001]. Management is largely concerned with keeping their
higher-level supervisor(s) happy (may include senior/executive management). In the case of a
system being developed for an outside customer, management is concerned with keeping the
people paying for the project (customer) happy. If the system is being developed for an in-house
‘customer’, then management needs to keep the management of the intended end-users happy.
Software practitioners, however, bring their own somewhat unique perspective to the notion of
success.
Each of these stakeholders plays a role in shaping practitioner’s typical perception of the relative
success of a given software development project. While research suggests that practitioners value
10
the meeting of agreed upon business objectives [Linberg 1999; Procaccino and Verner 2002],
studies have demonstrated that practitioners do not necessarily judge the relative success of a
software project by the common project success definition of delivering a product on schedule
and, within budget [McConnell 1996; Linberg 1999; Procaccino and Verner 2001a]. A
practitioner’s perception of project success, in contrast to that of their management, tends to take
a more micro-level project view, as practitioners are on the ‘front line’ of design and production.
Practitioners may find considerable value and success in a project that is delivered late, overbudget and does not necessarily meet agreed upon business objectives [McConnell 1996; Linberg
1999]. Most practitioners have a general need to create things, particularly things that other
people will find useful [Brooks 1995], as the nature of development work is creative [Pressman
1998]. It has been suggested that, “…programming…is fun because it gratifies creative longings
built deep within us and delights sensibilities.” [Brooks 1995]. Practitioners also share in the “joy
of always learning” [Brooks 1995]. Further, they enjoy working in a such a “tractable medium [as
software]…only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff” [Brooks 1995]. The Myers-Briggs
Test Indicator (MBTI), which is an often-used test to assess different psychological types [Lyons
1985], describes computer professionals as having a much higher preference for thinking than
feeling as compared to general population [Boehm 1981]. Practitioners are likely to place higher
value in the intrinsic value of the work itself rather than in extrinsic factors, which include
compensation, working conditions and appropriate technical resources [McConnell 1996].
Linberg [1999] has provided evidence of a gap between the software practitioner 's definition of
project success and the generally accepted industry definition presented earlier. He used
development projects reports, interviews and surveys of eight development team members from a
single organization to assess what contributes, from the perspective of practitioners, to a
11
successful project. Participants were asked, “What was the most successful project that you have
worked on, and why?”; the common themes were:
•
The project was a technical challenge.
•
The product worked the way it was intended to work.
•
The team was small and high performing.
Research suggests the following, from the perspective of practitioners, are additional contributors
to successful projects:
•
Effective leaders [McConnell 1996; Linberg 1999].
•
“Conductive organizational behavior” [Linberg 1999 (cites Rasch and Tosi 1992;
McLean, et al 1996)].
•
Requirements that are technologically realistic [Linberg 1999].
•
Realistic estimation of scheduling and effort [Linberg 1999 (cites Boehm 1981; Glass
1992; Brooks 1995); Pressman 1996; Glass 2001a].
•
Necessary resources were available, including sufficient software personnel [Linberg
1999 (cites DeMarco and Lister 1999)].
•
Diverse and synergistic development teams [Linberg 1999 (cites Hohmann, 1997)].
Participants in Linberg’s study [1999] were also asked, “What was the least successful project
that you have worked on, and why?”, and the common themes were as follows:
•
Poor [project] management.
•
Poor marketing research [relates to developing systems that do not match the
customer/users technical platform; i.e. hardware and/or operating system].
Linberg developed a project success continuum from the practitioner’s perspective, which
includes whether the project was completed or cancelled. For each of these two outcomes,
projects were rated as one of the following:
•
Failed: completed projects that were characterized by the development of a product
that “causes customer discontent” due to lack of perceived quality.
•
Low success: cancelled projects that were characterized by practitioners that did not
learn anything new which could be applied to a subsequent project.
•
Successful: completed projects that were characterized by average cost, effort and
schedule performance when compared to the industry as a whole.
12
•
High success: cancelled projects that were characterized by new knowledge for
practitioners and artifacts that could be applied to future development work.
•
Exceptionally successful: completed projects that were characterized by “meeting all
quality, cost, effort and schedule expectations”. According Linberg’s analysis,
cancelled projects could not be classified as exceptionally successful.
Other research has noted that from a project success perspective, practitioners value several
personal-related components of software development (including sense of achievement,
perception that good, quality work was done) [McConnell 1996] and customer/user-related
components (including customer/users have realistic expectations, a project meets all
customer/user requirements and customer/users are involved) [Procaccino and Verner 2002].
Further, these components of success can be further categorized as being related to the process of
developing software and its associated management, the development team, the individual
practitioner (personal and professional needs) and the completed product. The following provides
a more detailed list of the major components that contribute to the practitioner perception of
project success.
•
Management (both senior/executive and project management) The process-related
components of project development important to practitioner’s perception of project
success include quality of supervision [Herzberg 1987; Couger 1988; Ferratt, et al
1999], effectiveness of project management [Agarwal and Ferratt 1998],],
participation and support of senior/executive management [Barki, et al 1993; Jiang, et
al 1996; Ewusi-Mensah 1997].
•
The development team, including their peer relationships [Procaccino and Verner
2002] and the skill-level of the team [Anderson and Narshimhan 1979; McFarlan
1981; Davis 1982; Boehm 1989; Barki, et al 1993; Jiang, et al 1996; DeMarco and
Lister 1999].
•
Personal and professional needs, including motivators [Linberg 1999; Procaccino and
Verner 2002].
•
The completed product, including its reliability and user satisfaction [Bailey and
Pearson 1983; Baroudi and Orlikowski 1988; Igbaria and Baroudi 1995; Jiang, et al
2001].
Much of the research that focuses on the practitioner’s perception of project success explores, to
some extent, employee motivation. In general, the practitioner’s perception of project success is,
at least in part, determined by components that are related to their motivation, and motivation has
13
the single largest impact on practitioner productivity [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996].
“Motivation is the means by which the potent wellsprings of human energy and creativity are
directed toward people’s desired goals” [Boehm 1981]. Herzberg [1987] describes motivation as
being “…based on growth needs. Motivation is an internal engine, and its benefits show up over a
long period of time. Because the ultimate reward [of] motivation is personal growth, people don’t
need to be rewarded incrementally [such as through raises and promotions].” As an internal
growth need, motivation stands in contrast to a ‘surface’ “fear of punishment or failure to get
extrinsic rewards” [Herzberg 1987].
Motivational components include the nature of the work itself [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996],
having a personal sense of achievement [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996; Glass 1999; Procaccino
and Verner 2002], having a sense of doing a good job (i.e., delivering quality [Glass 1999;
Procaccino and Verner 2002; Procaccino and Verner 2001b], and having the acceptance by the
development team that the requirements are realistic and achievable [Pressman 1996; Linberg
1999; Procaccino and Verner 2002].
2.2
Process vs. Product
Baccarini [1999] and Wateridge [1998] suggest that software development and ultimate project
success can be generally framed in terms of process and product. A complete evaluation of
system success requires multiple measures [Pressman 1996; Linberg 1999; Klein and Jiang 2001;
Jiang, et al 2001], and this is a complicated undertaking. As a result, separate, comprehensive
studies are required to adequately investigate the concept of project success. There are many
examples from software engineering research that define or make use of a wide variety of
definitions of software project success. These definitions can generally be grouped by their
14
process or product-related perspectives (see below). Appendix A provides a sampling of this
research.
Process/project
management:
Product:
including meeting cost, schedule and quality objectives, quality of
project management process itself and the satisfaction of project
stakeholders needs as they relate to project management process
[Boehm 1981; Baccarini 1999].
including effects of the final product as they relate to meeting the
goals and purpose of the system [Boehm 1981; Baccarini 1999],
business outcomes (including impacts at both the organizational and
individual levels), technical performance of the system, efficiency of
the product’s operations (considering cost, time and productivity),
end-user satisfaction with the completed system and the personal
satisfaction of development staff (including professional growth, and
challenging and interesting work) [Jiang and Klein 2000].
Of course, the components of process and product are intertwined, as the final product is the
ultimate result of the development process itself.
2.3
Technical vs. Non-Technical Issues
The technical issues of software development include those directly related to hardware and
software. Non-technical issues relate to people and managerial-related components of the
development process. Non-technical, people-related components of the software development
process tend to be under-managed. And several reasons for this include:
1. Project managers often lack managerial training, particularly in the realm of software
development.
2. The “High Tech” illusion, which DeMarco and Lister [1999] suggest is prevalent in
the information technology field.
3. Managing technical issues tends to be more straightforward than managing people.
4. Software development is a difficult, conceptual undertaking. [Brooks 1995].
2.3.1
Project Managers and Training
Project managers are generally not trained to manage the job, but rather are trained, and have
experience, in how the job is done [DeMarco and Lister 1999]. Historically, many organizations
15
have rewarded employees (often technical people) with opportunity to manage, though not all of
these people are ‘management material’ [Ridings and Eder 1998]. It has been suggested that the
“criteria, climate and rewards” associated with being a high performing software engineer are
often not compatible with good managerial characteristics [Kellner 1991]. As a result, the
information technology field has promoted many practitioners with little or no managerial
training or experience to managerial positions. (The Peter Principle, which suggests that in a
hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence [Peter and Hull 1969],
represents a common violation of the Principle of Job Matching. The latter Principle suggests that
management should be aware of the need to create a work environment, including task
assignment, that match the “skills and motivation of the people (software practitioners) available”
[Boehm 1981]). The Principle of Job Matching also has ramifications for practitioner’s
perception of project success. The end-result, as Boehm suggests, is “poor management can
increase software [development] costs more rapidly than any other factor” [Boehm 1981], as its
effects ripple throughout the development process, including scheduling, estimating, and team
management and motivation [Kellner 1991]. In short, management skills (or lack of) have direct
implications for project risk management, and ultimately project success. Boehm suggests that
successful projects are often cited as having good risk managers [Boehm 1991].
The Standish Group [www.standishgroup.com] continues to conduct studies of domestically
developed software projects and they note that most projects fail due to a lack of “skilled project
management”, rather than money and/or technological tools/personnel. Skilled management
includes the selection and utilization of an appropriate development methodology [Glass 1994;
Ewusi-Mensah 1997]. This further speaks to the need for knowledgeable managers and effective
managerial practices, as schedule and budgets are often padded in order to merely appear
successful (from an organizational/managerial perspective) and well managed at the end of the
16
project [Brady and DeMarco 1994]. When a project is acknowledged to be late, it is generally not
due to development effort by practitioners, but rather more often to a lack of a sound, well
thought out scheduling effort [Brady and DeMarco 1994]. As a result, care should be taken when
evaluating the relative success of a project from an organizational/managerial perspective.
Mismanagement can include pressure-packed schedule estimates [McConnell 1996; Glass 2001a]
and/or the application of an inappropriate, perhaps overly restrictive, development lifecycle
methodology [DeMarco and Lister 1999]. Such practices often leave practitioners de-motivated
[McConnell 1996] and unhappy, which can lead to burnout, the need to train new staff, staff
turnover [McConnell 1996] and late delivery [Keider 1974]. Because software practitioners
usually construct software in teams [Lyons 1985] and group dynamics are important to efficient
project development [Ewasi-Mensah 1997; DeMarco and Lister 1999], turnover interferes with
the formation of cohesive and productive development teams, which in turn hampers productivity
[DeMarco and Lister 1999].
2.3.2
The High-Tech Illusion
DeMarco and Lister [1999] described the “High-Tech Illusion” as a second reason why
managerial effort and emphasis is so often placed on technical issues. That is, anyone who is
professionally involved in a relatively new technology, such as software development, believes
that he or she is in an “intrinsically high-tech business” [DeMarco and Lister 1999]. As a result,
they tend to over-manage technical issues and lose sight of the critical, and on-going role that
people, particularly software practitioners, play in these ‘high-tech’ businesses.
2.3.3
Managing Technology vs. Managing People
17
A third reason for under-management of the non-technical issues is that managing technical
issues tends to be more straightforward than managing people, who ‘come pre-packaged’ with
their unique personalities, strengths, weaknesses and opinions [DeMarco and Lister 1999].
Related to this are the managers of development projects who have some difficulty in relating to
practitioners, in terms of their different professional roles within the development process. In
addition, the practitioners’ perception of project success does not necessarily match that of project
manage or the more senior management within the organization for which the system is being
developed [McConnell 1996; Glass 1999]. Managers who attempt to motivate their development
team as they themselves would prefer to be motivated are not likely to succeed [McConnell
1996].
2.3.4
Difficult Nature of Developing Software
A final reason for problems with software development project and the over-management of
technical issues and under-management of non-technical, people-related issues is the problem that
software development is, by its very nature, a difficult, conceptual undertaking. Part of the
difficult nature of software development relates to what Brooks calls its “essence”, which refers
to the difficulty that is inherent in the very nature of developing software [Brooks 1995]. The
“essence” of software development relates to “the mental crafting” of software, which is “a
construct of interlocking concepts: data sets, relationships among data items, algorithms and
invocations of functions”. Brooks compares programming software to writing poetry, work that is
“…only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff”. (Other challenges of developing software
relate to the process of implementing the completed product, which is ‘external’ to the mental
work of developing software. Brooks refers to such external challenges as “accidental” [Brooks
1995].)
18
The next chapter discusses some of the important non-technical considerations that have an early
and on-going influence on the software development process.
19
3. Non-Technical Components of Software Development
Previous software engineering studies have suggested a number of early, non-technical factors
that contribute to the eventual success or failure of information systems development projects
[McConnell 1996; Pressman 1997; Glass 1998; Verner, et al 1999]. The non-technical factors can
be broadly categorized as follows:
•
Sponsor/management support and participation (people and process-related),
•
Customer/user support and participation (people and process-related),
•
Requirements management (people and process-related),
•
Project manager and relationships with development staff (people and processrelated),
•
Estimation and schedule (people and process-related),
•
Software development process (process-related), and
•
Software development personnel (people-related).
The importance of sponsor/management support and participation, customer/user support and
participation, and requirements management of successful software development is reflected in
studies by the Standish Group [1995a and 1995b], as well as work done by Verner, et al [1999],
Procaccino and Verner [2001a] and Procaccino, et al [2002a and 2002b; see Appendix G and H].
Many of the project components within three categories, namely (1) sponsor/management support
and participation, (2) customer/user support and participation, and (3) requirements management
of successful software development, are under the control of management. However,
unsuccessful projects tend to deal inadequately with one or more of these issues. Unsuccessful
projects tend to repeat the problems that Brooks outlined in 1975, including overly optimistic
estimates (resulting in lack of calendar time), and inadequate project planning and change
management [Brooks 1995].
The Standish Group’s widely cited CHAOS Report [1995a] illustrates the importance of
management support, customer/user participation and requirements management through their
20
survey of a broad group of 365 information technology executive managers. These managers
represented 8,380 development applications. (Several managers participated in focus groups and
a few case studies were also included in the report.) Each survey respondent was asked to list
reasons why their projects were ‘successful’ (i.e. delivered on time, within budget and met
initially specified requirements), why they were ‘challenged’ (i.e. in danger of being delivered
late and over-budget, and not meeting customer/user requirements) and why they were ‘impaired’
(i.e. cancelled). The most commonly cited reasons for ‘successful’ projects included user
involvement, executive management support and clear statement of requirements. The most
commonly cited reasons for ‘challenged’ projects included lack of user input, incomplete
requirements and specifications, and changing requirements and specifications. Finally, the most
commonly cited reasons for projects to be classified as ‘impaired’ were incomplete requirements,
lack of user involvement and lack of resources. See Appendix B for further details.
The Standish Group’s follow-up to their CHAOS Report [Standish Group 1995a], Unfinished
Voyages [1995b], revisited the importance of management support, customer/user participation
and requirements management for successful project completion. IT executive managers were
asked to list five ways to achieve each of the top ten-rated success criteria that had been
determined in the original CHAOS Report. The results were then used to form a list of questions
that a project manager should attempt to answer in order to arrive at a composite success score for
a particular project. The categories noted above, namely user involvement, executive
management support and clear statement of requirements are the first three included on the
CHAOS questionnaire. See Appendix C for details.
Procaccino and Verner [2001a] and Procaccino, et al [2002a and 2002b; see Appendix G and H]
also investigated the importance of sponsor/management, customer/users and requirements
21
management within the software development process, from the perspective of software
practitioners. Procaccino and Verner [2001a] investigated some early development risks. In their
analysis of 109 completed software development projects from various organizations across
several industries. Respondents were asked to evaluate whether they considered the project to be
successful. (However, respondents were not provided with, nor asked to provide, a specific
definition of success.) Categories of their survey questions included Management Support,
Customer/Users and Requirements.
Procaccino and Verner [2001a] used variables that exhibited a significant correlation with
practitioners’ perception of success to generate a logistic regression equation, which correctly
predicted success in 86% of the cases and explained 48% of the variance of project success (R2 =
0.48). The variables in the equation including the following:
•
The level of confidence the customer has in the development team.
•
The level of involvement of customer/users in the development process.
•
The size of the project negatively affected requirements elicitation.
Procaccino, et al [2002a; see Appendix G] included a subset of the dataset used in Procaccino and
Verner [2001a]. This research investigated 42 development projects from a single financial
institution. Variables that exhibited a significant correlation with practitioners’ perception of
success were used to generate a logistic regression equation, which correctly predicted success in
85% of the cases and explained 48% of the variance in success (R2 = 0.49). The variables in the
equation included the following:
•
The customer/users had realistic expectations.
•
If requirements were not complete and accurate, were they completed adequately?
•
The sponsor commitment lasted throughout the project.
22
It is interesting to note that although different variables were used in the logistic regression
analysis, the results from Procaccino and Verner [2001a] and Procaccino, et al [2002a; see
Appendix G] were very similar. Both studies demonstrated that a relatively small number of
variables could predict a relatively high percentage of successful projects (85%).
Procaccino, et al [2002b] also examined the impact of sponsor/management support and
participation, customer/user support and participation, and requirements management on
practitioners’ perception of success. The data used in this study included that used in Procaccino
and Verner [2001a] with an additional eleven respondents for a total of 120 from a number of
different organizations. (Logistic regression analysis was not included in this study.)
The studies described above illustrate the importance of non-technical components in software
development, particularly those related to the early impact of sponsor/management,
customer/users and requirements management; people are the central theme throughout these
three categories. This ties in with Boehm [1991], who suggests that, in general, “good people,
with good skills and good judgment, are what make projects work”. McConnell [1996] also
suggests that people are the most important element in successful development projects, as
practitioners create, modify and apply the software while they interact with their management and
customer/users of the system. However, people also represent the largest single cost in software
development [Brady and DeMarco 1994]. Hence, it is important that management understand
what is important in motivating practitioners in order to support a productive and creative work
environment [McConnell 1996]; a productive and creative support environment in turn can lower
the overall risk associated with a successful software development. All of this research points to
the need for project managers to have some understanding of the development process from the
perspective of software practitioners.
23
The remainder of this section discusses the importance of sponsor/management support and
participation, customer/user support and participation and requirements management in the
software development process. As noted earlier, neither Procaccino and Verner [2001a] nor
Procaccino, et al [2002a; see Appendix G], as well as other cited studies, explicitly define project
success from the perspective of software practitioners. However, Procaccino and Verner [2001b;
2002] and personal interviews [Interviews 2001] provide evidence of specific components of the
development process that contribute to practitioner’s general perception of project success or
failure. These components include: a sense of achievement, a sense of doing good job, a project
with a plan, a well-planned project and a development team that accepted the requirements as
being realistic/achievable. Therefore, when there is evidence in the literature that a particular
component of the development process contributes to the relative success or failure of the project,
we can infer a casual relationship between that component (as an independent factor) and project
success the five ‘success factors’ from Procaccino and Verner [2002b; 2002].
3.1
Sponsor/Management Support and Participation
Sponsor/management support and participation extends beyond any single development project,
as there is an on-going organizational need to acquire, allocate and prioritize resources in order to
improve the development process and meet organizational objectives [Humphreys 1990].
3.1.1
Sponsor/Management Components
This section discusses the software development components related to Sponsor/Management
Support and Participation reviewed for this study.
The project had an upper-level (management) sponsor/champion:
24
A sponsor/champion is also related to a practitioner’s perception of the importance of other
stakeholders’ participation in the decision-making process [Interviews 2001]. Research suggests
that this component is causally linked (as an independent variable) to the following (dependent)
variables:
•
Developers had a sense of achievement [Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino
and Verner 2001b; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b].
•
Developers believed they did a good job [Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino
•
Project completed on time [McConnell 1996; Procaccino and Verner 2001a;
Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b].
•
Project completed within budget [Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino, et al
2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b].
•
Sponsor/champion stayed throughout this project.
•
There was a project plan [Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino and Verner
2001b; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b].
•
Project was well planned [Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino and Verner
•
High level of customer/users participation during development [Procaccino, et al
•
Customers/users made adequate time for requirements gathering [Procaccino, et al
•
Requirements were accepted by team as realistic/achievable [Procaccino and Verner
2001a; Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al
2002b].
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Procaccino and Verner 2001a;
There was an upper-level (management) sponsor/champion throughout this project.
Sponsorship that does not last right through a project may contribute to delaying the project’s
completion [McConnell 1996]. Further, practitioners have reported the importance of a
sponsor/champion from their process perspective [Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Interviews
2001; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b]. This is particularly true of strong
sponsorship (Rainer and Watson 1995; Interviews 2001]. Having sponsor/champion throughout a
project also relates to the importance practitioners place on having other stakeholders participate
25
in the decision-making process [Interviews 2001]. Research suggests that this variable is causally
linked (as an independent variable) to the following (dependent) variables:
•
•
•
Project completed on time [McConnell 1996; Procaccino and Verner 2001a;
•
•
•
•
High level of customer/users participation during development [Procaccino, et al
2002a].
•
A high confidence level in the project manager/team members was held by the
customer/users [Procaccino, et al 2002b].
•
Participating customers/users stayed throughout the project [Procaccino, et al 2002a].
•
Customers/users made adequate time for requirements gathering [Procaccino, et al
•
2002b].
•
The upper-level (management) sponsor/champion was committed to this project.
A committed sponsor or champion is important because he or she impacts a project both early,
and right through, the development process [Rainer and Watson 1995; McConnell 1996;
Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b]. Sponsor
participation can support more realistic scheduling and resource planning by helping to stop highranking managers from forcing the project manager/development team to accept unrealistic
schedule changes or other such undermining changes [McConnell 1996; McKeen and Guirmares
26
1997]. For a similar reason, sponsor participation can also help with adequate change control
practices and the beneficial introduction of new development methods [McConnell 1996].
Sponsor commitment can be reflected by sponsor participation in the decision-making process,
which can in turn contribute to user buy-in and better resource planning [McKeen and Guimares
1997]. A committed sponsor can help to encourage commitment and participation from other
project stakeholders [Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Interviews 2001; Procaccino, et al 2002a;
Procaccino, et al 2002b]. As noted earlier, the benefits associated with sponsorship are more
likely to occur with strong sponsorship [Rainer and Watson 1995; Interviews 2001]. Practitioners
have also reported the importance of a sponsor/champion [Procaccino and Verner 2001a;
Interviews 2001; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b]. This component also relates
to practitioner’s perception of the importance of having other stakeholders participation in the
decision-making process [Lyytinen 1988; Interviews 2001]. Research suggests that this variable
is causally linked (as an independent variable) to the following (dependent) variables:
•
•
•
•
•
High level of customer/users participation during development [Procaccino and
Verner 2001; Interviews 2001; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b].
•
•
Requirements were accepted by the development team as realistic/achievable
[Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Procaccino, et al
The project had a project manager:
27
Research suggests that the presence of a project manager is important for successfully meeting
the various success criteria for a successful project [Keider 1974; McConnell 1996; Verner, et al
1999; Interviews 2001]. Lack of a project manager can lead to failure to plan for, and obtain, the
required necessary human and technical resources. In addition, schedule slippages will not be
identified and necessary adjustments will not be made [McConnell 1996]. However, the mere
presence of a manager is not enough, as misguided management actions, such as adding
additional development personnel to a project that is already behind schedule, can increase the
cost of developing software very quickly [Boehm 1981]. In addition, a project manager must
cultivate an atmosphere of communication between the development team and customer/users,
which will facilitate effective requirements management [Pressman 1998]. There is also a need
for negotiation skills in working with stakeholders on scheduling and requirements, budget and
all other project activities [Pressman 1998]. Project managers also have the important
responsibility of defining specific roles for members of the development team [Ewusi-Mensah
1997; Jiang and Klein 2000], and tracking progress through their support for on-going status
meetings and status reports [McConnell 1996]. Practitioners have reported the importance of this
component from their perspective of the development process [Verner, et al 1999; Interviews
2001]. Research suggests that this variable is causally linked (as an independent variable) to the
following (dependent) variables:
•
Developers had a sense of achievement [Verner, et al 1999; Interviews 2001].
•
Developers believed they did a good job [Verner, et al 1999; Interviews 2001].
•
Project completed on time [Keider 1974].
•
Project completed within budget [Keider 1974].
•
There was a project plan [Verner, et al 1999; Interviews 2001].
•
Project was well planned [Verner, et al 1999; Interviews 2001].
•
Adequate communication between project manager/team and customer/users
[Pressman 1998].
•
Requirements were accepted by team as realistic/achievable [Verner, et al 1999;
Interviews 2001].
28
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Keider 1974].
There was a project manager(s) throughout this project (not necessarily the same person).
As noted earlier, research suggests that the presence of a project manager is important for
successfully meeting the various success criteria of a given project [Keider 1974; McConnell
1996; Verner, et al 1999; Interviews 2001]. Similar to the impact of sponsor/champion, the
impact of management support and participation, both at the senior/executive [Standish Group
1995a] and project levels, is important because its impact is important because its impact is felt
both early, and right throughout, the development process [Rainer and Watson 1995; EwusiMensah 1997; Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b].
Similar to the impact of sponsor/champion(s), manager support and participation that does not
last throughout the project may contribute to delaying the project’s completion [McConnell
1996]. Practitioners have reported the importance of this component from their perspective of the
development process [Verner, et al 1999; Interviews 2001]. Research suggests that this variable is
causally linked (as an independent variable) to the following (dependent) variables:
•
•
•
Project completed on time [Keider 1974].
•
Project completed within budget [Keider 1974].
•
•
•
Adequate communication between project manager/team and customer/users
[Pressman 1998].
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Keider 1974; Verner, et al 1999;
Interviews 2001].
The project manager(s) was knowledgeable/experienced overall in the application area.
A knowledgeable and experienced project manager is important to meeting various project
objectives [Ewusi-Mensah 1997]. This component is important because a good project manager
29
can anticipate what might go wrong prior to its happening [Pressman 1997; Glass 1998]. This
implies knowledge of systems development and/or knowledge of the specific application area
[Verner, et al 1999]. An experienced project manager can also assist in planning, including
estimating resources, time and effort and cost [Pressman 1997]. Hohmann [1999] addresses
another component of experienced project managers, which is the knowledge they can, and
should, impart to rookies. Although not investigated in this study, Moynihan [2002] addresses
numerous constructs of project risks through semi-structured interviews with experienced project
managers. This research included the following (dependent) variables:
•
Client’s understanding and clarity of their problem.
•
Commitment of project sponsor.
•
IT experience of customer/users.
•
Controlling party of the development project (practitioners, customer, other).
•
Practitioner knowledge of the application.
This component is important from the developers perception of project success [Verner, et al
•
Developers had a sense of achievement [Verner, et al 1999].
•
Developers believed they did a good job [Verner, et al 1999].
•
There was a project plan [Verner, et al 1999].
•
Schedule estimates were [un]realistic [Pressman 1997].
•
Requirements were accepted by team as realistic/achievable [Verner, et al 1999].
Overall, the project manager(s) supported the development team.
In order for the development team to work as effectively and efficiently as possible towards
organizational goals, it is important that project management support the team [Ginzberg 1981;
DeMarco and Lister 1999; Jiang and Klein 2000]. Project managers need to establish a vision for
the development team, anticipate that this vision may need to be revised in the future, hold the
30
team responsible for results (not the individual, as teams tend to set higher standards than
individuals), delegate tasks to the team in a manner that are “challenging, clear and supportive”,
don’t micro-manage individual practitioners tasks and remove barriers to team productivity when
necessary [McConnell 1996]. A manager also needs to be aware when it is beneficial to add
people to the team [McConnell 1996] and when not beneficial: as noted by Brooks [1995] time
and manpower are not interchangeable. This component is important to practitioners from their
development process perspective [Interviews 2001]. Research suggests that this variable is
•
Developers had a sense of achievement [Interviews 2001].
•
Developers believed they did a good job [Interviews 2001].
•
Project completed on time [Ginzberg 1981; DeMarco and Lister 1999; Jiang and
Klein 2000.
•
Project completed within budget [Ginzberg 1981; DeMarco and Lister 1999; Jiang
and Klein 2000].
•
There was a project plan [Interviews 2001].
•
Project was well planned [Interviews 2001].
•
Requirements were accepted by team as realistic/achievable [Interviews 2001].
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Ginzberg 1981; DeMarco and Lister
1999; Jiang and Klein 2000].
There was an integrated project plan for this project.
This component is part of a well-planned project, and includes both the presence of, and use of a
project plan [Verner, et al 1999; Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Interviews 2001]. It is related to
proper planning. The Standish Group [1995a] found that executive IT managers reported that
9.6% (fourth most cited) of projects considered to be a success had proper planning. Further,
8.1% (seventh most cited) of those projects considered to be impaired had a lack of planning.
Practitioners have reported the importance of a project plan from their perspective of the
development process [Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Interviews 2001]. Based on the results from
Pilot Study #1, this component is used to partially define success from the practitioner’s
31
perceptive. Research suggests that this variable is causally linked (as an independent variable) to
the following (dependent) variables:
•
Developers had a sense of achievement [Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Interviews
2001].
•
Developers believed they did a good job [Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Interviews
2001].
•
Project completed on time [Standish Group 1995a].
•
Project completed within budget [Standish Group 1995a].
•
There was a project plan [Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Interviews 2001].
•
Project was well planned [Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Interviews 2001].
•
2001b; Interviews 2001].
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Standish Group 1995a].
Overall, this project was well planned (related to people, technology, scheduling, etc).
This component is part of a well-planned project, and includes both the presence and use of a
good project plan [Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Interviews 2001]. Thorough proper planning
includes up-front accounting for the time needed to adequately administrate and test the project
[Keider 1974]. As noted earlier, the Standish Group [1995a] found that executive IT managers
reported that 9.6% (fourth most cited) of projects considered to be a success had proper planning.
Further, 8.1% (seventh most cited) of those projects considered to be impaired had a lack of
planning. Practitioners have reported the importance of this variable from their perspective of the
development process [Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Interviews 2001]. Based on the results of
Pilot Study #1, this component is used to partially define success from the practitioner’s
perceptive. Research suggests that this variable is causally linked (as an independent variable) to
the following (dependent) variables:
•
Developers had a sense of achievement [Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Interviews
2001].
•
Developers believed they did a good job [Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Interviews
2001].
•
Project completed on time [Standish Group 1995a].
32
•
Project completed within budget [Standish Group 1995a].
•
There was a project plan [Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Interviews 2001].
•
Project was well planned [Pressman 1997; Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Interviews
2001].
•
2001b; Interviews 2001].
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Standish Group 1995a].
3.2
Customer/User Support and Participation
It is important if a project is to be completed successfully for customer/user participation to occur
in close collaboration with other principle stakeholders (including project management and the
development team) [Ewasi-Mensah 1997]. Further, user participation can help achieve success
from the perspective of practitioners, as well as the perspective of the rest of the organization
[Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Interviews 2001]. In general, user participation supports buy-in,
which may contribute to the following outcomes:
•
Less likelihood of inclusion of unnecessary system features [McKeen and Guimares
1997].
o More support for negotiation of functionality/design between the
development team and users [McKeen and Guimares 1997].
•
More access by the development team to the company and unit in which the system
will be implemented [McKeen and Guimares 1997].
•
More realistic expectations by users [McKeen and Guimares 1997].
•
Increased feeling of ownership among users [McKeen and Guimares 1997].
•
Increased likelihood that users will be tolerate any changes imposed through the
implementation of the new system [McKeen and Guimares 1997; Choe 1998].
•
Higher user commitment to the ultimate success of the completed system [McKeen
and Guimares 1997].
•
Higher overall user satisfaction with the completed system [Bailey and Pearson 1983;
McKeen and Guimares 1997] and its impact on use of the system itself, as well as use
of the system’s output [Bailey and Pearson 1983].
•
Higher overall utilization of system output by users [Bailey and Pearson 1983].
3.2.1
Customer/User Components
33
This section presents in detail software project development components related to
Customer/User Support and Participation that were investigated for possible inclusion in this
study.
Overall, customer/users had a high level of confidence in the project manager/development team.
Research suggests that practitioners consider a high level of confidence by customer/users in the
project manager and team to be important to the development process and their perspective of
success [Verner, et al 1999]. Specifically, they have mentioned that if customer/users do not have
confidence in project manager, customer/users might resist dealing with the project manager
[Verner
et
al
1999],
presumably
hampering
communication
between
the
project
manager/development team and the customer/users. Further, there is some evidence to suggest
that this component is also important to the organization/management’s perception of success
[Procaccino and Verner 2001a]. Research suggests that this variable is causally linked (as an
independent variable) to the following (dependent) variables:
•
Developers had a sense of achievement [Procaccino and Verner 2001a].
•
Developers believed they did a good job [Procaccino and Verner 2001a].
•
Project completed on time [Procaccino and Verner 2001a].
•
Project completed within budget [Procaccino and Verner 2001a].
•
There was a project plan [Procaccino and Verner 2001a].
•
Project was well planned [Procaccino and Verner 2001a].
•
Customers/users have realistic expectations regarding functionality [Procaccino, et al
•
Adequate communication between project manager/team and customer/users [Verner,
et al 1999].
•
2001a].
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Procaccino and Verner 2001a].
The level of customer/users participation during the development process was high.
34
User participation is an important component for meeting various project objectives, particularly
meeting requirements [Ginzberg 1981; McConnell 1996; Hunton and Beeler 1997; Tackett and
Van Doren 1999; Verner, et al 1999]. This assertion is based on participative decision-making
theory [Saleem 1996] and the TQM philosophy of stakeholder participation [Ravichandran and
Rai 2000]. User participation has far reaching implications for the development process yet some
research suggests that users are “rarely involved in product development” [Tackett and Van
Doren 1999]. The Standish Group [1995a] found that executive IT managers reported that 15.9%
(most cited) of projects considered to be a ‘success’ had user involvement (participation). Further,
12.8% (most cited) of those projects considered to be ‘challenged’ lacked user input
(participation), as did 12.4% (second most cited) of those considered to be ‘impaired’.
Practitioners have reported the importance of this component from their perspective of the
development process [Lyytinen 1988; Verner, et al 1999]. Specifically, practitioners have
mentioned the importance of being able to work closely with users, specifically with regard to
requirements analysis [Verner, et al 1999]. Research suggests that this variable is causally linked
(as an independent variable) to the following (dependent) variables:
•
•
Developers believed they did a good job [Jiang and Klein 2000; Procaccino and
Verner 2001a; Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et
al 2002b].
•
Project completed on time [Glass 1996; Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Jiang and
Klein 2000; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b].
•
Project completed within budget [Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Jiang and Klein
2000; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b].
•
•
Project was well planned [Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino, et al 2002a;
Procaccino, et al 2002b].
•
Participating customers/users stayed throughout the project [Procaccino, et al 2002a;
•
Customers/users have realistic expectations regarding functionality [Ginzberg 1981;
McKeen and Guimares 1997].
35
•
There was adequate communication between team and customer/users [Procaccino, et
al 2002b].
•
Agreement on requirements between customer/users and practitioners [Ginzberg
1981].
•
Requirements were clear and complete (scope was well-defined) [McKeen and
Guimares 1997; Choe 1998].
•
2002b].
•
Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables [McKeen and
Guimares 1997; Choe 1998].
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Ginzberg 1981; Procaccino and Verner
2001a; Lu and Wang 1997; Jiang and Klein 2000; Procaccino, et al 2002a;
Although beyond the scope of system development (and this study), user participation has also
been shown to positively contribute to a system’s ease of use and quality of information provided
[Rainer and Watson 1995].
36
Participating customers/users stayed throughout the project.
Research suggests that practitioners consider participating customer/users to be important to the
development process and their perspective of project success [Verner et al 1999; Procaccino and
Verner 2001a]. As noted earlier this assertion is based on participative decision-making theory
[Saleem 1996] and the TQM philosophy of stakeholder participation [Ravichandran and Rai
2000]. Practitioners mentioned the importance of both users who may leave the organization
and/or the departure of a specific customer or sponsor who may have been the only people
actually interested in the project [Verner et al 1999]. Further, there is some evidence to suggest
that this component is important to both practitioner’s and the organization/management’s
perception of success [Procaccino and Verner 2001a]. Research suggests that this variable is
•
and Verner 2001b].
•
•
Project completed on time [Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b].
•
Project completed within budget [Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b].
•
There was a project plan [Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Procaccino, et al 2002a;
•
Project was well planned [Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Procaccino, et al 2002a;
•
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et
al 2002b].
Customers/users had realistic expectations regarding system functionality.
Ginzberg suggests that the perceptions of user expectations early in the development process are
particularly important in determining the ultimate success of a given project [Ginzberg 1981].
Further, unrealistic expectations can lead to dissatisfied users, system avoidance and low system
usage [Ginzberg 1981]. If practitioners assume that agreement with users had been reached
37
regarding project scope and functionality, and but in fact this has not occurred, users may be
dissatisfied with the completed system [Ginzberg 1981]. As a result, customer/user expectations
need to be managed, and not just left to chance [Rainer and Watson 1995].
User participation and adequate communications between the development team and
customer/users supports realistic expectations among customer/users [McKeen and Guimares
1997; Ginzberg 1981]. Therefore, unrealistic expectations can increase the risk associated with
successful software development [Moynihan 2000]. The Standish Group [1995a] found that
executive IT managers reported that 8.2% (fifth most cited) of projects considered to be a
‘success’ had realistic expectations. Further, 5.9% (seventh most cited) of those projects
considered to be ‘challenged’ had unrealistic expectations, as did 9.9% (fourth most cited) of
those considered to be ‘impaired’. Customer/users with realistic expectations is related to
customer/users understanding the functionality to be delivered by the system, and ultimately to
meeting customer/user requirements. Practitioners have also noted the importance of this variable
to their development process perspective of success [Lyytinen 1988; Interviews 2001]. Research
suggests that this variable is causally linked (as an independent variable) to the following
(dependent) variables:
•
and Verner 2001a; Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Procaccino, et al 2002a;
•
•
Project completed on time [Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino, et al 2002a;
•
•
•
38
•
There was adequate communication between team and customer/users [Ginzberg
1981].
•
1981].
•
2001b; Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al
2002b].
•
Customer/users provided feedback to the development team.
Customer/user feedback is related to customer/user participation. As noted earlier, research
suggests that practitioners consider participating customer/users to be important to the
development process and their perspective of project success [Verner, et al 1999; Procaccino and
Verner 2001b]. A component of customer/user participation is user feedback to the development
team and practitioners value feedback from the user community [Verner, et al 1999]. Part of this
feedback includes user testing of the developing system [Verner, et al 1999]. This component is
also related to adequate communication between the development team and customer/users, and
such communication supports effective requirements management [Pressman 1998]. Research
suggests that this component is causally linked (as an independent variable) to the following
•
Developers had a sense of achievement [Verner, et al 1999; Procaccino and Verner
2001b].
•
Developers believed they did a good job [Verner, et al 1999; Procaccino and Verner
2001b].
•
Project completed on time [McConnell 1996].
•
There was a project plan [Verner, et al 1999; Procaccino and Verner 2001b].
•
Project was well planned [Verner, et al 1999; Procaccino and Verner 2001b].
•
High level of customer/users participation during development [Ginzberg 1981].
•
Customers/users have realistic expectations regarding functionality [Ginzberg 1981].
•
1981; Pressman 1998; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b].
39
•
Requirements were clear and complete (scope was well-defined) [McConnell 1996;
Pressman 1998].
•
Procaccino and Verner 2001b].
•
Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables [McConnell
1996; Pressman 1998].
•
Team understood what customer/users wanted based on the requirements [Pressman
1998].
•
Stability of the requirements during the development process [McConnell 1996].
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Pressman 1998].
There was adequate communication between the project manager/team and customer/users.
The process of developing software is unique in its dependence on close collaboration between
three major stakeholders: project management, IT staff and customer/users [Ewusi-Mensah 1997].
In fact, participants are said to typically engage in “intense collaboration” with other project
stakeholders during the development process [Ewusi-Mensah 1997] (see Figure 2). The
participation of practitioners is integral to both the process of developing software and the
resulting product, as they are at the critical core of software development [Brooks 1995; DeMarco
and Lister 1999], both in terms of what they do and with whom they interact (see Figure 2).
The development team must strive to keep users in the requirements development loop, as users
are best able to determine the functionality required for a system [McKeen and Guimares 1997;
Clavadetscher 1998]. This component is also related to user participation in the development
process, and has been documented as an important variable [Standish Group 1995a;
Clavadetscher 1998; Pressman 1998], particularly in the early stages of the development process
[Ginzberg 1981]. A project manager needs to cultivate an atmosphere that supports
communication between the development team and customer/users, which in turn will facilitate
effective requirements management [Pressman 1998] and user participation. Adequate
communication supports agreement between customer/users and the development team on the
40
project scope and functionality. Agreement is important because if not reached, users may be
dissatisfied with the completed system [Ginzberg 1981].
There is also a need for negotiation skills in working with the customer and users on scheduling,
budgeting, [Pressman 1998] and communicating the development team’s activities to the users
[Keider 1974]. An example of the importance of this communication occurs when
customers/users lack an adequate understanding of the technology that is used in a development
project [Jiang, et al 2001]. As a result, they fail to grasp the implications of the technology, as
they relate to the development process and their business objectives [Jiang, et al 2001]. To some
extent, the technology may represent a ‘black box’ to the customers and users. Further, software
practitioners often do not grasp neither customer/user’s perception of the utilized technology, or
its implications for communicating with the customers/users [Jiang, et al 2001]. (Horst Rittel
termed such a situation as a ‘symmetry of ignorance’ [Rittel 1984]) Practitioners have reported
the importance of this variable from their perspective of the development process [Lyytinen 1988;
Interviews 2001]. It also relates to practitioner’s perception of the importance of having other
stakeholder participation in the decision-making process [Interviews 2001]. Research suggests
that this variable is causally linked (as an independent variable) to the following (dependent)
variables:
•
Developers had a sense of achievement [Lyytinen 1988; Interviews 2001].
•
Developers believed they did a good job [Lyytinen 1988; Interviews 2001].
•
There was a project plan [Lyytinen 1988; Interviews 2001].
•
Project was well planned [Lyytinen 1988; Interviews 2001].
•
High level of customer/users participation during development [McConnell 1996;
Ginzberg 1981].
•
•
Agreement on requirements between customer/users and practitioners [Boehm 1981;
Ginzberg 1981; McConnell 1996; Pressman 1998; Procaccino, et al 2002a;
41
•
Requirements were clear and complete (scope was well-defined) [Boehm 1981;
McConnell 1996; Pressman 1998].
•
Requirements were accepted by team as realistic/achievable [Lyytinen 1988;
Interviews 2001].
•
Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables [Boehm 1981;
•
Team understood what customer/users wanted based on the requirements [Boehm
1981; Pressman 1998].
•
Stability of the requirements during the development process [Boehm 1981;
McConnell 1996].
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Boehm 1981; Clavadetscher 1998;
Pressman 1998].
Customers/users made adequate time available for requirements gathering.
Customer/users that make adequate time available for requirements gathering has implications for
the quality and completeness of requirements [Glass 1998]. It is also related to customer/user
participation [Verner, et al 1999; Standish Group 1995a]. Practitioners mentioned the importance
of users making adequate time to work with the development team [Verner, et al 1999; Interviews
2001], including spending enough time to adequately define requirements [Interviews 2001].
McConnell suggests that requirements analysis and gathering can be an “easy target” to
shortchange particularly when development schedule is tight because it does not result in any
code generation, [McConnell 1996]. However, there can be a high cost associated with such a
practice, as functionality needs to be added later [McConnell 1996]. The Standish Group [1995a]
found that more than 30% of the projects sampled in their study had problems with requirements
management. The 1995 European Software Process Improvement Training Initiative revealed that
requirements specification and managing user requirements were the two biggest problems
associated with software development [Leffingwell and Widrig 2000]. In short, inadequate
requirements gathering can be found in most project failures [Glass 1998]. Research suggests that
42
this variable is causally linked (as an independent variable) to the following (dependent)
variables:
3.3
•
•
•
Project completed on time [Glass 1998].
•
Project completed within budget [Glass 1998].
•
•
•
•
Agreement on requirements between customer/users and practitioners [Procaccino, et
al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b].
•
Requirements were clear and complete (scope was well-defined) [Procaccino, et al
2002b].
•
Interviews 2001].
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Glass 1998].
