A Performance Measure for Software Reuse Projects

The efficient development of software has become a critical factor to the success of many organizations. Significant competitive advantage can be realized by reducing the time to complete software development, while maintaining or improving quality levels. Project management activities, including the measurement of performance at the level of the project, can help the organization to both control projects and learn from experience. Traditionally, the productivity of a software development project has been measured as the complexity of code produced per unit of labor involved. An increasing number of organizations, however, are adopting the practice of software reuse, and under such conditions, such a traditional measure of productivity does not fully capture all the relevant elements of the reuse-driven development environment. This research develops a new performance measure that considers four major components of performance: productivity associated with development of new code, productivity associated with the reuse of previously written code, quality of the reuse decision, and relative value of reuse to the company. To illustrate the feasibility of the measure, a real-world productivity assessment is presented for an example company, and related implementation issues are discussed.     

How do you measure trust in social institutions and health professionals? A systematic review of the literature (2012–2021)

The importance of measuring trust in health systems has been accentuated due to its correlation with important health outcomes aimed at reducing COVID-19 transmission. A systematic review published almost a decade ago identified gaps in measures including the lack of focus on trust in systems, inconsistency regarding the dimensionality of trust and need for research to strengthen the validity of measures. Given developments in our understandings of trust since its publication, we sought to identify new scales developed, existing ones adapted in response to identified gaps, and agendas for future research. Using the PRISMA approach for systematic reviews, we conducted a search in four databases. A total of 26 articles were assessed. Twelve new scales were identified, while 14 were adapted for different settings and populations. Literature continues to focus on measuring trust in health professionals rather than systems. Various shortcomings were identified, including some articles not mentioning the dimensions included in the scale and suboptimal use of validity and reliability testing and/or reporting. Moreover, a variety of terms were used for dimensions. Future research is needed to address these gaps and consequently, to understand their correlation with health behaviors and outcomes more accurately.     

An Integrational Framework of Organizational Moral Development,Legitimacy, and Corporate Responsibility: A Longitudinal,Intersectoral Analysis of Citizenship Reports

In this article, we outline a unique conceptual framework connecting legitimacy types (Suchman, 1995 ), theories of corporate responsibility (Brummer, 1991 ), and levels of organizational moral development based on Kohlberg's ( 1971 ) moral development stages. In addition, based on Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) categories, we found empirical support for our framework, by content analyzing Fortune 500 corporate citizenship reports from four different industries (i.e., chemicals, motor vehicle/auto parts, pharmaceutical, and utilities), at three data points (i.e., 2002, 2007, and 2012). Our analysis indicates that motor vehicle/auto parts and chemicals industries are at a higher developmental level, and portray moral legitimacy along with social demandingness corporate responsibility in recent years; while the pharmaceutical and utilities sectors are at a lower developmental level, showing signs of pragmatic legitimacy, alongside classical and stakeholder corporate responsibility strategies. This article contributes to the current organizational moral development literature by developing and finding empirical support of a conceptual framework of organizational moral development, legitimacy, and corporate responsibility. In particular, our findings provide a deeper understanding of the differences in moral development levels across four focal industries over a 10‐year timespan.