Requirements Management
Brooks [1995] suggests that in the early days of software development, practitioners were said to
be building software. Now we speak of growing software, due to its level of complexity. He
suggests that it is too complex "to be accurately [and completely] specified in advance and too
complex to be built faultlessly" [Brooks 1995]. Related to this complexity, other research
suggests that requirements determination is the most important step in software development
[Zmud 1980; Rainer and Watson 1995] and in determining the ultimate value of the system
[Boehm and Egyed 1998], as poor requirements can be found in most project failures [Glass
1998; Schenk and Vitalari 1998]. Requirements management includes relative changes to project
scope and the understanding between the development team and customer/users regarding
requirements and the functionality of the final product. Brooks also addresses the importance of
requirements gathering and management on the entire software development process, and he
43
suggests that determining what to build is the most difficult part of software development and he
adds the following [Brooks 1995]:
“No other part of the work so cripples the resulting system if done wrong. No other part
is more difficult to rectify later. The hardest single part of building a software system is
deciding precisely what to build… No other part is more difficult to rectify later… The
most important function that software builders do for their clients is the iterative
extraction and refinement of the product requirements.”
Requirements analysis is one of the first steps in the software development process, with
implications that extend throughout the entire project [Chatzoglou 1997; Boehm and Egyed
1998]. Further, there is mounting evidence that some of the most common and serious problems
associated with developing software can be traced back to requirements and their management
[Leffingwell and Widrig 2000]. Nidumolu [1996] suggests that requirements analysis can help
alleviate some of the uncertainty associated with software development because it is “the most
important of all [development] phases and has the greatest impact on future phases”. Therefore,
adequate requirements management has far-reaching implications for effective and efficient
software development.
Requirements management impacts the total cost of developing software, in terms of money, time
and talent, as adequate requirements gathering and management helps to alleviate costly rework
[Boehm and Basili 2001]. Problems related to inadequate requirements gathering and
management, such as missing functionality, are considerably more expensive to correct later in
the development process, compared to corrections made during initial requirements analysis and
specification [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996]. Corrections of system functionality made during
the requirements phase can be five to ten times less than the costs associated with addressing
these issues during the coding stage, and as much as twenty times less expensive when compared
to fixing the problem during the maintenance phase [Leffingwell and Widrig 2000]. The costs
incurred by these corrections include re-specification, redesign, recoding and retesting
44
[Leffingwell and Widrig 2000]. Excessive cost impacts organizational/managerial success criteria
of on time and within budget completion. Inadequate requirements management also has
implications for the extra effort required from practitioners [Leffingwell and Widrig 2000].
Adequate requirements gathering/management is an important consequence of a positive
relationship between customer/users and the development team. This relationship must be
conducive to a complete and accurate determination of requirements, as customers and users
often do not know what they really need. (They may have some thoughts regarding what they
want, but it cannot be assumed this is the same as their needs.) Further, they users are rarely
experienced in requirements elicitation, particularly at the necessary level of detail [Brooks
1995]. Customer/users participation includes their participation in the development process, their
confidence in the development team, their expectations, and their knowledge of their business
needs and data.
3.3.1
Requirements Management Components
This section presents the development components related to Requirements Management that
were investigated for possible inclusion in this study.
How
did
the
functional
scope
change
from
requirements
gathering
through
to
completion/abandonment?
This component has implications for completing a project that meets customer needs within time
and budgetary constraints. A project needs a clearly defined beginning and an end [Keider 1974],
and well-defined requirements [Rainer and Watson 1995; McConnell 1996; Glass 1998]. Glass
[2001a] suggests that unstable requirements and overly optimistic schedule estimates are the two
most common causes of runaway projects (i.e. those projects that far exceed their budget and time
45
estimates, and fail to meet functionality needs). The list of requirements can grow dramatically
from gathering to design, often 50 times larger than the original list [Glass 2001a]. In general,
changing requirements specifications result in projects that are more difficult to manage
[Nidumolu 1996].
The Standish Group [1995a] found that executive IT managers reported that 11.8% (third most
cited) of projects considered to be ‘challenged’ had changing requirements, as did 8.7% (sixth
most cited) of those considered to be ‘impaired’. Although not directly investigated in this study,
clear and complete requirements can inhibit development lessons learned (from a practitioner and
organizational perspective), as continuing requirements changes can throw a project into disarray,
particularly in the absence of adequate change control. The Standish Group [1995a] also found
that executive IT managers reported that 13.0% (third most cited) of projects considered to be a
‘success’ had clear statement of requirements. Further, 12.3% (second most cited) of those
projects considered to be ‘challenged’ had incomplete requirements, as did 13.1% (most cited) of
those considered to be ‘impaired’. Practitioners have reported the importance of this variable
from their perspective of the development process [Interviews 2001]. They also mentioned this
within the context of proper change control, particularly as it related to requirements [Interviews
•
•
•
Project completed on time [McConnell 1996; Glass 1998; Jiang and Klein 2000;
Glass 2001a].
•
Project completed within budget [Glass 1998; Jiang and Klein 2000; Glass 2001a].
•
•
Project was well planned [Nidumolu 1996; Interviews 2001].
46
•
•
Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables [Procaccino, et
al 2002b].
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Glass 1998; Jiang and Klein 2000; Glass
2001a]
Agreement on requirements was reached between customer/users and the development team:
This component is related to adequate communication with customer/users and adequate
requirements gathering. It is also related to customer/user participation in the development
process, which is vital to complete requirements definition. This participation ideally takes place
early in the development process [McKeen and Guimares 1997; Choe 1998; Clavadetscher 1998].
If practitioners assume wrongly that requirements agreement regarding project scope and
functionality, has been achieved with users the result is that users are dissatisfied with the
completed system [Ginzberg 1981]. As noted earlier, the development team must strive to keep
users in the requirements development loop, as users have the best perspective to determine the
appropriate functionality from the system [Clavadetscher 1998]. It is reasonable to expect such
participation will result in agreement on requirements between customer/users and the
development team. This variable is related to clear and complete requirements.
Agreement on requirements between customer/users and the development team is also related to
customer/users understanding the functionality to be delivered by the system, customer/users
having realistic expectations and ultimately meeting customer/user requirements. Practitioners
have reported that agreement on requirements between customer/users and the development team
is importance from their perspective of the development process [Procaccino and Verner 2001b].
Research suggests that this variable is causally linked (as an independent variable) to the
•
47
•
•
Project completed on time [Glass 1998; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al
2002b].
•
Project completed within budget [Glass 1998; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et
al 2002b].
•
There was a project plan [Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Procaccino, et al 2002a;
•
Project was well planned [Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Procaccino, et al 2002a;
•
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Boehm 1981; Glass 1998; Procaccino, et
Requirements were clear and complete (scope of project’s functionality was well-defined).
Research notes the importance of a well-defined scope, and well-defined requirements [Rainer
and Watson 1995; McConnell 1996; Ewusi-Mensah 1997]. Customer/user participation helps to
more completely and accurately define user requirements, and this results in a better overall
understanding of the system to be developed [McKeen and Guimares 1997]. Clear and complete
requirements support the development of a project that meets customer needs [Nidumolu 1996;
Glass 1998; Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b].
As noted earlier, the Standish Group [1995a] found that executive IT managers reported that
13.0% (third most cited) of projects considered to be a ‘success’ had clear statement of
requirements. Further, 12.3% (second most cited) of those projects considered to be ‘challenged’
had incomplete requirements, as did 13.1% of those considered to be ‘impaired’. This factor also
relates to changing requirements and change control. Practitioners have reported the importance
of this factor from their perspective of the development process [Lyytinen 1988; Standish Group
1995a; McConnell 1996; Verner, et al 1999; Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino and
Verner 2001b; Interviews 2001]. Further, there is some evidence to suggest that this variable is
48
also important to the organization/managements’ perception of success [Procaccino and Verner
2001a]. Research suggests that this variable is causally linked (as an independent variable) to the
•
•
•
Project completed on time [McConnell 1996; Nidumolu 1996; Glass 1998;
Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b].
•
Project completed within budget [Nidumolu 1996; Glass 1998; Procaccino and
Verner 2001a; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b].
•
•
Project was well planned [Nidumolu 1996; Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino
•
•
2002b].
•
Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables [Procaccino, et
al 2002b].
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Boehm 1981; Nidumolu 1996; Glass
1998; Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al
2002b].
49
Requirements were accepted by the development team as realistic/achievable.
Requirements will not be seen as realistic by the development team if customer/users continually
make changes, particularly after requirements have been baselined [McConnell 1996]. Such
practices can hinder a project from ‘rapid development’ (i.e. not meeting scheduling and
presumably budgeting estimates) [McConnell 1996]. This component, at least in part, is related to
negotiating skills of the project manager and development team [Pressman 1998]. Practitioners
have reported the importance of this component from their perspective of the development
process [Interviews 2001]. Based on the results from Pilot Study #1, this variable is used to
partially define success from the practitioner’s perceptive. Research suggests that this variable is
•
•
•
Project completed on time [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996].
•
Project completed within budget [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996].
•
•
Project was well planned [Nidumolu 1996; Interviews 2001].
•
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996].
Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables.
Clear and complete requirements result in well-defined software deliverables. Deliverables may
include system functionality, screens, reports and system utilities etc. Practitioners have reported
the importance of this factor from their perspective of the development process [Verner, et al
1999; Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Interviews 2001]. Further, there is evidence to suggest that
this factor is important to both practitioner’s and the organization/management’s perception of
success [Procaccino and Verner 2001a]. Research suggests that this component is causally linked
•
Developers had a sense of achievement [Procaccino and Verner 2001a].
50
•
Developers believed they did a good job [Procaccino and Verner 2001a].
•
Project completed on time [Nidumolu 1996].
•
Project completed within budget [Nidumolu 1996].
•
There was a project plan [Procaccino and Verner 2001a].
•
Project was well planned [Procaccino and Verner 2001a].
•
customer/users [Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b].
•
2001a].
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Boehm 1981].
The size/complexity of the project negatively impacted requirements gathering.
There is evidence that project size/complexity can hamper requirements gathering, resulting in
unclear, incomplete and/or unstable requirements [Glass 1998; Procaccino and Verner 2001b].
Practitioners have reported the importance of this development process component [Procaccino
and Verner 2001a; Interviews 2001]. Practitioners mentioned the difficulty of managing changes
to large projects with many requirements [Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Interviews 2001].
Research suggests that this variable is causally linked (as an independent variable) to the
•
Developers had a sense of achievement [Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Interviews
2001].
•
Developers believed they did a good job [Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Interviews
2001].
•
Project completed on time [Glass 1998].
•
Project completed within budget [Glass 1998].
•
There was a project plan [Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Interviews 2001].
•
Project was well planned [Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Interviews 2001].
•
Requirements were clear and complete (scope was well-defined) [Glass 1998;
•
2001a; Interviews 2001].
•
Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables [Glass 1998;
51
•
Team understood what customer/users wanted based on the requirements [Glass
1998].
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Procaccino and Verner 2001b].
The development team understood what customer/users wanted based on gathered requirements.
This component is related to adequate communication between the development team and
customer/users. Users may be dissatisfied with the completed system without this understanding
[Ginzberg 1981]. Understanding what customer/users want based on requirements is also related
to clear and complete requirements. This impacts how well the project is planned and managed,
as well as to what extent it meets customer/user requirements [Nidumolu 1996]. Further, research
suggests that practitioners are a motivated group, but it is important that they are given specific
objectives in order to use this motivation effectively and efficiently [McConnell 1996]. Research
suggests that this variable is causally linked (as an independent variable) to the following
•
Project completed on time [McConnell 1996].
•
Project completed within budget [McConnell 1996].
•
Project was well planned [Nidumolu 1996].
•
High level of customer/users participation during development [McConnell 1996;
Ginzberg 1981].
•
•
Agreement on requirements between customer/users and practitioners [Boehm 1981;
Ginzberg 1981; McConnell 1996; Pressman 1998; Procaccino, et al 2002a;
•
Requirements were clear and complete (scope was well-defined) [Boehm 1981;
McConnell 1996; Nidumolu 1996; Pressman 1998].
•
Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables [Boehm 1981;
•
Stability of the requirements during the development process [Boehm 1981;
McConnell 1996].
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Boehm 1981; Nidumolu 1996;
Clavadetscher 1998; Pressman 1998].
Overall, requirements were stable during the development process.
52
This component is related to clear and complete requirements. The development process can be
better controlled, managed, measured and studied for future best practices when requirements are
relatively stable [Nidumolu 1996]. This factor has important implications for both practitioner
and organizational/managerial perceptions of success, as it involves changing requirements
during the development process. As noted earlier, Glass [2001a] suggests that unstable
requirements and overly optimistic schedule estimates are the two most common causes of
runaway projects. The original list of requirements at design phase can grow to be 50 times larger
by the time the project reaches the requirements phases [Glass 2001a]. As noted earlier, the
Standish Group [1995a] found that executive IT managers reported that 11.8% (third most cited)
of projects considered to be ‘challenged’ had changing requirements, as did 8.7% (sixth most
cited) of those considered to be ‘impaired’. Research suggests that this variable is causally linked
•
•
•
Project completed on time [McConnell 1996; Nidumolu 1996; Glass 1998; Jiang and
Klein 2000; Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al
2002b].
•
Project completed within budget [Nidumolu 1996; Glass 1998; Jiang and Klein 2000;
•
•
•
•
2002b].
•
Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables.
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Boehm 1981; Glass 1998; Jiang and
Klein 2000; Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al
2002b].
53
Requirements of customer/users were met.
This component is widely cited as a component of organizational/managerial perception of
project success [Keider 1974; Pinto and Slevin 1988; Standish Group 1995a; Jones 1995;
Clavadetscher 1998; Baccarini 1999; Linberg 1999; Leffingwell and Widrig 2000; Wohlin, et al
2000]. Therefore, this component is used as part of the definition of success from the
organizational/managerial perceptive. Practitioners have reported the importance of this variable
from their development process perspective [Interviews 2001]. Research suggests that this
variable is causally linked (as an independent variable) to the following (dependent) variables:
•
•
•
•
•
2002b].
The next chapter presents details of the main study, including its particular focus and perspective,
anticipated outcomes and the importance of the study.
54
4. Main Study: Overview
This study will provide a greater understanding of some of the components of the software
development process leading to cancelled, or projects that are delivered late and over-budget,
and/or do not meet customer/user requirements [Barki, et al 1993; Jones 1995; Standish Group
1995a; McConnell 1996; Glass 1998; Verner, et al 1999; Jiang and Klein 2000; Ravichandran
and Rai 2000]. Because challenged projects can leave software practitioners de-motivated and
professionally unfulfilled. Our research seeks to focus management attention on the importance
of a number of early components of the software development process. Downstream problems
will be avoided or lessened if these components receive more managerial attention As noted
earlier, our focus will be on project success from the perspective of software practitioners.
The remainder of this section is organized as follows. Firstly, a brief discussion of the focus of
this study is presented, including its emphasis on practitioners and the process of the software
development process (as opposed to the software product). This is followed by a discussion of the
working definition of project success used in this study. Next, we discuss the anticipated
outcomes of the study. The importance of the study and its associated research models follows.
Details of the data collection instrument are presented next. The research questions and research
hypotheses follow.
4.1
Project Focus
This section provides a brief discussion of the focus of this study. Boehm [1981], Brooks [1995]
and McConnell [1996] have suggested that effective and efficient software development can be
framed in terms of the following four components:
•
People (project staff assignment, team organization, motivation).
•
Process (managerial and technical methodologies, including implications for rework
avoidance, quality assurance, development fundamentals, risk management, resource
targeting, lifecycle planning, customer orientation).
55
•
Technology (hardware and software tools).
•
Product (size and characteristics).
Technological components directly associated with developing software, including hardware,
software and specific development methodologies, will not be addressed in this study as the study
focus is (1) project stakeholders (primarily software practitioners) and, (2) aspects of the software
development process.
4.1.1
Project Stakeholders
Software practitioners are the focus of the study and the source of its data because they play such
a critical role within the development process and their perspective has not been widely explored
in the research literature. It follows then, that this study’s definition of success is based on the
perspective of software practitioners. However, practitioners are also asked to evaluate the
relative success of the project from an organizational/managerial perspective. This organizational
perspective is captured through the timeliness and affordability of the product (compared to
schedule and budgeting estimates), and level of functionality required by the customer/user. The
project’s senior/executive management and/or customers and users may be more knowledgeable
about these particular components than are practitioners. However, we believe that practitioner
views are important and have a significant impact on the eventual success or otherwise of the
project. In addition, components of customer/user support and participation are explored because
of their early and on-going impact on the development process.
4.1.2
Process vs. Product
As noted earlier, the focus of this study is on various people-related, non-technical components of
the software development process. Emphasis is placed on some of process components that have
56
an early and on-going impact on software development, including those related to
sponsor/management support and participation, customer/user support and participation, and
requirements management. Non-technical components that have an impact particularly early in
the development process are especially important, as software practitioners report that software
development problems stem more from differing expectations among project stakeholders, which
originate at the outset of the project, than from events that happen along the way [Glass 1998].
The resulting software product is not directly addressed in this study, except to serve as a
barometer for the relative success of the development process from an organizational/managerial
perceptive (i.e., the project was completed on time, within budget and met customer/user
requirements).
4.2
Defining Project Success
As illustrated by Chapter 2, defining software project success is a complicated undertaking.
Further, although McConnell [1996], Linberg [1999], and Procaccino and Verner [2001c], among
others, investigated project success from the perceptive of software practitioners, there is not
much other research that addresses this topic. Further, the limited research done thus far, suggests
that the generally accepted organizational/managerial definition of project success is not an
accurate reflection of software practitioners’ perception of project success (i.e. they have a
different perception of what constitutes a successful project from the organization and
management as a whole) [Linberg 1999; McConnell 1996; Procaccino and Verner 2001c]. For
example, research indicates that meeting budget and time estimates is not necessarily important to
practitioners [Linberg 1999; McConnell 1996; Procaccino and Verner 2001c]. As a result, there is
a need to develop and use a dependent success variable that can be included in a causal model.
Pilot Study #1 (see below) was conducted in order to investigate components of software
57
development, and to derive a working definition of project success.
As noted earlier, practitioners are asked to evaluate project success from their own perspective
and they are also asked to evaluate project success according to the following criteria, which
represents the organizational/managerial perspective:
•
The project was delivered on time.
•
The project was delivered within budget.
•
The project met customer/users requirements.
We are then able to examine what correlations exist between the two perspectives for the same
projects. We next present a more detailed discussion of the pilot study used to derive the working
definition of project success.
4.2.1
Pilot Study #1: Software Practitioner’s Success Components
A survey, which included a maximum of 54 project variables (see Appendix D), was developed
through literature review and interviews with practitioners (see Appendix F) in order to assess
those components of the development process that most impact practitioners’ perception of
project success. The interviews were driven by the following questions:
•
Think of projects that YOU (not management, customers or users) considered to be a
success. Why do you consider it to be successful?
•
Think of projects that YOU (not management, customers or users) considered to be a
failure. Why do you consider it to be a failure?
Data for this pilot study was collected between March and May 2001. A total of 43 industry
professionals enrolled in Drexel University’s College of Information Science & Technology’s online and traditional classes responded to the survey. Each survey question began with the phrase,
“It is important to your perception of project success that…”. Responses were given on a fivepoint scale, ranging from ‘Agree’ (5) to ‘Disagree’ (1). Our major aim was to discover the
following:
58
What are the five most important components of software development projects that
practitioners consider important to their perception of project success (pilot study survey
questions 2.01 through 2.54)?
The mean score for each variable was calculated by summing the responses to each of the
questions (5, 4, 3, 2 or 1) and then dividing this sum by the number of responses (see Appendix E
for complete descriptive statistics). This calculation can be expressed by the following equation:
Score = Total score of all responses / number of respondents
The success variables were sorted by descending means. The variables with the ten highest means
are shown in Table 1. The number of respondents (N) varied among some of the questions
because new questions were added to the instrument and as a result, not all respondents had the
opportunity to respond to all 54 questions.
Table 1: Top 10 Highest Ranked Success Variables
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Variables
Q2.05 Project had a plan
Q2.03 Well planned
Q2.34 You did a good job
Q2.02 Good management practices
Q2.23 You had a sense of achievement
Q2.19 Requirements are accepted by the development team
Q2.18 Requirements can be clarified
Q2.04 Developers provide feedback
Q2.40 Team is skilled
Q2.20 Requirements are clear and understood
N Mean
12 4.75
12 4.67
43 4.53
12 4.50
43 4.44
12 4.42
12 4.33
12 4.33
12 4.33
12 4.33
Standard
Deviation
0.45
0.65
0.63
0.80
0.50
0.67
1.23
1.15
0.98
0.89
The ten variables included in Table 1 were then ranked by ascending coefficient of variation
(COV), which provides some measure of the ‘stability’ of the calculated means. The calculation
can be expressed by the following equation:
COV = Standard deviation / mean
59
The variables with the five lowest coefficient of variation, which are included in Table 2, were
used to form a working definition of software practitioner project success. The five variables that
are included in the index variable are represented by the following survey questions. The
variables comprising the working project success definition are listed below in order of ascending
coefficients of variation.
It is important to your perception of project success that there is a project plan.
[Standish Group 1995a; Verner, et al 1999; Procaccino and Verner 2001b],
It is important to your perception of project success that you have a sense of achievement
while working on a project.
[Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996; Glass 1999; Procaccino and Verner 2001b; Procaccino
and Verner 2002].
It is important to your perception of project success that you do a good job (i.e. delivered
quality) while working on a project.
[Glass 1999; Procaccino and Verner 2002; Procaccino and Verner 2001b],
It is important to your perception of project success that the project is well planned.
[Standish Group 1995a, Pressman 1998; Verner, et al 1999; Procaccino and Verner
2001b].
It is important to your perception of project success that requirements are accepted by
the development team as realistic/achievable.
[McConnell 1996; Pressman 1996; Pressman 1998; Procaccino and Verner 2001b].
Table 2: Success-Related Project Variables With Lowest C.O.V.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
4.3
Variables
Q2.05 Project had a plan
Q2.23 You had a sense of achievement
Q2.34 You did a good job
Q2.03 Project was well planned
Q2.19 Requirements accepted by development team
N Mean
12 4.75
43 4.44
43 4.53
12 4.67
12 4.42
Standard Coefficient of
Deviation
Variation
0.45
0.10
0.50
0.11
0.63
0.14
0.65
0.14
0.67
0.15
Importance of Study
The importance of this study can be discussed from two perspectives: (1) theoretical and (2)
practical.
(1) Theoretical importance: This study will help to fill the current quantitative, survey-based
research gap (from the perception of software practitioners) in the causal impact of early and on-
60
going non-technical components of software development,. To date, software project
management research has largely been qualitative and anecdotal in nature [Rainer and Watson
1995; Pinto and Mantel 1990]. Research has included the recounting of ‘war stories’ with
associated lessons learned [Brady and DeMarco 1994; Glass 1998; McConnell 1996; Hohmann
1999; Jiang and Klein 2000] and assorted ‘best practices’ from both organizational and
managerial perspectives [Humphreys 1990; Brady and DeMarco 1994; Brooks 1995; McConnell
1996; Pressman 1998; Hohmann 1999; Glass 2001a]. Within this general stream of research are
found attempts to improve the quality of the software product by improving the software
development process, largely though methodologies intended to make tit repeatable and more
predictable [Curtis, et al 2001]. These methodologies include, among others, Capability Maturity
Model (CMM), the Software Capability Maturity Model (SW-CMM), the People Capability
Maturity Model (P-CMM), Software Process Improvement and Capability dEtermination
(SPICE), and Extreme Programming (XP).
(2) Practical importance: This study’s findings will prove useful to organizations that develop
software. One of the main purposes of this study is to raise awareness among project managers of
the potential downstream impact of their actions (or inactions) during the development process.
The impact includes various aspects of the resulting software product, including its timeliness of
delivery, affordability and ability to meet customer/user requirements. (The impact of these
actions will be quantitatively illustrated through standardized Betas, R, R-square and
probabilities.) Raising awareness among project stakeholders is important to software
development because of its implications for the effective and efficient application of limited
organizational resources: time, talent and money. This study is also intended to help make the
development process more repeatable, resulting in better project estimation and planning.
61
The analysis will provide some insight into which of the project development components
addressed has the greatest impact on project success. Further, managers can use the insight gained
to evaluate the status of an on-going development project while it is still early enough to take
corrective action, regardless of the methodology used. Jones notes that projects that may be “in
serious trouble” [i.e., at risk for not meeting stakeholder objective(s)] “are not (normally)
identified until very late in development” [Jones 1995]. Boehm [1991] notes the following:
“…problems would have been avoided or strongly reduced if there had been an explicit
early concern with identifying and resolving their [project] high-risk elements.
Frequently, these projects were swept along by a tide of optimistic enthusiasm during
their early phases that caused them to miss some clear signals of high-risk issues that
proved to be their downfall later.”
As outlined earlier, the results from this study can assist managers in evaluating their on-going
projects, and improve managerial decision-making as lessons learned are applied to other
software development projects. Further, organizations should have an interest in understanding
the key components of software development that practitioner’s value. These components have a
strong effect on practitioner motivation, and motivation has been reported to have a huge impact
on productivity [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996; Boehm 1999].
To our knowledge, the only previously survey instrument used in a study of this type was
produced by Verner and Cerpa [1999] and reported in Procaccino and Verner [2001a],
Procaccino, et al [2002a and 2002b; see Appendix G and H], and Procaccino and Verner [2001c].
Our study builds on these previous studies through additional literature review and a pilot study
(see Appendices L and M), The data collected will be used to evaluate and create a causal chain
of variables.
4.4
Anticipated Outcomes
62
The main outcome of this study is a quantitatively based causal model that includes some of the
early and on-going components that affect the success of the software development process. This
model will be depicted through ordinal regression analysis and a Bayesian Belief Network
(BBN). Each technique will assist in determining the relative importance of each of the
components of system development addressed in the study.
Unlike regression techniques, which are based on a normal distribution, Bayesian models make
no assumption regarding data distribution. Further, they incorporate an element of chance through
general randomness. As such, they can be thought of as an extension of statistical, rule-based
models [Fenton and Neil 2000a]. Fenton and Neil suggest that BBN are “by far the best solution”
for modeling risk assessment [Fenton and Neil 2000a]. BBNs are useful in illustrating the
hypothetical effect of changes in various combinations of explanatory variables on the probability
of project success through ‘what-if’ analysis. Figure 3 presents a conceptual depiction of the
qualitative (dependencies among independent and dependent variables) and quantitative
(calculated probabilities) aspects of Bayesian models through a graphic representation.
Figure 3: Conceptual components of Bayesian Belief Networks
The next chapter presents the research models, research questions and research hypotheses
for this study.
63
64
5. Research Models, Questions and Hypotheses
This section discusses the theoretical and empirical research models that are used to structure the
research in this study. The research questions and hypotheses are also presented, each of which
has direct implications for this study’s causal model.
5.1
Theoretical Research Model
The theoretical model for this study (see Figure 4) presents a meta- (high-) level perspective of
the construction of the final (Bayesian) model for this study. Figure 4 represents a model that is
theoretical at this stage in that no results of any data collection are considered. In other words, the
theoretical model represents the overall methodology that is used in the study to construct the
final model. (Depicting the inclusion of data into the framework of the study is shown through an
empirical model that is discussed in the sub-section, 5.2 Empirical Research Model.) The model
begins with variables that represent specifically identified components of the early stages of the
software development process. (The final survey instrument contains these components.) These
variables were identified through literature review, pilot studies and interviews with software
practitioners. Variables are related to sponsor/management support and participation,
customer/user support and participation, and requirements management, which represent the
major project categories within the survey instrument. Also identified and tested were
correlations (relationships) among specific variables, which were largely derived from literature
review. It is these correlations that help to form the causal relationships within the model, which
is the final piece of the theoretical model (Bayesian Belief Network). The ultimate (final)
dependent variable within the Bayesian model is overall project success from the perspective of
software practitioners.
65
Figure 4: Theoretical Research Model
5.2
Empirical Research Model
The empirical research model is included below (Figures 5), which essentially introduce the
collected data as it is applied and analyzed through the theoretical framework previously
mentioned and shown in Figure 4. This empirical model represents a meta-level perspective of the
quantitative analysis that was performed on the project components mentioned in the discussion
of the theoretical model (as mentioned previously, components are categorized based on the
organization of the survey instrument, i.e., sponsor/management support and involvement
components, customer/user support and participation and requirements management). The first
part of the empirical model graphically depicts the regression analysis (Section 8.2.3: Ordinal
Regression Analysis) of each of the causal relationships within the final Bayesian Belief
Network. The purpose of this analysis is to investigate the relative explanatory power (measured
through an R2 value) of each of the causal ‘sub’-models within the overall Bayesian model. The
analysis tests the collected data against specific proposed causal relationships (among
independent/dependent variables) suggested by literature review (Chapter 3: Non-Technical
Components of Software Development).
The second part of the empirical model (Figure 6) graphically depicts the testing of the collected
data against the specifically proposed correlations (relationships) that were derived from literature
66
review. Statistically significant correlations (Section 8.2.2: Bivariate Correlation Analysis),
combined with this evidence from literature review (Chapter 3: Non-Technical Components of
Software Development), provide evidence of (validate) the causal relationships that are the
‘building blocks’ of the proposed Bayesian model.
Figure 5: Empirical Research Model
5.3
Research Questions
The following research questions are to be addressed by this study after responses to applicable
survey questions have had their responses recoded so higher numbers represent positive
responses. All question numbers refer to the survey instrument. Each of the arrows in the
following associated figures begin at an independent variable and end (point to) a dependent
variable.
RQ1.
Is there a significant positive correlation between having a committed
sponsor/champion, users that made adequate time available for requirements
gathering and well-defined software deliverables, and a high level of confidence
by the customer/users in the development team? (See Figure 6.)
Figure 6: Correlations For Research Question 1
67
RQ2.
Is there a significant positive correlation between having a sponsor/champion that
stayed throughout the project, having a committed sponsor/champion and users
that made adequate time available for requirements gathering, and a high level of
customer/user participation? (See Figure 7.)
RQ3.
stayed throughout the project and a high level of customer/user participation, and
participating customer/users who stayed throughout the project? (See Figure 8.)
RQ4.
RQ5.
stayed throughout the project, and users that made adequate time available for
requirements gathering? (See Figure 9.)
Is there a significant positive correlation between a high level of customer/user
participation, users that made adequate time available for requirements gathering
and clear/complete requirements (well-defined project scope), and agreement on
requirements between customer/users and practitioners? (See Figure 10.)
68
RQ6.
participation and users that made adequate time available for requirements
gathering, and clear/complete requirements (well-defined project scope)? (See
Figure 11.)
RQ7.
participation, changes in the functional scope (negative correlation) and
clear/complete requirements (well-defined project scope), and well-defined
software deliverables? (See Figure 12.)
69
RQ08. Is there a significant positive correlation between having a sponsor/champion that
stayed throughout the project, a high level of confidence by the customer/users in
the development team, participating customer/users who stayed throughout the
project, agreement on requirements between customer/users and practitioners,
well-defined software deliverables, and practitioners’ overall perception of
project success? (See Figure 13.)
RQ09. Is a high level of customer/users participation during development the most
important variable in predicting whether a project will be considered a success by
practitioners?
5.4
Support For Research Questions
The following section briefly presents the basis for asking each of the nine (9) research questions.
References of (independent) refer to independent variables in the causal model and references to
(dependent) refer to dependent variables.
RQ1 was asked in order to provide evidence that would support a causal relationship between
having a committed sponsor/champion (independent), users that made adequate time available for
requirements gathering (independent) and well-defined software deliverables (independent), and a
high level of confidence by the customer/users in the development team (dependent), as there is
evidence in the literature that this variable has implication for project success from the
perspective of practitioners. This question will also help to verify the preliminary findings from
70
Procaccino and Verner [2001b] through analyzing the relationship of this variable to this study’s
working definition of project success from the perspective of practitioners.
having a sponsor/champion that stayed throughout the project (independent), having a committed
sponsor/champion (independent) and users that made adequate time available for requirements
gathering (independent), and a high level of customer/user participation (dependent), as there is
working definition of project success from the perspective of practitioners. In addition, this
question was also asked due to the nature of the relationship between customer/user who made
adequate time for requirements gathering and a high level of customer/users participation.
Specifically, the former is assumed to be a component of the latter.
having a sponsor/champion that stayed throughout the project (independent) and a high level of
customer/user participation (independent), and participating customer/users who stayed
throughout the project (dependent), as there is evidence in the literature that this variable has
implication for project success from the perspective of practitioners. This question will also help
to verify the preliminary findings from Procaccino and Verner [2001b] through analyzing the
relationship of this variable to this study’s working definition of project success from the
perspective of practitioners.
71
having a sponsor/champion that stayed throughout the project (independent), and users that made
adequate time available for requirements gathering (dependent), as there is evidence in the
literature that this variable has implication for project success from the perspective of
practitioners. This question will also help to verify the preliminary findings from Procaccino and
Verner [2001b] through analyzing the relationship of this variable to this study’s working
definition of project success from the perspective of practitioners.
RQ5 was asked in order to provide evidence that would support a causal relationship between a
high level of customer/user participation (independent), users that made adequate time available
for requirements gathering (independent) and clear/complete requirements (well-defined project
scope) (independent), and agreement on requirements between customer/users and practitioners
(dependent), as there is evidence in the literature that this variable has implication for project
success from the perspective of practitioners. This question will also help to verify the
preliminary findings from Procaccino and Verner [2001b] through analyzing the relationship of
this variable to this study’s working definition of project success from the perspective of
practitioners.
high level of customer/user participation (independent) and users that made adequate time
available for requirements gathering (independent), and clear/complete requirements (welldefined project scope) (dependent), as there is evidence in the literature that this variable has
implication for project success from the perspective of practitioners. This question will also help
to verify the preliminary findings from Procaccino and Verner [2001b] through analyzing the
72
relationship of this variable to this study’s working definition of project success from the
perspective of practitioners.
high level of customer/user participation (independent), changes in the functional scope
(independent) and clear/complete requirements (well-defined project scope) (independent), and
well-defined software deliverables (dependent), as there is evidence in the literature that this
variable has implication for project success from the perspective of practitioners. This question
will also help to verify the preliminary findings from Procaccino and Verner [2001b] through
analyzing the relationship of this variable to this study’s working definition of project success
from the perspective of practitioners. The independent variable, changes in the functional scope,
is expected to have a negative correlation with well-defined software deliverables because of the
nature of the coding of the independent variable. A higher degree of change in the functional
scope was coded higher on a five-point scale (from “Got much smaller” to “Got much larger”)
and agreement that software deliverables were indeed well-defined equates to a higher response
on a five-point scale. As a result, it is expected that as the degree of functional change within a
project goes up, the likelihood that respondents will agree that software deliverables for that
project were well-defined will tend to go down.
having a sponsor/champion that stayed throughout the project (independent), a high level of
confidence by the customer/users in the development team (independent), participating
customer/users who stayed throughout the project (independent), agreement on requirements
between customer/users and practitioners (independent), well-defined software deliverables
(independent), and practitioners’ overall perception of project success (dependent), as there is
73
working definition of project success from the perspective of practitioners.
RQ9 was asked because customer/user participation had the most extensive list of cited casual
(dependent) components of any of the investigated project components. As a result, customer/user
participation has the most interactions (combining independent and dependent relationships) with
other variables within the BBN.
5.5
Hypotheses
The hypotheses to be addressed by this study include the following:
HO1.
There is a significant positive correlation between having a committed
sponsor/champion, users that made adequate time available for requirements
gathering and well-defined software deliverables, and a high level of confidence
by the customer/users in the development team.
HO2.
There is a significant positive correlation between having a sponsor/champion
that stayed throughout the project, having a committed sponsor/champion and
users that made adequate time available for requirements gathering, and a high
level of customer/user participation.
HO3.
that stayed throughout the project and a high level of customer/user participation,
and participating customer/users who stayed throughout the project.
HO4.
that stayed throughout the project, and users that made adequate time available
for requirements gathering.
HO5.
There is a significant positive correlation between a high level of customer/user
participation, users that made adequate time available for requirements gathering
and clear/complete requirements (well-defined project scope), and agreement on
requirements between customer/users and practitioners.
HO6.
participation and users that made adequate time available for requirements
gathering, and clear/complete requirements (well-defined project scope).
HO7.
participation, changes in the functional scope (negative correlation) and
74
clear/complete requirements (well-defined project scope), and well-defined
software deliverables.
HO8.
that stayed throughout the project, a high level of confidence by the
customer/users in the development team, participating customer/users who stayed
throughout the project, agreement on requirements between customer/users and
practitioners, well-defined software deliverables, and practitioners’ overall
perception of project success.
HO9.
A high level of customer/users participation during development is the most
important variable in predicting whether a project will be considered a success by
practitioners.
The next chapter discusses the statistical methods, data instrument and data analysis for the main
study.
75
6. Main Study: Data Collection Instrument
This section presents details of the survey instrument used in this study, including the
organizations asked to participate, how they were contacted, how data was collected, explanation
of the demographic variables and a brief discussion of the various response scales.
6.1
Industry Contacts
The respondents are software practitioners, including programmers, database developers and
system analysts. During December 2001 and January 2002, e-mails were sent to 168
organizations listed in the 2000-2001 Eastern Technology Council Annual Directory asking for
their participation in this study. Member organizations that developed software were selected
based on their biographies. These organizations were advised that they would be contacted later
in the Winter (and subsequently in the Spring), pending the finalization of the survey instrument.
In addition, a national database of 3,714 software project managers from an equal number of
organizations was acquired from Applied Computer Research, Inc. (Phoenix, Arizona;
www.acrhq.com). Applied Computer Research supplied a list that included the data fields listed
in Appendix M. The following lists summarized demographics of the organizations that were
contacted for this study:
•
Organizations from all fifty States of the Union, plus the District of Columbia.
•
Organizations with more than 15 information technology employees.
•
12 identified industries, plus “Other”.
•
About 13% of the organizations were Fortune 1000 firms.
•
About 12% of the organizations were Fortune 500 Public firms.
•
About 7% of the organizations were Fortune 500 Private firms.
•
About 4% of the organizations were InformationWeek 500 firms.
76
The file was imported into Microsoft Excel and the following steps were taken. Organizations
included in the national mailing were selected as follows:
1. Sorted 3,714 records by SYSMFR (computer systems manufacturer).
2. Removed records with missing SYSMFR (=“ ”).
3. Sorted 3,671 remaining records by STATE.
4. Removed Puerto Rico (STATE=PR).
5. Sorted 3,665 remaining records by GENDER.
6. Removed records where can’t determine male or female contact (GENDER=U).
7. Defined RANDOM# as random number generated for 3,640 remaining records.
8. Records sorted by ascending random number.
9. Selected first 2,000 records in final record list. This number was chosen based on an
estimated 5-10% organization response rate.
Edits made to selected records are included in Appendix N.
6.2
Distribution Mechanism
Between April 26 and May 1, 2002, a letter was mailed (as e-mail addresses were not available)
to each of the software project managers of the selected organizations. Organizations were
instructed
to
ask
members
of
their
software
development
teams
to
go
to
http://129.25.27.178/survey.htm.
A Web-based survey is appropriate for the targeted sample because software practitioners are
presumed to have a connection to the Internet and the necessary computer hardware. They are
also expected to have adequate skills to utilize a graphical user interface (Microsoft Windows) to
respond to the survey through a Web browser. Also, the survey was designed with ‘generic’
HTML coding in order to be as compatible as possible with a wide range of browsers and
computer hardware. Compatibility was tested through piloting the Web site with several people at
various organizations.
6.3
Survey Instrument
77
The instrument used in this study is based on several surveys previously used in Procaccino and
Verner [2001a], Procaccino and Verner [2001c], Procaccino, et al [2002a] and Procaccino, et al
[2002b].
An analysis of inter-correlations between variables is used to help determine appropriate
candidate variables for inclusion in a causal model. Evidence of causal relationships between
specific variables investigated was included with citations in Chapter 3. These relationships are
intended to provide project managers with insight into some of the risks that can threaten the
development process, as well as the resultant product. These relationships, in contrast, are not
intended to evaluate the product after the project has been completed or abandoned [Ginzberg
1981; Procaccino and Verner 2001; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b; Procaccino,
et al 2002b]. Managers need to be aware of the necessity of removing non-technical obstacles that
can inhibit their development team’s ability to work. Managers need to be skilled at shielding the
staff from administrative concerns (scheduling, budgeting and tracking), acting as buffers
between those doing work and concerns related to all other project activities [Pressman 1998].
This approach should assist in investigating cause and effect of these project variables [Ginzberg
1981].
The survey instrument includes components of both software process and product from the
perspective of practitioners, but has a strong emphasis on process. Overall, the literature suggests
that well-managed, successful, development projects are more likely to be perceived as being
successful by all stakeholders, including end-users. Management of the development process can
have both a long and short-term effects. Project management impacts the current project (shortterm) and subsequent projects whose processes are influenced from lessons learned during the
current project (long-term). Additionally, the relative success of the product that was most
78
recently developed can have an immediate effect on practitioners, and a longer-term impact on
the end-users who use it on a daily basis. Finally, customers who paid for the work are also
impacted.
The variables included in Survey Sections 3, 4 and 5 (Sponsor/Management Support and
Participation and Your Project, Customer/User Support and Participation, and Requirements
Management, respectively) were derived from the variables discussed in Chapter 3. The
remainder of this chapter includes a discussion of the variables categorized under Respondent
Demographic (Survey Section 1), General Project Variables (Survey Section 2) and Project
Success (Survey Section 6).
6.3.1
Respondent Demographic Variables
The survey variables grouped under the survey section, Your Background (included in Table 3),
are described below. Their general intent is to provide insight into the relative appropriateness of
the respondents.
Table 3: Variables From Survey Section 1
Variable
Q1.01
Q1.02
Q1.04
Variable Description/Operational Definition
Gender
Age range
Years as practitioner
Measure
nominal
nominal
ratio
Length
2
5
5
79
1.01 Indicate your gender.
This variable partially describes the survey respondent. It is also included for investigation of
possible correlation with other variables, with implications for subsequent studies.
1.02 Indicate your age range.
This variable partially describes the respondent and it helps to validate the appropriateness of the
respondent to answer this survey. It is also included for investigation of possible correlation with
other variables, with implications for subsequent studies.
1.03 How many years have you been a software practitioner?
This variable partially describes the respondent and it helps to validate the appropriateness of the
respondent to answer this survey. It is also included so that we can investigate possible
correlation with other variables, with perhaps implications for subsequent studies. Table 3 shows
the variables, definitions and data details for Survey Section 1: Your Background.
6.3.2
General Project Variables
A few of the survey variables that are grouped under the Survey Section 2: Your Project are
described below. (However, we do not expect many of these variables to have specific
correlations to variables in the Sponsor/Management Support and Participation, Customer/User
Support and Participation, and Requirements Management sections of the survey)
Q2.02 How many IT people participated in developing this project?
This variable partially describes the developing organization and project team. It is also included
for investigation of possible correlations with other variables, with implications for subsequent
studies.
80
Q2.04 Did you have a financial interest in the organization that developed this project?
This variable has implications for considering a project a success from an organizational/financial
perspective. A respondent who has a financial interest in the company developing the software
may be more likely to consider that project to be a success from the organizational perspective if
that project led to more professional work for the organization.
Q2.05 What was your responsibility(s) on this project?
This variable partially describes the survey respondent and it helps to validate the appropriateness
of the respondent to answer the survey. It is also included for investigation of possible correlation
with other variables, with implications for subsequent studies.
Q2.12 This project had approximately how many function points?
The number of function points serves as a partial measure of application size/complexity, which
has implications for other components of project development, including overall project planning
and estimating (with added uncertainty associated with added complexity [Pressman 1997;
Pressman 1998] and the meeting of organizational objectives. The number of function points also
has implications for practitioners’ perception of project success, as practitioners have mentioned
the difficulty in managing functional changes to large projects with many requirements
[Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Interviews 2001]. There is evidence that this variable is causally
linked (as an independent variable) to the following (dependent) variables:
•
Project completed on time [Jones 1995; Pressman 1997; Jiang and Klein 2000].
•
Project completed within budget [Pressman 1997; Jiang and Klein 2000].
•
Project was well planned [Pressman 1997].
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Jiang and Klein 2000; Procaccino and
Verner 2001a; Interviews 2001].
Q2.13 This project had approximately how many source lines of code (SLOC)?
81
The number of source lines of code serves as a partial measure of application size/complexity,
which has implications for other components of project development, including overall project
planning, estimating [Pressman 1997; Pressman 1998] and the meeting of organizational
objectives. The number of source lines of code also has implications for practitioners’ perception
of project success, as they have mentioned the difficulty in managing functional changes to large
projects with many requirements [Procaccino and Verner 2001a; Interviews 2001]. There is
evidence that this variable is causally linked (as an independent variable) to the following
•
Project completed on time [Jones 1995; Pressman 1997; Jiang and Klein 2000].
•
Project completed within budget [Pressman 1997; Jiang and Klein 2000].
•
Project was well planned [Pressman 1997].
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Jiang and Klein 2000; Procaccino and
Verner 2001a; Interviews 2001].
Q2.14 You had a sense of achievement while you worked on this project.
Practitioner’s sense of achievement has implications for their motivation, which has a direct
impact on productivity [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996]. Productivity, in turn, impacts the
developing organization’s ability to complete the project on time and within budget [Procaccino,
et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b]. Practitioners have indicated that this variable contributes to
their perception of project success [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996; Glass 1999; Procaccino and
Verner 2002]. Based on the results from Pilot Study #1, this variable is used to partially define
success from the practitioner’s perception. There is evidence that this variable is causally linked
•
Project completed on time [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996; Procaccino, et al 2002a;
•
Project completed within budget [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996; Procaccino, et al
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996;
82
Q2.15 You did a good job while working on this project.
Practitioner’s belief that they are doing a good job has implications for practitioner motivation,
which has a direct impact on productivity [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996]. Productivity, in turn,
impacts the developing organization’s ability to complete the project on time and within budget
[Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b]. Practitioners have indicated that this variable
contributes to their perception of project success [Glass 1999; Procaccino and Verner 2001b;
Procaccino and Verner 2002]. Based on the results from Pilot Study #1, this variable is used to
partially define success from the practitioner’s perceptive. There is evidence that this variable is
•
Project completed on time [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996; Procaccino, et al 2002a;
•
Project completed within budget [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996; Procaccino, et al
•
Project met requirements of customer/users [Boehm 1981; McConnell 1996;
Q2.16 This project was completed on time.
Completing a project within scheduled time is widely cited as a component of
organizational/managerial perception of project success [Keider 1974; Pinto and Slevin 1988;
Standish Group 1995a; Jones 1995; Clavadetscher 1998; Baccarini 1999; Linberg 1999;
Leffingwell and Widrig 2000; Wohlin, et al 2000].
The Standish Group [1995a] found that of those projects that were either completed late or
cancelled, greater than one out of three had schedule overruns between 200 and 300% and the
average for all of their 8,380 sampled projects was 222% of original budget. As much as twothirds of all software development projects are “grossly” late in completion [McConnell 1996].
83
Q2.17 This project was completed within budget.
Completing a project within budget is widely cited as a component of organizational/managerial
perception of project success [Keider 1974; Pinto and Slevin 1988; Standish Group 1995a; Jones
1995; Clavadetscher 1998; Baccarini 1999; Linberg 1999; Leffingwell and Widrig 2000; Wohlin,
et al 2000]. Therefore, this variable is used to partially define success from the
organizational/managerial perceptive. Also included in this composite definition is completing
the project within schedule estimates and meeting all user requirements.
The Standish Group [1995a] found that of those projects that were either completed late or
cancelled, almost one of three had cost overruns between 150 and 200% and the average for all of
their 8,380 sampled projects was 189% of original budget.
The next chapter includes elements of data analysis, including research questions and a discussion
of several aspects of validity and reliability.
84
7. Main Study: Data Analysis
This chapter is organized as follows. Details of the research questions and the associated
proposed independent/dependent variable relationships are presented first. Next, several aspects
of the validity and reliability of the study are discussed, followed by details of processing of the
raw data that was collected from the online survey. Descriptive statistics of organizational and
individual respondent demographics conclude the chapter.
7.1
Research Questions and Independent/Dependent Variables
Table 4 formally relates the research questions to independent and dependent survey variables,
and the associated statistical method.
Table 4: Research Questions and Independent/Dependent Variables
Research Question and Associated Variables
RQ01. Is there a significant positive correlation
between the following variables:
• having a committed sponsor,
• customers/users made adequate time for
requirements gathering,
• requirements gathering resulted in well-defined
software deliverables,
and customer/users having a high level of
confidence in the project manager/development
team and the following variables?
• having a sponsor/champion throughout the
project,
• having a committed sponsor,
and high customer/user participation in the
development process?
Independent
Variable(s)
Q3.03
Q4.08
Q5.05
Dependent
Variable(s)
Q4.01
Statistical
Method
Correlation
Analysis
(Spearman’s)
at α < 0.05
Q3.02
Q3.03
Q4.08
Q4.02
Correlation
Analysis
(Spearman’s)
at α < 0.05
85
Table 4 (cont’d)
project,
• high
customer/user
participation
in
the
development process,
and participating customers/users stayed throughout
the project?
project,
and customers/users made adequate time for
requirements gathering?
• high
customer/user
participation
in
the
• requirements were clear and complete (scope was
well-defined),
and agreement on requirements reached between
customer/users and development team?
• high
customer/user
participation
in
the
and requirements were clear and complete (scope
was well-defined)?
• high
customer/user
participation
in
the
• changes in the functional scope,
• requirements were clear and complete (scope was
well-defined),
and requirements gathering resulted in well-defined
software deliverables?
project,
• customer/users having a high level of confidence
in the project manager/development team,
• participating customers/users stayed throughout
the project,
• agreement on requirements reached between
customer/users and development team,
• requirements gathering resulted in well-defined
software deliverables,
and practitioners’ overall perception of project
success?
Independent
Variable(s)
Q3.02
Q4.02
Dependent
Variable(s)
Q4.03
Statistical
Method
Correlation
Analysis
(Spearman’s)
at α < 0.05
Q3.02
Q4.08
Correlation
Analysis
(Spearman’s)
at α < 0.05
Q4.02
Q4.08
Q5.03
Q5.02
Correlation
Analysis
(Spearman’s)
at α < 0.05
Q4.02
Q4.08
Q5.03
Correlation
Analysis
(Spearman’s)
at α < 0.05
Q4.02
Q5.01
Q5.03
Q5.05
Correlation
Analysis
(Spearman’s)
at α < 0.05
Q3.02
Q4.01
Q4.03
Q5.02
Q5.05
Q6.01
Correlation
Analysis
(Spearman’s)
at α < 0.05
Table 4 (cont’d)
86
RQ09. Is high customer/user participation the
most important variable in predicting whether a
project will be considered a success by
practitioners, according to the BBN model?
7.2
Independent
Variable(s)
Q4.02
Dependent
Variable(s)
Various
Statistical
Method
Probabilitybased what-if
analysis based
on
Bayesian
theory
Validity and Reliability
In general, an analysis of validity accesses how well the utilized research instrument investigates
the concepts of interest. Validity cannot be proven for a given study, but it can be assessed in
relation to the validity of the particular utilized measures, as well as the findings and conclusions.
Face, criterion and content validity relate to the employed measures, while internal and external
validity can provide support for an overall assessment of the results and conclusions [Babbie
2001]. In addition, construct validity has implications for the measures, findings and conclusions.
Validity supports, and leads to, reliability, which addresses repeatability of the study findings.
Face validity is assessed “on its face” (surface) [Babbie 2001]. It is achieved for this study by a
survey instrument that was developed through interviews with software practitioners, relevant
literature review and piloting of the survey instrument. Criterion-based (or predictive) validity “is
based on external criterion” [Babbie 2001]. The three major sections of the instrument,
Management/Sponsor Support and Participation, Customer/Users Support and Participation, and
Requirements Management, have been widely documented in the literature as representing
important early components of the software development process (see Chapter 3: Non-Technical
Components of Software Development). Principal component factor analysis and bivariate
correlation analysis lend evidence, albeit indirectly, to criterion-related validity through construct
validity (see Chapter 8: Analysis and Findings). Content validity is a measure of “how much a
measure [variable] covers the range of meanings included within a concept” [Babbie 2001]. This
87
is expected to be acceptably high, as the questions were derived from interviews, literature review
and pilot testing.
Internal validity refers to how well conclusions drawn from results “accurately reflect what has
gone on in the experiment itself”. This includes any inadvertent stimulus that may act as a
confounding variable upon the dependent variable. Specifically, this includes accessing how well
our identified independent variables (non-demographic) influence practitioner’s overall
perception of project success. The results of Pilot Study #2 provide an acceptable level of internal
validity for the component makeup and use of our working definition of practitioners’ perception
of project success. The independent variables included in this study’s survey instrument (related
to management/sponsor support and participation, customer/user support and participation, and
requirements management) are valid predictors of project success because they were based on
interviews with practitioners, extensive literature review and piloting of questions. External
validity addresses if it reasonable to expect that the findings produced through the survey
instrument are generalizable to the sampled population, and not merely an artifact of the study.
The sample for this study was gathered through a professional directory and a national database
of software project managers (see Section 6.1: Industry Contacts). Practitioner’s perception of
project success was based on Pilot Study #2, which investigated specific aspects of software
development that practitioners consider important to their perception of project success
(Appendix E-1 and E-2). Particular considerations of external validity include the following:
•
Sample: Our sample is relatively random, as respondents reported doing professional
software development across several industries, project sizes, project types and States
of the Union. The only incentive offered to potential participants is our willingness to
share the final results.
•
Ecological: The survey instrument is expected to provide realistic relevant
information, and insight into addressing our hypothesizes because the instrument was
developed through interviews with practitioners (see Appendix F), relevant literature
review and piloting of the survey instrument.
•
Replication: Findings from this study should be replicable, as a random
88
representation of practitioners helped to ensure that results of correlation analysis are
not attributable to mere chance.
•
Researcher and/or subject (post-test) effects. By thorough analysis and development
of our survey and pilot test, we have been able to identify and correct any researcherbased effects (bias) within the final survey instrument. We do not anticipate any other
researcher-based effects largely because our respondents will complete the survey
quite independent of our research team. No threats from subject effects are expected
to be introduced because of this independence and the assurance that their responses
will be analyzed with complete confidentiality with regard to both themselves and
their organizations.
We believe that this study has a reasonable level of reliability due to the expected validity of the
survey instrument and sampling methodology. Additional measures that can help to assure
reliability are focus groups, test/retest, split-half (asking two groups of respondents different
versions of questions to check for high inter-group correlation) and intercoder (one person
records observations, a second person records a proportion of the observations, then there is a
check of correlation between the two coders). Although this last technique is not appropriate for
this study due to the use of electronic data collection, the others may be helpful for future work
(see Chapter 10: Recommendation For Futher Study).
7.3
Processing of The Raw Data
A total of 346 records were collected through the Web site, including 168 usable responses. The
following cases were removed prior to data analysis.
•
164 test cases were collected both before and during data collection in order to ensure
that the Web-based data collection mechanism was working correctly. These test
cases were identified by non-valid codes (i.e., codes that did not match any code that
had been provided to legitimate respondents).
•
One case was removed as it included only respondent demographics, as the
respondent noted that the survey was not applicable to his or her particular
organization.
•
Six (6) cases were removed because the respondents indicated that the projects they
were referring to had not yet been completed for various reasons and the focus of this
study is completed projects.
89
•
Seven (7) cases were removed because the respondents indicated that they had only
managerial responsibilities on their project (i.e., they did not have any role as a
practitioner).
Table 5 summaries the survey respondents and response rate for this study. Since participating
project managers were instructed to request that members of their development staff complete the
survey, it is not possible to determine a practitioner response rate.
Table 5: Summary of Organizations and Respondents Providing Usable Responses
Total Contacted
Incorrect Address***
Net Contacts
Organizations Responding
Organizational Response Rate
Eastern
Technology
Council*
168
16
152
6
3.95%
Applied
Computer
Research**
2,000
37
1,963
123
6.27%
Totals
2,168
54
2,114
129
6.10%
*
Includes 123 organizations contacted via e-mail and 45 contacted
via 1st-class mail.
** All contacted by 1st-class U.S. mail after being randomly
selected from 3,714 records.
*** Includes postal address or e-mail address.
Survey questions that did not require a numeric responses that had a missing response (values),
response of “Don’t know” or response of “Not applicable” (all referred to as ‘irregular
responses’) need to be coded as missing values. Such values are omitted from the final analysis.
Variables with the response, “Don’t know”, were considered as missing values due to a lack of
sufficient information to accurately and reliably recode these into the other available responses.
Table 6 shows how irregular responses were automatically recoded by the survey Web site. Any
missing values in numeric fields, such as Q1.03 Number of years as a software practitioner, were
hand coded as “99”.
90
Table 6: Automatic Recording of Irregular Responses
Original Response
Missing responses
Don’t know
Not applicable
Automatically
Recoded As
99
98
97
The following two additional fields were added to the final table:
•
•
“Month/Year” of each response.
Percent of total people who worked on the project (Q2.02) that were full-time employees
(Q2.03).
Appendix N summarized the various changes and recodings that were completed for each
applicable survey variable. Variables that are not included not require any recoding. After all
recoding was completed, the responses to each variable were imported into SPSS and frequencies
were run (in SPSS: Analyze Menu, Descriptive Statistics, Frequencies option) to ensure valid
responses and appropriate recoding.
7.4
Respondents and Organizational Demographics
The following list is a summary of the respondent demographics. (See Appendix P for frequency
of responses to each survey question):
Respondents:
• 74% of the 168 respondents were male and 26% were female. (An unpublished 2001
Annual Report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated that 73% of computer
programmers and computer systems analysts/scientists were male.)
•
About 45% of respondents reported being between 40-49 years of age. The next largest
group reported being between 50-59 years of age (about 24%). 71% of respondents were
49 years old or less. (In 2001, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 76% of
computer programmers and computer systems analysts/scientists were 44 years age or
less.)
•
The mean number of years of experience as a software practitioner was about 19 and the
median was 20 (with a minimum of 1 and maximum of 42).
•
About 91% of respondents reported having no financial interest (ownership) in the
developing organization.
•
Most respondent project responsibility included project manager/leader (46%), senior
manager (27%) and/or programming analyst (27%). Respondents could have more than
91
one responsibility on a given project and any respondents who reported only managerial
responsibilities on a given project were not included in this study.
Development Organizations:
• Most of the 126 responding organizations were in the manufacturing/service industry
(40%) or the education industry (18%).
•
The mean number of IT employees at the responding organizations was 85 and the
median was 50 (with a minimum of 15 and maximum of 1,000).
Project:
• Development work was conducted in 35 States, plus the District of Columbia.
•
The States with the five highest percentage of work were Virginia (11%), Ohio (10%),
North Carolina (7%), Illinois (7%) and New Jersey (6%).
•
The mean number of people (fulltime, part-time and consultants) who worked on the
project was about 18 and the median was 6 (with a minimum of 1 and maximum of 400).
•
The mean number of fulltime people who worked on the project was about 14 and the
median was 5 (with a minimum of 1 and maximum of 300).
•
About 72% of projects were new development efforts, about 25% were enhancements to
existing projects and about 3% were maintenance of existing projects.
•
About 70% of projects were intended for an in-house ‘customer’, about 16% for both an
in-house and outside customer and about 14% for outside customer.
•
About 95% of projects were completed and 5% were completed with reduced
functionality.
•
The mean number of months to project completion was about 16 and the median was 12
(with a minimum of 1 and maximum of 73).
•
Most of the customers were business (58%) or government (20%).
•
Most developed systems were management information/business applications (74%) or ecommerce (15%).
•
The mean number of project function points was about 451 and the median was 10 (with
a minimum of 3 and maximum of 10,000).
•
The mean number of project source lines of code was about 845,802 and the median was
20,000 (with a minimum of 75 and maximum of 10,000,000).
Respondents’ gender, age range and years of experience were each tested as a potential source of
bias through Chi-square analysis with practitioner’s overall perception of project success [Jiang
and Klein 2000]. There was no evidence of a significant relationship between any of these
demographic variables and project success, which is an indication that no such bais was
introduced by the measured characteristics of the respondents.
92
The next chapter presents details of the analysis and findings of the study, including overviews of
the analytical methods and results of each of these methods, including the final proposed model.
93
8. Main Study: Analysis and Findings
This chapter contains a brief overview of each of the analytical methods used in this study, as
well as the findings associated with each of these methods. Brief explanations of Cronbach’s
alpha, principal component factor analysis, bivariate correlation and ordinal regression are
presented first. Next, the results of each of these analyses are discussed. An overview of
probability-based Bayesian Belief Networks, and this study’s Bayesian model, are presented next.
A summary of important results conclude this section.
8.1
Overview of Analytical Methods
This sub-sections includes brief review of Cronbach’s alpha/factor analysis, bivariate correlation,
ordinal regression analysis and Bayesian Belief Networks.
8.1.1
Cronbach’s Alpha/Factor Analysis
Cronbach’s alpha, used in conjunction with principal component factor analysis (discussed
below), can help evaluate the relative internal consistency of a particular set of variables from the
survey instrument. Essentially, internal consistency can be measured by evaluating how well the
included variables collectively measure a single (unidimensional) latent construct by examining
the average inter-item (variable) correlation. Cronbach’s alpha is a function of the number of
variables and the average inter-correlation among these variables. The critical threshold for a
‘high’ internal reliability among a group of variables is at least 0.60 [Ellis and Webster 1998 cite
Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Gefen, et al 2000 cite Nunnally 1967] or 0.70 [Santos 1999; Gefen, et al
2000 cite Nunnally 1978, and Nunnally and Bernstein 1994].
Principal Component factor analysis is a multivariate statistical method that can provide evidence
94
of the degree of multi-dimensionality among a particular group of variables through clustering of
correlation coefficients (factor loadings) [Hair, et al 1992]. High factor loadings (correlation
coefficients) among a group of variables provides evidence of convergent and discriminate
validity among those variables. While Cronbach’s alpha provides an overall measure of internal
consistency, factor analysis offers a more detailed analysis (i.e., regarding the amount of multidimensionality) of each individual latent construct. Factor loadings between 0.30 and 0.40 are
considered to be “significant”, while loadings greater than 0.40 are considered to be “more
important” [Hair, et al 1992].) Loadings of at least 0.19 and 0.26 can be thought of as significant
at the 0.01 and 0.05 levels, respectively, provided the sample size is 100.
8.1.2
Bivariate Correlation Analysis
In general, correlation is a bivariate measure of the relative (linear) strength of association
between two (2) variables. This study includes polychoric correlations, which evaluate the
relationship between two ordinal variables. Correlation (represented by a correlation coefficient)
is the ratio of “observed covariance of two standardized variables divided by the highest possible
covariance when their values are arranged in the best possible match by order”
(www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/correl.htm). A correlation coefficient indicates the relative
strength and direction of the relationship between two variables. The strength of the relationship
is measured from no association (0) to perfect correlation (1) and the direction of the relationship
is shown by the sign (- or +) of the coefficient. Therefore, the coefficient can range between –1
and +1. Correlation does not assume variables to be either independent or dependent. As
mentioned previously, a causal relationship between two variables depends on presence of the
following [Gefen, et al 2000 cite Cook and Campbell 1979]:
•
Correlation/association: when a cause event happens, a likely effect event will also
happen (determined through correlation and/or regression analysis).
•
Temporal ordering, or precedence, of variables: cause event happens before the effect
event (determined though experience, experiment and/or literature review).
95
•
Isolation of causal influences: rule out other un-modeled, plausible variables that
could have influenced a dependent variable (determined though experience,
experiment and/or literature review).
As a result, correlation analysis cannot provide direct evidence of the causal nature between the
two variables. It can only provide evidence to support an association between two variables.
However, the results of correlation analysis can be combined with practitioners’ experience,
experiment and literature review to suggest specific causality between variables. The proposed
relationships from such evidence are depicted graphically in the Bayesian Belief Network model
shown in Figure 18.
8.1.3
Ordinal Regression Analysis
The model proposed in this study includes variables that have been measured on an ordinal scale.
Regression analysis would be useful in order to explore some of the predictive relationships
within the model. However, one of the main assumptions of ordinary least-squares linear
regression is that variables are measured on a continuous scale (which also implies equal distance
between data points and a meaningful zero point), which is not the case with the variables
included in the model. Other assumptions, including variables that are normally distributed and
exhibit a constant variance among dependent variable across all values of independent variables
(homoscedasticity), are not necessarily met with ordinal variables [Hannah and Quigley 1996].
As a result, ordinal regression is more appropriate for analyzing the model, as it contains a series
of polytomous discrete, ordinal dependent variable (such those based on a Likert scale).
8.1.4
Bayesian Belief Networks
Bayesian Belief Networks (BBN; also known as Belief Networks, Causal Probabilistic Networks,
Causal Nets, Graphical Probability Networks, Probabilistic Cause-Effect Models and
Probabilistic Influence Diagrams) are “directed acyclic graph” based on “conditional
96
independence” [Fenton and Neil 2000b]. A BBN is a graphic technique for displaying and
identifying probabilistic relationships among independent and dependent variables. BBNs can be
quickly updated, manipulated and re-initiated to support ‘what-if’ analysis, including the isolation
of the impact of specific variables. They can represent complex structure through a graphical
interface, as opposed to a series of formulas and text [Agena 2002b]. A completed BBN
represents a model of a critical roadmap for decision support through the use of the chain rule to
calculate joint probability distributions [Agena 2002b]). The strength of BBNs comes from their
ability to include uncertainty (unknown information) in decision support models (reflected in
correspondingly higher levels of uncertainty) to explore previously undetermined relationships
among variables, as well as helping to describe these new relationships [Niedermayer 1998]. This
ability contrasts with the traditional frequentist approach of probability-based reasoning, which
requires known (observed) frequencies/probabilities of past events [Agena 2002a]. Since BBNs
present their findings in the form of probabilities, the relative certainty of a variable taking on a
particular value is explicit, unlike, for example, typical regression-based models, which utilize
confidence intervals around parameter estimates. Further, regression models “lack any causal
structure”, which is critical to adequately support decision-making [Fenton and Neil 2000a].
BBN’s contain nodes, their associated conditional probability tables and arcs. A node represents
a variable. A conditional probability table (CPT) is associated with each node. Each of these
tables contain a probability for each and every state (value) of the variable being represented,
given the state(s) of its parent (independent) nodes. As a result, the sum of all probabilities within
each node (variable) must be 1 (100%) because every possible state of that variable must be
represented. The probabilities associated with each dependent node are based on the conditional
probabilities of the particular combined state of each parent node [Fenton and Neil 2000a; Agena
2002b]. These probabilities can come from empirical data and/or expert opinion. (This study
97
relies solely on empirical data.) Through propagation, all conditional probabilities (dependent on
‘parent’ nodes) are recalculated when any of the associated probabilities are changed. Figure 14
shows a partial conditional probability table for the variable Q5.03, which has Q4.02 and Q4.08
as independent (parent) variables. As a result, the table must account for every combination of
independent/dependent variables, given that each of the three variables can take on the following
values: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Q4.02 is shown as equaling only 1, 2, 3 and 4 due to space limitations). It
should be noted that each column (composite state of all three variables) in the table must add to
1 (100%).
Figure 14: Sample Conditional Probability Table From Hugin System
The final graphical component of a BBN is a directional arc, which is used to represent causal
relationships between sets of variables [Fenton and Neil 2000a]. The arc begins at an independent
variable and points to a dependent variable.
BBNs have some limitations. As is the case with any analytic model, the results produced by
BBNs are only as useful as the information (probabilities) that are feed into it (inputs)
[Niedermayer 1998]. BBNs are also not useful in handling new requests, such as those based on
variables that are not already included in the model [Niedermayer 1998]. Further, BBNs are not
particularly useful for modeling “political, financial, environmental and technical criteria”
[Fenton and Neil 2000a. However, BBNs can be used in conjunction with Multicriteria Decision
Aids (MCDA) to overcome this deficit, as MCDAs can incorporate these ‘external’ variables into
probabilistically structured decision-making process [Fenton and Neil 2000a].
98
8.2
Results of Analytical Methods
This sub-section includes results of each of the analytic methods described in Section 8.2: Results
of Analytical Methods, including Cronbach’s Alpha/factor analysis, analysis of bivariate
correlation, analysis of ordinal regression and construction/use of a Bayesian Belief Network.
8.2.1
Cronbach’s Alpha/Factor Analysis
Latent constructs investigated include management/sponsor support and participation,
customer/user support and participation, and requirements management. The following steps were
used to evaluate the relative internal reliability of the management/sponsor, customer/users and
requirements management sections of the survey instrument, as well as an overall evaluation of
all three sections:
1. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each section of the survey instrument through an
investigation of all variables within each section. A relatively low Cronbach’ alpha
value (∝ < 0.70) for a given section of the survey instrument might be an indication
that the variables within that section are multi-dimensional. (Factor loadings for any
variable below 0.40 [see Section 8.1.1: Cronbach’s Alpha/Factor Analysis] were
dropped from the analysis to help show any underlying structure of each latent
construct. Default SPSS parameters were used when running the analysis.)
2. A principal components factor analysis was conducted for each section to investigate
the multi-dimensionality among variables. Fewer identified latent constructs were an
indication of a lower degree of multi-dimensionality (and a presumably higher level
of internal reliability as calculated in Step 1 above). Relevant SPSS parameters for
conducting Principal Component factor analysis included the following:
•
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis.
•
Rotation Method:
Varimax with Kaiser Normalization, which Hair, et al [1992]
suggest is an effective rotation for simplifying the structure
of the resulting factor loadings.
•
Missing values:
Replaced with means.
3. Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each of the identified constructs from the
previous step in order to determine level of internal consistency of each construct.
4. Each construct from Step 3 was identified and labeled.
5. Steps 1 through 4 were run for survey Sections 3, 4 and 5 combined as an additional
99
examination of internal consistency.
Survey Section 3: Management/Sponsor Support and Participation:
1. Overall Cronbach’s alpha (for all variables included in this section) was relatively high (see
below).
Number
of Cases
149
Number
of Variables
9
Cronbach’s
Alpha
0.84
2. Factor analysis:
Tables 07 and 08 represent the results of the factor analysis conducted for Survey Section
3, Sponsor/Management Support and Participation. Three (3) constructs were identified,
which explained about 85% of the total variance among all seven (7) variables.
Eliminated
variables
included
Q3.06,
“The
project
manager(s)
was
knowledgeable/experienced overall in the application area”, and Q3.07, “The project
manager(s) supported the development team”.
3. Cronbach’s alpha for each identified construct from factor analysis (Step 2):
The resulting Cronbach’s alpha for each of constructs are shown in Table 8.
4. The constructs were labeled as follows:
•
Component 1 label: “Sponsor”
•
Component 2 label: “Project planning”
•
Component 3 label: “Project manager”
Table 7: Total Variance Explained (Sponsor/Management)
Component
1
2
3
4
5
6
Rotation Sums of Squared
Initial Eigenvalues
Loadings
% of
% of
Total Variance Cum. % Total Variance
Cum. %
3.27
46.77
46.77 2.66
38.06
38.06
1.63
23.35
70.12 1.70
24.30
62.36
1.01
14.40
84.52 1.55
22.16
84.52
0.46
6.51
91.02
0.31
4.45
95.48
0.21
3.02
98.49
100
7
0.11
1.51
100.00
Table 8: Rotated Component Matrix (Sponsor/Management)
Component
Variable
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q3.01
Q3.09
Q3.08
Q3.05
Q3.04
Question
Sponsor committed
Sponsor throughout
Had sponsor
Project was well-planned
Had project plan
Project manager throughout
Had project manager
1
0.94
0.94
0.90
2
3
Construct
Alpha
0.95
0.89
0.89
0.80
0.91
0.80
0.74
Notes: Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
Factor loadings below 0.40 eliminated and highest loadings for each variable
(row) considered.
Survey Section 4: Customer/User Support and Participation:
below).
Number
of Cases
147
Number
of Variables
8
Cronbach’s
Alpha
0.82
101
2. Factor analysis:
4, Customer/User Support and Participation. Two (2) constructs were identified, which
explained about 65% of the total variance among all seven (7) variables. Eliminated
variables included only Q4.01, “Customer/users had a high level of confidence in the
project manager/development team”.
•
Component 1 label: “Customer participation”
•
Component 2 label: “Problems with customers”
Table 9: Total Variance Explained (Customer/User)
Component
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Initial Eigenvalues
% of
Total Variance
Cum. %
3.38
48.24
48.24
1.17
16.73
64.97
0.71
10.19
75.16
0.61
8.73
83.89
0.48
6.81
90.71
0.33
4.77
95.48
0.32
4.52
100.00
Loadings
% of
Total Variance
Cum. %
3.12
44.54
44.54
1.43
20.44
64.97
Table 10: Rotated Component Matrix (Customer/User)
Component
Variable
Q4.02
Q4.08
Q4.07
Q4.03
Q4.06
Q4.05r
Q4.04r
Question
Participation was high
Customers made adequate time
Adequate communications
Stayed throughout project
Customer provided feedback
Problems due to number of customers
Did not have realistic expectations
1
0.86
0.77
0.77
0.75
0.71
2
Construct
Alpha
0.85
0.85
0.71
0.47
(row) considered.
Survey Section 5: Requirements Management:
102
below).
Number
of Cases
149
Number
of Variables
9
Cronbach’s
Alpha
0.79
2. Factor analysis:
5, Requirements Management. Two (2) constructs were identified, which explained about
57% of the total variance among all nine (9) variables. The first identified constructs had
a relatively high alpha value (0.85). However, the second construct had a relatively low
alpha value (0.10). This construct included Q5.01, “Functional scope changed” and
Q509, “Requirements of customer/users were met”, which would seem to be negatively
correlated. This makes intuitive sense as an increase in functional project scope makes it
more difficult to meet requirements of customer/users. No variables needed to be
eliminated from the analysis.
•
Component 1 label: “Clear, stable and understood requirements”
•
Component 2 label: “Project scope and meeting requirements”
103
Table 11: Total Variance Explained (Requirements Management)
Component
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Initial Eigenvalues
% of
Total Variance
Cum. %
4.01
44.60
44.60
1.07
11.91
56.51
0.95
10.55
67.06
0.74
8.24
75.30
0.69
7.62
82.92
0.45
4.97
87.90
0.42
4.64
92.53
0.35
3.93
96.46
0.32
3.54
100.00
Loadings
% of
Total Variance
Cum. %
4.01
44.55
44.55
1.08
11.96
56.51
Table 12: Rotated Component Matrix (Requirements Management)
Component
Variable
Q5.03
Q5.05
Q5.07
Q5.04
Q5.02
Q5.08r
Q5.06r
Q5.01n
Q5.09
Question
Requirements clear and complete
Well-defined deliverables
Team understood customer wants
Requirements accepted
Agreement on requirements
Requirements were unstable/volatile
Size of project negative impact
Functional scope change
Requirements were met
1
0.80
0.79
0.79
0.78
0.76
0.71
0.49
2
Construct
Alpha
0.85
0.72
0.70
0.10
(row) considered.
Survey Sections 1, 2 and 3 combined:
1. Overall Cronbach’s alpha (for all variables included in Sections 1, 2 and 3) was relatively
high.
Number
of Cases
130
Number
of Variables
26
Cronbach’s
Alpha
0.90
2. Factor analysis:
Tables 13 and 14 represent the results of the factor analysis conducted for Survey
Sections 1, 2 and 3. Six (6) constructs were identified, which explained about 66% of the
total variance among all six (6) variables. Most of the constructs had relatively high alpha
values (ranging from 0.77 to 0.95) with the exception of the last two (0.10 and 0.37).
104
Eliminated variables included Q3.09, “Project was well planned (related to people,
available technology, scheduling, etc)”, Q4.04, “Customers/users did not have realistic
expectations
regarding
system
functionality”,
Q4.07,
“There
was
adequate
communication between the project manager/team and customer/users” and Q4.08,
“Customers/users made adequate time available for requirements gathering”.
•
Component 1 label: “Requirements agreement and understanding”
•
Component 2 label: “Project manager and plan”
•
Component 3 label: “Sponsor”
•
Component 4 label: “Sponsor and customer participation”
•
Component 5 label: “Size of project”
•
Component 6 label: “Project scope and meeting requirements”
Overall, there was acceptably high levels of internal consistency within the three major sections
of the survey instrument (Sponsor/Management Support and Participation, Customer/Users
Support and Participation, and Requirements Management). This was suggested through
relatively high Cronbach’s alpha values and factor analysis (Section 8.2: Results of Analytical
Methods).
Table 13: Total Variance Explained (Survey Sections 1, 2 and 3)
Component
1
2
3
4
Initial Eigenvalues
% of
Total Variance
Cum. %
6.80
30.91
30.91
2.44
11.08
41.99
1.87
8.50
50.48
1.22
5.56
56.04
Loadings
% of
Total Variance
Cum. %
3.91
17.78
17.78
2.85
12.97
30.75
2.76
12.55
43.29
2.44
11.08
54.37
Table 13: Total Variance Explained (Survey Sections 1, 2 and 3) (continued)
5
6
1.16
1.08
5.28
4.91
61.32
66.23
1.39
1.22
6.30
5.55
60.68
66.23
105
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
0.94
0.92
0.75
0.64
0.61
0.58
0.52
0.40
0.39
0.36
0.31
0.30
0.26
0.20
0.17
0.08
4.28
4.18
3.39
2.89
2.77
2.62
2.38
1.83
1.79
1.63
1.41
1.34
1.20
0.89
0.77
0.38
70.51
74.69
78.08
80.97
83.74
86.36
88.74
90.58
92.37
94.00
95.41
96.76
97.95
98.84
99.62
100.00
Table 14: Rotated Component Matrix (Survey Sections 1, 2 and 3)
Component
Variable
Q5.04
Q5.07
Q5.03
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q5.08r
Q3.07
Q3.04
Q3.06
Q3.05
Q3.08
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q3.01
Q4.02
Q4.03
Q4.06
Q4.01
Q4.05r
Q5.06r
Q5.01n
Q5.09
Question
Project manager supported team
Had project manager
Project manager knowledgeable
Project manager throughout
Had project plan
Sponsor comitted
Sponsor throughout
Had sponsor
High level of confidence
Problems due to number of customers
1
0.81
0.77
0.76
0.73
0.64
0.62
2
3
4
5
6
Construct
Alpha
0.87
0.77
0.77
0.76
0.66
0.55
0.79
0.91
0.89
0.86
0.95
0.75
0.74
0.72
0.47
0.77
0.87
0.48
0.37
0.72
0.59
0.10
(row) considered.
106
8.2.2
Bivariate Correlation Analysis
Variables included in the model are discrete and measured on a five-point (interval) scale. The
appropriate test of correlation between two ordinal variables is Spearman’s test [Kiess 1996]. The
following steps were used to evaluate the association between independent and dependent
variables within the causal model:
1. Referring to the Bayesian Network (as discussed in Section 5.1: Theoretical Model and
Section 5.2: Empirical Research Model), each set of independent/dependent variables
(identified by arrows originating at, and pointing to, respectively) were entered into the
SPSS bivariate correlation analysis through an SPSS syntax script. Relevant SPSS
parameters for conducting bivariate correlations included the following:
•
Correlation coefficients: Spearman’s.
•
Test of significance:
•
Missing values:
Two-tailed.
Exclude cases pairwise.
The presence of significant correlations between pairs of independent/dependent variables would
provide support for the Bayesian model (as detailed by the research questions from Section 5.3).
It should be noted that the bivariate analysis only considers the explanatory strength of each
independent variable in isolation (i.e., any effects of any inter-correlations between any other
independent variable is not included). Partial correlation analysis can isolate and account for the
impact of simultaneous independent variables. However, partial correlation analysis assumes
symmetric variables that are measured on at least an interval measurement scale, which is not the
case in this study. The results of each bivariate analysis are shown below, arranged by research
question.
Results of bivariate correlation analysis for Research Question 1:
All correlations proposed in Research Question 1 were found to be significant. The dependent
variable was Q4.01, “Overall, customer/users had a high level of confidence in the project
107
manager/development team”. Relative strengths of the correlation coefficients were either “low”
or “moderate”. See Table 15.
Table 15: Bivariate Correlations (Spearman’s) For Research Question 1
(Is there a significant positive correlation between having a committed
sponsor/champion, users that made adequate time available for
requirements gathering and well-defined software deliverables, and a
high level of confidence by the customer/users in the development
team?)
Correlated With:
Q4.01: High level of user confidence
Relative Strength
Independent Variables
Coefficient of Correlation* Significance
Q3.03: Sponsor was committed
0.20
Low
0.02
Q4.08: Users made adequate time
0.45
Moderate
0.00
Q5.05: Well-defined software deliverables
0.43
Moderate
0.00
*
[Guilford 1956]
variable was Q4.02, “The level of customer/users participation during the development process
was high”. Relative strengths of the correlation coefficients were either “low” or “moderate”. See
Table 16.
(Is there a significant positive correlation between having a
sponsor/champion that stayed throughout the project, having a
committed sponsor/champion and users that made adequate time
available for requirements gathering, and a high level of
customer/user participation?)
Q3.02: Sponsor throughout project
Q3.03: Sponsor was committed
*
[Guilford 1956]
Correlated With:
Q4.02: High customer/user participation
Relative Strength
Coefficient
of Correlation Significance
0.38
Low
0.00
0.41
Moderate
0.00
0.58
Moderate
0.00
108
variable was Q4.03, “Participating customers/users stayed throughout the project”. Relative
strengths of the correlation coefficients were either “low” or “moderate”. See Table 17.
sponsor/champion that stayed throughout the project and a high level
of customer/user participation, and participating customer/users who
stayed throughout the project?)
Q4.02: High level of user participation
*
Correlated With:
Q4.03: Participating customer/users stayed
Relative Strength
Coefficient
0.33
Low
0.00
0.59
Moderate
0.00
[Guilford 1956]
variable was Q4.08, “Customers/users made adequate time available for requirements gathering”.
Relative strength of the correlation coefficient was “low”. See Table 18.
109
Table 18: Bivariate Correlations (Spearman’s) For Research Question 4:
Is there a significant positive correlation between having a
sponsor/champion that stayed throughout the project, and users that
made adequate time available for requirements gathering?
*
Correlated With:
Relative Strength
Coefficient
0.31
Low
0.00
[Guilford 1956]
variable was Q5.02, “Agreement on requirements was reached between customer/users and the
development team”. Relative strengths of the correlation coefficients were “moderate”. See Table
19.
(Is there a significant positive correlation between a high level of
customer/user participation, users that made adequate time available
for requirements gathering and clear/complete requirements (welldefined project scope), and agreement on requirements between
customer/users and practitioners?)
Q5.03: Clear & complete requirements
*
Correlated With:
Q5.02: Agreement on requirements
Relative Strength
Coefficient
0.43
Moderate
0.00
0.48
Moderate
0.00
0.59
Moderate
0.00
[Guilford 1956]
variable was Q5.03, “Requirements were clear and complete (scope of project’s functionality was
well-defined). Relative strengths of the correlation coefficients were either “low” or “moderate”.
See Table 20.
110
customer/user participation and users that made adequate time
available for requirements gathering, and clear/complete requirements
(well-defined project scope)?)
*
Correlated With:
Relative Strength
Coefficient
0.33
Low
0.00
0.47
Moderate
0.00
[Guilford 1956]
variable was Q5.05, “Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables
(forms, reports, utilities, etc)”. Relative strengths of the correlation coefficients were “slight”,
“low” or “substantial”. See Table 21.
customer/user participation, changes in the functional scope (negative
correlation) and clear/complete requirements (well-defined project
scope), and well-defined software deliverables?)
Q5.01: Functional scope changed
*
Correlated With:
Q5.05: Well-define software deliverables
Relative Strength
Coefficient
0.31
Low
0.00
-0.18
Slight
0.02
0.64
Substantial
0.00
[Guilford 1956]
variable was Q6.01, which is practitioners’ overall perception of project success. Relative
111
strengths of the correlation coefficients were either “low” or “moderate”. See Table 22.
sponsor/champion that stayed throughout the project, a high level of
confidence by the customer/users in the development team,
participating customer/users who stayed throughout the project,
agreement on requirements between customer/users and practitioners,
well-defined software deliverables, and practitioners’ overall
perception of project success?)
Q4.01: High level of confidence in team
Q4.03: Participating customer/users stayed
Q5.02: Agreement on requirements
Q5.05: Well-defined software deliverables
*
Correlated With:
Q6.01: Overall project success
Relative Strength
Coefficient
0.42
Moderate
0.00
0.42
Moderate
0.00
0.27
Low
0.00
0.53
Moderate
0.00
0.50
Moderate
0.00
[Guilford 1956]
A bivariate correlation analysis was run in order to examine the relationship between each of
the five ‘success’ variables (sense of achievement, did a good job, there was a project plan,
project was well planned and requirements were accepted by team as realistic/achievable) and
practitioners’ overall perception of project success. These five variables represent the
individual components of our working definition of project success from the perspective of
software developers. Any significant correlations are an indication that respondent’s read,
understood and followed the directions for variable Q6.01, which instructed them to only
consider the criteria mentioned above when considering how successful they judged their
particular project. See Table 23 for the results of correlation analysis, which did result in
significant correlations between each component of practitioners’ overall perception of
project success (Q2.14, Q2.15, Q3.08, Q3.09 and 5.04) and practitioners’ overall perception
of project success (Q6.01).
112
Table 23: Bivariate Correlation (Spearman’s) For Practitioners’ Success Variables
Variable
Q2.14 Sense of achievement
Q2.15
Q3.08
Q3.09
Q5.04
Parameter
Correlation Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
Did a good job
Sig. (2-tailed)
Had Project plan
Sig. (2-tailed)
Project was well-planned Correlation Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
Requirements accepted Correlation Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
Q6.01
0.52
0.00
0.54
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.50
0.00
A final bivariate correlation analysis examined the relationship between practitioners’ perception
of project success (expressed overall by Q6.01 and by individual success variables, Q2.14, Q2.15,
Q3.08, Q3.09 and Q5.04, which were previously identified and tested against Q6.01 in Table 23
above) and the organizational/managerial perspective of project success (Q2.16, “Project was
completed on time”; Q2.17, “Project was completed within budget”; Q5.09, “Project met
requirements”). This analysis was done in order to offer exploratory evidence that since
development projects that meet practitioners’ perception of success are also at least partially
related to practitioners’ level of motivation and, in turn, productivity (see Section 2.1: Project
Stakeholders), such projects are also more likely to meet organizational/managerial perception of
success (i.e., project was completed on time and within budget, and met customer/user
requirements). As shown by the significant correlations in Table 24, there is evidence of a
relationship between practitioners’ perception of success (and presumably motivated, productive
practitioners) and the organization/management’s perception. It should be noted, however, that
any such preliminary conclusions must be read with caution because (1) practitioners were the
source of the data (i.e., whether the project was completed on time, within budget, etc.), as
opposed to a manager, customer and/or end-user who might be better informed about such
matters, and (2) budgets and estimates of time can be padded and otherwise manipulated.
113
Table 24: Bivariate Correlation (Spearman’s) For Practitioners’ and Organizational
Success Variables
Practitioners' Success
Q2.15
Q3.08
Q3.09
Q5.04
Q6.01
8.2.3
Parameter
Sig. (2-tailed)
Did a good job
Sig. (2-tailed)
Had project plan
Sig. (2-tailed)
Project was well-planned Correlation Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
Requirements accepted Correlation Coefficient
Sig. (2-tailed)
Overall success rating
Sig. (2-tailed)
Organizational Success
Q2.17
Q2.16 Completed
Q5.09
Completed
within Requirements
on time
budget
weree met
0.34
0.40
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.34
0.38
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.15
0.06
0.21
0.07
0.50
0.01
0.32
0.31
0.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.21
0.37
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.45
0.41
0.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ordinal Regression Analysis
There are a total of eight (8) independent/dependent relationships that comprise the causal
relationships within the proposed Bayesian Network (see Table 25). The results of this analysis
are intended to provide some insight into the explanatory power of each of the eight causal
relationships within the overall model. The significance of each parameter and R-square is
included in the analysis. SPSS provided three R-square calculations, which in order of least
conservative to most conservative was Nagelkerke, Cox and Snell, and McFadden. This study
uses Nagelkerke because it has been reported to be the best representation of R-square [Maddala
1983]. The formula for Nagelkerke’s R-square is as follows:
where w=number of observations
114
Table 25: Causal Relationships In Proposed Model
Dependent
Variable
Q4.01
Q4.02
Q4.03
Q4.08
Q5.02
Q5.03
Q5.05
Q6.01
*
Question
Customers had high confidence in PM/team.
Level of customer/user participation was high.
Participating customer/users stayed throughout.
User made adequate time for requirements.
Agreement on requirements was reached.
Requirements were clear and complete.
Requirements resulted in well-defined deliverables.
Practitioner’s overall perception of project success.
Original
Independent Variables*
Q3.03, Q4.08, Q5.05
Q3.02, Q3.03, Q4.08
Q3.02, Q4.02
Q3.02
Q4.02, Q4.08, Q5.03
Q4.02, Q4.08
Q4.02, Q5.01, Q5.03
Q4.01, Q5.05, Q5.02, Q4.03, 3.02
Each independent variable was recoded into 4 dummy variables (see below). Descriptions of
dependent variables included the following:
Q3.02, “Sponsor throughout project”
Q3.03, “Sponsor was committed”
Q4.01, “High level of confidence of users in project manager/team”
Q4.02, “Level of customer/user participation was high”
Q4.03, “Participating customer/users stayed throughout”
Q4.08, “Users made adequate time available for requirements gathering”
Q5.01, “Functional scope changed”
Q5.02, “Agreement on requirements reached between users and team”
Q5.03, “Requirements were clear and complete”
Q5.05, “Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables”
Q6.01, “Practitioner’s overall perception of project success”
The following steps will be used to conduct the ordinal regressions and calculate associated Rsquare values:
1. In order to ensure a consistent scale across all variables, dummy variables were
created for every independent variable (see Table 25) as follows. Each independent
variable is based on a five-point scale. As a result, independent variables in ordinal
regression analysis need to be converted to dummy variables so that an interval scale
is not assumed. Each of the independent variables were converted to four dummy
variables, each coded as 1 (yes) or 0 (no), which corresponded to original responses
of 1, 2, 3 or 4. The value corresponding to five (5) is reflected in the resulting
constant term.
2. The appropriate dependent variable was entered into the SPSS ordinal regression
analysis. Default SPSS parameters were used when running the analysis. (Unlike
continuous variables, non-significant parameters cannot be attributed to any multicollinarity among the variables because the values of the binomial variables are
mutually exclusive.)
3. Associated sets of the four dummy variables for each independent variable(s) were
entered into the SPSS ordinal regression analysis.
4. Resulting significant parameter estimates and R-square values were noted. Attempts
were made to collapse variables where appropriate, and significant parameter
115
estimates and R-square values were noted. The choice of the final regression analysis
was based on which analysis resulted in the highest number of significant parameter
estimates and highest R-square value. In addition, some of the regression analsyses
needed further adjustment to adjust for an error generated by SPSS, which advised
that due to a quasi-separation of the data (related to empty cells resulting from the
combination of independent and dependent variables), some of the analyses was
producing parameter estimates that would “tend to infinity”. As a result, the validty
of the results of the analysis were “uncertain”.
A final regression analysis run in order to produce an overall R-square, without regard to a
predetermined casual chain of project variables, which was subsequently used to test the model’s
goodness-of-fit. All variables in the Bayesian Belief Network were regressed on the ultimate
dependent variable, Q6.01.
The results of each ordinal regression analysis are shown below, arranged by research question.
116
Results of ordinal regression analysis for Research Question 1:
Table 26 shows the results of the ordinal regression analysis performed on the dependent
variable, Q4.01, “High level of confidence in PM/team” (includes only significant parameter
estimates). The resulting R-square value was 0.28. In general, the regression estimate for each of
the dependent variables increased as the value of their associated independent variable increased,
comparing responses to associated parameter estimates. This intuitively makes sense because we
would expect a stronger agreement with each of the dependent variables (each coded so a higher
response indicates stronger agreement) to be associated with stronger agreement of a high level of
confidence in the project manager/development team. Significant independent variables in the
regression analysis of a high level of confidence in project manager/team included users making
adequate time for requirements gathering and requirements resulting in well-defined software
deliverables.
Table 26: Ordinal Regression Results For Research Question 1
committed sponsor/champion, users that made adequate time
available for requirements gathering and well-defined
software deliverables, and a high level of confidence by the
customer/users in the development team?)
Dummy
Variable*
Thresholds:
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Locations:
Q3.03=1
Q3.03=2,3,4
Q4.08=1
Q4.08=2,3,4
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2,3,4
*
Original
Question
Estimate Std. Error Wald Sig.
High level of confidence in PM/team
-7.65
-6.89
-3.66
-1.47
1.13
0.90
0.52
0.44
46.28
59.05
49.45
11.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sponsor was committed
User made adequate time for reqt’s
User made adequate time for reqt’s
Reqt’s resulted in well-defined deliverables
Reqt’s resulted in well-defined deliverables
-3.04
-0.39
-2.81
-1.32
-2.46
-0.91
2.13 2.04 0.15
0.33 1.37 0.24
0.08 13.17 0.00
0.41 10.29 0.00
1.06 5.43 0.02
0.40 5.31 0.02
All parameters had 1 degree of freedom
There were 35 (53.8%) empty cells (combinations of levels of dependent variable and
independent variables)
117
variable, Q4.02, “Level of customer/user participation was high” (includes only significant
parameter estimates). The resulting R-square value was 0.46. In general, the regression estimate
for each of the dependent variables increased as the value of their associated independent variable
increased, comparing responses to associated parameter estimates. (Q3.03, “Sponsor was
committed”, was an exception.) Again, this intuitively makes sense because we would expect a
stronger agreement with each of the dependent variables to be associated with stronger agreement
that there was a high level of customer/user participation. Significant independent variables in the
regression analysis of a high level of customer/user participation included a committed sponsor
and users making adequate time for requirements gathering.
sponsor/champion that stayed throughout the project, having a
committed sponsor/champion and users that made adequate
time available for requirements gathering, and a high level of
customer/user participation?)
Dummy
Variable*
Thresholds:
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Locations:
Q3.02=1,2
Q3.02=3,4
Q3.03=1,2
Q3.03=3,4
Q4.08=1
Q4.08=2
Q4.08=3
Q4.08=4
*
Original
Question
Estimate
Standard
Error Wald Sig.
Level of customer/user participation was high
-7.13
-5.00
-3.51
-1.51
0.79
0.57
0.49
0.41
82.45
76.26
51.10
13.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Sponsor throughout project
User made adequate time for reqt’s gathering
-1.07
0.26
-0.92
-1.43
-4.93
-3.17
-2.41
-1.41
1.37 0.61 0.43
0.69 0.15 0.70
1.20 0.59 0.44
0.70 4.23 0.04
0.80 37.69 0.00
0.63 25.03 0.00
0.53 20.43 0.00
0.46 9.38 0.00
118
variable, Q4.03, “Participating customer/users stayed throughout” (includes only significant
increased, comparing responses to associated parameter estimates. Again, this intuitively makes
sense because we would expect a stronger agreement with each of the dependent variables to be
associated with stronger agreement that participating customer/users stayed throughout the
development process. Significant independent variables in the regression analysis of participating
customer/users staying throughout the development process included a sponsor who stayed
throughout the development process and a high level of customer/user participation.
sponsor/champion that stayed throughout the project and a
high level of customer/user participation, and participating
customer/users who stayed throughout the project?)
Dummy
Variable*
Thresholds:
Q4.03=1
Q4.03=2
Q4.03=3
Q4.03=4
Locations:
Q3.02=1,2,3
Q3.02=4
Q4.02=1,2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
*
Original
Question
Estimate
Standard
Error Wald Sig.
Participating customer/users stayed
-7.56
-5.12
-3.88
-1.78
0.87
0.54
0.47
0.37
74.86
89.45
68.16
23.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.87
-0.37
-4.42
-2.94
-2.02
0.43 4.07 0.04
0.42 0.78 0.38
0.64 48.14 0.00
0.54 29.16 0.00
0.45 20.58 0.00
119
variable, Q4.08, “Users made adequate time for requirements gathering” (includes only
significant parameter estimates). The resulting R-square value was 0.15. In general, the regression
estimate for each of the dependent variables increased as the value of their associated independent
variable increased, comparing responses to associated parameter estimates. Again, this intuitively
makes sense because we would expect a stronger agreement with each of the dependent variables
to be associated with stronger agreement that users made adequate time for requirements
gathering. Significant independent variables in the regression analysis of users making adequate
time for requirements gathering included a sponsor who stayed throughout the development
process.
sponsor/champion that stayed throughout the project, and
users that made adequate time available for requirements
gathering?)
Dummy
Variable*
Thresholds:
Q4.08=1
Q4.08=2
Q4.08=3
Q4.08=4
Locations:
Q3.02=1
Q3.02=2
Q3.02=3,4
*
Original
Question
Estimate
Standard
Error Wald Sig.
-3.38
-2.08
-0.99
0.64
0.41 68.42 0.00
0.28 54.97 0.00
0.23 18.59 0.00
0.22 8.52 0.00
-4.58
-1.33
-0.80
1.24 13.67 0.00
0.67 3.92 0.05
0.32 6.33 0.01
120
variable, Q5.02, “Agreement on requirements was reached between customer/users” (includes
only significant parameter estimates). The resulting R-square value was 0.49. In general, the
regression estimate for each of the dependent variables increased as the value of their associated
independent variable increased, comparing responses to associated parameter estimates. (Q4.08,
“Users made adequate time for requirements gathering”, was an exception.) Again, this intuitively
makes sense because we would expect a stronger agreement with each of the dependent variables
to be associated with stronger agreement that agreement on requirements was reached between
customer/users and the development team. Significant independent variables in the regression
analysis of reaching an agreement on requirements included a high level of customer/user
participation, users making adequate time for requirements gathering, and requirements were
clear and complete.
(Is there a significant positive correlation between a high level
of customer/user participation, users that made adequate time
available for requirements gathering and clear/complete
requirements (well-defined project scope), and agreement on
requirements between customer/users and practitioners?)
Dummy
Variable*
Thresholds:
Q5.02=2
Q5.02=3
Q5.02=4
Locations:
Q4.02=1,2,3
Q4.02=4
Q4.08=1,2,3
Q4.08=4
Q5.03=1,2,3
Q5.03=4
*
Original
Question
Estimate
Standard
Error Wald Sig.
Agreement on requirements reached
-7.79
-5.55
-2.45
0.82 91.46 0.00
0.69 64.12 0.00
0.56 19.51 0.00
Requirements were clear and complete
-1.17
-0.19
-1.32
-1.18
-3.65
-1.96
0.50 5.50 0.02
0.45 0.18 0.67
0.56 5.40 0.02
0.51 5.35 0.02
0.62 34.88 0.00
0.54 13.42 0.00
121
variable, Q5.03, “Requirements were clear and complete” (includes only significant parameter
comparing responses to associated parameter estimates. Again, this intuitively makes sense
because we would expect a stronger agreement with each of the dependent variables to be
associated with stronger agreement that requirements were clear and complete. Significant
indendepent variables in the regression analysis of clear and complete requirements included
users making adequate time for requirements gathering.
of customer/user participation and users that made adequate
time available for requirements gathering, and clear/complete
requirements (well-defined project scope)?)
Dummy
Variable*
Thresholds:
Q5.03=1
Q5.03=2
Q5.03=3
Q5.03=4
Locations:
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2,3,4
Q4.08=1
Q4.08=2
Q4.08=3
Q4.08=4
*
Original
Question
Estimate
Standard
Error Wald Sig.
-6.54
-3.86
-2.42
0.05
0.83 61.80 0.00
0.45 73.97 0.00
0.38 39.72 0.00
0.31 0.03 0.87
-1.42
-0.27
-3.28
-2.78
-1.50
-1.30
0.97 2.14 0.14
0.37 0.51 0.48
0.73 20.35 0.00
0.63 19.74 0.00
0.52 8.27 0.00
0.43 9.00 0.00
122
variable, Q5.05, “Well-defined software deliverables” (includes only significant parameter
comparing responses to associated parameter estimates. (Q5.01, “Functional scope changed”, was
an exception. However, this variable was not significant.) Again, this intuitively makes sense
associated with stronger agreement that software deliverables were well-defined. Significant
independent variables in the regression analysis of well-defined software deliverables included a
high level of customer/user participation, and requirements were clear and complete.
of customer/user participation, changes in the functional scope
(negative correlation) and clear/complete requirements (welldefined project scope), and well-defined software
deliverables?)
Dummy
Variable*
Thresholds:
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Locations:
Q4.02=1,2,3
Q4.02=4
Q5.01=1,2,3
Q5.01=4
Q5.03=1,2
Q5.03=3,4
*
Original
Question
Estimate
Standard
Error Wald Sig.
Well-defined software deliverables
-6.73
-5.47
-3.62
-0.89
0.83 65.69 0.00
0.74 55.28 0.00
0.68 28.46 0.00
0.63 2.01 0.16
Functional scope changed
-1.05
-0.19
0.58
0.65
-4.79
-2.78
0.41 6.62 0.01
0.40 0.23 0.63
0.53 1.19 0.28
0.47 1.90 0.17
0.69 48.62 0.00
0.50 30.48 0.00
123
variable, Q6.01, “Practitioners’ overall perception of project success” (includes only significant
increased, comparing responses to associated parameter estimates. (Q3.02, “Sponsor throughout
the project”, was an exception, but was not significant. However, Q5.05, “Well-defined software
deliverables”, was also an exception, and was significant.) Again, this intuitively makes sense
associated with stronger agreement that the project was considered to be a success as defined in
this study. Significant independent variables in the regression analysis of practitioners’ overall
perception of project succes included agreement was reached on requirements and well-defined
software deliverables.
sponsor/champion that stayed throughout the project, a high
level of confidence by the customer/users in the development
team, participating customer/users who stayed throughout the
project, agreement on requirements between customer/users
and practitioners, well-defined software deliverables, and
practitioners’ overall perception of project success?)
Dummy
Variable*
Thresholds:
Q6.01=0
Locations:
Q3.02=1,2,3
Q3.02=4
Q4.01=1,2,3
Q4.01=4
Q4.03=1,2,3
Q4.03=4
Q5.02=1,2,3
Q5.02=4
Q5.05=1,2,3
Original
Question
Practitioners’ overall perception of project success
Estimate
Standard
Error
Wald Sig.
1.57
0.46
11.62 0.00
0.80
-0.14
-0.68
0.41
-0.63
-0.61
-0.24
1.51
1.15
0.55
0.48
0.65
0.47
0.62
0.48
0.71
0.50
0.61
2.17
0.09
1.09
0.75
1.02
1.61
0.12
8.93
3.58
0.14
0.77
0.30
0.39
0.31
0.21
0.74
0.00
0.06
124
Table 33 (cont’d)
Dummy
Variable*
Q5.05=4
*
Original
Question
Estimate
1.33
Standard
Error
0.50
Wald Sig.
7.01 0.01
Regression Analysis of Overall Model:
For purposes of comparison, an ordinal regression analysis was run for the entire model to arrive
at an ‘overall’ R-square. That is, all variables in the model were simultaneously regressed to
practitioners’ overall perceptive of project success (Q6.01). The results are show in Table 34. The
resulting R-square value of 0.44 was then used in a test of goodness-of-fit of the model (see
Section 8.2.4: Bayesian Belief Network). The regression estimate for half of the dependent
variables increased as the value of their associated independent variable increased, comparing
responses to associated parameter estimates. (The following variables were exceptions: Q3.03,
“Sponsor was committed”; Q4.03, “Participating customer/users stayed throughout”; Q4.08,
“Users made adequate time for requirements gathering”; Q5.05, “Well-defined software
deliverables”. However, only Q4.08 and Q5.05 were significant. See the next paragraph.)
Significant independent variables in the overall regression analysis of practitioners’ overall
perception of project success included users making adequate time for requirements gathering,
agreement was reached on requirements, and well-defined software deliverables.
As mentioned in prior regression analyses, the coefficient of Q4.08, “Users made adequate time
for requirements gathering”, increased in the analysis of the following dependent variables:
Q4.01, “High level of confidence in PM/team”; Q4.02, “Level of customer/user participation was
high”; Q5.02, “Agreement on requirements was reached between customer/users”; Q5.03,
“Requirements were clear and complete”. Further, Q4.08 was significant in each of these
analyses. Also as mentioned previously, Q5.05, “Well-defined software deliverables”, increased
125
in the analysis of the dependent variables Q4.01 and Q6.01, “Practitioners’ overall perception of
project success”. However, Q5.05 was only significant in the analysis of Q4.01.
Table 34: Overall Ordinal Regression Results
Dummy
Variable*
Thresholds:
Q6.01=0
Locations:
Q3.02=1,2,3
Q3.02=4
Q3.03=1,2,3
Q3.03=4
Q4.01=1,2,3
Q4.01=4
Q4.02=1,2,3
Q4.02=4
Q4.03=1,2,3
Q4.03=4
Q4.08=1,2,3
Q4.08=4
Q5.01=1,2,3
Q5.01=4
Q5.02=1,2,3
Q5.02=4
Q5.03=1,2,3
Q5.03=4
Q5.05=1,2,3
Q5.05=4
*
Original
Question
Practitioners’ overall perception of project success
Estimate
Standard
Error
Wald Sig.
2.94
0.92
10.20 0.00
1.20
0.12
0.07
-0.03
-0.95
0.02
-1.16
0.06
-0.58
-1.10
2.07
1.49
0.30
0.38
-0.13
1.41
-0.66
0.78
1.48
1.28
1.20
0.83
1.18
0.89
0.73
0.55
0.87
0.69
0.79
0.62
0.77
0.66
0.75
0.67
0.83
0.57
0.86
0.71
0.77
0.61
1.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
1.70
0.00
1.78
0.01
0.54
3.09
7.15
5.11
0.16
0.32
0.02
6.15
0.60
1.20
3.69
4.32
0.32
0.89
0.95
0.97
0.19
0.97
0.18
0.93
0.46
0.08
0.01
0.02
0.69
0.57
0.88
0.01
0.44
0.27
0.05
0.04
The summary R-square of each of the eight (8) ordinal regression models is presented in Table
35.
126
Table 35: Summary of Ordinal Regression Models
Dependent
Variable
Q4.01
Q4.02
Q4.03
Q4.08
Q5.02
Q5.03
Q5.05
Q6.01
Question
Customers had high confidence.
High customer/user participation.
Participating customer/users stayed.
User made adequate time for reqts.
Agreement reached on requirements.
Requirements were clear and complete.
Reqts resulted in well-defined delivera.
Practitioner’s perception of success.
Cox and Snell
R-square
0.28
0.46
0.43
0.15
0.49
0.28
0.44
0.32
There was evidence to support the eight (8) causal relationships within the Bayesian model based
on correlation and ordinal regression analysis. Significant bivariate correlations were found
between each of the proposed independent and dependent variables within the model (Section
8.2.2: Bivariate Correlation Analysis). Further, there was evidence to conclude that these causal
models did a better job of predicting these dependent variables than did simultaneously regressing
all variables in the model on the final dependent variable, practitioners’ overall perception of
project success (Q6.01). However, most of the causal relationships embedded within the Bayesian
model resulted in low to moderate levels of explained variance in their respective dependent
variable (Section 8.2.3: Ordinal Regression Analysis), depending on the particular calculation of
R-square.
8.2.4
Bayesian Belief Network
The proposed Bayesian Network depicts some of the early and interrelated events within the
software development process that must be addressed, primarily by the project manager, in order
to increase the probability (and subsequently decrease the project risk) of a project being viewed
as a success from the perspective of software practitioners. As discussed earlier (Chapter 3: NonTechnical Components of Software Development), the causal model was based on those models
developed in Procaccino, et al [2000a and 200b]. This model expands on Procaccino, et al [2000a
and 200b] through the addition of variables that the literature review suggests may have a causal
127
relationship with practitioners’ overall perception of project success, as defined by Pilot Study
#2. Many additional variables were investigated (and are included in the final survey instrument).
However, they were not included in the proposed model because they either had relatively weak
support in the literature, were only related to the organizational/managerial perception of success
and/or resulted in causal ‘dead ends’ (i.e. did not relate, either directly or indirectly, to
practitioner’s overall perception of success Q6.01).
The resulting proposed Bayesian Model is shown in Figure 15. The model represents a
combination of each of the causal relationships investigated in Research Questions 1 through 9
(Section 5.3: Research Questions) and depicted in Figures 6 through 13. The model provides
evidence of the probability of each combination of independent/dependent relationships. These
probabilities can be expressed thought the following belief measures [Agena 2002a], which
equate to every combination of dependent variable given the condition (value or state; denoted by
| ) of its associated independent variables.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
P(Q3.02)
P(Q3.03)
P(Q5.01)
P(Q4.01|Q3.03, Q4.08, Q5.05)
P(Q4.02|Q3.02, Q3.03, Q4.08)
P(Q4.03|Q3.02, Q4.02)
P(Q4.08|Q3.02)
P(Q5.02|Q4.02, Q4.08, Q5.03)
P(Q5.03|Q4.02, Q4.08)
P(Q5.05|Q5.01)
P(Q6.01|Q3.02, Q4.01, Q4.03, Q5.02, Q5.05)
As noted earlier (Section 8.1.4: Bayesian Belief Networks), each of the arcs (arrows) in the model
originates at an independent variable (a node, shown as an oval) and end at (point to) a dependent
variable (also shown as an oval node). For example, changes in the functional scope of the project
(Q5.01) influences whether requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables
(Q5.05). Well-defined software deliverables, in turn, influences whether customer/users have a
128
high level of confidence in the project manager/development team (Q4.01).
The following steps were used to construct and test the proposed Bayesian model:
1. Frequencies were generated for each of the three (3) variables that were solely
independent variables (i.e., not dependent variables) within the overall model. The
independent variables are shown with their respective frequency distributions in
Table 36.
Table 36: Frequencies of Independent Variables (Q3.02, Q3.03 and Q5.01)
Responses
1
2
3
4
5
Totals
Q3.02
Valid %
2.6
5.2
15.5
21.9
54.8
100.0
Q3.03
Valid %
0.6
9.0
12.2
19.9
58.3
100.0
Q5.01
Valid %
0.0
10.7
18.9
57.2
13.2
100.0
2. Frequencies were generated for each of the eight (8) causal models within the
Bayesian Belief Network, each consisting of (percentage/probabilities) of every
combination of independent/dependent variables. As mentioned in Section 8.1.4:
Bayesian Belief Networks, all combinations of independent/dependent variables
within each of the eight causal models. (The total number of cells was 18,415,
including those from Step 1 above. However, due to the relatively small number of
observations, most of the cells were null. Default SPSS parameters were used when
generating the frequencies.)
The eight models have the following as their dependent variable, respectively: Q4.01,
Q4.02, Q4.03, Q4.08, Q5.02, Q5.03, Q5.05 and Q6.01. Figure 15 presents a graphical
depiction of each of these relationships, including variable (survey) numbers. The
model’s ultimate dependent variable is practitioners’ overall perception of project
success (Q6.01), which is located in the lower right-hand corner of Figure 15.
129
Figure 15: Proposed Bayesian Belief Network
With Bivariate Correlation Coefficients (and significance levels)
3. Frequencies were entered into the Hugin Expert System (www.hugin.com).
4. A goodness-of-fit test was conducted to evaluate the relative appropriateness of the
model. The test was conducted by comparing the generalized squared multiple
correlation to the overall R-square described in Section 8.2.3: Ordinal Regression
Analysis [Schumacker and Lomax 1996; Evanco, et al 2002]. Eight ordinal
regression analysis were run, resulting in eight R-square values (each R-square in the
equation is identified by a subscript of the associated dependent variable). The
generalized squared multiple correlation utilizes each of these R-square values (see
below) and compares the result to the R-square obtained from simultaneously
regressing all variables on practitioners’ overall perception of project success (Q6.01;
see end of Section 8.2.3: Ordinal Regression Analysis). When the generalized
squared multiple correlation is larger than the overall R-square, then we conclude that
the model is reasonable (i.e., it is a better representation of the data than assuming no
causal connections among the variables included in the model). The generalized
squared multiple correlation was calculated as follows:
= 1 – (1-R24.01) * (1-R24.02) * (1-R24.03) * (1-R24.08) * (1-R25.02) * (1-R25.03)
* (1-R25.05) * (1-R26.01)
Substituting the R-square values from Table 35 into the above equation yields the
following calculation of the generalized squared multiple correlation.
130
= 1 – (1-0.28) * (1-0.46) * (1-0.43) * (1-0.15)*(1-0.49) * (1-0.28) * (1-0.44) * (1-0.32) = 0.97
The generalized squared multiple correlation (0.97) is larger than the overall Rsquare (0.44; from end of Section 8.2.3: Ordinal Regression Analysis). This infers
that the model has more predictive power than simply regressing all variables to
practitioners’ overall perception of project success (Q6.01).
The overall propagated probabilities from the model for practitioners’ overall perception of
project success are shown in Table 37. Note should be made of the relatively low counts (N)
associated with responses 1, 2 and 3.
Table 37: Overall Propagated Probabilities For
Q6.01, “Practitioners’ Overall Perception of Success”
Response
1 (disagree)
2
3
4
5 (agree)
Totals
*
Probability
11.62%
11.64%
13.25%
29.68%
33.81%
100.00%
Count (N*)
1
3
11
82
65
162
Frequency
Percent
0.62%
1.85%
6.79%
50.62%
40.12%
100.00%
6 missing values
The findings that were derived from the Bayesian model are presented below as follows. First, the
overall probabilities of each variable in the model equating to each of the five possible responses
according to the BBN are presented. An analysis was then conducted to determine the
composition of a ‘critical path’ (i.e., the causal series of variables that exhibit the greatest impact
on project success). The next finding presents the investigation to determine which of the model’s
variables, if any, exhibited the greatest impact on project success, as measured by the probability
of variable, Q6.01, equating to either 4 or 5 on a five-point Likert scale.
1. Overall Propogated Probabilities of Each Variable In Model:
Table 38 summaries the overall Bayesian probabilities from the proposed model. The
131
probabilities of each variable included in the model equaling 1 through 5 are listed in the
appropriate
column.
For
example,
given
all
of
the
empirical
evidence
and
the
independent/dependent relationships, the overall probability of Q3.02 equaling 5 (“agree”) was
54.80%.
Table 38: Original Probability Propagation
Variable
Q3.02
Q3.03
Q4.01
Q4.02
Q4.03
Q4.08
Q5.01
Q5.02
Q5.03
Q5.05
Q6.01
1
2.60
0.60
4.10
9.22
1.85
7.20
0.00
4.78
2.31
4.06
11.62
2
5.20
9.00
4.39
12.30
6.72
11.08
10.70
7.63
13.52
8.85
11.64
Response
3
4
15.50 21.90
12.20 19.90
16.83 37.03
14.48 29.45
9.35 30.57
18.40 36.27
18.90 57.20
20.50 35.62
21.06 36.67
17.63 43.47
13.25 29.68
5
54.80
58.30
37.65
34.55
51.51
27.05
13.20
31.47
26.44
25.99
33.81
Total
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Figure 16 shows the overall result of propagating the data through the Hugin System, which
displays the results shown in Table 38 through monitor windows.
132
Figure 16: Overall Propagated Probabilities Through Hugin’s Monitor Windows
2. Identification of Critical Path:
It is valuable to investigate which specific causal chain within the Bayesian Belief Network
demonstrated the greatest impact on practitioners’ overall perception of project success (Q6.01,
the ultimate dependent variable). This is accomplished by determining which variable had the
greatest impact on Q6.01 by tracing backwards through the Bayesian network from Q6.01 (the
ultimate dependent variable). The candidate independent variables of Q6.01 included Q3.02,
Q4.01, Q4.03, Q5.02 and Q5.05. This finding was made through isolating the effect of each
independent variable on practitioners’ overall perception of project success (Q6.01). Specifically,
the value of each independent variable was held to a particular value (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) for all cases.
The effect of this constraint on the final dependent variable, Q6.01, was then recorded. The focus
was on results associated with independent variables held to 4 and 5 (agree) and the dependent
variable, Q6.01, equaling 4 or 5 (‘successful’ projects). The value of 1 or 2 for independent and
dependent variables was not considered due to a relatively low number of responses in
independent and dependent (Q6.01) variables. Further, the value “3” was not directly considered
133
due to a lack of direction (“agree” or “disagree”) in the respondent’s response regarding both
independent and dependent variables. However, for completeness, all responses are detailed in
Appendix R. The next step was to determine which independent variable had the greatest impact
on that ‘upstream’ variable, and so on.
In order to provide a more detailed explanation of this analysis, consider the analysis to determine
the variable that has the largest impact on Q6.01. As mentioned previously, variable Q3.02,
“There was an sponsor throughout this project”, was a candidate independent variable of Q6.01.
The steps in the analysis of this variable included the following:
1. Q3.02 was forced to a value (state) of 4 for all of the cases (a hypothetical
constraint).
2. All of the probabilities within the model were then re-propagated given this new
‘evidence’ and the revised probability of practitioners’ overall perception of project
success (Q6.01) equating to a value of 4 or 5 was recorded (41.18% and 17.22%,
respectively, given Q3.02=4).
3. The overall probability of Q6.01 equaling 4 or 5 when Q3.02 equaled 4 was
computed by adding the probabilities from Step 2 (41.18%+17.22%=58.40%). This
could be stated as follows:
= P(Q6.01=4|Q3.02=4) + P(Q6.01=5|Q3.02=4)
4. The BBN was then re-initialized to its original state (probabilities) and Q3.02 was
then forced to a value (state) of 5 (agree) for all of the cases (again, a hypothetical
constraint).
5. All of the probabilities within the BBN were then re-propagated given this new
‘evidence’ and the revised probabilities of Q6.01 taking on the value of either 4 or 5
were recorded (27.34% and 46.05%, respectively).
6. The overall probability of Q6.01 equaling 4 or 5 when Q3.02 equaled 5 was
computed by adding the probabilities from Step 4 (27.34%+46.05%=73.39%). This
could be stated as follows:
= P(Q6.01=4|Q3.02=5) + P(Q6.01=5|Q3.02=5)
7. The average of the probability of Q6.01 equaling 4 or 5 when Q3.02 equaled 4 or 5
was computed by averaging the probabilities from Step 5 and 6 (average of 58.40%
and 73.39%=65.90%) in order to arrive at a measure of overall impact of Q3.02 on
Q6.01.
Similar analysis was then performed on each of the other independent variables within the model.
134
Table 39 summaries the results of this analysis of which variable had the greatest impact on
Q6.01, as measured by the average percentage of projects that were considered to be a success
(Q6.01=4 or 5). These findings are also graphically depicted in Figure 17. No single variable
exhibited an overwhelming impact on a project being considered a success. However, given the
data collected, Q5.02, “Agreement on requirements reached between customer/users” had the
largest impact on Q6.01 (74.13% average probability that Q6.01=4 or 5).
Table 39: Impact Summary For Q6.01, “Practitioners’ Overall Perception of Success”
Variable
Q3.02
Q4.01
Q4.03
Q5.02
Q5.05
Question
Sponsor throughout project:
=P(Q6.01=4|Q3.02=4)+P(Q6.01=5|Q3.02=4)=41.18%+17.22%=58.40%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q3.02=5)+P(Q6.01=5|Q3.02=5)=27.34%+46.05%=73.39%
Customer/users had high level of confidence in PM/development team:
=P(Q6.01=4|Q4.01=4)+P(Q6.01=5|Q4.01=4)=35.54%+33.44%=68.98%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q4.01=5)+P(Q6.01=5|Q4.01=5)=27.13%+42.76%=69.89%
Participating customer/users stayed throughout project:
=P(Q6.01=4|Q4.03=4)+P(Q6.01=5|Q4.03=4)=37.28%+21.80%=59.08%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q4.03=5)+P(Q6.01=5|Q4.03=5)=27.53%+45.61%=73.14%
Agreement on requirements reached between customer/users:
=P(Q6.01=4|Q5.02=4)+P(Q6.01=5|Q5.02=4)=46.18%+24.96%=71.14%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q5.02=5)+P(Q6.01=5|Q5.02=5)=17.88%+59.24%=77.12%
Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables:
=P(Q6.01=4|Q5.05=4)+P(Q6.01=5|Q5.05=4)=36.32%+34.74%=71.06%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q5.05=5)+P(Q6.01=5|Q5.05=5)=20.70%+46.10%=66.80%
Average
Percent
65.90%
69.44%
66.11%
74.13%
68.93%
135
100
Percentage of Q6.01
90
80
70
60
73.4
73.1
69.0 69.9
71.1
77.1
71.1
66.8
59.1
58.4
50
40
30
20
10
Q3.02
Q4.01
Q4.03
Q6.01="4"
Q5.02
Q5.05
Q6.01="5"
Figure 17: Percentage of Q6.01=4 or 5
When All Cases of Each Independent Variable=4 or 5.
Since Q5.02 had the largest impact on Q6.01, the next step was to trace which variable is the
largest influencer of Q5.02. Candidate independent variables included Q4.02, “High level of
customer/user participation”; Q4.08, “Users made adequate time for requirements gathering”;
Q5.03. “Requirements were clear and complete” (see Figure 15). Table 40 summaries the results
of this analysis of which variable had the greatest impact on Q5.02, as measured by the average
percentage of projects that were considered to have agreement between customer/users and the
development team on requirements (Q5.02=4 or 5). These findings are also graphically depicted
in Figures 18. No single variable exhibited an overwhelming impact on agreement between
customer/users and the development team on requirements. However, given the data collected,
Q4.02, “High level of customer/user participation” had the largest impact on Q5.02 (78.77%
average probability that Q5.02=4 or 5).
Table 40: Impact Summary For Q5.02, “Agreement on requirements reached”
Average
136
Variable
Q4.02
Question
High level of customer/user participation:
=P(Q5.02=4|Q4.02=4)+P(Q5.02=5|Q4.02=4)=58.56%+21.49%=80.05%
=P(Q5.02=4|Q4.02=5)+P(Q5.02=5|Q4.02=5)=21.84%+55.64%=77.48%
Users made adequate time for requirements gathering:
=P(Q5.02=4|Q4.08=4)+P(Q5.02=5|Q4.08=4)=42.47%+34.11%=76.58%
=P(Q5.02=4|Q4.08=5)+P(Q5.02=5|Q4.08=5)=24.21%+54.54%=78.75%
Clear requirements reached between customer/users and development team:
=P(Q5.02=4|Q5.03=4)+P(Q5.02=5|Q5.03=4)=56.79%+25.04%=81.83%
=P(Q5.02=4|Q5.03=5)+P(Q5.02=5|Q5.03=5)=12.57%+61.12%=73.69%
Q4.08
Q5.03
Percent
78.77%
77.67%
77.67%
100
Percentage of Q5.02
90
80
80.1
77.5
76.6
78.8
81.8
73.7
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Q4.02
Q4.08
Q5.02="4"
Q5.03
Q5.02="5"
So far, the critical path includes Q4.02ÆQ5.02ÆQ6.01. The next step was to trace which
variable is the largest influencer of Q4.02. Candidate independent variables included Q3.02,
“Sponsor throughout project”; Q3.03, “Sponsor was committed”; Q4.08, “Users made adequate
time for requirements gathering” (see Figure 15). Table 41 summaries the results of this analysis
of which variable had the greatest impact on Q4.02, as measured by the average percentage of
projects that were considered to have high customer/user participation (Q4.02=4 or 5). These
findings are also graphically depicted in Figures 19. No single variable exhibited an
137
overwhelming impact on high customer/user participation. However, given the data collected,
Q4.08, “Users made adequate time for requirements gathering” had the largest impact on Q4.02
(74.90% average probability that Q4.02=4 or 5).
Table 41: Impact Summary For Q4.02, “Level of customer/user participation was high”
Variable
Q3.02
Q3.03
Q4.08
Average
Percent
Question
=P(Q4.02=4|Q3.02=4)+P(Q4.02=5|Q3.02=4)=39.50%+18.35%=57.85%
=P(Q4.02=4|Q3.02=5)+P(Q4.02=5|Q3.02=5)=28.76%+47.28%=76.04%
Sponsor was committed:
=P(Q4.02=4|Q3.03=4)+P(Q4.02=5|Q3.03=4)=30.17%+41.54%=71.71%
=P(Q4.02=4|Q3.03=5)+P(Q4.02=5|Q3.03=5)=32.99%+36.80%=69.79%
=P(Q4.02=4|Q4.08=4)+P(Q4.02=5|Q4.08=4)=47.11%+31.23%=78.34%
=P(Q4.02=4|Q4.08=5)+P(Q4.02=5|Q4.08=5)=12.47%+58.98%=71.45%
66.95%
70.75%
74.90%
100
Percentage of Q4.02
90
76.0
80
70
60
78.3
71.7
69.8
71.5
57.9
50
40
30
20
10
Q3.02
Q3.03
Q4.02="4"
Q4.08
Q4.02="5"
The updated ‘critical path’ is Q4.08ÆQ4.02ÆQ5.02ÆQ6.01. The final piece is the lone
independent variable of Q4.08, which is only influenced by one variable, namely Q3.02,
138
“Sponsor throughout project” (see Figure 18). The overall probability of Q4.08 being considered
to be 4 or 5 (agree) is 70.12% (average of 75.53% and 64.70%). Table 42 summaries the results
of this analysis of Q3.02, as measured by the average percentage of projects that were considered
to have users that made adequate time available for requirements gathering (Q4.08=4 or 5).
Table 42: Impact Summary For Q4.08, “Customer/users made adequate time”
Variable
Q3.02
Question
=P(Q4.08=4|Q3.02=4)+P(Q4.08=5|Q3.02=4)=38.20%+26.50%=64.70%
=P(Q4.08=4|Q3.02=5)+P(Q4.08=5|Q3.02=5)=43.86%+31.67%=75.53%
Average
Percent
70.12%
The completed path is Q3.02ÆQ4.08ÆQ4.02ÆQ5.02ÆQ6.01 (depicted with dashed lines in
Figure 20). When the four variables along the critical path are forced to a response of 4, the
probability of a project being considered a success is 79.42% (Q6.01=4 is 71.25% and Q6.01=5 is
8.17%). When these four variables are set to a response of 5, the probability increases to 95.27%
(Q6.01=4 is 10.85% and Q6.01=5 is 84.42%). Based on the results of literature review and
interviews with software practitioners previously presented, none of the items on the critical path
were a surprise, including the two variables related to requirements (Q4.08 and Q5.02). The
complete critical path, from start to finish, is as follows:
•
Q3.02, “Sponsor throughout the project”.
•
Q4.08, “Users made adequate time for requirements gathering”.
•
Q4.02, “Level of customer/user participation was high”.
•
Q5.02, “Agreement on requirements was reached between customer/users”.
•
Q6.01, “Practitioners’ overall perception of project success”.
The entire critical path is composed of variables that were significant predictors of their
respective dependent variables based on ordinal regression analysis (as shown in Section 8.2.3:
Ordinal Regression Analysis). Figure 20 includes the critical path (dashed lines) and non-
139
significant regression relationships (bold lines). Most of the variables included in the model were
significant predictors of their respective dependent variables, with the exception of the following
independent/dependent relationships:
•
Q5.01, “Functional scope changed” to Q5.05, “Well-defined software deliverables”.
•
Q4.02, “Level of customer/user participation was high” to Q5.03, “Requirements
were clear and complete”.
•
Q3.03, “Sponsor was committed” to Q4.01, “High level of confidence in PM/team”.
•
Q4.03, “Participating customer/users stayed throughout” to Q6.01, “Practitioners’
overall perception of project success”.
•
Q4.01, “High level of confidence in PM/team” to Q6.01, “Practitioners’ overall
perception of project success”.
Figure 20: Proposed Bayesian Belief Network
With Critical Path (dashed lines) and Non-Significant Regression Paths (bold lines)
A final investigation of the identified critical path was an ordinal regression analysis of each of
the independent/dependent relationships along the path. Table 43 includes the associated Rsquare values, as well as the bivariate correlation (Spearman’s) coefficients and significance
140
levels (Section 8.2.2: Bivariate Correlation Analysis). The correlation coefficients along the
critical path were classified as ‘low’, ranging from 0.12 to 0.37. See Appendix W for additional
details.
Table 43: Summary of Ordinal Regression Models On Critical Path
Dependent
Variable
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.02
Q6.01
Question
User made adequate time for reqts.
High customer/user participation.
Agreement reached on requirements.
Practitioner’s perception of success.
Cox and Snell
R-square
0.15
0.37
0.20
0.12
Relationship and
(Significance Level)
Q3.02ÆQ4.08: 0.31 (0.00)
Q4.08ÆQ4.02: 0.58 (0.00)
Q4.02ÆQ5.02: 0.43 (0.00)
Q5.02ÆQ6.01: 0.53 (0.00)
As described earlier, the critical path identified above began with the final dependent variable,
Q6.01, “Practitioners’ overall perception of project success” and its independent variables (those
with direct relationships), and then working ‘upstream’ from that variable. A ‘what-if’ analysis
was also conducted to determine which of the variables included in the model had the greatest
impact, either direct or indirect, on Q6.01, “Practitioners’ overall perception of project success”.
Similar to the above analysis, each variable was forced to a value of 4 and 5 to examine the effect
on Q6.01. The average of these two probabilities was then calculated. The difference between the
analysis and the development of the critical path was that all variables were considered, one at a
time, without regard to the direct (independent/dependent) relationships among the variables. No
single variable exhibited an overwhelming impact on practitioners’ perception of project success.
However, given the data collected, Q5.02, “Agreement on requirements reached between
customer/users and the development team” had the largest impact on Q6.01 (74.13% average
probability that Q5.02=4 or 5), which also happened to have a direct causal connection to Q6.01
(see Figure 15). See Table 44 for a summary of the results and Appendix W for complete details.
141
Table 44: Summary of Variables’ Impact On Project Success
Variable
Q3.02
Q3.03
Q4.01
Q4.02
Q4.03
Q4.08
Q5.01
Q5.02
Q5.03
Q5.05
Question
=P(Q6.01=4|Q3.02=4)+P(Q6.01=5|Q3.02=4)=41.18%+17.22%=58.40%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q3.02=5)+P(Q6.01=5|Q3.02=5)=27.34%+46.05%=73.39%
Sponsor was committed:
=P(Q6.01=4|Q3.03=4)+P(Q6.01=5|Q3.03=4)=30.57%+35.65%=66.22%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q3.03=5)+P(Q6.01=5|Q3.03=5)=30.18%+35.98%=66.16%
Customer/users had high level of confidence in PM/development team:
=P(Q6.01=4|Q4.01=4)+P(Q6.01=5|Q4.01=4)=35.54%+33.44%=68.98%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q4.01=5)+P(Q6.01=5|Q4.01=5)=27.13%+42.76%=69.89%
High customer/users participation:
=P(Q6.01=4|Q4.02=4)+P(Q6.01=5|Q4.02=4)=39.50%+31.08%=70.58%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q4.02=5)+P(Q6.01=5|Q4.02=5)=23.71%+49.27%=72.98%
Participating customer/users stayed throughout project:
=P(Q6.01=4|Q4.03=4)+P(Q6.01=5|Q4.03=4)=37.28%+21.80%=59.08%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q4.03=5)+P(Q6.01=5|Q4.03=5)=27.53%+45.61%=73.14%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q4.08=4)+P(Q6.01=5|Q4.08=4)=33.84%+36.90%=70.74%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q4.08=5)+P(Q6.01=5|Q4.08=5)=24.61%+44.94%=69.55%
Functional scope change:
=P(Q6.01=4|Q5.01=4)+P(Q6.01=5|Q5.01=4)=30.02%+33.78%=63.80%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q5.01=5)+P(Q6.01=5|Q5.01=5)=29.67%+33.76%=63.43%
Agreement on requirements reached between customer/users:
=P(Q6.01=4|Q5.02=4)+P(Q6.01=5|Q5.02=4)=46.18%+24.96%=71.14%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q5.02=5)+P(Q6.01=5|Q5.02=5)=17.88%+59.24%=77.12%
Requirements were clear and complete:
=P(Q6.01=4|Q5.03=4)+P(Q6.01=5|Q5.03=4)=36.63%+32.78%=69.41%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q5.03=5)+P(Q6.01=5|Q5.03=5)=20.26%+49.75%=70.01%
Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables:
=P(Q6.01=4|Q5.05=4)+P(Q6.01=5|Q5.05=4)=36.32%+34.74%=71.06%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q5.05=5)+P(Q6.01=5|Q5.05=5)=20.70%+46.10%=66.80%
Average
Percent
65.90%
66.19%
69.44%
71.78%
66.11%
70.15%
63.62%
74.13%
69.71%
68.93%
It is interesting to note the overall impact of various combinations of variables (i.e., those related
to management/sponsor support and participation [Q3.02 and Q3.03], customer/user support and
participation [Q4.01, Q4.02, Q4.03 and Q4.08], and requirements management [Q5.01, Q5.02,
Q5.03 and Q5.05]) on successful projects (i.e., when Q6.01=4 or 5). For example, when all cases
within the model were forced to a value of 4 for variables that are related to management/sponsor
support and participation (Q3.02 and Q3.03), the probability of the project being considered a
success was 61.81% (Q6.01 equaling 4=43.22% + Q6.01 equaling 5=18.59). Also, when all cases
were forced to a value of 5 for Q3.02 and Q3.03, the probability of the project being considered a
success was 77.54% (Q6.01 equaling 4=27.14% + Q6.01 equaling 5=50.40%). Similar, when all
cases within the model are forced to a value of 4 for included variables that are related to
142
customer/user support and participation (Q4.01, Q4.02, Q4.03 and Q4.08), the probability of the
project being considered a success was 77.49%. When all cases were forced to a value of 5 for
Q4.02, Q4.03 and Q4.08, the probability of the project being considered a success was 90.28%.
When all cases within the model are forced to a value of 4 for included variables that are related
to requirements management (Q5.01, Q5.02, Q5.03 and Q5.05), the probability of the project
being considered a success was 85.87%. When all cases were forced to a value of 5 for Q5.01,
Q5.02, Q5.03 and Q5.05, the probability of the project being considered a success was 89.60%.
See Table 45 and Figure 21 for details.
Table 45: Summary of Project Components’ Impact On Project Success
Survey Section
Management Support and Participation:
=P(Q6.01=4|Q3.02=4, Q3.03=4)+P(Q6.01=5|Q3.02=4, Q3.03=4)=43.22%+18.59%=61.81%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q3.02=5, Q3.03=5)+P(Q6.01=5|Q3.02=5, Q3.03=5)=27.14%+50.40%=77.54%
Customer Support and Participation:
=P(Q6.01=4|Q4.01=4, Q4.02=4, Q4.03=4, Q4.08=4)+ P(Q6.01=5|Q4.01=4, Q4.02=4, Q4.03=4,
Q4.08=4)=62.82%+14.67%=77.49%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q4.01=5, Q4.02=5, Q4.03=5, Q4.08=5)+ P(Q6.01=5|Q4.01=5, Q4.02=5, Q4.03=5,
Q4.08=5)=18.92%+71.36%=90.28%
Requirements Management:
=P(Q6.01=4|Q5.01=4, Q5.02=4, Q5.03=4, Q5.05=4)+ P(Q6.01=5|Q5.01=4, Q5.02=4, Q5.03=4,
Q5.05=4)=55.78%+30.09%=85.87%
=P(Q6.01=4|Q5.01=5, Q5.02=5, Q5.03=5, Q5.05=5)+ P(Q6.01=5|Q5.01=5, Q5.02=5, Q5.03=5,
Q5.05=5)=15.04%+74.56%=89.60%
Average
Percent
69.68%
83.89%
87.74%
143
100
Percentage of Q6.01
90
80
70
87.7
83.9
69.7
60
50
40
30
20
10
Management Support &
Participation:
Customer Support &
Participation:
Requirements
Management:
When All Cases of Each Project Component=4 or 5.
This section of analysis and findings concludes with a brief summary of the major findings from
each analytical method. Section 8.2.1 presented details of evidence that the survey instrument had
a reasonable degree of internal consistency regarding the concepts it assumed to examine. There
was also some evidence of identifiable multi-dimensionality (‘sub-constructs’) within each
section of the survey. Section 8.2.2 presented evidence of significant bivariate correlations for
each of the proposed independent-dependent variable relationships within the causal model,
which serves to provide support for appropriateness of the model. Section 8.2.3 presented the
results of the ordinal regression analysis, which provided a relatively large range of explanatory
value among all of the eight causal relationships that combined to form the overall model. In
addition, many independent variables proved to not be significant predictors of their associated
dependent variable. Section 8.2.4 presented the causal model as a Bayesian Belief Network
populated with observed frequencies that were based on the eight casual relationships. The
variable with the largest direct impact on practitioners’ overall perception of project success was
144
agreement on requirements between customer/users and the development team. Figure 21 shows
the variables associated with requirements management had the greatest impact, as a group, on
project success.
The next chapter presents the conclusions to this study and recommendations for further study.
145
9. Conclusions
This study addresses some of the long-standing problems related to the software development
process. Even if projects are completed, the software industry has a history of delivering late,
expensive systems that often do not meet customer/users requirements (Chapter 1). Further,
project managers are noted for under-managing some of the early non-technical components of
the development process. These components tend to be more difficult to manage than technical
components, and, consequently, are often largely unmanaged (Section 2.3). As a result, nontechnical issues more often plague software development than do technical problems. The
categories of non-technical components investigated in this study are (1) sponsor/management
support and participation, (2) customer/user support and participation, and (3) requirements
management. The investigation of these non-technical components includes the following:
•
An extensive literature review identified some early aspects of the software
development process and some of their inter-relationships (Chapter 3).
•
Interviews with software practitioners (programmers, database developers, system
analysts, etc.) identified aspects of the development process that practitioners
considered important to project success.
The variables used in this investigation were found to be appropriate and useful in examining
some of the important non-technical components of the software development process. Both the
literature review and interviews with practitioners provided support for the creation of a survey
and an associated causal model that included some of the early non-technical components of the
software development process. Through the survey, software practitioners were asked to consider
a particular project that they had recently worked on, with emphasis on several aspects related to
sponsor/management, customer/users and requirements management. Respondents were asked to
consider and rate the relative ‘success’ of that project. The research model developed is a
Bayesian Belief Network, which is a probability-based model that graphically depicts causal
146
relationships between variables was developed. The model is based on a theorem developed in
the 18th century by Thomas Bayes, which calculated probabilities that result from the values taken
on by a causal chain of independent and dependent variables. (Today, modern computers,
software applications and graphic user interfaces help make data analysis using Bayesian models
quite straightforward. The Hugin Researcher 6.1 system was used to develop the Bayesian model
for this study.) Graphically, oval nodes represent variables (independent and dependent), and
arrows represent proposed causal relationships between these nodes (Section 8.1.4). A conditional
probability table, which includes the probability of a particular variable equating to every
possible value, underlies each node. Data analysis of the survey responses was used to validate
the model that was developed.
In general, results from this study agree with the current body of published, largely anecdotal
research. One of the major findings of this study is support for the critical nature of effective
requirements gathering. While such support may not come as a surprise to many researchers and
project managers, the quantitative nature of this study represents a first step in the validation of
prior qualitative research. Further, a Bayesian Network proved to be a useful analytic tool for
graphically depicting the probabilities associated with the investigated components of the
software development process. The model was particularly useful in isolating the impact (both
direct and indirect) of its component(s) on the likelihood of practitioners considering a project to
be successful. The analysis identified a series of components (a ‘critical path’) that had the
greatest impact on project success. In general chronological order, this path was made up of the
following factors:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Having a sponsor throughout the project,
Users who make adequate time for requirements gathering,
A high level of customer/user participation in the development process, and
Agreement on requirements between customer/users and the development team.
147
As noted earlier, the project variables included in this study were related to sponsor/management,
customer/user participation and requirements management. When considered as a group, the
requirements management variables exhibited the greatest impact on software project success
when compared with those variables included within the other two groups. This was determined
through isolating the independent impact of each of the three groups of variables on the
probability of practitioners considering a project to be a success (Section 8.2.4). The following is
a list of the project variables in the Bayesian model that are related to requirements management:
•
•
•
•
Change in functional scope.
Agreement on requirements was reached between customer/users and the
development team.
Requirements were clear and complete (scope of project’s functionality was welldefined).
Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables (forms,
reports, utilities, etc).
The impact on project success that was observed represents a combined result of the particular
group of variables (nodes) that had both a direct and indirect causal relationship on project
success according to the model. (Nodes with a direct connection to the project success node are
shown through a single connecting arrow between the two nodes. Indirect connections were
shown through a series of nodes and interconnecting arrows.) An example of an indirect influence
on project success is shown in Figure 15 in Section 8.2.4:
1. Facilitating clear and complete requirements is shown to directly impact well-defined
project deliverables.
2. Well-defined project deliverables contribute to a higher level of confidence by
customer/users in the development team.
3. A high level of confidence then affects practitioners’ overall perception of project
success.
Agreement on requirements with customer/users, a high level of customer/user participation, and
users that make adequate time for requirements gathering represented the individual components
with the largest impact (either direct or indirect) on practitioners’ overall perception of project
success (Section 8.2.4).
148
The model developed here, and its critical path, can contribute to a project manager’s awareness
of the potential ‘downstream’ implications of their actions (or inactions) on the development
process. As a result, the management (or lack of management) of components related to
sponsor/champion, customer/users and requirements management can have major implications
later in the development process. For example, securing a sponsor or champion early in the
project has implications throughout the remainder of the project, including contributing to
effective requirements gathering and high level of confidence by the customer/users in the
development team.
The results of this study can also contribute to project managers’ understanding of the importance
of software practitioners’ perception of project success. Practitioners do not necessarily place the
same value on aspects of a given development project as does the organization or its management
(Sections 2.1 and 4.2). In particular, management tends to place emphasis on delivering a product
on time and within budget. (A concern for meeting customer/users’ requirements is also
common.) However, practitioners have been shown to not place as much emphasis on these
factors. Rather, practitioners tend to value aspects of the development process that are related to
the following:
•
•
Their professional/personal experience and growth, including a sense of achievement
and of doing a good job,
Project planning and requirements, including having a well-planned project and
requirements that are accepted by the development team as being realistic and
achievable) (Section 4.2).
By basing the concept of project success on what practitioners report is important to their
perception of success, this research has identified those aspects of the development process that
make working on a project more pleasurable and motivating for developers. Further, motivation
is the single greatest contributor to software development productivity. Productivity, in turn, has
149
direct implications for the organization’s ability to effectively and efficiently develop software,
which includes delivering completed systems that meet customer/user requirements on-time and
within budget. (Section 2.1).
Project managers can use the findings of this study to increase the probability that the projects
they manage will be successful, both from an organizational and practitioner perspective. As
noted earlier, management of requirements is critical successful software development. More
specifically, this study found the following.
(1) Having a project sponsor/companion, or a 'champion of the cause', will, in turn, support the
involvement of customers/users during the development process. A sponsor is particularly
valuable when he/she encourages the customer/users to spend adequate time developing
requirements. If a project sponsor is not available at the beginning of a project, the project
manager should try to get one as soon as possible. Since a sponsor is generally from uppermanagement, he/she can act as an effective buffer between the project team and unrealistic
pressure to deliver increased functionality and/or a project faster than originally planned. Such
pressures may originate from the customer/users, and then come to the attention of uppermanagement. If a sponsor cannot be found at all, then the project has a higher likelihood of
failure. A project manager must then work particularly hard to establish good communication
between the development team and customer/users (see #2 and #3 below). This will help to foster
understanding of the time necessary to deliver the agreed functionality. As a result, it may help to
alleviate subsequent customer/user pressure and/or unrealistic demands.
(2) A project manager who encourages high customer/user participation in the development
process is more likely to achieve a higher level of agreement on requirements between
150
customer/users and the developers. Managers can expect this agreement to contribute to clearer
and more complete requirements, and ultimately to better-defined software deliverables. A project
manager who communicates with both the development team and customer/users helps to
facilitate customer/user participation. This will help managers to understand when (or perhaps
more importantly, if) these two groups of stakeholders perceive that an 'adequate' amount of time
has been spent on requirements gathering. If the development team and customer/users spend
adequate time developing requirements, project managers can expect a greater likelihood that
these two groups will ultimately reach agreement on the functionality of the proposed system.
However, it is important that a project manager communicates with both groups because each
may have a quite different perception of what constitutes ‘adequate time’. A definition of
adequate time is important because there may be significant differences in perceptions of
‘adequate time’ between these two groups. Managers may be able to gauge the meaning of
'adequate' time, through informal discussion, surveys and/or semi-structured interviews. If it is
determined that adequate time has not be spent on requirements gathering, project managers may
need to meet with their development team and customer/users independently, and perhaps
together afterwards, in order to determine where more time and attention needs to be spent by
either, or both, parties.
(3) Early and on-going communication among the project manager, development team and
customer/users is closely related to customer/users reaching an agreement with the development
team regarding system functionality. Managers can expect this agreement to result in fewer
misunderstandings of the functionality of the final product, and consequently less rework in the
later stages of the development process.
151
This section concludes with the meta-level contributions of this study to the domain of the
software engineering.
•
A working definition of project success from the software practitioner perspective (it
is anticipated that this perspective will be used in further study) (Section 4.2).
•
A survey instrument useful in the evaluation of early components of the software
development process. This instrument can serve as a model for the investigation
additional components of the development process (estimation, scheduling, testing,
etc.) (Section 6.3).
•
A probability-based model (Bayesian Belief Network) that graphically depicts some
of the early aspects of the software development process. This model can also be
used to conduct ‘what-if’ analysis in order to isolate important variables. Further, this
model can be readily expanded to include additional components of the development
process (see Chapter 10).
152
10. Recommendations For Further Study
Recommendations for further study are arranged as follows. First, some issues related to revising
the survey instrument are presented, followed by ideas to expand on the proposed Bayesian Belief
Network. Lastly, issues related additional data collection is discussed.
Two issues related to the survey instrument arose that would help to refine and focus the specific
concept being investigated, and they are as follows:
•
A survey respondent noted that his development team felt a sense of achievement
after the completed project had been implemented. However, this study asked about a
sense of achievement while working on a project in order to offer some insight into
personal satisfaction of practitioners as a result of their professional involvement in
the development of a project. This study did not consider any post-project sense of
achievement, which should be considered in future work.
•
In order to lend some context to the idea of customer/users having a high level of
confidence in the project manager/development team, an additional question should
be considered in future work that addresses whether the organization (and/or
development team) has done software development work for a particular customer in
the past.
Since this was a preliminary effort at constructing and testing a Bayesian Belief Network related
to the early aspects of the software development process, several issues arose regarding revising
and/or expanding on the proposed model. They included the following:
•
The use of Multicriteria Decision Aids (MCDA) should be considered in conjunction
with BBN in order to include external criteria in the model (i.e. political, financial,
environmental and technical). It is precisely these criteria that BBNs cannot readily
handle.
•
Additional causal linkages among the variables already included within the proposed
model should be investigated, as there was evidence of additional linkages among
variables that were not included in the proposed model.
•
Additional variables could be added to the model, as appropriate, that were included
in the survey instrument, but were not included in the proposed model. This could
serve to create a more robust model.
•
Based on additional investigation (literature review and interviews with
practitioners), new variables could be added to the model that were not included in
survey. This, too, could serve to create a more robust model.
153
•
Factor analysis conducted with the five variables that were used to defined project
success in this study provided evidence of two constructs, which were consistent with
results from a pilot study. It would be interesting to investigate the relationship
between these two ‘component definitions’ and variables related to
management/sponsor, customer/users and requirements management. The identified
constructs included “planning and requirements acceptance” and “personnel
attributes”. This investigation could provide an analysis of project success on a more
granular level than simply offering one definition of project success, as was the case
with the proposed model.
•
The relationship between the proposed model and the organizational/managerial
perspective of project success (completing a project that meets customer/user
requirements and is delivered on time and within budget) should be investigated in
order to simultaneously investigate organizational and practitioners’ perception of
project success.
A few issues arose related to additional data collection in order to substantiate the generalizability
of this study.
•
This study was cross-sectional in nature (essentially a pre-experiment, case study
design). Specifically, it is a case study, which is designed to provide a snapshot of the
current state of the practice of software development. As such, these results will
essentially provide findings that will be generalizable to the domestic software
development community. Through selection of equivalent randomly selected sampled
groups for use in further studies, we could further test the proposed correlation and
final model for reliability and generalizability. This would also assist in evaluating
changes and/or trends over time in the proposed prediction model.
•
Additional cases should be gathered that reflect relatively unscuccessful projects, as
defined in this study, in order to provide a more even distribution of opinions.
•
Continued investigation should examine the variable(s) with the largest impact on
software practitioners’ overall perception of project success.
154
List of References
Agarwal, Ritu and Thomas W. Ferratt, Recruiting, Retaining and Developing IT Professionals:
An Empirically Derived Taxonomy of Human Resource Practices, CPR Conference, Boston, MA
(1998) p. 292-302.
Agena Ltd, Technical Report: Basics of Bayesian Probability, http://www.agena.co.uk (February
2, 2002a)
Agena Ltd, Technical Report: Basics of Bayesian Networks, http://www.agena.co.uk (February
11, 2002b)
Amoako-Gyampah, Kwasi and White, Kathy B., When Is User Involvement Not User
Involvement, Information Strategy: The Executive’s Journal, Volume 13, Number 4 (Summer
1997) p. 40-45.
Anderson, H. and Narshimhan, R. Assessing Project Implementation Risk: A Methodological
Approach, Management Science, Volume 25 (1979) p. 512-521.
Babbie, Earl, The Practice of Social Research (9th Edition) Wadsworth/Thomson Learning,
Belmont, California (2001).
Baccarini, David, The Logical Framework Method For Defining Project Success, Project
Management Journal, Volume 30, Number 4 (December 1999) p. 25-32.
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi, On The Evaluation of Structural Equation Models, Journal of
The Academy of Marketing Science, Volume 16, Number 1 (Spring 1988) p. 74-94.
Bailey, J.E. and S.W. Pearson, Development of A Tool For Measuring and Analyzing Computer
User Satisfaction, Management Science, Volume 29, Number 5 (1983) p. 530-545.
Barki, Henri, Suzanne Rivard and Jean Talbot, Toward An Assessment of Software Development
Risk, Journal of Management Information Systems, Volume 10, Number 2 (Fall 1993) p. 203223.
Baroudi, Jack J. and Wanda J. Orlikowski, A Short-Form Measure of User Information
Satisfaction: A Psychometric Evaluation and Notes On Use, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Volume 4 (Spring 1988) p. 44-59.
Boehm, Barry, Software Engineering Economics, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1981).
Boehm, Barry W., Software Risk Management, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Altamitos,
CA (1989).
Boehm, Barry, Software Risk Management: Principles and Practices, IEEE Software, Volume 8,
Number 1 (January 1991) p. 32-41.
155
Boehm, Barry, Project Termination Doesn’t Equal Project Failure, IEEE Computer, Volume 33,
Number 9 (September 2000) p. 94-96.
Boehm, Barry and Victor R. Basili, Software Defect Reduction Top 10 List, IEEE Computer,
Volume 34, Number 1 (January 2001) p. 135-137
Boehm, Barry and Alexander Egyed, Software Requirements Negotiation: Some Lessons
Learned, International Conference on Software Engineering (1998) p. 503-506.
Boehm, Barry and Tom DeMarco, Software Risk Management, IEEE Software, Volume 14,
Number 3 (May/June 1997) p. 17-19.
Brady, Sheila and Tom DeMarco, Management-Aided Software Engineering, IEEE Software,
Volume 11, Number 6 (November 1994) p. 25-32.
Brooks, Frederick P., Jr., The Mythical Man-Month, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1995).
Bytheway, Andrew J., Successful Software Projects and How To Achieve Them, IEEE Software,
Volume 16, Number 3 (May/June 1999) p. 15-17.
Cook, T.D. and D.T. Campbell, Quasi Experimentation: Design and Analytical Issues For Field
Settings, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL (1979).
Chatzoglou, Prodromos D., Factors Affecting Completion of the Requirements Capture Stage of
Project With Different Characteristics, Information and Software Technology, Volume 39,
Number 9 (September 1997) p. 627-640.
Choe, Jong-Min, The Effects of User Participation on the Design of Accounting Information
Systems, Information & Management, Volume 34, Number 3 (1998) p. 185-198.
Clavadetscher, Carl, User Involvement: Key To Success, IEEE Software, Volume 15, Number 2
(March/April 1998) p. 30, 32.
Couger, Daniel, Motivators vs. Demotivators In The IS Environment, Journal of Systems
Management, Volume 39, Number 6 (June 1988) p. 36-41.
Curtis, Bill, Measurement and Experimentation In Software Engineering, Proceedings of The
IEEE, Volume 68, Number 9 (September 1980) p. 1144-1157.
Curtis, Bill, William Hefley and Sally Miller, Overview of The People Capability Maturity
Model
(P-CMM),
www.sei.cmu.edu/publications/documents/95.reports/95.mm.001.html,
accessed December 18, 2001.
Davis, G.B., Strategies For Information Requirements Determination, IBM System Journal,
Volume 21 (1982) p. 4-30.
Davis, F. D., Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use and User Acceptance of Information
Technology, MIS Quarterly, Volume 13, Number 3(September 1989) p. 319-339.
156
DeLone, W.H. and E.R. McLean, Information Systems Success: The Quest For The Dependent
Variable, Information Systems Research, Volume 3 (1992) p. 60-95.
DeMarco, Tom, Non-Technical Numbers In Software Engineering, IEEE Conference on Software
Engineering (1991) p.149-150.
DeMarco, Tom and Timothy Lister, Peopleware: Productive Projects and Teams (2nd Edition),
Dorset House Publishing Co., New York, NY (1999).
Ein-Dor, P. and E. Segev, Organizational Context & MIS Structure: Some Empirical Evidence,
MIS Quarterly, Volume 6 (1982) p. 55-68.
Ellis, T. Selwyn and Robert L. Webster, IS Managers’ Innovation Toward Telecommuting: A
Structural Equation Model, Preceedings of The 31st Hawaii International Conference On System
Sciences, Volume 4 (January 6-9, 1998) p. 161-168.
Ewusi-Mensah, Kweku, Critical Numbers In Abandoned Information Systems Development
Projects, Communications of The ACM, Volume 40, Number 9 (September 1997) p. 74-80.
Evanco, William, J. Drew Procaccino and June M. Verner, submitted to Journal of Software
Engineering (Summer 2002).
Fenton, Norman E. and Martin Neil, Software Metrics: A Roadmap, Future of Software
Engineering (FoSE) at ICSE'00, Limerick, Ireland (June 4-11, 2000a).
Fenton, Norman and Martin Neil. Making Decisions: Using Bayesian Nets and MCDA (2000b).
Fienberg, S.E. and W. Mason, Identification and Estimation of Age, Period and Cohort Models In
The Analysis of Discrete Archival Data, Sociological Methodology (1979) p. 1-67.
Ferratt, Thomas W., Ritu Agarwal, Jo Ellen Moore and Carol V. Brown, Observations From “The
Front”: IT Executives on Practices To Recruit and Retain Information Technology Professionals,
SIGCPR Conference, New Orleans, LA (1999) p.102-112.
Gefen, David, Detmar W. Straub and Marie-Claude Boudreau, Structural Equation Modeling and
Regression: Guidelines For Research Practice, Communications of The Association For
Information Systems, Volume 4, Number 7 (August 2000).
Gefen, David and Detmar W. Straub, The Relative Importance of Perceived Ease-of-Use in IS
Adoption: A Study of E-Commerce Adoption, JAIS, Volume 1, Number 8 (2000) p. 1-30.
Glass, Robert L., Building Quality Software, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1992) p. 253.
Glass, Robert L., The Software Research Crisis, IEEE Software, Volume 11, Number 6
(November 1994) p. 42-47.
Glass, Robert L., Software Runaways, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (1998).
Glass, Robert L., Evolving A New Theory of Project Success, Communications of The ACM,
Volume 42, Number 11 (November 1999) p. 17.
157
Glass, Robert L., Frequently Forgotten Fundamental Facts About Software Engineering, IEEE
Software, Volume 18, Number 3 (May/June 2001a) p. 110-112.
Glass, Robert L., ComputingFailure.com: War Stories From The Electronic Revolution, Prentice
Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ (2001).
Ginzberg, M.J., Early Diagnosis of MIS Implementation Failure Promising Results and
Unanswered Questions, Management Science, Volume 27, Number 4 (1981) p. 459-478.
Guilford, J.P., Fundamental Statistics In Psychology & Education, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY
(1956).
Haberman, S.J., Analysis of Frequency Data, University of Chicago Press (Chicago, Illinois)
(1974).
Hair, Joseph F., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham and William C. Black, Multivariate Data
Analysis With Readings, 3rd Edition, Macmillan Publishing Company (New York, NY) 1992.
Hannah, Murray and Paul Quigley, Presentation of Ordinal Regression Analysis On The Original
Scale, Biometrics, Volume 52 (June 1996) p. 771-775.
Herzberg, Frederick, One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?, Harvard Business
Review, (September/October 1987) p. 109-120.
Hohmann, L., Journey of The Software Professional: The Sociology of Software Development,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (1997)
Hohmann, L., Coaching The Rookie Manager, IEEE Software, Volume 16, Number 1
(January/February 1999) p. 16-19.
Humphreys, Watts S., Managing the Software Process, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
Reading MA (1990).
Hunton, J.E. and J.D. Beeler, Effects of User Participation in Systems Development: A
Longitudinal Field Experiment, MIS Quarterly, Volume 21, Number 4 (1997) p. 359-388.
Igbaria, M. and J.J. Baroudi, The Impact of Job Performance Evaluations on Career Advancement
Prospects: An Examination of Gender Differences In The IS Workplace, MIS Quarterly, Volume
19, Number 1 (1995) p. 107-123.
Interviews (semi-structured) with fifteen (15) software practitioners, conducted at Drexel
University (Philadelphia, PA), Spring 2001.
Ives, B., M.H. Olson and J. Baroudi, The Measurement of User Information Satisfaction,
Communications of The ACM, Volume 26, Number 10 (1983) p. 785-793.
Jiang, J., G. Klein and J. Balloun, Ranking of System Implementation Success Factors, Project
Management Journal, Volume 27, Number 4 (December 1996) p. 50-55.
158
Jiang, James and Gary Klein, Software Development Risks To Project Effectiveness, Journal of
Systems and Software, Volume 52, Number 1 (2000) p. 3-10.
Jiang, James J., Gary Klein and Richard Discenza, Perception Differences of Software Success:
Provider and User Views of System Metrics, The Journal of Systems and Software (accepted July
2, 2001).
Jones, Casper, Patterns of Large Software Systems: Failure and Success, IEEE Computer,
Volume 28, Number 3 (March 1995) p. 86-87.
Kellner, Marc I., Non-Technical Issues In Software Engineering (Panel Session Overview), IEEE
Conference on Software Engineering (1991) p.149-150.
Keider, Stephen P., Why Projects Fail, Datamation (December 1974) p. 59-61.
Keil, Mark, Linda Wallace, Dan Turk, Gayle Dixon-Randall and Urban Nulden, An Investigation
of Risk Perception and Risk Propensity On The Decision To Continue A Software Development
Project, The Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 53, Number 2 (August 31, 2000a) p. 145157.
Kerzner, H., Project Management, Van Nostrand Reinhold (1989).
Kettinger, W.J. and C.C. Lee, Perceived Service Quality and User Satisfaction With The
Information Services Function, Decision Sciences, Volume 25, Number 5/6 (1994) p. 737-766.
Kiess, Harold O., Statistical Concepts For The Behavior Sciences (2nd Edition), Allyn & Bacon
(1996).
Klein, Gary and James J. Jiang, Seeking Consonance In Information Systems, The Journal of
Systems and Software, Volume 56 (2001) p. 195-202.
Leffingwell, Dean and Don Widrig, Managing Software Requirements: A Unified Approach,
Addison-Wesley (2000).
Linberg, Kurt R., Software Developer Perceptions About Software Project Failure: A Case Study,
The Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 49, Issue 2/3 (December 30, 1999) p. 177-192.
Lu, H-P. and Wand, J-Y., The Relationship between Management Styles, User Participation, and
Systems Success over MIS Growth Stages, Information & Management, Volume 32, Number 4
(1997) p. 203-213.
Lucas, H.C., Jr., The Use of Interactive Information Storage and Retrieval System In Medical
Research, Communications of The ACM, Volume 21, Number 3 (1978) p. 197-205.
Lyons, Michael, The DP Psyche, Datamation, Volume 31, Number 16 (August 15, 1985) p. 103105.
Lyytinen, Kalle, Expectation Failure Concept and System Analysts’ View of Information System
Failures: Results of an Exploratory Study, Information and Management, Volume 14 (1988) p.
45-56.
159
Maddala, G.S., Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables In Economics, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK (1983).
McConnell, Steve, Rapid Development, Microsoft Press, Redmond, Washington (1996).
McCullagh, Peter, Regression Models For Ordinal Data, Journal of The Royal Statistics Society,
Series B, Volume 42, Number 2 (1980) p. 109-142.
McFarlan, F.W., Portfolio Approach To Information Systems, Harvard Business Review, Volume
59 (1981) p.142-150.
McKeen, J.D. and T. Guimares, Successful Strategies for User Participation in Systems
Development, Journal of Management Information Systems, Volume 14, Number 2 (Fall 1997) p.
133-150.
McLean, E.R., S.J. Smits and J.R. Tanner, The Importance of Salary On Job and Career Attitudes
of Information Systems Professionals, Information & Management, Volume 30, Number 6 (1996)
p. 291-299.
Moynihan, Tony, Coping With Requirements-Uncertainty, The Theories-of-Action of
Experienced IS/Software Project Managers. Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 53,
Number 2 (August 31, 2000) p. 99-109.
Moynihan, Tony, Coping With Client-Based 'People-Problems': The Theories-of-Action of
Experienced IS/Software Project Managers. Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 39 (2002)
p. 377-390.
Niedermayer, Daryle, An Introduction To Bayesian Networks and Their Contemporary
Applications, http://www.gpfn.sk.ca/~daryle/papers/bayesian_networks.bayes.html (1998) visited
June 2001.
Nidumolu, Sarma R., Standardization, Requirements Uncertainty and Software Project
Performance, Information & Management, Volume 31, Number 3 (1996) p. 135-150.
Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1967).
Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric Theory, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY (1978).
Nunnally, J.C. and I.H. Bernstein, Psychometric Theory, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY (1994).
Peter, L.J. and R. Hull, The Peter Principle, Williams Morrow, New York, NY (1969).
Pinto, Jeffrey K. and Samuel J. Mantel, Jr., The Causes of Project Failure, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Volume 37, Number 4 (November 1990) p. 269-276.
Pinto, Jeffrey K. and D.P. Slevin, Project Success: Definitions and Measurement Techniques,
Project Management Journal, Volume 19, Number 1 (1988) p. 67-72.
160
Powers, R.F. and G.W. Dickson, MIS Project Management: Myths, Opinions & Reality,
California Management Review, Volume 15, Number 3 (1973) p. 147-156.
Pressman, Roger, Software Process Impediment, IEEE Software, Volume 13, Number 5
(September 1996) p. 16-17.
Pressman, Roger, Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach, McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY (1997).
Pressman, Roger, Fear of Trying: The Plight of Rookie Project Managers, IEEE Software,
Volume 15, Number 1 (January/February 1998) p. 50-51, 54.
Procaccino, J. Drew and June M. Verner, Early Risk Factors For Software Development,
European Conference on Cost Estimation, London, England (April 2001a).
Procaccino, J. Drew and June M. Verner, Pilot Study #1: Software Practitioner’s Success Factors
(April 2001b).
Procaccino, Drew and June Verner, Software Practitioner’s Perception of Project Success: A Pilot
Study, International Journal of Computers, The Internet & Management, Volume 10, Number 1
(January-April 2002) p. 20-30.
Procaccino, Drew, June Verner, Scott Overmyer and Marvin Darter, Case Study: Factors For
Early Prediction of Software Development Success, Journal of Information & Software
Technology, Volume 44 (January 15, 2002a) p. 53-62.
Procaccino, Drew, June Verner and William Evanco, Software Development Risk Analysis: An
Exploratory Study, work-in-progress (Winter 2002b).
Rai, A., H. Song and M. Troutt, Software Quality Assurance: An Analytical Survey and Research
Prioritization, The Journal of Systems and Software, Volume 40, Number 1 (1998) p. 67-84.
Rainer, R. Kelly and Hugh J. Watson, The Keys To Executive Information Systems Success,
Journal of Management Information Systems, Volume 12, Number 2 (Fall 1995) p. 83-98.
Rasch, Ronald H., & Henry L. Tosi, Factors Affecting Software Developers' Performance: An
Integrated Approach, MIS Quarterly, Volume 16, Number 3 (September 1992) p. 395-413.
Ravichandran, T. and Arun Rai, Quality Management In Systems Development: An
Organizational System Perspective, MIS Quarterly. Volume 24, Number 3 (September 2000) p.
381-416.
Ridings, Catherine M. and Lauren B. Eder, The Determinants of Job Satisfaction For IS
Professionals In Technical Career Paths, CPR Conference, Boston, MA (1998) p. 170-173.
Rittel, Horst, Second-Generation Design Methods, N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in Design
Methodology, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY (1984) p. 317-327.
161
Robey, Daniel, Larry A. Smith and Leo R. Vijayasarathy, Perceptions of Conflict and Success In
Information Systems Development Projects, Journal of Management Information Systems,
Volume 10, Number 1 (Summer 1993) p. 123+.
Saleem, Naveed, An Empirical Test of the Contingency Approach to User Participation in
Information Systems Development", Journal of Management Information Systems, Volume 13,
Number 1 (Summer 1996) p. 145-166.
Santos, J. Reynaldo A., Cronbach’s Alpha: A Tool For Assessing The Reliability of Scales,
Journal
of
Extension,
Volume
37,
Number
2
(April
1999),
http://www.joe.org/joe/1999april/tt3.html.
Schenk, K.D and Vitalari, N.P., et al., Differences Between Novice and Expert Systems Analysts:
What Do We Know and What Do We Do?, Journal of Management Information Systems,
Volume 15, Number 1 (Summer 1998) p.9-51.
Schumacker, Randall E. and Richard G. Lomax. A Beginner’s Guide To Structural Equation
Modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, NJ (1996).
Standish Group, CHAOS, http://www.standishgroup.com/visitor/voyages.htm, 1995a.
Standish
1995b.
Group,
Unfinished Voyages, http://www.standishgroup.com/visitor/voyages.htm,
Sumner, Mary, Critical Success Factors In Enterprise Wide Information Management Systems
Projects, SIGCPR Conference, New Orleans, LA (1999) p. 297-303.
Tackett, Buford D. and Buddy Van Doren, Process Control For Error-Free Software: A Software
Success Story, IEEE Software, Volume16, Number 3 (May/June 1999) p. 24-29.
Verner, J. M., Overmyer, S. P. and McCain, K.W., In The 25 Years Since The Mythical ManMonth What Have We Learned About Project Management?, Information and Software
Technology, Volume 41, Number 14 (November 5, 1999) p. 1021-1026.
Verner, J. M. and Cerpa, work-in-process Summer 2002.
Warne, Leoni and Dennis Hart, The Impact of Organizational Politics on Information Systems
Project Failure – A Case, Proceedings of The 29th Annual Hawaii International Conference On
System Sciences), IEEE (1996) p.191-201.
Wateridge, John, How Can IS/IT Projects Be Measured For Success?, International Journal of
Project Management, Volume 16, Number 1 (1998) p. 59-63.
Watson, R.T., L.F. Pitt and C.B. Kavan, Measuring Information Systems Service Quality:
Lessons From Two Longitudinal Case Studies, MIS Quarterly, Volume 22, Number 1 (March
1998) p. 61-79.
Wohlin, C., A. von Mayrhauser, M. Host and B. Regnell, Subjective Evaluation As A Tool For
Learning From Software Project Success, Information and Software Technology, Volume 42
(2000) p. 983-992.
162
Wynne, B., Measuring The Immeasurable or Credibility In The Public Sector, Interfaces, Volume
8, Number 1 (1977) p. 106-109.
Zmud, Robert W., Management of Large Software Development Efforts, MIS Quarterly
(September 1980) p. 45-55.
E-mail received from Bob Glass, October 3, 2001 (04:59:11 pm).
E-mail received from Warren Harrison, October 5, 2001 (12:51:19 am).
E-mail received from Steve McConnell, October 5, 2001 (08:34:19 pm).
163
Appendix A: Various Perspectives on Defining Software Development Project
Success
Process-Related:
• Development team’s overall productivity and level of effectiveness regarding its
interactions with non-team members [Robey, et al 1993].
•
Practitioner’s perception of process [Glass, 1999; Linberg 1999; Procaccino and Verner
2001a; Procaccino, et al 2002a; Procaccino, et al 2002b].
•
Stakeholder participation, including top management (TQM-based) [Ravichandran and
Rai 2000].
•
Stakeholder satisfaction with project management [Baccarini 1999].
•
User participation in process [Baroudi and Orlikowski 1988].
Product-Related:
• Completed Project (general):
o All stakeholders’ satisfaction with completed system [Anderson 1999; Bytheway
1999].
o
Amount of system usage by users [Ginzberg 1981, also cited Lucas 1978, Wynne
1977].
o
Client satisfaction [Pinto and Slevin 1988].
o
Customer satisfaction (TQM-based) [Ravichandran and Rai 2000].
o
Customer satisfaction (“customer satisfaction = meets requirements + sufficient
quality + delivered when needed + affordable cost. Note that this equation decouples
cost and schedule from estimates for them”) [e-mail: Glass 2001]
o
“Efficacy in meeting a project's goals, however those goals are defined”, which may
include goals of maximizing functionality, minimizing program errors, minimizing
cost, minimizing time to complete [e-mail: McConnell 2001].
o
Implementation of completed system [Pinto and Mantel 1990].
o
Meeting or exceeding user’s expectations [Linberg 1999].
o
On time delivery, delivered within budget and meets business
objectives/requirements [Keider 1974; Lyytinen 1988; Pinto and Slevin 1988; Barki,
et al 1993; Standish Group 1995a; Brooks 1995; Jones 1995; Nidumolu 1996;
Amoako-Gyampah, et al 1997; Baccarini 1999; Linberg 1999; Jiang and Klein 2000;
Leffingwell and Widrig 2000; Jiang, et al 2001].
o
On time delivery, delivered within budget, meets business objectives/requirements,
achieves purpose, happy users, meets quality objectives [Wateridge 1998].
o
On time delivery, delivered within budget, meets business objectives/requirements,
minimum/mutually agreed upon changes in scope, no distributing flow of
organizational work, no change to corporate culture [Wateridge 1998 cited Kerzner
1989].
o
Practitioner’s perception of completed system [Glass 1999; Linberg 1999].
o
Practitioner’s perception of system usefulness [Pinto and Mantel 1990].
164
•
•
o
Practitioner’s (team) compliance with budget and schedule [Robey, et al 1993].
o
Product’s impact on customer service [Watson, et al 1998].
o
Product’s impact on effectiveness of business operations [Watson, et al 1998].
o
Service quality provided for system [Kettinger and Lee 1994; Watson, et al 1998].
o
Timeliness (related to market window) of system delivery [e-mail: Warren 2001]
o
Use of system (extent of use) [Davis 1989; Gefen and Straub 2000].
o
User satisfaction with system performance [Ginzberg 1981].
o
User satisfaction with completed system [Bailey and Pearson 1983 cite Powers and
Dickson 1973; Pinto and Mantel 1990; Kettinger and Lee 1994; Baroudi and
Orlikowski 1988; Bailey and Pearson 1983; Jiang, et al 2001].
Output:
o Consumption of system output by recipient [cited from Ein-Dor and Segev 1982].
o
Quality of output, related to reliability of information produced [Wohlin, et al 2000;
Jiang and Klein 2000; Rai, et al 1998; Tackett and VanDoren 1999; Ravichandran
and Rai 2000; Jones 1995; Pressman 1997].
o
User perception of quality of information provided by system [Ives, et al 1983].
Cancelled Project:
o Project cancellation and contributing issues [Ewusi-Mensah 1997].
o
Project cancellation and relationship to project failure [Boehm 2000].
Other:
• Differences between practitioners and end-user perspectives [Jiang, et al 2001].
•
Differences among all project stakeholders’ perception of success due to various met or
unmet expectations [Robey, et al 1993].
•
Practitioner’s perception of success (general) [Linberg 1999; Verner, et al 1999;
•
Numerous perspectives (system quality, information quality, use, user satisfaction,
individual impact and organizational impact) [DeLone and McLean 1992; includes
numerous success-related literature citations].
•
Numerous perspectives (time to develop project, cost of project, project performance,
client use of system, client satisfaction with system and organizational effectiveness
[Pinto and Slevin 1988].
165
Appendix B: Summary Results of The Standish Group’s CHAOS Study [1995a]
Successful Projects
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Project Success Factors
User Involvement
Executive Management Support
Clear Statement of Requirements
Proper Planning
Reali Expectations
Smaller Project Milestones
Competent Staff
Ownership
Clear Vision & Objectives
Hard-Working, Focused Staff
Other
Pct
15.9
13.9
13.0
9.6
8.2
7.7
7.2
5.3
2.9
2.4
13.9
Challenged Projects
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Project Challenged Factors
Lack of User Input
Incomplete Requirements & Specs
Changing Requirements & Specs
Lack of Executive Support
Technology Incompetence
Lack of Resources
Unrealistic Expectations
Unclear Objectives
Unrealistic Time Frames
New Technology
Other
Pct
12.8
12.3
11.8
7.5
7.0
6.4
5.9
5.3
4.3
3.7
23.0
Impaired Projects
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Project Impaired Factors
Incomplete Requirements
Lack of User Involvement
Lack of Resources
Unrealistic Expectations
Lack of Executive Support
Changing Requirements & Specs
Lack of Planning
Didn't Need It Any Longer
Lack of IT Management
Technology Illiteracy
Other
Pct
13.1
12.4
10.6
9.9
9.3
8.7
8.1
7.5
6.2
4.3
9.9
166
Appendix C: Results From Standish Group’s Unfinished Voyages [1995b]
Project Success Potential
User Involvement
•
Do I have the right user(s)?
•
Did I involve the user(s) early and often?
•
Do I have a quality user(s) relationship?
•
Do I make involvement easy?
•
Did I find out what the user(s) needs?
For each question with a YES answer, add 3.8 points
to the total project success potential score. Total
Points (not to exceed 19)
Executive Management Support
•
Do I have the key executive(s)?
•
Does the key executive have a stake in the
outcome?
•
Is failure acceptable?
•
Do I have a well defined plan?
•
Does the project team have a stake?
Developing a Clear Statement of Reqts
•
Do I have a concise vision?
•
Do I have a functional analysis?
•
Do I have a risk assessment?
•
Do I have a business case?
•
Can I measure the project?
For each question with a YES answer, add 3 points
Proper Planning
•
Do I have a problem statement?
•
Do I have a solution statement?
•
Do I have the right people?
•
Do I have a firm specification?
•
Do I have attainable milestones?
Setting Realistic Expectations
•
Do I have clear specifications?
•
Do I have prioritization of needs?
•
Do I have small milestones?
•
Can I manage change?
•
Can I prototype?
For each question with a YES answer, add 2 points
Small Project Milestones
•
Am I using the 80/20 rule?
•
Am I using a top-down design?
•
Am I setting time limits?
•
Am I using a prototype tool?
•
Can I measure progress?
For each question with a YES answer, add 1.8
points to the total project success potential score.
Total Points (not to exceed 9)
Competent Staff
•
Do I know the skills required?
•
Do I have the right people?
•
Do I have a training program?
•
Do I have incentives?
•
Will the staff see it through?
Project Ownership:
•
Do I have defined roles?
•
Do I have a defined organization?
•
Does everyone know their role?
•
Are incentives attached to success?
•
Is everyone committed?
Clear Vision and Objectives
•
Is the vision shared?
•
Is the vision aligned with company
goals?
•
Are the objectives achievable?
•
Are the objectives measurable?
•
Do I have honest sanity checks?
Hard Working, Focused Staff
•
Are there incentives?
•
Are we concentrating on quantifiable
deliverables?
•
Does each member have part
ownership?
•
Does everyone work together?
•
Are we building confidence?
Total Points (not to exceed 3) Calculate all of the
points to achieve the final score. The Success
Potential for Project…
167
Appendix D: Pilot Study #1: Software Practitioner’s Success Factors – Survey
Instrument
The scale SA, A, N, D, SD refers to “Strongly Agree”, “Agree”, “Neutral”, “Disagree” and
“Strongly Disagree”. For purposes of reference, you may assume that there is an equal ‘distance’
between each of the five possible responses.
Section 1: Yourself and Your Organization
1.01 Please indicate your gender:
Male
1.02
Female
Please indicate your highest level of education:
Some high school High school/equivalent graduate
Associate degree (2-degree) Bachelor degree (4-year)
Doctorate (PhD)
1.03
Please indicate your primary job:
Programmer
Systems Analyst
Network Engineer Database Administrator
Team Leader
Customer/User
1.04
Some college, no degree
Graduate degree
Programming Analyst
Project Manager/Leader
Senior Manager
Other:
Please rate your IT/development/programming expertise:
Expert
Proficient
Average
Somewhat inexperienced
1.05
How long have you been involved with IT?
years
1.06
Please indicate your age range.
<20 years old
40-49 years old
70-79 years old
20-29 years old
50-59 years old
Very inexperienced
30-39 years old
60-69 years old
Section 2: Success Regarding A Project
For the following section, consider software development projects in general (not any particular
project).
Management/Process Factors:
2.01 It is important to your perception of project success that the project manager provides
developers with feedback on their work on the project.
SA A N D SD
2.02 It is important to your perception of project success that a project has good management
practices (for example, change management, peer review and sufficient testing).
SA A N D SD
2.03 It is important to your perception of project success that the project is well planned.
SA A N D SD
2.04 It is important to your perception of project success that developers provide the project
manager with feedback on developer’s work on the project.
SA A N D SD
2.05 It is important to your perception of project success that there was a project plan.
SA A N D SD
168
Estimation Factors:
2.06 It is important to your perception of project success that there is accurate estimation of the
time necessary for you to do your work and complete your responsibilities.
SA A N D SD
2.07 It is important to your perception of project success that the development team is able to
negotiate changes in necessary resources (time, money and/or personnel).
SA A N D SD
2.08 It is important to your perception of project success that customer/users are involved in the
decision making process (regarding estimating and scheduling).
SA A N D SD
Customer/Users Factors:
2.09 It is important to your perception of project success that a project meets all customer/users
requirements.
SA A N D SD
2.10 It is important to your perception of project success that there is a high level of level of
involvement of the customer/users
SA A N D SD
2.11 It is important to your perception of project success that customers find the product easy to
use.
SA A N D SD
2.12 It is important to your perception of project success that the finished product helps obtain
additional development work from the customer.
SA A N D SD Not applicable
2.13 It is important to your perception of project success that customer/users and developers
have a good relationship (cooperative, responsive, etc.).
SA A N D SD
2.14 It is important to your perception of project success that customer/users provide feedback to
the development team.
SA A N D SD
2.15 It is important to your perception of project success that a project’s customer/users have
realistic expectations.
SA A N D SD
Requirements Factors:
2.16 It is important to your perception of project success that customer/users are aware of what
they need the product to do.
SA A N D SD
2.17 It is important to your perception of project success that a project has a well-defined scope
and stable requirements.
SA A N D SD
2.18 It is important to your perception of project success that requirements can be clarified by a
central contact person(s), if necessary.
SA A N D SD
2.19 It is important to your perception of project success that requirements are accepted by the
project team as realistic/achievable.
SA A N D SD
169
2.20 It is important to your perception of project success that requirements are clear and
understood.
SA A N D SD
Personal/Professional Factors:
2.21 It is important to your perception of project success that the work you do on a project is in
line with your interests as IT professionals.
SA A N D SD
2.22 It is important to your perception of project success that you are provided with enough
freedom to work creatively on a project.
SA A N D SD
2.23 It is important to your perception of project success that you have a sense of achievement
while working on a project.
SA A N D SD
2.24 It is important to your perception of project success that a project results in your
professional growth.
SA A N D SD
2.25 It is important to your perception of project success that you find working on a project to be
satisfying.
SA A N D SD
2.26 It is important to your perception of project success that a project does not interfere with
your personal life.
SA A N D SD
2.27 It is important to your perception of project success that a project offers you the
opportunity to supervise technical staff.
SA A N D SD
2.28 It is important to your perception of project success that a project offers you an opportunity
for career advancement.
SA A N D SD
2.29 It is important to your perception of project success that working on a project increases
your recognition (by peers, management, subordinates) as a competent IT professional.
SA A N D SD
your current or future salary level.
SA A N D SD
2.31 It is important to your perception of project success that working on a project improves
your level of job security (within the same organization).
SA A N D SD
your professional status.
SA A N D SD
2.33 It is important to your perception of project success that you learn something new while
working on a project.
SA A N D SD
2.34 It is important to your perception of project success that you do a good job (i.e. delivered
quality) while working on a project.
SA A N D SD
170
your current or future level of professional responsibility.
SA A N D SD
2.36 It is important to your perception of project success that working on a project is a pleasant
experience.
SA A N D SD
2.37 …developers’ stress level is kept at a tolerable level while working on a project.
SA A N D SD
2.38 It is important to your perception of project success that you are able to use new technical
tools while working on a project.
SA A N D SD
Team Factors:
2.39 It is important to your perception of project success that you enjoy working with the other
members of the development team.
SA A N D SD
2.40 It is important to your perception of project success that the development team is
sufficiently skilled.
SA A N D SD
2.41 It is important to your perception of project success that the development team is small (2-5
people).
SA A N D SD
2.42 It is important to your perception of project success that members of the development team
are co-located (worked in close proximity to each other).
SA A N D SD
2.43 It is important to your perception of project success that the rewards (monetary and/or nonmonetary) of the team members are under the control of the project manager.
SA A N D SD
2.44 It is important to your perception of project success that the development team is included
in the decision making process (example, estimation and scheduling).
SA A N D SD
2.45 It is important to your perception of project success that development staff turnover is low
during the development of a project.
SA A N D SD
Interpersonal Relations Factors:
your interpersonal relationships with your peers.
SA A N D SD
your interpersonal relationships with your manager(s).
SA A N D SD
2.48 It is important to your perception of project success that you enjoy working with the
manager(s) of the development team.
SA A N D SD
your interpersonal relationships with your subordinate(s).
171
SA A N D SD Not applicable
Other Project Factors:
2.50 It is important to your perception of project success that a project finishes within budget.
SA A N D SD
2.51 It is important to your perception of project success that you experience good overall
working conditions (office space, equipment) while working on a project.
SA A N D SD
2.52 It is important to your perception of project success that company policies and
administration have a positive influence while you work on a project.
SA A N D SD
2.53 It is important to your perception of project success that a defined development or
maintenance methodology (your organization’s own or another) is used in the development
of a project.
SA A N D SD
2.54 It is important to your perception of project success that a project’s schedule was estimated
accurately.
SA A N D SD
2.55 What else is important to your perception of project success that was not included in this
survey?
172
Appendix E: Pilot Study #1: Software Practitioner’s Success Factors - Descriptive
Statistics
2.01 …the project manager provides developers with feedback on their work on the project.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
4.17
0.34
4.50
5.00
1.19
1.42
4.00
1.00
5.00
Frequency Distribution:
60%
50.00%
50%
40%
33.33%
30%
20%
10%
8.33%
8.33%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
2.02 …a project has good management practices (change management, peer review, sufficient
testing, etc.).
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
4.50
0.23
5.00
5.00
0.80
0.64
2.00
3.00
5.00
66.67%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
16.67%
16.67%
3
4
10%
0.00%
0.00%
1 (D)
2
0%
5 (A)
2.03 …the project is well planned.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
4.67
0.19
5.00
5.00
0.65
0.42
2.00
3.00
5.00
75.00%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
16.67%
20%
10%
8.33%
0.00%
0.00%
1 (D)
2
0%
3
4
5 (A)
173
2.04 …developers provide the project manager with feedback on developer’s work on the
project.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
4.33
0.33
5.00
5.00
1.15
1.33
4.00
1.00
5.00
70%
58.33%
60%
50%
40%
33.33%
30%
20%
10%
8.33%
0.00%
0.00%
2
3
0%
1 (D)
4
5 (A)
2.05 …there is a project plan.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
4.75
0.13
5.00
5.00
0.45
0.20
1.00
4.00
5.00
75.00%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
25.00%
30%
20%
10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1 (D)
2
3
0%
4
5 (A)
2.06 …there is accurate estimation of the time necessary for you to complete your work and
responsibilities.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
2
3.00
1.00
3.00
2.00
1.41
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
60%
50.00%
50.00%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
174
2.08 …the development team is able to negotiate changes in necessary resources (time, money
and/or personnel).
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
2
4.00
0.00
4.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
4.00
120%
100.00%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1 (D)
2
3
0.00%
0%
4
5 (A)
2.09 …customer/users are involved in the decision making process (regarding estimating and
scheduling).
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
3.50
0.36
3.50
3.00
1.24
1.55
4.00
1.00
5.00
33.33%
35%
30%
25.00%
25.00%
4
5 (A)
25%
20%
15%
10%
8.33%
8.33%
1 (D)
2
5%
0%
2.10
3
…there is a high level of level of involvement of the customer/users
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
4.00
0.15
4.00
4.00
0.98
0.95
4.00
1.00
5.00
46.51%
50%
45%
40%
32.56%
35%
30%
25%
20%
11.63%
15%
6.98%
10%
5%
2.33%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
175
2.11 …customers find the finished product easy to use.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
4.17
0.27
4.00
4.00
0.94
0.88
3.00
2.00
5.00
45%
41.67%
41.67%
4
5 (A)
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
8.33%
8.33%
2
3
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2.12 …the finished product helps obtain additional development work from the customer.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
10
4.30
0.33
5.00
5.00
1.06
1.12
3.00
2.00
5.00
70%
60.00%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20.00%
20%
10.00%
10.00%
2
3
10%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
4
5 (A)
2.13 …customer/users have a good relationship (cooperative, responsive, etc.) with developers.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
11
4.00
0.27
4.00
3.00
0.89
0.80
2.00
3.00
5.00
40%
36.36%
36.36%
35%
27.27%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0.00%
0.00%
1 (D)
2
0%
3
4
5 (A)
176
2.14 …customer/users provide feedback to you/the development team.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
4.33
0.28
5.00
5.00
0.98
0.97
3.00
2.00
5.00
70%
58.33%
60%
50%
40%
25.00%
30%
20%
10%
8.33%
8.33%
2
3
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
4
5 (A)
2.15 …a project’s customer/users have realistic expectations.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
4.33
0.26
4.50
5.00
0.89
0.79
3.00
2.00
5.00
60%
50.00%
50%
41.67%
40%
30%
20%
8.33%
10%
0.00%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
2.16 …customer/users are aware of what they need the product to do.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
42
4.31
0.16
5.00
5.00
1.05
1.10
4.00
1.00
5.00
60%
54.76%
50%
35.71%
40%
30%
20%
10%
4.76%
4.76%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
177
2.17
…a project has a well-defined scope and stable requirements.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
3.67
0.38
4.00
5.00
1.30
1.70
4.00
1.00
5.00
33.33%
35%
30%
25.00%
25.00%
3
4
25%
20%
15%
10%
8.33%
8.33%
1 (D)
2
5%
0%
5 (A)
2.17 …requirements can be clarified by a central contact person(s), if necessary
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
4.00
0.39
4.50
5.00
1.35
1.82
4.00
1.00
5.00
60%
50.00%
50%
40%
30%
25.00%
20%
10%
8.33%
8.33%
8.33%
1 (D)
2
3
0%
4
5 (A)
2.18 …requirements are accepted by you/the development team as realistic/achievable.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
4.33
0.36
5.00
5.00
1.23
1.52
4.00
1.00
5.00
66.67%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
16.67%
20%
10%
8.33%
8.33%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
178
2.19 …requirements are clear and understood.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
4.42
0.19
4.50
5.00
0.67
0.45
2.00
3.00
5.00
60%
50.00%
50%
41.67%
40%
30%
20%
8.33%
10%
0.00%
0.00%
1 (D)
2
0%
3
4
5 (A)
2.20 …a project meets all customer/users requirements.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
4.33
0.26
4.50
5.00
0.89
0.79
3.00
2.00
5.00
60%
50.00%
50%
41.67%
40%
30%
20%
8.33%
10%
0.00%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
2.21 …the work you do on a project is in line with your interests as an IT professional.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
39
3.72
0.19
4.00
4.00
1.17
1.37
4.00
1.00
5.00
50%
43.59%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25.64%
25%
20%
15.38%
15%
10%
7.69%
7.69%
1 (D)
2
5%
0%
3
4
5 (A)
179
2.22 …you are provided with enough freedom to work creatively on a project.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
4.00
0.13
4.00
4.00
0.85
0.71
4.00
1.00
5.00
55.81%
60%
50%
40%
25.58%
30%
20%
10%
13.95%
2.33%
2.33%
1 (D)
2
0%
3
4
5 (A)
2.23 …you have a sense of achievement while working on a project.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
4.44
0.08
4.00
4.00
0.50
0.25
1.00
4.00
5.00
55.81%
60%
50%
44.19%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1 (D)
2
3
0%
4
5 (A)
2.24 …a project results in your professional growth.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
4.05
0.14
4.00
4.00
0.90
0.81
4.00
1.00
5.00
46.51%
50%
45%
40%
32.56%
35%
30%
25%
16.28%
20%
15%
10%
5%
2.33%
2.33%
1 (D)
2
0%
3
4
5 (A)
180
2.25 …you find working on a project to be satisfying.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
4.05
0.14
4.00
4.00
0.90
0.81
4.00
1.00
5.00
46.51%
50%
45%
40%
32.56%
35%
30%
25%
16.28%
20%
15%
10%
5%
2.33%
2.33%
1 (D)
2
0%
3
4
5 (A)
2.26 …a project does not interfere with your personal life.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
3.19
0.18
3.00
2.00
1.16
1.35
4.00
1.00
5.00
27.91%
30%
27.91%
23.26%
25%
20%
16.28%
15%
10%
4.65%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
2.27 …a project offers you the opportunity to supervise technical staff.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
3.02
0.17
3.00
3.00
1.10
1.21
4.00
1.00
5.00
37.21%
40%
35%
30%
25%
23.26%
20.93%
20%
15%
10%
9.30%
9.30%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
181
2.28 …a project offers you an opportunity for career advancement.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
3.49
0.16
4.00
3.00
1.08
1.16
4.00
1.00
5.00
32.56%
35%
32.56%
30%
25%
18.60%
20%
15%
11.63%
10%
4.65%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
2.29 …working on a project increases your recognition (by management, peers) as a competent
IT professional.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
3.93
0.15
4.00
4.00
1.01
1.02
4.00
1.00
5.00
45%
39.53%
40%
32.56%
35%
30%
25%
18.60%
20%
15%
6.98%
10%
5%
2.33%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
2.30 …working on a project increases your current or future salary level.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
3.44
0.17
4.00
4.00
1.12
1.25
4.00
1.00
5.00
32.56%
35%
27.91%
30%
25%
18.60%
20%
16.28%
15%
10%
4.65%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
182
2.31 …working on a project improves your level of job security (within the same organization).
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
3.30
0.16
3.00
3.00
1.06
1.12
4.00
1.00
5.00
50%
44.19%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20.93%
20%
15%
10%
16.28%
13.95%
4.65%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
2.32 …working on a project increases your professional status.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
3.44
0.16
3.00
3.00
1.08
1.16
4.00
1.00
5.00
37.21%
40%
35%
27.91%
30%
25%
18.60%
20%
15%
10%
11.63%
4.65%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
2.33 …you learn something new while working on a project.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
3.79
0.15
4.00
4.00
0.97
0.93
4.00
1.00
5.00
37.21%
40%
35%
30.23%
30%
25.58%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
2.33%
4.65%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
183
2.34 …you do a good job (i.e. delivered quality) while working on a project.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
4.53
0.10
5.00
5.00
0.63
0.40
2.00
3.00
5.00
70%
60.47%
60%
50%
40%
32.56%
30%
20%
6.98%
10%
0.00%
0.00%
1 (D)
2
0%
3
4
5 (A)
2.35 …working on a project increases your current or future level of professional responsibility.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
42
3.74
0.15
4.00
4.00
0.99
0.98
4.00
1.00
5.00
38.10%
40%
35%
28.57%
30%
23.81%
25%
20%
15%
7.14%
10%
5%
2.38%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
2.36 …working on a project is a pleasant experience.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
3.58
0.29
4.00
4.00
1.00
0.99
4.00
1.00
5.00
70%
58.33%
60%
50%
40%
25.00%
30%
20%
10%
8.33%
8.33%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
184
2.37 …your stress level is tolerable while working on a project.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
3.50
0.31
3.50
3.00
1.09
1.18
4.00
1.00
5.00
45%
41.67%
40%
33.33%
35%
30%
25%
16.67%
20%
15%
10%
8.33%
5%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
2.38 …you are able to use new technical tools while working on a project.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
3.53
0.16
4.00
4.00
1.05
1.11
4.00
1.00
5.00
40%
32.56%
35%
34.88%
30%
25%
18.60%
20%
15%
10%
9.30%
4.65%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2.39
2
3
4
5 (A)
…you enjoy working with the other members of the development team.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
3.86
0.15
4.00
4.00
1.01
1.03
4.00
1.00
5.00
55.81%
60%
50%
40%
30%
23.26%
20%
10%
4.65%
6.98%
9.30%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
185
2.40 …the development team is sufficiently skilled.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
4.33
0.28
5.00
5.00
0.98
0.97
3.00
2.00
5.00
70%
58.33%
60%
50%
40%
25.00%
30%
20%
10%
8.33%
8.33%
2
3
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
4
5 (A)
2.41 …the development team is small (2-5 people).
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
11
2.36
0.41
3.00
1.00
1.36
1.85
3.00
1.00
4.00
50%
45.45%
45%
40%
35%
27.27%
30%
27.27%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0.00%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
2.42
…members of the development team are co-located (worked in close proximity to each
other).
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
3.92
0.34
4.00
4.00
1.16
1.36
4.00
1.00
5.00
45%
41.67%
40%
33.33%
35%
30%
25%
16.67%
20%
15%
10%
8.33%
5%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
186
2.43 …the rewards (monetary/non-monetary) of the team members are under the project
manager’s control.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
11
2.91
0.44
3.00
4.00
1.45
2.10
4.00
1.00
5.00
40%
36.36%
35%
30%
27.27%
25%
18.18%
20%
15%
9.09%
10%
9.09%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
2.44 …the development team is included in the decision making process (example, estimation
and scheduling).
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
3.58
0.38
4.00
4.00
1.31
1.72
4.00
1.00
5.00
45%
41.67%
40%
35%
30%
25.00%
25%
16.67%
20%
15%
10%
8.33%
8.33%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2.45
2
3
4
5 (A)
…turnover within the development team is low during the development of a project
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
4.00
0.41
5.00
5.00
1.41
2.00
4.00
1.00
5.00
70%
58.33%
60%
50%
40%
30%
16.67%
20%
10%
8.33%
8.33%
1 (D)
2
8.33%
0%
3
4
5 (A)
187
2.46
…working on a project increases your interpersonal relationships with your peers.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
41
3.12
0.16
3.00
3.00
1.05
1.11
4.00
1.00
5.00
45%
41.46%
40%
35%
30%
24.39%
25%
17.07%
20%
15%
10%
9.76%
7.32%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
2.47 …working on a project increases your interpersonal relationships with your manager(s).
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
42
3.43
0.15
3.00
3.00
0.97
0.93
4.00
1.00
5.00
45%
40.48%
40%
35.71%
35%
30%
25%
20%
11.90%
15%
10%
4.76%
7.14%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2.48
2
3
4
5 (A)
…you enjoy working with the manager(s) of the development team.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
41
3.66
0.15
4.00
4.00
0.94
0.88
4.00
1.00
5.00
60%
51.22%
50%
40%
30%
21.95%
20%
14.63%
9.76%
10%
2.44%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
188
2.49 …working on a project increases your interpersonal relationships with your subordinate(s).
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
42
3.33
0.13
3.00
3.00
0.85
0.72
4.00
1.00
5.00
47.62%
50%
45%
40%
33.33%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
9.52%
7.14%
10%
5%
2.38%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
2.50 …a project finishes within budget.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
3.60
0.16
4.00
4.00
1.07
1.15
4.00
1.00
5.00
37.21%
40%
35%
27.91%
30%
25%
20.93%
20%
15%
10%
9.30%
4.65%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
2.51 …you experience good overall working conditions (office space, equipment) while working
on a project.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
3.86
0.14
4.00
4.00
0.94
0.88
4.00
1.00
5.00
60%
51.16%
50%
40%
30%
23.26%
16.28%
20%
10%
6.98%
2.33%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
189
2.52 …company policies and administration have a positive influence while you work on a
project.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
42
3.74
0.15
4.00
4.00
0.96
0.93
4.00
1.00
5.00
42.86%
45%
40%
35%
30%
26.19%
25%
21.43%
20%
15%
7.14%
10%
5%
2.38%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
2.53 …a defined development/maintenance methodology (your organization’s own or another) is
used.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
12
3.92
0.34
4.00
4.00
1.16
1.36
4.00
1.00
5.00
45%
41.67%
40%
33.33%
35%
30%
25%
16.67%
20%
15%
10%
8.33%
5%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
2.54 …a project finishes on schedule (that time estimation was accurate).
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
3.84
0.14
4.00
4.00
0.95
0.90
4.00
1.00
5.00
60%
48.84%
50%
40%
30%
23.26%
18.60%
20%
10%
6.98%
2.33%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
190
Appendix F: Interviews With Software Practitioners
The following are the results from semi-structured interviews conducted with fifteen (15)
software practitioners in Spring 2001.
Think of projects that YOU (not management, customers or users) considered to be a success.
Why do you consider it to be successful?
“This is actually difficult for me to answer, because to me a project is a success if the users needs
(as stated BEFORE completion) are met. Well, I guess that does fit in. It's not the users actually
being happy with it, although that is icing on the cake, but rather if I can complete MY
requirements in the manner I set out to in the beginning or at a significantly early juncture of the
whole project.”
“A successful project would be:
Request- Plan of attack- Creation of Job- Re-evaluation - Tweaking - turning it over. If these can
be completed with minimal back tracking I consider it a success.”
“The most successful project that I have worked on so far has been the movement of two posts to
different locations. Posts are locations where people stand and trade all day long. They usually
contain about 40 computers plus printers, trade phones (special phones), and other computer
equipment. The project was well planned out, with almost everything taken care of in advance to
avoid as many problems as possible on the day of the actual move. When the day came,
everything went pretty smoothly and the job was completed in a timely manner with very few
problems on the next day. Users whose equipment had to be moved were very happy and
satisfied.”
“These projects were well planned and considered all components of the development life cycle.
Consideration was given to beyond-development maintenance and support activities. An
acceptable agreed-upon change control process was put in place at the beginning of the project.
The project was staffed with a majority of full-time (on the project) individuals whose salary and
non-monetary rewards were under the control of the project manager. Stakeholders that were not
on the project team were include in the decision making process. The goals and objectives of the
project were realistic and achievable. The requirements were clear and concise, and accepted by
the project team as being realistic and achievable, or agreed that they were fuzzy and an accepted
mechanism was in place to address that issue.”
“I have felt that projects I've been on that were successful because we delivered the software
somewhat on time, did a quality job, and delivered useful software to the client. These projects
have generally been with a small team of people (2-5) that have all been enthusiastic about doing
a good job and learning as much as they could along the way. The leaders on theses projects have
been demanding but fair. Surprisingly, most of these project's design/development time frames
have been very short and had very aggressive delivery schedules.”
“This was a multi-work year cross-departmental project:
1. Management backing and understanding.
2 User involvement -- making it their project as much as possible.
3. Structured methodology with plenty of places to kill a project e.g. feasibility study (at the end
of which, review with users: kill or continue) with projections of elapsed and work hours time
requirements and cost of remaining phases); analysis (at the end of which, review with users:
191
kill or continue), including projections of elapsed and workhours time requirements and cost
of remaining phases; programming (at the end of which, review with users: kill or continue),
including projections of elapsed and workhours time requirements and cost of remaining
phases:
• implementation
•
post project audit with users
4. Good communication from the IT team with the users”
•
“When the project ended up solving at least a part of the problem for which the project was
created.
•
When the project represented personally a professional growth.
•
When the project demonstrated successfully the use of new technology/tools/methodologies.
•
In general, when I look back and feel that working on the project was overall a pleasant
experience.”
•
“They worked as required.
•
They were delivered on time
•
The costs were controlled, overruns were justified
•
People liked using the product”
Paraphrased: Had project plan, well-defined; knew the dependencies between her work and others
and knew when things needed to be done.
• Requirements were well-defined, when there was the inevidiable question about
requirements, you knew there was a central person to ask for clarification, a person with the
appropriate expertise.
•
Infrastructure in place: templates (programming standards and guidelines).
•
Technical lead person she could go to that would coordinate design and programming.
•
Co-located: team worked in close proximity to each other; 4 people in a “bullpen” together;
great for asking each other questions and preventing duplication of effort.
•
A lot of peer reviews, formal and informal.
•
Requirements and code were all baselined with change management in place, so if there was
a proposed change, the necessary time to make the change was evaluated, as was effort and
the impact on size and complexity and what else needs to change as result (documentation,
coding), and budget, specifically in regard to consulting work, where the client may refuse to
pay if change(s) resulted in too much excessive cost is added. Much of the above was tied to
work for a regulated industry or work contracted by the Federal government; both cases, the
developing organization was subject to some type of audit procedure; interviewee had
experience with FDA and a pharmaceutical firm, and Federal government contracted work;
greatly influenced structured approach to software development.
192
Other comments:
• “They met user requirements, and they were used a long time by many people, and they
required very few fixes after implementation.”
•
“A successful project is one that was completed and handed off to the user.”
•
“Finished in reasonable time, learned new techniques, users happy with the application.”
•
“I completed my assignments accurately.”
•
“Sufficient SKILLED Techies required to complete the project. Sufficient funds and time.”
•
Think of projects that YOU (not management, customers or users) considered to be a failure.
Why do you consider it to be a failure?
•
“Hmmm there are two types of failure here (to me) project failure and personal failure. If the
initial stages of Request and Plan aren't done correctly, the rest cannot succeeded. Personal
failure is generally underestimating a component's difficulty or not taking into account some
factors that will change my ability to complete my initial promises...”
•
“We had a software called EOT implemented at our site. I feel it was a complete failure
because end users were constantly complaining about the performance of the PC’s after the
software was installed. Then many bugs were found when software was being used in
production. There were times when we had to roll back to the previous version of the
software because bugs that were found could not be fixed right away and were causing major
problem to the overall system. The end result was that other users were afraid to make a
needed change towards EOT even though bugs were ironed out. It took a long time to win
their confidence back.”
•
•
“These projects were not well planned and were managed only to achieve success on the
next impending milestone. Little consideration was given to outlying milestones and no
consideration was given to anything beyond the end-of-the-year. Changes to
requirements were not managed well and rarely documented. Changes made by different
team member often conflicted with each other or cause severe impacts downstream,
making the results of a change more costly and less predictable. Many individuals were
assigned to the project mainly because they were doing nothing and needed to be placed
in a charging environment for a temporary period of time. Most worked part-time on the
project, and their salaries and non-monetary rewards were not under the control of the
project manager. Usually they were pulled off the project prematurely. The cost to bring
these individuals up to speed far exceeded their productivity. Stakeholders were not
included in the decision making process. The goals and objectives of the project were not
realistic and not achievable within the time and budget allotted. The requirements were
often not clear and dictated to the project manager and the project team with little ability
to negotiate for changes, more budget or a more realistic development schedule.”
“I have considered projects failures for multiple reasons:
1. I perceived or deduced that the software was not really going to be useful to the
customer. They were getting it because a superior organization decided that they would
get it and even partially designed it for them.
2. The team has not worked closely together and was never able to integrate the various
pieces of software well. Usually this was due to super egos on the team that thought they
were better than they actually were.
193
3. The team leader has been too weak or too confrontational, not able to communicate with
customers and/or employees. If they come on too strong they may frighten off key
people. If they are too weak they unable to resolve conflicts in a timely manner and either
schedule or software quality slips.”
•
“Users did not keep up the data entry into the application after completed. Claimed to be ‘too
busy’ to enter information into system. Users were very pleased with interface, just didn’t
want to be bothered with data entry.”
•
“No project manager.
•
No one coordinating activities.
•
Clients/management put unrealistic time pressure on development team.
•
No programming template, so even with peer reviews, difficult to evaluate coding.
•
“Essentially no testing, or very little [that was] pushed off to the very end of the project”.
•
Lack of technical training; being asked to code under pressure with using a language the
developer never used prior to this project.
•
“Lack of requirements”, lack of spending time trying to define what it is that needs to be
done; clients don’t really what they need or requirements analysis in general; don’t know
their own business or data.
•
No change management; another developer naively agree to client request to add three new
buttons that would introduce additional variables into a report-writing programming; endresult was with 2 weeks remaining until product delivery, that the 16 reports that had
previously been planned for became 54. Interviewee suggested that with change management
in place, this would have not happened. Interviewee mentioned that they team was able to
complete the 54 reports within the allotted time.”
•
“Did not work.
•
Were late and inexplicably over budget.
•
Had poor documentation and support.
•
Never got completed.”
•
“When the final product quality is poor
•
When the project is abandoned before completion
•
When the final product don’t satisfy at least some of the user needs initially stated as
requirements
•
When the product is never put into production
•
When I feel the project was personally a waste of time regarding my professional growth
•
When I look back and feel that working on the project was overall a bad experience.”
•
“A well defined project scope.
•
Adequate access to the end users.
194
•
Domain knowledge of the development staff.
•
Management support.”
•
“Lack of user cooperation.
•
Inadequate, or lack of requirements specifications.
•
Scope creep.
•
Poor or missing project management”
Other comments:
• “Failed projects are those that are not completed or those that are completed but never used
by the customer.”
•
“Finished product was harder to use and had less functionality than the system that was
replaced.
•
“Performance speed was unacceptable.”
•
“Users did not know what they wanted and would not take the time to figure it out.”
•
“Insufficient skilled techies, development tools. Shortchanged design phase.”
195
Appendix G: Proposed Causal Model From Procaccino, et al [2002a]
* Dependent/independent variables.
Dashed paths indicate non-significant path coefficients as determined through regressing each dependent
variable with its associated independent variables.
For reference purposes, variables used in the above model include the following:
Q1.3 Did this [sponsor] commitment last right through the project?
Q2.1 What was the level of involvement of customer/users?
Q2.2 Did the involved customer/users stay right through the project?
Q2.3 What level of confidence did customer/user have in project manager/team members?
Q2.4 Were the customer/users involved in making schedule estimates?
Q2.6 Did the customers/users have realistic expectations?
Q2.7 Did you run into problems due to the large number of customers/users involved?
Q3.1 Were requirements gathered by using a particular method?
Q3.2b If requirements were not complete and accurate at the start of the project, were they completed
adequately?
Q3.3 Was the scope of the project well defined?
Q3.5 Did the customer/users make adequate time available for requirements gathering?
Q3.6 Was there a single central repository for the requirements?
Q3.7 Did the requirements result in well-defined software deliverables?
DSUCCESS: Developer’s perception of project success.
196
Appendix H: Proposed Causal Model From Procaccino, et al [2002b]
For reference purposes, variables used in Procaccino, et al [2002b] model include the following:
Q1.2 Did the project start with a committed sponsor (or champion)? [Yes, No]
Q1.3 Did this commitment last right through the project? [Yes, No, No commitment]
Q1.4 Was the sponsor involved in project decisions? [Yes, No, No sponsor]
Q1.5 Were the other stakeholders committed and involved? [Yes, No]
Q2.1 What was the level of involvement of the customers/users? [None, Little, Some, Reasonable, High]
(This question referred to overall involvement, not necessarily requirements.)
Q2.2 Did the involved customers/users stay right through the project? [Yes, No, No involved
customer/users]
Q2.3 What level of confidence did the customer/user have in the project manager/team members? [Very
low, Low, Average, High, Very high]
Q3.2a Were the requirements complete and accurate (at the beginning)? [Yes, No]
Q3.3 Was the scope of the project well-defined? [Yes, No]
Q3.4 Did the scope change during the project? [Yes, No]
Q3.5 Did the customers/users make adequate time available for requirements gathering? [Yes, No]
Q3.7 Did the requirements result in well-defined software deliverables? [Yes, No]
DSUCCESS: Developer’s perception of project success.
197
Survey Questions
Management Support:
1.1 Was the project manager given full authority to manage the project? (Yes/No)
1.2 Did the project start with a committed sponsor (or champion)? (Yes/No)
1.3 Did this commitment last right through the project? (Yes/No)
1.4 Was the sponsor involved in project decisions? (Yes/No/No Sponsor)
1.5 Were the other stakeholders committed and involved? (Yes/No)
1.6 Were there any changes to the infrastructure supporting the project? (Yes/No)
1.7a Did senior management impact the project in any other way? (Yes/No)
1.7b If yes, please explain.
Customer/User:
2.1 What was the level of involvement of the customers/users?
(None/Little/Some/Reasonable level/High involvement)
2.2 Did the involved customers/users stay right through the project?
(Yes/No/No involved customers/users)
2.3 What level of confidence did the customer/user have in the project manager/team
members?
(Very low/Low/Average/High/Very high)
2.4 Were the customers/users involved in making schedule estimates? (Yes/No)
2.5 What level of customer/user staff turnover did you have to contend with?
(None/Little/Some/High/Very high)
2.6 Did the customers/users have realistic expectations? (Yes/No/Do not know)
2.7 Did you run into problems due to the large number of customers/users involved?
(Yes/No/No large number of customers/users)
Requirements:
3.1a Were requirements gathered by using a particular method? (Yes/No)
3.1b If yes, please explain what the method was.
3.2a Were the requirements complete and accurate? (Yes/No)
3.2b If they were not were the requirements completed adequately? (Yes/No)
3.2c If they were completed, please explain how this was done.
3.3 Was the scope of the project well-defined? (Yes/No)
3.4 Did the scope change during the project? (Yes/No)
3.5 Did the customers/users make adequate time available for requirements gathering?
(Yes/No)
3.6 Was there a single central repository for the requirements? (Yes/No)
3.7 Did the requirements result in well-defined software deliverables? (Yes/No)
3.8 Did the size of project negatively impact on requirements elicitation? (Yes/No)
198
Appendix I: Pilot Study #2: Other Project Variables - Survey Instrument
The following represent survey variables used in various pilot studies between August 2001
through January 2002.
1. Please indicate your gender:
Male Female
2. Please indicate your age range (in years).
<20 years
20-29 years
30-39 years
40-49 years
50-59 years
60+ years
3. Please indicate your highest completed level of education:
Some high school
High school graduate (or equivalent)
Some college, no degree
Associate degree (2-year)
Bachelor degree (4-year)
Graduate degree
Doctorate (PhD)
Major:
Major(s):
Major/Concentration:
4. How many years have you been a software practitioner?
years
5. What was your responsibility(s) on this project? (Check all that apply)
[ ] Business Analyst
[ ] Database Administrator
[ ] Programming Analyst
[ ] Systems Analyst
[ ] Change Control Officer
[ ] Network Engineer
[ ] Project Manager/Leader
[ ] Team Leader
[ ] Database Developer
[ ] Programmer
[ ] Senior Manager
[ ] Other (please specify):
6. Did you have a financial interest, other than earning a paycheck, (i.e. ownership or shares in
the company) in the organization that developed this project?
Yes
No
7. What was the nature of this project?
Development (of a new system)
Maintenance (of an existing system)
Enhancements (adding functionality to existing system)
8. For whom was this project intended?
In-house
Customer outside of your organization
Both in-house and outside customer
199
9. For which entity was this project developed?
Business (for-profit)
Non-profit organization
Military
Government agency
Other (please specify):
10. What type of system was being developed, maintained or enhanced?
E-commerce
Embedded
Data communications
Management information system/business application
Scientific
Systems software
Don’t know
11. Was the project:
Completed
Completed with reduced scope
Abandoned
Other (please explain):
12. How many IT people from the previous question (Q2.03) were full-time employees?
______ people
Don’t know
13. How long (calendar time) did this project take to completion (or abandonment)?
______ years and ______months Don’t know
14. This project was completed on time.
(Agree 5 4 3 2 1 Disagree) Not applicable Don’t know
15. This project was completed within budget.
16. How did the functional scope change from requirements gathering through to
Got much smaller
Got somewhat smaller
Did not change
Got somewhat larger
Got much larger
Don’t know
17. Clear agreement on requirements was reached between customer/users and the dev. team:
At the beginning of the project
During 1st quarter of the project
During 2nd quarter of the project
During 3rd quarter of the project
During 4th quarter of the project
Agreement was never reached
Don’t know
18. Requirements of customer/users were met.
200
19. The project first acquired a sponsor/champion:
Committed sponsor/champion never acquired
Not applicable
Don’t know
20. There was an sponsor/champion throughout this project (not necessarily the same person).
21. The project sponsor/champion was involved in project decisions.
22. The project first acquired a project manager:
Project manager never acquired
Not applicable
Don’t know
23. There was a project manager(s) throughout this project (not necessarily the same person).
24. The project manager(s) was given full authority to manage the product.
25. The project manager changed during the development process.
26. The project manager(s) was knowledgeable/experienced overall in the application area.
27. The project manager(s) had support from senior management.
28. The development team clearly understood how the team's performance was to be evaluated.
29. Overall, senior management supported the development team.
30. Overall, the project manager(s) supported the development team.
31. The project manager(s) participated in the decision-making process (including scheduling).
32. There was an integrated project plan for this project.
201
33. Schedule estimates were unrealistic.
34. There were good management practices (change management, peer review, sufficient testing,
etc.).
35. Overall, this project was well planned (people, available technology, scheduling, etc).
36. An appropriate development methodology/lifecycle model was applied to this project.
37. The level of customer/users involvement during the development process was high.
38. Overall, customer/users had a high level of confidence in the project manager/development
team.
39. The development staff had to contend with a low level of customer/user staff turnover.
40. Involved customers/users stayed throughout the project.
41. Customer/users participated in making schedule estimates.
42. Customers/users had unrealistic scheduling expectations.
43. The development team had problems due to too many customers/users participating in
decision-making.
44. Customer/users provided feedback to the development team.
45. Customer/users understood the scope of the functionality to be delivered by the completed
project.
202
46. There was adequate communication between the project manager/team and customer/users.
47. Customers/users made adequate time available for requirements gathering.
48. How did the project scope change from requirements gathering through to project
completion?
Got much smaller
Did not change
Got somewhat larger
Got much larger
Not applicable
49. Clear agreement on requirements was reached between customer/users and developers:
Agreement was never reached
Not applicable
Don’t know
50. Requirements were not accepted by the development team as realistic/achievable.
51. The scope of the project’s scope/functionality was well-defined and stable.
52. Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables (forms, reports,
utilities, etc).
53. The size of the project negatively impacted the requirements elicitation.
54. The development team understood what the customer/users wanted based on the requirements
gathered.
55. The project manager(s) understood what the customer/users wanted based on the
requirements gathered.
56. The scope of the project’s scope/functionality was well-defined and stable.
57. Requirements of customer/users were met.
58. Requirements were gathered using a particular requirements gathering methodology.
203
59. Research suggests software practitioners often define a successful development project as one
in which:
•
•
•
•
they had a sense of achievement,
they believed they did a good job (delivered quality),
requirements were accepted by the development team as realistic and achievable, and,
the project had a project plan and was well planned overall.
Overall, how well do you think this project meet the above listed criteria?
(Very successfully 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsuccessfully)
204
Appendix J: Pilot Study #2: Other Project Variables – Descriptive Statistics
1. Gender:
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
47
7000%
61.70
6000%
5000%
38.30
4000%
3000%
2000%
1000%
0%
F Female
M Male
2. Age range.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
47
3500%
29.79
29.79
3000%
2500%
21.28
2000%
17.02
1500%
1000%
500%
2.13
0%
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
3. Highest completed level of education:
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
47
205
4. How long have you been involved with IT?
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
41
10.16
1.36
6.00
4.00
8.73
76.21
36.00
1.00
37.00
5. What was your primary relationship to this project? (not necessarily your current job)
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
47
6. Did you have a financial interest, other than earning a pay check, in the organization that
developed this project?
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
35
206
7. What was the nature of this project?
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
47
80%
0.70
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
0.19
20%
0.11
10%
0%
Development
Enhancements
Maintenance
8. For whom was this project intended?
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
47
0.47
50%
45%
40%
0.32
35%
30%
0.21
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
In-house and outside
customer
Outside customer
In-house
9. For which entity was this project developed?
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
47
70%
0.62
60%
50%
40%
30%
0.17
20%
0.13
0.06
10%
0.02
0%
Business
Gov't Agency
Military
Non-Profit
Other
207
10. What type of system was being developed, maintained or enhanced?
47
70%
0.60
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0.06
0.02
0.15
0.09
O
th
er
IS
M
EC
om
m
er
ce
Em
be
dd
ed
C
om
m
un
ic
at
io
ns
0%
D
at
a
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
11. Was the project [completed, completed with reduced scope, abandoned, other]:
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
47
120%
100.00%
100%
80%
68.09%
60%
40%
20%
17.02%
4.26%
10.64%
0%
Abandoned
Completed
Completed
(Reduced
Scope)
Other
Total
12. At the time of this project, how many fulltime-equivalent IT personnel were employed at
your firm?
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
45
4,123.87
3,776.88
20.00
10.00
25,336.07
641,916,673.89
169,998.00
2.00
170,000.00
208
13. How long (calendar time) did this project take to completion or abandonment?
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
44
28.85
4.63
16.00
12.00
30.71
943.08
99.00
1.00
100.00
14. This project was completed on time.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
33
3.58
0.27
4.00
5.00
1.54
2.38
4.00
1.00
5.00
45%
39.39%
40%
35%
30%
24.24%
25%
20%
18.18%
15%
10%
9.09%
9.09%
2
3
5%
0%
1 (D)
4
5 (A)
15. This project was completed within budget.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
27
3.48
0.27
4.00
5.00
1.40
1.95
4.00
1.00
5.00
33.33%
35%
30%
25%
22.22%
18.52%
20%
14.81%
15%
11.11%
10%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
209
16. How did the project scope change from requirements gathering through to project
completion?
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
47
32.61%
35%
30%
26.09%
25%
20%
15%
13.04%
13.04%
10%
6.52%
5%
0%
DNC
GML
GMS
GSL
GSS
17. Clear agreement on requirements was reached between customer/users and developers:
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
47
25%
20%
21.74%
17.39%
15%
13.04%
8.70%
10%
5%
2.17%
0%
ABP
ANR
AWN
D1Q
D2Q
18. This project met customer/user requirements.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
4.09
0.14
4.00
4.00
0.95
0.90
4.00
1.00
5.00
50%
44.19%
45%
37.21%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
11.63%
15%
10%
5%
2.33%
4.65%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
210
19. The project first acquired a sponsor/champion
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
47
80%
69.44%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
5.56%
10%
2.78%
5.56%
5.56%
4
5 (A)
0%
1 (D)
2
3
20. There was a sponsor/champion throughout project
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
47
120%
100.00%
100%
80%
69.44%
60%
40%
19.44%
20%
5.56%
5.56%
0%
DK
N
NA
Y
Total
21. Project sponsor/champion was involved in project decisions.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
35
3.46
0.24
4.00
4.00
1.40
1.96
4.00
1.00
5.00
35%
31.43%
28.57%
30%
25%
20.00%
20%
15%
11.43%
8.57%
10%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
211
22. Project first acquired project manager.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
47
120%
100.00%
100%
75.68%
80%
60%
40%
16.22%
20%
5.41%
2.70%
D2Q
NA
0%
ABP
PWN
Total
23. There was a project manager(s) throughout this project
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
47
120%
100.00%
100%
75.56%
80%
60%
40%
20.00%
20%
2.22%
2.22%
0%
DK
N
NA
Y
Total
24. Project manager was given full authority.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
30
3.87
0.22
4.00
5.00
1.22
1.50
4.00
1.00
5.00
40%
36.67%
33.33%
35%
30%
25%
20.00%
20%
15%
10.00%
10%
5%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
212
25. Project manager changed during the development process.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
30
2.13
0.31
1.00
1.00
1.70
2.88
4.00
1.00
5.00
70%
66.67%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20.00%
20%
10%
6.67%
6.67%
3
4
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2
5 (A)
26. Project manager was knowledgeable and experienced.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
31
3.81
0.21
4.00
5.00
1.19
1.43
4.00
1.00
5.00
45%
38.71%
40%
35%
30%
25%
22.58%
22.58%
3
4
20%
12.90%
15%
10%
5%
3.23%
0%
1 (D)
2
5 (A)
27. Project manager had support from senior management.
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
30
3.87
0.22
4.00
5.00
1.20
1.43
4.00
1.00
5.00
40%
36.67%
33.33%
35%
30%
25%
20%
16.67%
15%
10%
6.67%
6.67%
1 (D)
2
5%
0%
3
4
5 (A)
213
28. Development team clearly understood how team's performance
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
32
3.09
0.25
3.00
3.00
1.42
2.02
4.00
1.00
5.00
30%
25.00%
25%
20%
21.88%
18.75%
18.75%
15.63%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
29. Senior management provided support to development team
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
31
3.39
0.23
4.00
4.00
1.28
1.65
4.00
1.00
5.00
35%
29.03%
30%
22.58%
25%
20%
22.58%
16.13%
15%
9.68%
10%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
30. Project manager supported development team
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
39
4.28
0.14
4.00
5.00
0.89
0.79
3.00
2.00
5.00
60%
48.72%
50%
38.46%
40%
30%
20%
7.69%
10%
5.13%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
214
31. Project manager was involved in decision making process
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
39
4.28
0.14
4.00
5.00
0.86
0.73
3.00
2.00
5.00
60%
48.72%
50%
35.90%
40%
30%
20%
10.26%
10%
5.13%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
32. There was integrated project plan
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
40
3.60
0.22
4.00
5.00
1.37
1.89
4.00
1.00
5.00
40%
35.00%
35%
30%
25%
22.50%
22.50%
3
4
20%
15%
12.50%
7.50%
10%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
5 (A)
33. Schedule estimates were unrealistic
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
32
2.88
0.26
3.00
1.00
1.48
2.18
4.00
1.00
5.00
30%
25.00%
25%
20%
18.75%
18.75%
18.75%
18.75%
2
3
4
5 (A)
15%
10%
5%
0%
1 (D)
215
34. There were good management practices
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
3.30
0.21
4.00
4.00
1.39
1.93
4.00
1.00
5.00
35%
30.23%
30%
23.26%
25%
18.60%
20%
15%
13.95%
13.95%
10%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
35. Project was well planned
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
9
3.22
0.36
3.00
3.00
1.09
1.19
4.00
1.00
5.00
55.56%
60%
50%
40%
30%
22.22%
20%
11.11%
11.11%
10%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
36. Appropriate development methodology was applied
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
29
3.10
0.26
3.00
3.00
1.42
2.02
4.00
1.00
5.00
30%
27.59%
25%
20.69%
20.69%
20.69%
4
5 (A)
20%
15%
10.34%
10%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
216
37. Level of customer/user involvement during development process was high
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
40
3.63
0.20
4.00
5.00
1.29
1.68
4.00
1.00
5.00
32.50%
35%
27.50%
30%
25%
17.50%
20%
15.00%
15%
10%
7.50%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
38. Confidence level of customer/user in project manager/team was high
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
39
3.49
0.20
4.00
3.00
1.25
1.57
4.00
1.00
5.00
35%
30.77%
30%
25.64%
25.64%
4
5 (A)
25%
20%
15%
10.26%
7.69%
10%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
39. Development team dealt with low level of customer/user staff turnover
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
37
3.54
0.25
4.00
5.00
1.52
2.31
4.00
1.00
5.00
37.84%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
21.62%
18.92%
16.22%
15%
10%
5.41%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
217
40. Involved customer/user stayed throughout project
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
40
3.68
0.21
4.00
5.00
1.31
1.71
4.00
1.00
5.00
32.50%
35%
30.00%
30%
22.50%
25%
20%
15%
12.50%
10%
2.50%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
41. Customer/user were involved in making schedule estimates
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
29
2.17
0.25
2.00
1.00
1.34
1.79
4.00
1.00
5.00
60%
50%
48.28%
40%
30%
24.14%
20%
10.34%
10.34%
10%
6.90%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
42. Customer/user did not have realistic expectations
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
35
2.97
0.28
3.00
1.00
1.67
2.79
4.00
1.00
5.00
40%
35%
34.29%
28.57%
30%
25%
17.14%
20%
14.29%
15%
10%
5.71%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
218
43. Developers had problems due to large number of customer/user
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
36
1.89
0.21
1.00
1.00
1.28
1.64
4.00
1.00
5.00
70%
61.11%
60%
50%
40%
30%
16.67%
20%
8.33%
10%
8.33%
5.56%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
44. Customer/user provided feedback to developers
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
39
3.74
0.19
4.00
4.00
1.19
1.41
4.00
1.00
5.00
40%
35.90%
35%
30.77%
30%
25%
20%
15.38%
12.82%
15%
10%
5.13%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
45. Customer/user understood scope of functionality to be delivered
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
44
3.39
0.18
3.00
3.00
1.22
1.50
4.00
1.00
5.00
30%
27.27%
25.00%
22.73%
25%
18.18%
20%
15%
10%
6.82%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
219
46. There was adequate communication between project manager/team and customer/user
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
9.00
4.11
0.35
4.00
5.00
1.05
1.11
3.00
2.00
5.00
50%
44.44%
45%
40%
33.33%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
11.11%
11.11%
2
3
10%
5%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
4
5 (A)
47. Customer/user made adequate time available for requirements gathering
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
36
3.19
0.21
3.00
3.00
1.28
1.65
4.00
1.00
5.00
27.78%
30%
25%
22.22%
19.44%
20%
15%
19.44%
11.11%
10%
5%
0%
1 (D)
48. How did functional
completion/abandonment
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
scope
change
2
from
3
4
requirements
5 (A)
gathering
47
32.61%
35%
30%
26.09%
25%
20%
15%
13.04%
13.04%
10%
6.52%
5%
0%
DNC
GML
GMS
GSL
GSS
through
220
49. Clear agreement on requirements was reached between customer/user and developers
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
47
25%
20%
21.74%
17.39%
15%
13.04%
8.70%
10%
5%
2.17%
0%
ABP
ANR
AWN
D1Q
D2Q
50. Requirements were not accepted by development team as realistic/achievable
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
40
2.23
0.20
2.00
1.00
1.29
1.67
4.00
1.00
5.00
45%
42.50%
40%
35%
30%
25%
17.50%
20%
20.00%
15.00%
15%
10%
5.00%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
51. Scope of project functionality was well defined
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
46
3.24
0.19
3.00
3.00
1.29
1.65
4.00
1.00
5.00
35%
30.43%
30%
23.91%
25%
19.57%
20%
15%
13.04%
13.04%
1 (D)
2
10%
5%
0%
3
4
5 (A)
221
52. Requirements resulted in well-defined software deliverables
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
3.51
0.17
4.00
4.00
1.12
1.26
4.00
1.00
5.00
40%
34.88%
35%
30%
25%
20.93%
20.93%
2
3
20.93%
20%
15%
10%
5%
2.33%
0%
1 (D)
4
5 (A)
53. Size of project negatively impacted requirements elicitation
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
41
2.32
0.24
2.00
1.00
1.54
2.37
4.00
1.00
5.00
50%
46.34%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
17.07%
20%
17.07%
12.20%
15%
7.32%
10%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
54. Development team understood what the customer/user wanted based on requirements
gathered
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
45
3.69
0.17
4.00
4.00
1.12
1.26
4.00
1.00
5.00
40%
35.56%
35%
30%
26.67%
22.22%
25%
20%
15%
10%
11.11%
4.44%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
222
55. Project manager understood customer/user problems
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
41
3.95
0.17
4.00
5.00
1.12
1.25
4.00
1.00
5.00
50%
43.90%
45%
40%
35%
26.83%
30%
25%
19.51%
20%
15%
7.32%
10%
5%
2.44%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
56. Requirements were unstable/volatile during development process
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
42
2.93
0.24
3.00
1.00
1.54
2.36
4.00
1.00
5.00
30%
28.57%
26.19%
23.81%
25%
20%
15%
11.90%
9.52%
10%
5%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
57. Project met requirements of customer/user
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
43
4.09
0.14
4.00
4.00
0.95
0.90
4.00
1.00
5.00
50%
44.19%
45%
37.21%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
11.63%
15%
10%
5%
2.33%
4.65%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
223
58. Requirements were gathered using particular requirements gathering methodology
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
32
2.31
0.27
1.50
1.00
1.55
2.42
4.00
1.00
5.00
60%
50.00%
50%
40%
30%
18.75%
20%
12.50%
12.50%
6.25%
10%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
4
5 (A)
59. Overall, how successful did YOU (not your management or customer/users) consider this
project to be, given your general perceptions of project success?
Count (N):
Mean:
S.E. of Mean:
Median:
Mode:
Std. Dev.:
Variance:
Range:
Minimum:
Maximum:
37
3.95
0.17
4.00
4.00
1.05
1.11
4.00
1.00
5.00
40%
35.14%
35.14%
4
5 (A)
35%
30%
24.32%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5.41%
5%
0.00%
0%
1 (D)
2
3
224
Appendix K: Data Dictionary of National Database (from Applied Computer
Research)
Field Name
CLASS
Field Description
Industry Classification Code
SPEC
Special Code
COMPANY1
COMPANY2
ADDR
CITY
STATE
ZIP
PHONE
FAX
FNAME
LNAME
TITLE
DEPT
GENDER
Company/Department/Agency
Subsidiary/Division Name
Address Line
City
State
Zip code
Telephone number
Fax number
First name
Last name
Title
Department
Gender
JOB
Job Function Code
Values/Comments
B: Banking
D: Diversified Financial
E: Education
F: Federal Government
H: Health Services
I: Insurance
L: Local Government
M: Manufacturing & Services
O: Other (Miscellaneous)
R: Retail
S: State Government U.S.
P: Provincial Government in Canada
T: Transportation
U: Utilities
F: Fortune 1000
U: Forbes 500 Public
R: Forbes 500 Private
I: InformationWeek 500
P: Canada Post
Note: Only headquarters site is flagged.
(###) ###-####
(###) ###-####
CIO, VP, Director or Manager
M:
F:
U:
T:
S:
O:
C:
H:
M:
R:
Male
Female
Unknown
Top Computer Executive
Systems & Programming Manag.
Operations Management
Communications Management
Technical Support
Microcomputer
Other
225
Field Name
SYSMFR
Field Description
System Manufacturer Codes
PC
ISEIS
Number of desktop computers
Total number of IS employees
Values/Comments
A: Amdahl
B: AT&T
C: Control Data Corporation
D: Digital Equipment Corporation
E: Windows NT
F: Compaq Computer Corporation
G: Data General
H: Bull Worldwide Information Systems
I: IBM Corporation
J: Hitachi Data Systems
K: Harris
L: Prime
M: LAN or WAN being used
N: NCR Corporation
O: Four Phase
P: Hewlett-Packard
Q: Texas Instruments
R: Enterprise Resource Planning pkg
S: Sun Microsystems
T: Tandem
U: UNISYS
V: UNIX being used
W: Wang
X: Xerox
Y: Cray
Z: Basic Four
226
Appendix L: Main Study – Survey Instrument
Section 1: Your Background
1.01 Please indicate your gender:
Male
Female
1.02 Please indicate your age range (in years).
<20 years
20-29 years
30-39 years
40-49 years
50-59 years
60+ years
1.03 How many years have you been a software practitioner?
years
The remaining sections are specific to a particular completed project that you have worked
on.
Section 2: Your Background
2.01 In which state was the developing organization located?
2.02 How many IT (full-time, part-time and consultants) people participated in developing this
project?
______ people
Don’t know
2.03 How many IT people from the previous question (Q2.03) were full-time employees?
______ people Don’t know
2.04 Did you have a financial interest, other than earning a paycheck, (i.e. ownership/shares in
the company, etc.) in the organization that developed this project?
Yes
No
2.05 What was your responsibility(s) on this project? (Check all that apply)
[ ] Business Analyst
[ ] Database Administrator
[ ] Programming Analyst
[ ] Systems Analyst
[ ] Change Control Officer
[ ] Network Engineer
[ ] Project Manager/Leader
[ ] Team Leader
[ ] Database Developer
[ ] Programmer
[ ] Senior Manager
2.06 What was the primary nature of this project? (choose only one)
Development (of a new system)
Maintenance (of an existing system)
Enhancement (adding functionality to existing system)
Don’t know
2.07 For who was this project intended? (choose only one)
In-house customer
Customer(s) outside of your organization
Both in-house and outside customer
Don’t know
2.08 This project was: (choose only one)
Completed
Completed with reduced functional scope
227
Cancelled/abandoned
Don’t know
Other (please explain):
2.09 How long (calendar time) did this project take to completion (or abandonment)?
______ years and ______months
Don’t know
2.10 For which type of organization was this project developed, maintained or enhanced?
(choose only one)
Business (for-profit)
Government agency
Non-profit organization
Consumers/mass market
Military
Don’t know
2.11 What type of system was being developed, maintained or enhanced? (Check all that apply)
[ ] E-commerce
[ ] Embedded
[ ] Data communications
[ ] Management information system/business application
[ ] Scientific
[ ] Systems software
[ ] Entertainment/games
[ ] Don’t know
2.12 This project had approximately how many function points (as defined by your
project/organization)?
__________ function points
Not applicable
Don’t know
2.13 This project had approximately how many source lines of code (SLOC)?
__________ source lines of code
Not applicable
Don’t know
2.14 You had a sense of achievement while you worked on this project.
(Agree 5 4 3 2 1 Disagree)
Not applicable
Don’t know
2.15 You did a good job (i.e. delivered quality) while working on this project.
Not applicable
Don’t know
Not applicable
Don’t know
2.16 This project was completed on time.
2.17 This project was completed within budget.
Not applicable
Don’t know
228
Section 3: Sponsor/Management Support and Participation and Your Project
3.01 The project had an upper-level (management) sponsor/champion:
Committed sponsor/champion never acquired
Not applicable
Don’t know
3.02 There was an upper-level (management) sponsor/champion throughout this project (not
necessarily the same person).
Not applicable
Don’t know
3.03 The upper-level (management) sponsor/champion was committed to this project.
Not applicable
Don’t know
3.04 The project had a project manager:
Project manager never acquired
Not applicable
Don’t know
3.05 There was a project manager(s) throughout this project (not necessarily the same person).
Not applicable
Don’t know
3.06 The project manager(s) was knowledgeable/experienced overall in the application area.
Not applicable
Don’t know
3.07 Overall, the project manager(s) supported the development team.
Not applicable
Don’t know
3.08 There was an integrated project plan for this project.
Not applicable
Don’t know
3.09 Overall, this project was well planned (people, available technology, scheduling, etc).
Not applicable
Don’t know
229
Section 4: Customer/User Support and Participation and Your Project
4.01 Overall, customer/users had a high level of confidence in the project manager/development
team:
Not applicable
Don’t know
4.02 The level of customer/users participation during the development process was high.
Not applicable
Don’t know
4.03 Participating customers/users stayed throughout the project.
Not applicable
Don’t know
4.04 Customers/users did not have realistic scheduling expectations.
Not applicable
Don’t know
4.05 The development team had problems due to too many customers/users participating in
decision-making.
Not applicable
Don’t know
4.06 Customer/users provided feedback to the development team.
Not applicable
Don’t know
4.07 There was adequate communication between the project manager/team and customer/users.
Not applicable
Don’t know
4.08 Customers/users made adequate time available for requirements gathering.
Not applicable
Don’t know
Section 5: Requirements Management and Your Project
5.01 How did the functional scope change from requirements gathering through to
Got much smaller
Did not change
Got somewhat larger
Got much larger
Don’t know
5.02 Agreement on requirements was reached between customer/users and the dev. team:
Not applicable
Don’t know
5.03 Requirements were clear and complete (scope of project’s functionality was well-defined).
Not applicable
Don’t know
5.04 Requirements were accepted by the development team as realistic/achievable.
Not applicable
Don’t know
5.05 Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables (forms, reports,
utilities, etc).
Not applicable
Don’t know
5.06 The size/complexity of the project negatively impacted requirements gathering.
Not applicable
Don’t know
230
5.07 The development team understood what customer/users wanted based on gathered
requirements.
Not applicable
Don’t know
5.08 Overall, requirements were unstable/volatile during the development process.
Not applicable
Don’t know
5.09 Requirements of customer/users were met.
Not applicable
Don’t know
Section 6: Project Success
6.01 Research suggests software practitioners often define a successful development project as
one in which:
• they had a sense of achievement,
• they believed they did a good job (delivered quality),
• requirements were accepted by the development team as realistic and achievable, and,
• the project had a project plan and was well planned overall.
Overall, how well do you think this project meet the above listed criteria?
(Very successfully 5 4 3 2 1 Very unsuccessfully)
231
Appendix M: Main Study: Data Dictionary of Survey Variables
System Variables
Variable
Code
Month/Year
Code/password
Month and year of response
Measure
nominal
nominal
Length
5
8
Measure
nominal
nominal
ratio
Length
2
5
8
Measure
nominal
ratio
ratio
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
ratio
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
nominal
ratio
ratio
interval
interval
interval
interval
Length
2
8
8
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
25
2
2
4
8
3
25
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
25
10
10
2
2
2
2
Variables From Survey Section 1
Variable
Q1.01
Q1.02
Q1.03
Gender
Age range
Years of experience
Variable
Q2.01
Q2.02
Q2.03
Q2.04
Q2.05ba
Q2.05cc
Q2.05dd
Q2.05da
Q2.05ne
Q2.05p
Q2.05pa
Q2.05pm
Q2.05sm
Q2.05sa
Q2.05tl
Q2.05ot
Q2.05o
Q2.06
Q2.07
Q2.08
Q2.09tm
Q2.10
Q2.10o
Q2.11ec
Q2.11em
Q2.11dc
Q2.11mi
Q2.11sc
Q2.11ss
Q2.11eg
Q2.11dk
Q2.11ot
Q2.11o
Q2.12
Q2.13
Q2.14
Q2.15
Q2.16
Q2.17
U.S. state of organization
Number of people who worked on project
Number of people who were full-time
Financial interest in organization
Project responsibility: business analyst
Project responsibility: change control officer
Project responsibility: database developer
Project responsibility: database administrator
Project responsibility: network engineer
Project responsibility: programmer
Project responsibility: programming analyst
Project responsibility: project manager/leader
Project responsibility: senior manager
Project responsibility: systems analyst
Project responsibility: team leader
Project responsibility: other
Other project responsibility
Nature of project
Intended stakeholder
Result of project
Total months to complete project
Entity that project was intended
Other entity that project was intended
Type of system: e-commerce
Type of system: embedded
Type of system: data communications
Type of system: management info system
Type of system: scientific
Type of system: systems software
Type of system: entertainment/games
Type of system: don’t know
Type of system: other
Other type of system being developed
Number of function points
Number of SLOC
Sense of achievement
Did a good job
Completed project on time
Completed project w/I budget
232
Variable
Q3.01
Q3.02
Q3.03
Q3.04
Q3.05
Q3.06
Q3.07
Q3.08
Q3.09
Had a sponsor/champion
Sponsor/champion throughout project
Sponsor/champion committed
Had a PM
PM throughout project
PM was knowledgeable
PM supported development team
Integrated project plan
Project was well planned
Measure
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
Length
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Variable
Q4.01
Q4.02
Q4.03
Q4.04
Q4.05
Q4.06
Q4.07
Q4.08
Customer/users had high confidence
High level of customer/user participation
Customer/users stayed throughout
Customer/users did not have realistic sch.exp.
Problems due to number of customer/users
Customer/users provided feedback to dev.
Adequate comm.: PM/team and customer/users
Customer/users made adequate time for reqts
Measure
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
Length
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Measure
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
ordinal
Length
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Measure
ordinal
Length
2
Variable
Q5.01
Q5.02
Q5.03
Q5.04
Q5.05
Q5.06
Q5.07
Q5.08
Q5.09
Reqts were accepted as realistic
Project size had negative impact
Team understood customer/user wants
Requirements were unstable
Variable
Q6.01
Overall project success
233
Appendix N: Main Study – Summary of Recoded/Edited Variables
Variable
Pass
Q1.04
Password
Years as practitioner
Q2.01
U.S. state of organization
Q2.02
Number of people who worked on project
Q2.03
Number of people who were full-time
Q2.09y/2.09m
Years/months to complete project
Q2.10
Type of organization
Q2.12
Number of function points
Q2.13
Number of SLOC
Q4.04
Customer/users did not have realistic sch.exp.
Q4.05
Problems due to number of customer/users
Q5.01
Revisions Made
All letters made uppercase
2 respondents entered “20+”: recoded
as 20; 1 respondent did not respond:
recoded as 99.
All letters made uppercase; 1
California-based organization
responded “CS”: recoded as “CA”; 1
Tennessee-based organization
responded “TM”: recoded as “TN”.
2 respondents entered ##+: recoded
as ##; 1 respondent entered “approx
35”: recoded as “35”; 1 respondent
entered “30-35”: recoded as “32.5”. 3
respondents indicated “Don’t know”
through Q2.02dk: recoded as “98” in
Q2.02.
as ##; 1 respondent entered “approx
35”: recoded as “35”; 1 respondent
entered “30-35”: recoded as “32.5”. 3
respondents indicated “Don’t know”
through Q2.03dk: recoded as “98” in
Q2.03; 2 respondents entered ‘all:
recoded as their entry for Q2.02.
1 respondent “2 yrs”: recoded as “2”;
Q2.09y was converted to months and
combined with Q2.09m to form a new
variables, Q2.09tm (total months).
“Don’t know” through Q2.09dk:
recoded as “98” in Q2.09tm.
9 respondents entered various
references to applications for
educational institutions: new category
of “EDU” was added.
as ##; 1 respondent entered
“millions??”: recoded as 1,000,000;
“Not applicable” through Q2.12na:
recoded as “97” in Q2.12; “Don’t
know” through Q2.12dk: recoded as
“98” in Q2.12.
1 respondent entered “5000-7000”:
recoded as “6000”; “Not applicable”
through Q2.13dna recoded as “97” in
Q2.13; “Don’t know” through
Q2.13dk: recoded as “98” in Q2.13.
Reversed response scale so higher
number is more positive response
Ordinal scale was applied to
responses (“Got much larger”=5 to
“Got much smaller”=1).
234
Variable
Q5.06
Project size had negative impact
Q5.08
Requirements were unstable
Revisions Made
Various edits to the selected records, included the following:
The password/code was defined as follows:
1. Defined PASS, code/password, as containing the leftmost character of SYSMFR (using
the LEFT function).
2. All records were then sorted alphabetically by the first character of SYSMFR.
3. AutoFill was then used to add 3 character codes (beginning with 101) to each letter in the
PASS field (example A101, A102,…B101, B102, etc.).
Other edits included the following:
• Defined MR/MS, a salutation field, based on the GENDER field (using the IF
function).
•
Concatenated comma (,) to COMPANY1 only if COMPANY2 <> “ “.
•
Concatenated comma (,) to LNAME only if TITLE <> “ “.
•
Replaced “Subs” in COMPANY2 with “Subsidiary” (using MID function).
•
Replaced “Actg Dir” in TITLE with “Acting Director”.
•
Replaced “Actg Mgr” in TITLE with “Acting Manager”.
•
Replaced “Assoc Dir” in TITLE with “Associate Director”.
•
Replaced “Assoc VP” in TITLE with “Associate VP”.
•
Replaced “Asst Mgr” in TITLE with “Assistant Manager”.
•
Replaced “Asst Dir” in TITLE with “Assistant Director”.
•
Replaced “Asst VP” in TITLE with “Assistant VP”.
•
Replaced “Dir” in TITLE with “Director”.
•
Replaced “Deputy Dir” in TITLE with “Deputy Director”.
•
Replaced “Dept Dir” in TITLE with “Department Director”.
•
Replaced “Corp Dir” in TITLE with “Corporate Director”.
•
Replaced “Dir/Mgr” in TITLE with “Director/Manager”.
•
Replaced “Mgr” in TITLE with “Manager”.
•
Replaced “Managing Dir” in TITLE with “Managing Director”.
•
Replaced “Proj Manager” and “Proj Mgr” in TITLE with “Project Manager”.
•
Replaced “Sr Dir” and “Sr Director” in TITLE with “Senior Director”.
•
Replaced “Sr Manager” and “Sr Mgr” in TITLE with “Senior Manager”.
235
•
Replaced “Sr VP” in TITLE with “Senior VP”.
•
Replaced “Supvr” in TITLE with “Supervisor”.
•
Replaced “Team Ldr” in TITLE with “Team Leader”.
•
Replaced “VP/Mgr” in TITLE with “VP/Manager”.
•
Split SPEC, which originally contained multiple organizational classifications, into
Fortune 1000, Forbes 500 Public, Forbes 500 Private and InformationWeek 500
classifications.
236
Appendix O: Main Study - Descriptive Statistics
Variable
Q1.03
Q2.02
Q2.03
Q2.02
Q2.09
Q2.12
Q2.13
Q2.14
Q2.15
Q2.16
Q2.17
Q3.01
Q3.02
Q3.03
Q3.04
Q3.05
Q3.06
Q3.07
Q3.08
Q3.09
Q4.01
Q4.02
Q4.03
Q4.04r
Q4.05r
Q4.06
Q4.07
Q4.08
Q5.01n
Q5.02
Q5.03
Q5.04
Q5.05
Q5.06r
Q5.07
Q5.08r
Q5.09
Q6.01
Question
Years of experience
Total people
Fulltime people
% fulltime of total people
Months to complete
Number function points
Number of SLOC
Sense of achievement
Did a good job
Completed on time
Completed within budget
Had sponsor
Sponsor throughout
Sponsor committed
Had project manager
PM throughout
PM knowledgeable
PM supported team
Had project plan
Project was well-planned
High level of confidence
Did not have realistic expectations
Problems due to # of customers
Adequate communications
Customers made adequate time
Overall success rating
Standard
N Min
Max
Mean Std. Error
Deviation
167
1
42
18.93
0.71
9.17
163
0
400
18.36
3.57
45.52
161
0
390
14.28
3.09
39.19
159 .15
2.33
0.86
0.02
.2685
162
1
73
15.78
1.13
14.39
45
3
10,000
451.13
251.73
1,688.63
58 75 10,000,000 845,802.16 287,024.72 2,185,915.12
162
2
5
4.37
0.06
0.74
162
3
5
4.56
0.04
0.56
161
1
5
3.92
0.10
1.23
140
1
5
4.02
0.11
1.29
160
1
5
4.27
0.08
0.97
155
1
5
4.21
0.08
1.05
156
1
5
4.26
0.08
1.03
160
1
5
4.63
0.06
0.77
156
1
5
4.51
0.08
1.01
158
1
5
4.22
0.08
1.01
156
2
5
4.59
0.06
0.72
159
1
5
4.08
0.08
1.02
160
1
5
3.91
0.08
0.97
156
1
5
4.19
0.06
0.81
162
1
5
3.92
0.09
1.10
160
1
5
4.16
0.08
1.00
158
1
5
3.39
0.10
1.30
162
1
5
3.96
0.10
1.23
159
1
5
4.01
0.08
0.99
160
1
5
4.02
0.73
0.92
159
1
5
3.62
0.10
1.20
159
2
5
3.73
0.07
0.82
158
2
5
4.13
0.07
0.81
162
1
5
3.77
0.08
0.97
162
1
5
4.00
0.07
0.86
161
1
5
3.89
0.08
0.99
158
1
5
3.46
0.10
1.29
160
1
5
3.90
0.07
0.90
161
1
5
3.86
0.90
1.14
161
1
5
4.11
0.08
0.97
162
1
5
4.28
0.06
0.72
Various edits to the selected records, included the following:
The password/code was defined as follows:
1. Defined PASS, code/password, as containing the leftmost character of SYSMFR (using
the LEFT function).
237
Appendix P: Frequencies of Survey Responses
Industries represented by respondent’s organizations and number of employed IT personnel were
not asked within the survey instrument, as it was ascertained through available demographic data
about most of the responding organizations.
Industries represented by respondent’s organizations
Valid Cumulative
Value
Frequency Percent Percent
Percent
B – Banking
2
1.6
1.6
1.6
D - Diversified Financial
4
3.2
3.2
4.8
E – Education
22
17.5
17.5
22.2
F - Federal Government
3
2.4
2.4
24.6
H - Health Services
7
5.6
5.6
30.2
I – Insurance
6
4.8
4.8
34.9
L - Local Government
12
9.5
9.5
44.4
M – Manufacturing & Services
50
39.7
39.7
84.1
O - Other (Miscellaneous)
1
0.8
0.8
84.9
R – Retail
4
3.2
3.2
88.1
S - State Government
9
7.1
7.1
95.2
T – Transportation
3
2.4
2.4
97.6
3
2.4
2.4
100.0
U – Utilities
Total
126
100.0
100.0
Number of Employed IT personnel
Valid Cumulative
Values Frequency Percent Percent
Percent
15.00
5
4.0
4.2
4.2
16.00
1
0.8
0.8
5.0
17.00
3
2.4
2.5
7.5
18.00
3
2.4
2.5
10.0
19.00
2
1.6
1.7
11.7
20.00
13
10.3
10.8
22.5
21.00
3
2.4
2.5
25.0
22.00
2
1.6
1.7
26.7
23.00
1
0.8
0.8
27.5
25.00
4
3.2
3.3
30.8
26.00
1
0.8
0.8
31.7
27.00
1
0.8
0.8
32.5
30.00
6
4.8
5.0
37.5
32.00
1
0.8
0.8
38.3
33.00
1
0.8
0.8
39.2
35.00
6
4.8
5.0
44.2
38.00
1
0.8
0.8
45.0
40.00
2
1.6
1.7
46.7
42.00
1
0.8
0.8
47.5
238
Number of Employed IT personnel (continued)
Valid Cumulative
Percent
45.00
1
0.8
0.8
48.3
46.00
1
0.8
0.8
49.2
50.00
6
4.8
5.0
54.2
55.00
2
1.6
1.7
55.8
57.00
1
0.8
0.8
56.7
58.00
1
0.8
0.8
57.5
60.00
2
1.6
1.7
59.2
62.00
1
0.8
0.8
60.0
63.00
1
0.8
0.8
60.8
65.00
1
0.8
0.8
61.7
68.00
1
0.8
0.8
62.5
70.00
3
2.4
2.5
65.0
73.00
1
0.8
0.8
65.8
75.00
3
2.4
2.5
68.3
80.00
3
2.4
2.5
70.8
83.00
1
0.8
0.8
71.7
90.00
1
0.8
0.8
72.5
100.00
8
6.3
6.7
79.2
113.00
1
0.8
0.8
80.0
125.00
1
0.8
0.8
80.8
140.00
1
0.8
0.8
81.7
150.00
3
2.4
2.5
84.2
162.00
1
0.8
0.8
85.0
170.00
1
0.8
0.8
85.8
180.00
2
1.6
1.7
87.5
185.00
1
0.8
0.8
88.3
200.00
6
4.8
5.0
93.3
210.00
1
0.8
0.8
94.2
250.00
1
0.8
0.8
95.0
260.00
2
1.6
1.7
96.7
350.00
1
0.8
0.8
97.5
400.00
1
0.8
0.8
98.3
500.00
1
0.8
0.8
99.2
1000.00
1
0.8
0.8
100.0
Total
120
95.2
100.0
Missing
6
4.8
Total
126
100.0
Q1.01 Gender
Value
F Female
M Male
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
44
26.2
26.2
26.2
124
73.8
73.8
100.0
168
100.0
100.0
239
Q1.02 Age range
Value
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
14
8.3
8.3
8.3
30
17.9
17.9
26.2
75
44.6
44.6
70.8
40
23.8
23.8
94.6
9
5.4
5.4
100.0
168
100.0
100.0
Q1.03 Years of experience
Valid Cumulative
Value Frequency Percent Percent
Percent
1
1
0.60
0.60
0.60
2
6
3.57
3.59
4.19
3
3
1.79
1.80
5.99
4
6
3.57
3.59
9.58
5
2
1.19
1.20
10.78
6
4
2.38
2.40
13.17
7
3
1.79
1.80
14.97
8
3
1.79
1.80
16.77
9
2
1.19
1.20
17.96
10
10
5.95
5.99
23.95
12
1
0.60
0.60
24.55
13
1
0.60
0.60
25.15
14
3
1.79
1.80
26.95
15
8
4.76
4.79
31.74
16
3
1.79
1.80
33.53
17
8
4.76
4.79
38.32
18
7
4.17
4.19
42.51
19
3
1.79
1.80
44.31
20
20
11.90
11.98
56.29
21
6
3.57
3.59
59.88
22
6
3.57
3.59
63.47
23
12
7.14
7.19
70.66
24
6
3.57
3.59
74.25
25
12
7.14
7.19
81.44
26
3
1.79
1.80
83.23
27
3
1.79
1.80
85.03
28
2
1.19
1.20
86.23
29
2
1.19
1.20
87.43
30
6
3.57
3.59
91.02
32
2
1.19
1.20
92.22
33
5
2.98
2.99
95.21
35
3
1.79
1.80
97.01
37
1
0.60
0.60
97.60
38
1
0.60
0.60
98.20
40
1
0.60
0.60
98.80
42
2
1.19
1.20
100.00
Missing
1
0.60
Total
168 100.00
240
Q2.01 State of the Union
Value
AK
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DC
FL
GA
ID
IL
IN
KY
LA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
NC
NE
NJ
NM
NY
OH
OK
PA
RI
SC
TN
TX
VA
VT
WA
WI
WV
Missing
Total
Frequency
1
2
7
1
3
1
9
2
1
12
1
5
1
6
9
1
2
2
4
12
2
10
1
6
16
2
9
1
1
1
9
18
1
3
2
1
3
168
Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Percent
0.60
0.61
0.61
1.19
1.21
1.82
4.17
4.24
6.06
0.60
0.61
6.67
1.79
1.82
8.48
0.60
0.61
9.09
5.36
5.45
14.55
1.19
1.21
15.76
0.60
0.61
16.36
7.14
7.27
23.64
0.60
0.61
24.24
2.98
3.03
27.27
0.60
0.61
27.88
3.57
3.64
31.52
5.36
5.45
36.97
0.60
0.61
37.58
1.19
1.21
38.79
1.19
1.21
40.00
2.38
2.42
42.42
7.14
7.27
49.70
1.19
1.21
50.91
5.95
6.06
56.97
0.60
0.61
57.58
3.57
3.64
61.21
9.52
9.70
70.91
1.19
1.21
72.12
5.36
5.45
77.58
0.60
0.61
78.18
0.60
0.61
78.79
0.60
0.61
79.39
5.36
5.45
84.85
10.71
10.91
95.76
0.60
0.61
96.36
1.79
1.82
98.18
1.19
1.21
99.39
0.60
0.61
100.00
1.79
100.00
241
Q2.02 Total people on the project
Valid Cumulative
Percent
0
2
1.19
1.23
1.23
1.0
5
2.98
3.07
4.29
2.0
10
5.95
6.13
10.43
3.0
16
9.52
9.82
20.25
4.0
22
13.10
13.50
33.74
5.0
21
12.50
12.88
46.63
6.0
8
4.76
4.91
51.53
7.0
3
1.79
1.84
53.37
8.0
8
4.76
4.91
58.28
9.0
6
3.57
3.68
61.96
10.0
11
6.55
6.75
68.71
11.0
2
1.19
1.23
69.94
12.0
5
2.98
3.07
73.01
14.0
3
1.79
1.84
74.85
15.0
5
2.98
3.07
77.91
16.0
2
1.19
1.23
79.14
17.0
1
0.60
0.61
79.75
19.0
1
0.60
0.61
80.37
20.0
5
2.98
3.07
83.44
25.0
8
4.76
4.91
88.34
30.0
2
1.19
1.23
89.57
32.0
1
0.60
0.61
90.18
32.5
1
0.60
0.61
90.80
35.0
3
1.79
1.84
92.64
40.0
2
1.19
1.23
93.87
42.0
2
1.19
1.23
95.09
50.0
1
0.60
0.61
95.71
94.0
1
0.60
0.61
96.32
100.0
1
0.60
0.61
96.93
125.0
1
0.60
0.61
97.55
200.0
1
0.60
0.61
98.16
250.0
2
1.19
1.23
99.39
400.0
1
0.60
0.61
100.00
Don't know
2
1.19
Missing
3
1.79
Total
168 100.00
242
Q2.03 Total fulltime people on the project
Valid Cumulative
Percent
0.0
2.00
1.19
1.24
1.24
1.0
7.00
4.17
4.35
5.59
2.0
14.00
8.33
8.70
14.29
3.0
21.00
12.50
13.04
27.33
4.0
25.00
14.88
15.53
42.86
5.0
20.00
11.90
12.42
55.28
6.0
6.00
3.57
3.73
59.01
7.0
6.00
3.57
3.73
62.73
8.0
8.00
4.76
4.97
67.70
9.0
3.00
1.79
1.86
69.57
10.0
12.00
7.14
7.45
77.02
11.0
1.00
0.60
0.62
77.64
12.0
4.00
2.38
2.48
80.12
14.0
3.00
1.79
1.86
81.99
15.0
6.00
3.57
3.73
85.71
18.0
1.00
0.60
0.62
86.34
19.0
1.00
0.60
0.62
86.96
20.0
4.00
2.38
2.48
89.44
25.0
3.00
1.79
1.86
91.30
30.0
2.00
1.19
1.24
92.55
32.0
2.00
1.19
1.24
93.79
32.5
1.00
0.60
0.62
94.41
35.0
2.00
1.19
1.24
95.65
42.0
1.00
0.60
0.62
96.27
50.0
1.00
0.60
0.62
96.89
100.0
1.00
0.60
0.62
97.52
120.0
1.00
0.60
0.62
98.14
200.0
2.00
1.19
1.24
99.38
390.0
1.00
0.60
0.62
100.00
Don't know
2.00
1.19
Missing
5.00
2.98
Total
168.00 100.00
Q2.04 Financial interest?
Valid Cumulative
Valid
Percent
N
147.00
87.50
90.74
90.74
Y
15.00
8.93
9.26
100.00
Missing
6.00
3.57
Total
168.00 100.00
Q2.05BA Responsibility: business analyst
Valid
Y
Total
Frequency
142.00
26.00
168.00
Percent
84.52
15.48
100.00
Valid Cumulative
Percent
Percent
84.52
84.52
15.48
100.00
100.00
243
Q2.05CC Responsibility: change control officer
Valid
Y
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
164.00
97.62
97.62
97.62
4.00
2.38
2.38
100.00
168.00 100.00 100.00
Q2.05DD Responsibility: database developer
Valid
Y
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
138.00
82.14
82.14
82.14
30.00
17.86
17.86
100.00
168.00 100.00 100.00
Q2.05DA Responsibility: database administrator
Valid
Y
Total
Frequency
151.00
17.00
168.00
Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Percent
89.88
89.88
89.88
10.12
10.12
100.00
100.00 100.00
Q2.05NE Responsibility: network engineer
Valid
Y
Total
Frequency
167.00
1.00
168.00
Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Percent
99.40
99.40
99.40
0.60
0.60
100.00
100.00 100.00
Q2.05PR Responsibility: programmer
Valid
Y
Total
Frequency
132.00
36.00
168.00
Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Percent
78.57
78.57
78.57
21.43
100.00
21.43
100.00
100.00
Q2.05PA Responsibility: programming analyst
Valid
Y
Total
Frequency
123.00
45.00
168
Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Percent
73.21
73.21
73.21
26.79
26.79
100.00
100.00 100.00
Q2.05PM Responsibility: project manager/leader
Valid
Y
Total
Frequency
91
77
168
Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Percent
54.17
54.17
54.17
45.83
45.83
100.00
100.00 100.00
244
Q2.05SM Responsibility: senior manager
Valid
Y
Total
Frequency
123
45
168
Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Percent
73.21
73.21
73.21
26.79
26.79
100.00
100.00 100.00
Q2.05SA Responsibility: systems analyst
Valid
Y
Total
Frequency
134
34
168
Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Percent
79.76
79.76
79.76
20.24
20.24
100.00
100.00 100.00
Q2.05TL Responsibility: team leader
Valid
Y
Total
Frequency
139
29
168
Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Percent
82.74
82.74
82.74
17.26
17.26
100.00
100.00 100.00
Q2.05OT Responsibility: other
Frequency
Valid
Y
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Percent
162
96.43
96.43
96.43
6
3.57
3.57
100.00
168
100.00
100.00
Q2.06 Nature of Project
Value
D Development
E Enhancement
M Maintenance
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
118
70.24
72.39
72.39
40
23.81
24.54
96.93
5
2.98
3.07
100.00
5
2.98
168 100.00
Q2.07 Project intended for
Value
B Both In-House and Outside
C Customer Outside Organization
I In-House Customer
Don't Know
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
24.00
14.29
16.11
16.11
21.00
12.50
14.09
30.20
104.00
61.90
69.80
100.00
1.00
0.60
18.00
10.71
168 100.00
245
Q2.08 Result of project
Valid
C Completed
CWRF Completed with reduced functional scope
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
154
91.7
94.5
94.5
9
5.4
5.5
100.0
5
3.0
168
100.0
Q2.09TM Months to complete
Valid Cumulative
Percent
1
3
1.8
1.9
1.9
2
2
1.2
1.2
3.1
3
8
4.8
4.9
8.0
4
6
3.6
3.7
11.7
5
5
3.0
3.1
14.8
6
24
14.3
14.8
29.6
7
4
2.4
2.5
32.1
8
8
4.8
4.9
37.0
9
10
6.0
6.2
43.2
10
3
1.8
1.9
45.1
11
1
.6
.6
45.7
12
18
10.7
11.1
56.8
13
1
.6
.6
57.4
14
2
1.2
1.2
58.6
15
3
1.8
1.9
60.5
16
2
1.2
1.2
61.7
17
3
1.8
1.9
63.6
18
23
13.7
14.2
77.8
19
1
.6
.6
78.4
21
1
.6
.6
79.0
22
1
.6
.6
79.6
23
1
.6
.6
80.2
24
11
6.5
6.8
87.0
26
2
1.2
1.2
88.3
28
2
1.2
1.2
89.5
30
1
.6
.6
90.1
32
2
1.2
1.2
91.4
36
3
1.8
1.9
93.2
42
2
1.2
1.2
94.4
48
1
.6
.6
95.1
54
1
.6
.6
95.7
60
3
1.8
1.9
97.5
69
1
.6
.6
98.1
72
2
1.2
1.2
99.4
73
1
.6
.6
100.0
Don’t know
1
.6
Missing
5
3.0
Total
168
100.0
246
Q2.10 Customer type
Valid
BUS Business
EDU Educational
GOV Governmental Agency
MIL Military
NPO Non-Profit Organization
OTH Other
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
94
56.0
57.7
57.7
9
5.4
5.5
63.2
32
19.0
19.6
82.8
2
1.2
1.2
84.0
25
14.9
15.3
99.4
1
.6
.6
100.0
5
3.0
168
100.0
Q2.11EC Type of system: e-commerce
Y
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
143
85.1
85.1
85.1
25
14.9
14.9
100.0
168
100.0
100.0
Q2.11EM Type of system: embedded
Y
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
161
95.8
95.8
95.8
7
4.2
4.2
100.0
168
100.0
100.0
Q2.11DC Type of system: data communications
Y
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
156
92.9
92.9
92.9
12
7.1
7.1
100.0
168
100.0
100.0
Q2.11MI Type of system: management info system
Y
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
43
25.6
25.6
25.6
125
74.4
74.4
100.0
168
100.0
100.0
Q2.11SC Type of system: scientific
Y
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
167
99.4
99.4
99.4
1
.6
.6
100.0
168
100.0
100.0
Q2.11SS Type of system: systems software
Y
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
153
91.1
91.1
91.1
15
8.9
8.9
100.0
168
100.0
100.0
Q2.11EG Type of system: entertainment/games
Valid Cumulative
247
Y
Total
165
98.2
98.2
3
1.8
1.8
168
100.0
100.0
Percent
98.2
100.0
Q2.11OT Type of system: other
Y
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
165
98.2
98.2
98.2
3
1.8
1.8
100.0
168
100.0
100.0
Q2.12 Number function points
Valid Cumulative
Percent
3
4
2.4
8.9
8.9
4
2
1.2
4.4
13.3
5
6
3.6
13.3
26.7
6
4
2.4
8.9
35.6
7
2
1.2
4.4
40.0
8
3
1.8
6.7
46.7
10
4
2.4
8.9
55.6
11
1
.6
2.2
57.8
15
2
1.2
4.4
62.2
20
2
1.2
4.4
66.7
25
2
1.2
4.4
71.1
30
1
.6
2.2
73.3
40
1
.6
2.2
75.6
50
1
.6
2.2
77.8
75
1
.6
2.2
80.0
150
1
.6
2.2
82.2
250
2
1.2
4.4
86.7
350
1
.6
2.2
88.9
400
1
.6
2.2
91.1
423
1
.6
2.2
93.3
3,000
1
.6
2.2
95.6
5,000
1
.6
2.2
97.8
10,000
1
.6
2.2
100.0
Not applicable
31
18.5
Don’t know
86
51.2
Missing
6
3.6
Total
168
100.0
248
Q2.13 Number of SLOC
Valid Cumulative
Percent
75
1
.6
1.7
1.7
250
1
.6
1.7
3.4
1,000
1
.6
1.7
5.2
1,500
1
.6
1.7
6.9
2,200
1
.6
1.7
8.6
2,500
4
2.4
6.9
15.5
4,000
2
1.2
3.4
19.0
5,000
4
2.4
6.9
25.9
6,000
3
1.8
5.2
31.0
6,500
1
.6
1.7
32.8
10,000
7
4.2
12.1
44.8
15,000
2
1.2
3.4
48.3
20,000
4
2.4
6.9
55.2
34,000
1
.6
1.7
56.9
40,000
1
.6
1.7
58.6
43,000
1
.6
1.7
60.3
45,000
1
.6
1.7
62.1
50,000
2
1.2
3.4
65.5
55,000
1
.6
1.7
67.2
75,000
1
.6
1.7
69.0
100,000
2
1.2
3.4
72.4
150,000
1
.6
1.7
74.1
200,000
1
.6
1.7
75.9
500,000
4
2.4
6.9
82.8
967,000
1
.6
1.7
84.5
1,000,000
2
1.2
3.4
87.9
3,400,000
1
.6
1.7
89.7
3,500,000
1
.6
1.7
91.4
5,000,000
2
1.2
3.4
94.8
6,000,000
1
.6
1.7
96.6
10,000,000
2
1.2
3.4
100.0
Not applicable
11
6.5
Don’t know
93
55.4
Missing
6
3.6
Total
168
100.0
Valid Cumulative
Percent
1
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
4
2.4
2.5
2.5
3
13
7.7
8.0
10.5
4
64
38.1
39.5
50.0
5
81
48.2
50.0
100.0
Missing
6
3.6
Total
168
100.0
249
Q2.15 Did a good job
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
3.0
3.1
3.1
62
36.9
38.3
41.4
95
56.5
58.6
100.0
6
3.6
168
100.0
Q2.16 Completed on time
Valid Cumulative
Value
Percent
1
10
6.0
6.2
6.2
2
17
10.1
10.6
16.8
3
17
10.1
10.6
27.3
4
49
29.2
30.4
57.8
5
68
40.5
42.2
100.0
Not applicable
1
.6
Missing
6
3.6
Total
168
100.0
Q2.17 Completed within budget
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Don’t know
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
12
7.1
8.6
8.6
10
6.0
7.1
15.7
12
7.1
8.6
24.3
35
20.8
25.0
49.3
71
42.3
50.7
100.0
11
6.5
11
6.5
6
3.6
168
100.0
Q3.01 Had sponsor
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
2
1.2
1.3
1.3
9
5.4
5.6
6.9
20
11.9
12.5
19.4
41
24.4
25.6
45.0
88
52.4
55.0
100.0
2
1.2
6
3.6
168
100.0
250
Q3.02 Sponsor throughout
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Don’t know
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
4
2.4
2.6
2.6
8
4.8
5.2
7.7
24
14.3
15.5
23.2
34
20.2
21.9
45.2
85
50.6
54.8
100.0
5
3.0
1
.6
7
4.2
168
100.0
Q3.03 Sponsor committed
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Don’t know
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
1
.6
.6
.6
14
8.3
9.0
9.6
19
11.3
12.2
21.8
31
18.5
19.9
41.7
91
54.2
58.3
100.0
5
3.0
1
.6
6
3.6
168
100.0
Q3.04 Had project manager
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
1
.6
.6
.6
5
3.0
3.1
3.8
7
4.2
4.4
8.1
26
15.5
16.3
24.4
121
72.0
75.6
100.0
2
1.2
6
3.6
168
100.0
Q3.05 Project manager throughout
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
6
3.6
3.8
3.8
5
3.0
3.2
7.1
8
4.8
5.1
12.2
22
13.1
14.1
26.3
115
68.5
73.7
100.0
6
3.6
6
3.6
168
100.0
251
Q3.06 Project manager knowledgeable
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
1
.6
.6
.6
12
7.1
7.6
8.2
25
14.9
15.8
24.1
34
20.2
21.5
45.6
86
51.2
54.4
100.0
4
2.4
6
3.6
168
100.0
Q3.07 Project manager supported team
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
1.8
1.9
1.9
12
7.1
7.7
9.6
31
18.5
19.9
29.5
110
65.5
70.5
100.0
5
3.0
7
4.2
168
100.0
Q3.08 Had project plan
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Don’t know
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
3
1.8
1.9
1.9
10
6.0
6.3
8.2
29
17.3
18.2
26.4
47
28.0
29.6
56.0
70
41.7
44.0
100.0
2
1.2
1
.6
6
3.6
168
100.0
Q3.09 Project was well-planned
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
3
1.8
1.9
1.9
9
5.4
5.6
7.5
37
22.0
23.1
30.6
61
36.3
38.1
68.8
50
29.8
31.3
100.0
2
1.2
6
3.6
168
100.0
252
Q4.01 High level of confidence
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Don’t know
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
1
.6
.6
.6
2
1.2
1.3
1.9
27
16.1
17.3
19.2
63
37.5
40.4
59.6
63
37.5
40.4
100.0
2
1.2
4
2.4
6
3.6
168
100.0
Q4.02 Participation was high
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
5
3.0
3.1
3.1
15
8.9
9.3
12.3
29
17.3
17.9
30.2
52
31.0
32.1
62.3
61
36.3
37.7
100.0
6
3.6
168
100.0
Q4.03 Stayed throughout project
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
2
1.2
1.3
1.3
13
7.7
8.1
9.4
17
10.1
10.6
20.0
53
31.5
33.1
53.1
75
44.6
46.9
100.0
1
.6
7
4.2
168
100.0
Q4.04R Did not have realistic expectations (reverse coded)
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Don’t know
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
15
8.9
8.9
8.9
29
17.3
17.3
26.2
33
19.6
19.6
45.8
41
24.4
24.4
70.2
40
23.8
23.8
94.0
2
1.2
1.2
95.2
1
.6
.6
95.8
7
4.2
4.2
100.0
168
100.0
100.0
253
Q4.05R Problems due to number of customers (reverse coded)
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
8
4.8
4.8
4.8
20
11.9
11.9
16.7
18
10.7
10.7
27.4
41
24.4
24.4
51.8
75
44.6
44.6
96.4
6
3.6
3.6
100.0
168
100.0
100.0
Q4.06 Customer provided feedback
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
3
1.8
1.9
1.9
13
7.7
8.2
10.1
19
11.3
11.9
22.0
68
40.5
42.8
64.8
56
33.3
35.2
100.0
1
.6
8
4.8
168
100.0
Q4.07 Adequate communications
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
3
1.8
1.9
1.9
7
4.2
4.4
6.3
27
16.1
16.9
23.1
69
41.1
43.1
66.3
54
32.1
33.8
100.0
2
1.2
6
3.6
168
100.0
Q4.08 Customers made adequate time
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Don’t know
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
12
7.1
7.5
7.5
18
10.7
11.3
18.9
30
17.9
18.9
37.7
57
33.9
35.8
73.6
42
25.0
26.4
100.0
2
1.2
7
4.2
168
100.0
254
Q5.01 Functional scope change
Value
GML Got much larger
GSL Got somewhat larger
DNC Did not change
GSS Got somewhat smaller
Total
Don’t know
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
21
12.5
13.2
32.1
91
54.2
57.2
89.3
30
17.9
18.9
18.9
17
10.1
10.7
100.0
2
1.2
7
4.2
9
5.4
168
100.0
Q5.02 Agreement on requirements
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Don’t know
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6
3.6
3.8
3.8
25
14.9
15.8
19.6
70
41.7
44.3
63.9
57
33.9
36.1
100.0
2
1.2
2
1.2
6
3.6
168
100.0
Q5.03 Requirements clear and complete
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
2
1.2
1.2
1.2
18
10.7
11.1
12.3
32
19.0
19.8
32.1
73
43.5
45.1
77.2
37
22.0
22.8
100.0
6
3.6
168
100.0
Q5.04 Requirements accepted
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
2
1.2
1.2
1.2
6
3.6
3.7
4.9
30
17.9
18.5
23.5
76
45.2
46.9
70.4
48
28.6
29.6
100.0
6
3.6
168
100.0
255
Q5.05 Well-defined deliverables
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
5
3.0
3.1
3.1
9
5.4
5.6
8.7
31
18.5
19.3
28.0
70
41.7
43.5
71.4
46
27.4
28.6
100.0
1
.6
6
3.6
168
100.0
Q5.06R Size of project negative impact (reverse coded)
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Not applicable
Don’t know
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
15
8.9
8.9
8.9
25
14.9
14.9
23.8
30
17.9
17.9
41.7
48
28.6
28.6
70.2
40
23.8
23.8
94.0
2
1.2
1.2
95.2
1
.6
.6
95.8
7
4.2
4.2
100.0
168
100.0
100.0
Q5.07 Team understood customer wants
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
2
1.2
1.3
1.3
7
4.2
4.4
5.6
40
23.8
25.0
30.6
67
39.9
41.9
72.5
44
26.2
27.5
100.0
8
4.8
168
100.0
Q5.08R Requirements were unstable/volatile (reverse coded)
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
6
3.6
3.6
3.6
17
10.1
10.1
13.7
30
17.9
17.9
31.5
48
28.6
28.6
60.1
60
35.7
35.7
95.8
1
.6
.6
96.4
6
3.6
3.6
100.0
168
100.0
100.0
256
Q5.09 Requirements were met
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
7
4.2
4.3
4.3
2
1.2
1.2
5.6
19
11.3
11.8
17.4
71
42.3
44.1
61.5
62
36.9
38.5
100.0
7
4.2
168
100.0
Q6.01 Overall success rating
Value
1
2
3
4
5
Missing
Total
Valid Cumulative
Percent
1
.6
.6
.6
3
1.8
1.9
2.5
11
6.5
6.8
9.3
82
48.8
50.6
59.9
65
38.7
40.1
100.0
6
3.6
168
100.0
257
Appendix Q: Frequencies Used To Populate Bayesian Belief Network
This appendix includes tables that were filled with numbers from frequencies in SPSS and
subsequently entered into an Excel worksheet and then into the proposed Bayesian Belief
Network through the Hugin Expert System. Because the Hugin System required that the entered
states (responses) of each node (variable) sums to 100% (all possible responses are accounted
for), any response frequency of “0” had to be entered as 20% for each of the five possible
responses.
Q3.02
Responses
1 (Disagree)
2
3
4
5 (Agree)
Totals
Valid %
2.6
5.2
15.5
21.9
54.8
100.0
Q3.03
Responses
1 (Disagree)
2
3
4
5 (Agree)
Totals
Valid %
0.6
9.0
12.2
19.9
58.3
100.0
258
Dependent variable:
Q4.01 high level of confidence in the project manager/development team
Q5.05
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Q4.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Q4.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Q4.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Q4.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Q4.01=5
Totals
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0
0.0 20.0 50.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0
0.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0
0.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
20.0 100.0 20.0 50.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0
0.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 100.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 50.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 50.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 50.0 20.0 100.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 50.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 100.0 100.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 50.0 100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 100.0
0.0
20.0 50.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 100.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 50.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 50.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
259
Dependent variable:
Q4.01 high level of confidence in the project manager/development team (cont’d)
Q5.05
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Q4.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Q4.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Q4.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Q4.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Q4.01=5
Totals
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0 66.7 100.0 25.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 100.0 12.5
20.0 100.0 33.3
0.0 50.0 20.0 20.0 50.0
0.0 50.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 25.0 20.0 20.0 50.0
0.0 37.5
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 50.0
0.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0 50.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 11.8
20.0 50.0 50.0 20.0 50.0 20.0 20.0 50.0 62.5 58.8
20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 50.0 20.0 20.0 50.0 37.5 29.4
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 50.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 11.1
20.0
0.0
0.0 100.0 50.0 20.0 20.0 50.0 50.0 33.3
20.0 100.0 100.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 50.0 50.0 55.6
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
260
Dependent variable:
Q4.01 high level of confidence in the project manager/development team (cont’d)
Q5.05
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Q4.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Q4.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Q4.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Q4.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Q4.01=5
Totals
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 100.0 20.0 20.0 50.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 50.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0 50.0
0.0 11.1
20.0 50.0
0.0 25.0 22.2
20.0 50.0 50.0 75.0 66.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0
0.0 33.3 18.8
20.0 20.0 100.0 66.7 81.2
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
261
Dependent variable:
Q4.02 Level of customer/users participation during development process was high
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
Totals
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
Totals
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
Totals
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
Totals
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
Totals
1
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
1
2
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
5
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
66.7
0.0
0.0
33.3
0.0
100.0
2
2
1
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
3
2
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
2
2
2
0.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
3
2
2
0.0
0.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
100.0
4
2
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1
2
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
3
0.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
4
2
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
1
2
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1
2
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
262
Dependent variable:
Q4.02 Level of customer/users participation during development process was high
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
Totals
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
Totals
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
Totals
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
Totals
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
Totals
1
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
3
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
2
3
3
0.0
50.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
100.0
3
3
3
0.0
16.7
50.0
33.3
0.0
100.0
4
3
3
0.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
40.0
100.0
4
3
3
0.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
40.0
100.0
1
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
3
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
4
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
4
3
4
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
1
3
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
3
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
2
4
3
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
3
4
3
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
4
4
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
4
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
2
4
4
0.0
0.0
40.0
60.0
0.0
100.0
3
4
4
0.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
4
4
4
0.0
0.0
22.2
66.7
11.1
100.0
4
4
4
0.0
0.0
22.2
66.7
11.1
100.0
1
4
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
4
4
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
263
Dependent variable:
Q4.02 Level of customer/users participation during development process was high (cont’d)
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Totals
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
Totals
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
Totals
Totals
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
Totals
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
Totals
100.0
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
100.0
3
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
3
3
2
3
20.0 100.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
100.0
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
100.0
3
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
100.0
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
4
0.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
100.0
3
5
4
0.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
4
5
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
66.7
33.3
100.0
5
3
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 100.0 80.0 20.0
100.
100.0
0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
5
5
0.0
33.3
33.3
33.4
0.0
100.0
2
5
5
0.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3
5
5
0.0
0.0
15.4
53.8
30.8
100.0
4
5
5
0.0
0.0
5.9
41.2
52.9
100.0
264
Dependent variable:
Q4.02 Level of customer/users participation during development process was high (cont’d)
Q4.08
Q3.03
Q3.02
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
5
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
5
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
5
5
5
5
3
4
20.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
20.0 100.0
5
5
5
3.8
3.8
0.0
11.5
80.9
Dependent variable:
Q4.03 Participating customer/users stayed throughout
Q4.02
Q3.02
Q4.03=1
Q4.03=2
Q4.03=3
Q4.03=4
Q4.03=5
Totals
Q4.02
Q3.02
Q4.03=1
Q4.03=2
Q4.03=3
Q4.03=4
Q4.03=5
Totals
Q4.02
Q3.02
Q4.03=1
Q4.03=2
Q4.03=3
Q4.03=4
Q4.03=5
Totals
1
1
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
100.0
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
100.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
66.7 40.0 50.0 33.3
0.0 20.0 25.0 44.4
33.3 20.0 25.0 22.3
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
2
3
4
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 16.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
100.0 16.7 20.0
9.3
0.0 66.6 80.0 88.4
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
0.0
0.0
0.0 25.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 60.0 50.0 50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 25.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
0.0 25.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.6
0.0
0.0 16.7
0.0
7.1
100.0 50.0 83.3 66.7 53.6
0.0 50.0
0.0 33.3 35.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Dependent variable:
Q4.08
Q3.02
Q4.08=1
Q4.08=2
Q4.08=3
Q4.08=4
Q4.08=5
Totals
5
4
3
3.7
4.9
15.9
43.9
31.7
100.0
5.9
17.6
11.8
38.2
26.5
100.0
8.3
16.7
37.5
20.8
16.7
100.0
2
12.5
25.0
25.0
12.5
25.0
100.0
1
75.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
265
Dependent variable:
Q5.01
Responses
Got much smaller (1)
Got somewhat smaller (2)
Did not change (3)
Got somewhat larger (4)
Got much larger (5)
Totals
Valid %
0.0
10.7
18.9
57.2
13.2
100.0
Dependent variable:
Q5.02 Agreement requirements reached between users and team
Q5.03
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.02=1
Q5.02=2
Q5.02=3
Q5.02=4
Q5.02=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.02=1
Q5.02=2
Q5.02=3
Q5.02=4
Q5.02=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.02=1
Q5.02=2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 50.0 20.0 100.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 50.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
Q5.02=3
20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
66.7
0.0
33.3
20.0
Q5.02=4
20.0
0.0 100.0 100.0
20.0
20.0
33.3 100.0
66.7
20.0
Q5.02=5
20.0 100.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
Totals
Q5.03
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.02=1
Q5.02=2
Q5.02=3
Q5.02=4
Q5.02=5
Totals
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
100.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
0.0 100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 66.7
0.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 33.3 100.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
266
Dependent variable:
Q5.02 Agreement requirements reached between users and team
Q5.03
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.02=1
Q5.02=2
Q5.02=3
Q5.02=4
Q5.02=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.02=1
Q5.02=2
Q5.02=3
Q5.02=4
Q5.02=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.02=1
Q5.02=2
Q5.02=3
Q5.02=4
Q5.02=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.02=1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
20.0
20.0
3
2
20.0
20.0
3
3
0.0
0.0
3
4
0.0
0.0
3
5
0.0
0.0
4
1
20.0
20.0
4
2
20.0
20.0
4
3
20.0
20.0
4
4
0.0
0.0
4
5
0.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0 100.0
20.0
0.0
50
50
0.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
50.0
20.0
20.0
0.0 100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
20.0
3
2
20.0
3
3
0.0
3
4
0.0
3
5
0.0
4
1
20.0
4
2
0.0
4
3
0.0
4
4
0.0
4
5
0.0
Q5.02=2
20.0
20.0
0.0
33.3
0.0
20.0
Q5.02=3
20.0
20.0 100.0
Q5.02=4
20.0
20.0
0.0
66.7
Q5.02=5
20.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
Totals
Q5.03
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.02=1
Q5.02=2
Q5.02=3
Q5.02=4
Q5.02=5
Totals
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
20.0 100.0
50.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
50.0
60.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
50.0
0.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 11.8
0.0
20.0 100.0 100.0 75.0 33.3 20.0 20.0 80.0 70.6 69.2
20.0
0.0
0.0 25.0 66.7 20.0 20.0
0.0 17.6 30.8
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
267
Dependent variable:
Q5.02 Agreement requirements reached between users and team (cont’d)
Q5.03
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.02=1
Q5.02=2
Q5.02=3
Q5.02=4
Q5.02=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.02=1
Q5.02=2
Q5.02=3
Q5.02=4
Q5.02=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.02=1
Q5.02=2
Q5.02=3
Q5.02=4
Q5.02=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.02=1
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
5
2
20.0
20.0
5
3
20.0
20.0
5
4
0.0
0.0
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
20.0 100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
5
1
20.0
5
2
20.0
5
3
20.0
5
4
0.0
5
5
0.0
Q5.02=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
Q5.02=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
50.0
Q5.02=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
50.0
Q5.02=5
20.0
20.0
20.0 100.0
0.0
Totals
Q5.03
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.02=1
Q5.02=2
Q5.02=3
Q5.02=4
Q5.02=5
Totals
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 100.0
0.0 33.3
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 33.3 20.0
20.0
0.0 100.0 66.7
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 66.7 80.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 100.0 20.0 20.0 46.7
100.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 53.3
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
268
Dependent variable:
Q5.02 Agreement requirements reached between users and team (cont’d)
Q5.03
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.02=1
Q5.02=2
Q5.02=3
Q5.02=4
Q5.02=5
Totals
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
20.0 20.0 100.0 100.0 93.3
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Dependent variable:
Q5.03 Requirements were clear and complete
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.03=1
Q5.03=2
Q5.03=3
Q5.03=4
Q5.03=5
Totals
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.03=1
Q5.03=2
Q5.03=3
Q5.03=4
Q5.03=5
Totals
Q4.08
Q4.02
Q5.03=1
Q5.03=2
Q5.03=3
Q5.03=4
Q5.03=5
Totals
1
1
0.0
66.7
0.0
33.3
0.0
100.0
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
0.0
0.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
100.0
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
40.0
0.0
100.0
3
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
50.0
100.0
5
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 16.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0 50.0 20.0 20.0 16.7 33.3
0.0 100.0
50.0 50.0 20.0 20.0 50.0 16.7 60.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 16.6 50.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0 16.7 16.7 20.0
0.0
0.0
7.4
9.1
30.0 25.0 16.7 20.0 100.0 28.6 18.5
9.1
50.0 33.3 50.0 20.0
0.0 71.4 63.0 59.1
10.0 25.0 16.6 20.0
0.0
0.0 11.1 22.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
3
4
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
6.2
0.0
0.0 46.9
100.0 60.0 46.9
100.0 100.0 100.0
269
Dependent variable:
Q5.05 Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables
Q5.03
Q5.01
Q4.02
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Q5.05=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q5.01
Q4.02
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Q5.05=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q5.01
Q4.02
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Q5.05=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q5.01
Q4.02
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Q5.05=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q5.01
Q4.02
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Q5.05=5
Totals
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
1
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
5
2
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
2
50.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
4
2
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
3
2
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
3
0.0
50.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
100.0
5
2
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
4
2
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
5
2
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
4
2
5
0.0
0.0
25.0
50.0
25.0
100.0
5
2
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
270
Dependent variable:
Q5.05 Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables (cont’d)
Q5.03
5.01
Q4.02
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Q5.05=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q5.01
Q4.02
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 50.0 100.0 50.0 25.0
0.0
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Q5.05=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q5.01
Q4.02
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Q5.05=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q5.01
Q4.02
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Q5.05=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q5.01
Q4.02
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Q5.05=5
Totals
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
2
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
4
3
3
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
5
3
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
83.3
16.7
100.0
5
3
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
3
3
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
5
0.0
0.0
20.0
40.0
40.0
100.0
5
3
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.1
88.9
100.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
100.0
3
4
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
4
4
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
4
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
3
4
2
0.0
0.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
100.0
4
4
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.0
25.0
100.0
5
4
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
100.0
3
4
3
0.0
0.0
50.0
33.3
16.7
100.0
4
4
3
0.0
0.0
28.6
42.9
28.6
100.1
5
4
3
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
50.0
25.0
0.0
100.0
3
4
4
0.0
10.0
20.0
70.0
0.0
100.0
4
4
4
0.0
7.1
7.1
71.4
14.4
100.0
5
4
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
66.7
0.0
33.3
100.0
3
4
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
4
4
5
0.0
0.0
12.5
62.5
25.0
100.0
5
4
5
0.0
0.0
11.1
44.4
44.5
100.0
271
Dependent variable:
Q5.05 Requirements gathering resulted in well-defined software deliverables (cont’d)
Q5.03
Q5.01
Q4.02
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Q5.05=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q5.01
Q4.02
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Q5.05=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q5.01
Q4.02
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Q5.05=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q5.01
Q4.02
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Q5.05=5
Totals
Q5.03
Q5.01
Q4.02
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Q5.05=5
Totals
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
1
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
5
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
2
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
4
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
3
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
50.0
100.0
5
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
3
5
4
33.3
0.0
33.3
33.4
0.0
100.0
4
5
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
5
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
5
0.0
0.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
100.0
4
5
5
0.0
0.0
16.7
83.3
0.0
100.0
5
5
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
272
Dependent variable:
Q6.01 Practitioners’ overall perception of project success
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
1
1
1
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
4
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
4
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
4
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
4
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
4
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
2
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
2
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
2
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
4
2
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
2
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
2
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
2
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
4
2
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
2
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
2
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
2
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
4
2
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
2
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
2
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
2
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
4
2
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
2
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
2
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
2
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
4
2
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
273
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
1
1
5
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
5
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
5
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
5
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
5
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
3
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
3
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
3
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
5
2
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
4
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
4
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
4
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
5
2
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
4
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
4
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
4
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
5
2
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
4
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
4
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
4
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
5
2
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
4
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
4
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
4
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
5
2
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
4
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
4
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
3
4
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
274
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
1
1
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
275
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
276
Dependent variable:
Q6.01 Practitioners’ overall perception of project success (cont’d)
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
1
2
1
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
4
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
4
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
4
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
4
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
4
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
2
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
2
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
2
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
4
2
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
2
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
2
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
2
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
4
2
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
2
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
2
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
2
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
4
2
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
2
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
2
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
2
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
4
2
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
2
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
2
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
2
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
4
2
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
277
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
1
2
5
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
5
1
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
5
1
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
5
1
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
5
1
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
3
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
3
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
3
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
1
2
5
2
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
4
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
4
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
4
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
5
2
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
4
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
4
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
4
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
5
2
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
4
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
4
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
4
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
5
2
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
4
4
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
1
2
2
4
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
4
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
5
2
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
4
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
4
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
3
4
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
278
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
1
2
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
2
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
2
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
279
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
280
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
281
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
282
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
1
3
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
3
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
3
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
283
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
1
3
3
5
1
20.0
1
3
3
5
2
20.0
1
3
3
5
3
20.0
1
3
3
5
4
20.0
1
3
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
284
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
285
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
286
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
1
4
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
4
3
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
1
4
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
4
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
4
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
287
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
1
4
3
5
1
20.0
1
4
3
5
2
20.0
1
4
3
5
3
20.0
1
4
3
5
4
20.0
1
4
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
288
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
289
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
290
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
1
5
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
5
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
5
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
5
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
5
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
5
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
5
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
5
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
5
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
5
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
5
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
5
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
5
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
5
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
5
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
5
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
5
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
1
5
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
291
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
1
5
3
5
1
20.0
1
5
3
5
2
20.0
1
5
3
5
3
20.0
1
5
3
5
4
20.0
1
5
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
292
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
293
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
294
Dependent variable:
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
1
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
1
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
295
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
2
1
3
5
1
20.0
2
1
3
5
2
20.0
2
1
3
5
3
20.0
2
1
3
5
4
20.0
2
1
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
296
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
297
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
298
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
2
2
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
299
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
2
2
3
5
1
20.0
2
2
3
5
2
20.0
2
2
3
5
3
20.0
2
2
3
5
4
20.0
2
2
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
300
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
301
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
4
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
4
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
4
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
2
2
2
2
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
302
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
2
3
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
3
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
3
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
303
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
2
3
3
5
1
20.0
2
3
3
5
2
20.0
2
3
3
5
3
20.0
2
3
3
5
4
20.0
2
3
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
304
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
305
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0 100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
306
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
2
4
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
4
3
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
2
4
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
4
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
4
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
307
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
2
4
3
5
1
20.0
2
4
3
5
2
20.0
2
4
3
5
3
20.0
2
4
3
5
4
20.0
2
4
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
308
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
309
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
310
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
2
5
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
5
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
2
5
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
311
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
2
5
3
2
5
3
2
5
3
2
5
3
2
5
3
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
5
1
20.0
5
2
20.0
5
3
20.0
5
4
20.0
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
312
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
313
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
314
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
3
1
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
1
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
1
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
315
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
3
1
3
5
1
20.0
3
1
3
5
2
20.0
3
1
3
5
3
20.0
3
1
3
5
4
20.0
3
1
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
316
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
317
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0 100.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
318
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
3
2
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
2
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
2
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
319
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
3
2
3
5
1
20.0
3
2
3
5
2
20.0
3
2
3
5
3
20.0
3
2
3
5
4
20.0
3
2
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
320
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
321
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0 100.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
0.0 100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
322
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
3
3
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
4
3
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
3
3
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
50.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
50.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
323
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
3
3
3
5
1
20.0
3
3
3
5
2
20.0
3
3
3
5
3
20.0
3
3
3
5
4
20.0
3
3
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
324
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
325
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0 100.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 100.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
326
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
3
4
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
4
3
3
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
3
4
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 50.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 50.0 100.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
4
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
4
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
327
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
3
4
3
5
1
20.0
3
4
3
5
2
20.0
3
4
3
5
3
20.0
3
4
3
5
4
20.0
3
4
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 50.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 50.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 100.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
328
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
329
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
330
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
3
5
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
5
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
3
5
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
331
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
3
5
3
5
1
20.0
3
5
3
5
2
20.0
3
5
3
5
3
20.0
3
5
3
5
4
20.0
3
5
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 50.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 50.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
332
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
333
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
334
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
335
Dependent variable:
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
336
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
337
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
338
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
4
2
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
2
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
2
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
339
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
4
2
3
5
1
20.0
4
2
3
5
2
20.0
4
2
3
5
3
20.0
4
2
3
5
4
20.0
4
2
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
340
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
341
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
4
3
5
1
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
1
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
2
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
3
3
1
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0 100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0 100.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
342
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
4
3
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
100.0 20.0 100.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
0.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
3
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
343
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
4
3
3
5
1
20.0
4
3
3
5
2
20.0
4
3
3
5
3
20.0
4
3
3
5
4
20.0
4
3
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
4
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
3
5
5
5
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
344
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
345
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0 100.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
346
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
4
4
4
3
1
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
4
4
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
5
3
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
4
4
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 66.7
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 33.3
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 33.3
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 66.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
347
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
4
4
3
5
1
20.0
4
4
3
5
2
20.0
4
4
3
5
3
20.0
4
4
3
5
4
20.0
4
4
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0
100.0
4
4
4
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
5
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
4
5
2
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
4
4
5
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
4
5
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
4
4
5
5
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0 50.0
0.0 50.0
100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0 60.0
0.0 40.0
100.0 100.0
348
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
349
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
350
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
4
5
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
5
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
351
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
4
5
3
5
1
20.0
4
5
3
5
2
20.0
4
5
3
5
3
20.0
4
5
3
5
4
20.0
4
5
3
5
5
0.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0
100.0
4
5
4
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
4
5
5
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
3
4
5
0.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
100.0 20.0 75.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 25.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
352
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
353
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
354
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
5
1
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
1
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
1
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
355
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
5
1
3
5
1
20.0
5
1
3
5
2
20.0
5
1
3
5
3
20.0
5
1
3
5
4
20.0
5
1
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
356
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
357
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
358
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
5
2
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
2
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
2
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
359
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
5
2
3
5
1
20.0
5
2
3
5
2
20.0
5
2
3
5
3
20.0
5
2
3
5
4
20.0
5
2
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
360
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
361
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
362
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
5
3
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
3
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
3
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
363
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
5
3
3
5
1
20.0
5
3
3
5
2
20.0
5
3
3
5
3
20.0
5
3
3
5
4
20.0
5
3
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 100.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
364
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
365
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0 100.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
366
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
5
4
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
4
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
4
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
4
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
4
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
4
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
4
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
4
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
4
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
4
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
4
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
4
2
5
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
5
4
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
4
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
4
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
4
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 66.7
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 33.3
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
4
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
4
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
367
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
5
4
3
5
1
20.0
5
4
3
5
2
20.0
5
4
3
5
3
20.0
5
4
3
5
4
0.0
5
4
3
5
5
20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0 100.0
20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
20.0
100.0
5
4
4
5
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
5
4
5
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
368
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
369
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
20.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
370
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
5
5
4
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
5
3
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
1
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
2
5
1
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
4
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
5
3
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
1
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
2
5
2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
4
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
5
3
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
1
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
2
5
3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
4
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
5
3
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
1
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
2
5
4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 20.0 20.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 33.3
100.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
0.0 66.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
1
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
5
5
2
5
5
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
100.0
371
Dependent variable:
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
5
5
3
5
1
20.0
5
5
3
5
2
20.0
5
5
3
5
3
20.0
5
5
3
5
4
20.0
5
5
3
5
5
0.0
Q6.01=2
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
Q6.01=3
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
Q6.01=4
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
0.0
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
Q5.05
Q5.02
Q4.03
Q4.01
Q3.02
Q6.01=1
Q6.01=2
Q6.01=3
Q6.01=4
Q6.01=5
Totals
20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0
0.0 20.0
0.0
20.0 20.0 100.0 20.0 100.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0 20.0
0.0
0.0
8.3
20.0 20.0 100.0 100.0 91.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
372
Appendix R: Probabilities Propagated Through Proposed Bayesian Belief Network
Variable With
Associated Response
Held at 100%
Q3.02=1
Q3.02=2
Q3.02=3
Q3.02=4
Q3.02=5
Average
Difference: 5 and 1
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Q4.01=5
Average
Difference: 5 and 1
Q4.03=1
Q4.03=2
Q4.03=3
Q4.03=4
Q4.03=5
Average
Difference: 5 and 1
Q5.02=1
Q5.02=2
Q5.02=3
Q5.02=4
Q5.02=5
Average
Difference: 5 and 1
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Q5.05=5
Average
Difference: 5 and 1
Q6.01 Practitioner’s Overall Perception of Project Success
1
19.63
19.25
17.14
13.47
8.21
15.54
2
20.73
19.25
17.14
13.47
8.21
15.76
3
19.63
19.25
18.98
14.66
10.19
16.54
4
20.39
23.00
25.52
41.18
27.34
27.49
5
19.62
19.25
21.22
17.22
46.05
24.67
19.87
19.99
16.47
10.08
9.08
15.10
19.87
19.99
16.59
10.10
9.08
15.13
19.89
19.97
18.07
10.84
11.95
16.14
20.50
20.06
27.25
35.54
27.13
26.10
19.87
19.99
21.62
33.44
42.76
27.54
19.79
19.44
17.53
13.27
8.24
15.65
19.79
19.44
17.53
13.34
8.26
15.67
19.78
19.45
19.96
14.31
10.36
16.77
20.85
20.98
24.68
37.28
27.53
26.26
19.79
20.69
20.30
21.80
45.61
25.64
20.00
19.85
16.73
9.31
7.62
14.70
20.00
19.85
16.76
9.37
7.62
14.72
20.00
20.09
23.10
10.18
7.64
16.20
20.00
20.14
24.93
46.18
17.88
25.83
20.00
20.07
18.48
24.96
59.24
28.55
19.33
19.31
13.72
8.80
11.07
14.45
19.51
19.31
13.72
8.85
11.07
14.49
19.33
19.45
16.78
11.29
11.06
15.58
22.50
22.62
31.76
36.32
20.70
26.78
19.33
19.31
24.02
34.74
46.10
28.70
Total 1 or 2 4 or 5
100.00 40.36 40.01
100.00 38.50 42.25
100.00 34.28 46.74
100.00 26.94 58.40
100.00 16.42 73.39
31.30 52.16
23.94 33.38
100.00 39.74 40.37
100.00 39.98 40.05
100.00 33.06 48.87
100.00 20.18 68.98
100.00 18.16 69.89
30.22 53.63
21.58 29.52
100.00 39.58 40.64
100.00 38.88 41.67
100.00 35.06 44.98
100.00 26.61 59.08
100.00 16.50 73.14
31.33 51.90
23.08 32.50
100.00 40.00 40.00
100.00 39.70 40.21
100.00 33.49 43.41
100.00 18.68 71.14
100.00 15.24 77.12
29.42 54.38
24.76 37.12
100.00 38.84 41.83
100.00 38.62 41.93
100.00 27.44 55.78
100.00 17.65 71.06
100.00 22.14 66.80
28.94 55.48
16.70 24.97
373
Variable With
Associated Response
Held at 100%
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
Average
Q4.08=1
Q4.08=2
Q4.08=3
Q4.08=4
Q4.08=5
Average
Q5.03=1
Q5.03=2
Q5.03=3
Q5.03=4
Q5.03=5
Average
Variable With
Associated Response
Held at 100%
Q3.02=1
Q3.02=2
Q3.02=3
Q3.02=4
Q3.02=5
Average
Q3.03=1
Q3.03=2
Q3.03=3
Q3.03=4
Q3.03=5
Average
Q4.08=1
Q4.08=2
Q4.08=3
Q4.08=4
Q4.08=5
Average
Q5.02 Agreement on requirements reached
1
16.34
8.22
7.77
1.95
1.62
7.18
9.03
7.94
3.39
2.42
6.46
5.85
12.30
10.32
3.94
3.93
3.14
6.73
2
20.46
19.33
7.77
5.71
1.62
10.98
19.97
16.60
5.97
4.16
6.46
10.63
50.80
16.68
9.19
3.93
3.14
16.75
3
20.44
36.01
27.02
12.29
19.28
23.01
28.15
28.52
37.81
16.84
8.33
23.93
12.30
25.84
36.30
10.31
20.03
20.96
4
20.46
24.90
40.59
58.56
21.84
33.27
28.15
35.17
42.07
42.47
24.21
34.41
12.30
28.46
34.85
56.79
12.57
28.99
5
22.30
11.54
16.85
21.49
55.64
25.56
14.70
11.77
10.76
34.11
54.54
25.18
12.30
18.70
15.72
25.04
61.12
26.58
Total 1 or 2 4 or 5
100.00 36.80 42.76
100.00 27.55 36.44
100.00 15.54 57.44
100.00
7.66 80.05
100.00
3.24 77.48
18.16 58.83
100.00 29.00 42.85
100.00 24.54 46.94
100.00
9.36 52.83
100.00
6.58 76.58
100.00 12.92 78.75
16.48 59.59
100.00 63.10 24.60
100.00 27.00 47.16
100.00 13.13 50.57
100.00
7.86 81.83
100.00
6.28 73.69
23.47 55.57
Q4.02 High level of customer/user participation
1
20.00
17.34
17.44
10.06
5.28
14.02
20.04
19.74
15.73
3.66
8.03
13.44
15.81
12.62
10.63
5.46
10.17
10.94
2
20.00
17.44
22.34
15.27
7.43
16.50
20.91
19.74
21.83
9.47
10.04
16.40
28.36
25.96
12.67
7.23
9.00
16.64
3
20.00
19.94
19.86
16.82
11.25
17.57
19.61
20.39
19.92
15.16
12.14
17.44
20.42
22.98
25.37
8.97
9.38
17.42
4
20.00
20.36
22.28
39.50
28.76
26.18
19.83
19.74
18.96
30.17
32.99
24.34
20.45
22.86
27.07
47.11
12.47
25.99
5
20.00
24.92
18.08
18.35
47.28
25.73
19.61
20.39
23.56
41.54
36.80
28.38
14.96
15.58
24.26
31.23
58.98
29.00
Total 1 or 2 4 or 5
100.00 40.00 40.00
100.00 34.78 45.28
100.00 39.78 40.36
100.00 25.33 57.85
100.00 12.71 76.04
30.52 51.91
100.00 40.95 39.44
100.00 39.48 40.13
100.00 37.56 42.52
100.00 13.13 71.71
100.00 18.07 69.79
29.84 52.72
100.00 44.17 35.41
100.00 38.58 38.44
100.00 23.30 51.33
100.00 12.69 78.34
100.00 19.17 71.45
27.58 54.99
374
Appendix S: Ordinal Regression Analysis of Critical Path From Bayesian Belief
Network
The complete critical path was Q3.02ÆQ4.08ÆQ4.02ÆQ5.02ÆQ6.01.
Analysis of Q3.02ÆQ4.08 (R-square=0.15):
[Q408 = 1]
[Q408 = 2]
[Q408 = 3]
[Q408 = 4]
D1Q302
D2Q302
D3D4Q302
*
Estimate Std. Error
-3.38
0.41
-2.08
0.28
-0.99
0.23
0.64
0.22
-4.58
1.24
-1.33
0.67
-0.80
0.32
Wald
68.42
54.97
18.59
8.52
13.67
3.92
6.33
Sig.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.01
[Q402 = 1]
[Q402 = 2]
[Q402 = 3]
[Q402 = 4]
D1Q408
D2Q408
D3Q408
D4Q408
*
Estimate Std. Error
-6.31
0.67
-4.44
0.50
-2.93
0.42
-1.05
0.35
-5.10
0.73
-3.63
0.60
-2.42
0.51
-1.39
0.43
Wald
87.85
80.65
49.43
8.98
48.41
36.39
22.86
10.34
Sig.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
[Q502 = 2]
[Q502 = 3]
[Q502 = 4]
D1Q402
D2Q402
D3Q402
D4Q402
*
Estimate Std. Error
-4.66
0.52
-2.63
0.34
-0.27
0.26
-2.56
0.98
-3.05
0.61
-1.80
0.46
-1.04
0.37
Wald
79.33
58.82
1.15
6.79
25.40
15.00
7.85
Sig.
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
[Q601 = 0]
D123Q502
D4Q502
*
Estimate Std. Error
0.86
0.29
-0.04
0.49
1.57
0.39
Wald
8.74
0.01
16.60
Sig.
0.00
0.94
0.00
There were 0 empty cells (combinations of levels of dependent variable and independent
variables)
375
Appendix T: Overall Impact On Project Success
Variable With
Associated Response
Held at 100%
Q3.02=1
Q3.02=2
Q3.02=3
Q3.02=4
Q3.02=5
Average
Difference: 5 and 1
Q3.03=1
Q3.03=2
Q3.03=3
Q3.03=4
Q3.03=5
Average
Difference: 5 and 1
Q4.01=1
Q4.01=2
Q4.01=3
Q4.01=4
Q4.01=5
Average
Difference: 5 and 1
Q4.02=1
Q4.02=2
Q4.02=3
Q4.02=4
Q4.02=5
Average
Difference: 5 and 1
Q4.03=1
Q4.03=2
Q4.03=3
Q4.03=4
Q4.03=5
Average
Difference: 5 and 1
Q4.08=1
Q4.08=2
Q4.08=3
Q4.08=4
Q4.08=5
Average
Difference: 5 and 1
1
19.63
19.25
17.14
13.47
8.21
15.54
2
20.73
19.25
17.14
13.47
8.21
15.76
3
19.63
19.25
18.98
14.66
10.19
16.54
4
20.39
23.00
25.52
41.18
27.34
27.49
5
19.62
19.25
21.22
17.22
46.05
24.67
16.70
15.83
14.20
10.51
10.75
13.60
16.72
15.90
14.26
10.53
10.77
13.64
17.42
16.76
15.70
12.74
12.32
14.99
25.39
26.59
28.33
30.57
30.18
28.21
23.77
24.92
27.51
35.65
35.98
29.57
19.87
19.99
16.47
10.08
9.08
15.10
19.87
19.99
16.59
10.10
9.08
15.13
19.89
19.97
18.07
10.84
11.95
16.14
20.50
20.06
27.25
35.54
27.13
26.10
19.87
19.99
21.62
33.44
42.76
27.54
18.06
17.35
15.09
9.35
8.33
13.64
18.13
17.46
15.11
9.37
8.33
13.68
18.67
18.77
17.17
10.70
10.36
15.13
24.49
26.68
29.82
39.50
23.71
28.84
20.65
19.74
22.81
31.08
49.27
28.71
19.79
19.44
17.53
13.27
8.24
15.65
19.79
19.44
17.53
13.34
8.26
15.67
19.78
19.45
19.96
14.31
10.36
16.77
20.85
20.98
24.68
37.28
27.53
26.26
19.79
20.69
20.30
21.80
45.61
25.64
18.02
15.46
14.40
9.16
9.74
13.36
18.38
15.48
14.40
9.16
9.74
13.43
18.74
17.06
16.67
10.94
10.97
14.88
24.12
31.94
29.77
33.84
24.61
28.86
20.74
20.06
24.76
36.90
44.94
29.48
Total 1 or 2 4 or 5
100.00 40.36 40.01
100.00 38.50 42.25
100.00 34.28 46.74
100.00 26.94 58.40
100.00 16.42 73.39
31.30 52.16
23.94 33.38
100.00 33.42 49.16
100.00 31.73 51.51
100.00 28.46 55.84
100.00 21.04 66.22
100.00 21.52 66.16
27.23 57.78
11.90 17.00
100.00 39.74 40.37
100.00 39.98 40.05
100.00 33.06 48.87
100.00 20.18 68.98
100.00 18.16 69.89
30.22 53.63
21.58 29.52
100.00 36.19 45.14
100.00 34.81 46.42
100.00 30.20 52.63
100.00 18.72 70.58
100.00 16.66 72.98
27.32 57.55
19.53 27.84
100.00 39.58 40.64
100.00 38.88 41.67
100.00 35.06 44.98
100.00 26.61 59.08
100.00 16.50 73.14
31.33 51.90
23.08 32.50
100.00 36.40 44.86
100.00 30.94 52.00
100.00 28.80 54.53
100.00 18.32 70.74
100.00 19.48 69.55
26.79 58.34
16.92 24.69
376
Variable With
Associated Response
Held at 100%
Q5.01=1
Q5.01=2
Q5.01=3
Q5.01=4
Q5.01=5
Average
Difference: 5 and 1
Q5.02=1
Q5.02=2
Q5.02=3
Q5.02=4
Q5.02=5
Average
Difference: 5 and 1
Q5.03=1
Q5.03=2
Q5.03=3
Q5.03=4
Q5.03=5
Average
Difference: 5 and 1
Q5.05=1
Q5.05=2
Q5.05=3
Q5.05=4
Q5.05=5
Average
Difference: 5 and 1
1
*
11.57
12.13
11.43
11.70
11.71
2
*
11.61
12.15
11.47
11.72
11.74
3
*
12.73
13.46
13.30
13.15
13.16
4
*
29.64
28.69
30.02
29.67
29.51
5
*
34.45
33.57
33.78
33.76
33.89
Total
N/A
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
20.00
19.85
16.73
9.31
7.62
14.70
20.00
19.85
16.76
9.37
7.62
14.72
20.00
20.09
23.10
10.18
7.64
16.20
20.00
20.14
24.93
46.18
17.88
25.83
20.00
20.07
18.48
24.96
59.24
28.55
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
18.99
16.16
13.60
9.76
9.64
13.63
19.02
16.17
13.63
9.81
9.65
13.66
19.41
17.05
17.22
11.02
10.70
15.08
22.16
27.42
31.67
36.63
20.26
27.63
20.42
23.20
23.88
32.78
49.75
30.01
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
19.33
19.31
13.72
8.80
11.07
14.45
19.51
19.31
13.72
8.85
11.07
14.49
19.33
19.45
16.78
11.29
11.06
15.58
22.50
22.62
31.76
36.32
20.70
26.78
19.33
19.31
24.02
34.74
46.10
28.70
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1 or 2
N/A
23.18
24.28
22.90
23.42
23.45
0.24
40.00
39.70
33.49
18.68
15.24
29.42
24.76
38.01
32.33
27.23
19.57
19.29
27.29
18.72
38.84
38.62
27.44
17.65
22.14
28.94
16.70
4 or 5
N/A
64.09
62.26
63.80
63.43
63.40
0.66
40.00
40.21
43.41
71.14
77.12
54.38
37.12
42.58
50.62
55.55
69.41
70.01
57.63
27.43
41.83
41.93
55.78
71.06
66.80
55.48
24.97
377
Vita
J. Drew Procaccino (Birthplace: Princeton, New Jersey, USA and Citizen: USA)
Education:
Name of Degree (Year):
Principle Academic Unit:
Major Fields of Study:
Ph.D, Drexel University (2002)
College of Information Science & Technology
Software Engineering
Masters of Business Administration, Rider University (1999)
Bachelor of Arts, Ursinus College (1982)
Bachelor of Science, Rider College (1991)
Experience:
Software trainer (Mercer County Community College (West Windsor, NJ: 1995-2000, as needed)
Graphic/document designer (Opinion Research Corporation (Princeton, NJ: Summer 1996-1998)
Relational database developer and supervisor of payroll and sales tax (John A. Procaccino, PA: 1982-1991)
Web site design, presentation design, software instruction (Self-employed: 1992-1999)
Academic Publications/Conference Proceedings:
Procaccino, J. Drew and Miller, F. Roy, Tourism On The WWW: A Comparison of United States &
French-Based Sites, Journal of Information Technology & Tourism, Volume 2, Number 3/4 (Winter 2000)
p. 173-183.
Shelfer, Katherine and J. Drew Procaccino, Smart Card Evolution, Technical Aspects and Applications,
Communications of the ACM, Volume 45, Number 7 (July 2002) p. 83-88.
Procaccino, J. Drew and June M. Verner, Software Practitioner’s Perception of Project Success: A Pilot
Study, International Journal of Computers, The Internet & Management, Volume 10, Number 1 (JanuaryApril 2002) p. 20-30.
Procaccino, J. Drew, June M. Verner, Scott Overmyer and Marvin Darter, Case Study: Factors For Early
Prediction of Software Development Success, Journal of Information & Software Technology, Volume 44
(January 15, 2002) p. 53-62.
Procaccino, J. Drew, Marvin Darter, Gloria Wai-Min Tang and Il-Yeol Song, UML and Modeling Sites
For The World Wide Web, International Journal of Computers, The Internet & Management, Volume 10,
Number 2 (May-August 2002).
Procaccino, J. Drew and June M. Verner, Early Risk Factors For Software Development, European
Conference on Cost Estimation, London, England (April 2001).
Presentations:
Procaccino, J. Drew and Katherine Shelfer, Smart Cards: Europe’s Global Lead & The Lag In The United
States, Information Systems Education Conference, Philadelphia, PA (November 2000).
Jones, Yolanda, J. Drew Procaccino, Katherine M. Shelfer, Mike Atwood and Bruce Char Mental Models
in Information Space: Lessons Learned from a Digital Library Project, Annual Conference of the American
Society of Information Science & Technology, Philadelphia, PA (November, 2002).
Industry Publications:
Miller, F. Roy and J. Drew Procaccino, Online Swimming Pool & Spa Products: A Sampling of The
Technical & Business Functionality of Industry Web Sites, Pool & Spa News, Volume 2, Number 3/4
(Spring 1999).

pdf - iDEA: DREXEL LIBRARIES E

Transcription

Similar documents