Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorRicardo Valerdi.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLatner, Avien_US
dc.contributor.otherSystem Design and Management Program.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-12-09T21:24:06Z
dc.date.available2011-12-09T21:24:06Z
dc.date.copyright2011en_US
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/67562
dc.descriptionThesis (S.M. in Engineering and Management)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division, System Design and Management Program, 2011.en_US
dc.descriptionCataloged from PDF version of thesis.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (p. 46-47).en_US
dc.description.abstractSoftware as a Service (SaaS) delivery model has become widespread. This deployment model changes the economics of software delivery but also has an impact on development. Releasing updates to customers is immediate and the development, product and marketing teams have access to customer usage information. These dynamics create a fast feedback loop between developments to customers. To fully leverage this feedback loop the right metrics need to be set. Typically SaaS applications are a collection of features. The product is divided between development teams according to features and customers access the service through features. Thus a framework that measure feature performance is valuable. This thesis provides a framework for measuring the performance of software as a service (SaaS) product features in order to prioritize development efforts. The case is based on empirical data from HubSpot and it is generalized to provide a framework applicable to other companies with large scale software offerings and distributed development. Firstly, relative value is measured by the impact that each feature has on customer acquisition and retention. Secondly, feature value is compared to feature cost and specifically development investment to determine feature profitability. Thirdly, feature sensitivity is measured. Feature sensitivity is defined as the effect a fixed amount of development investment has on value in a given time. Fourthly, features are segmented according to their location relative to the value to cost trend line into: most valuable features, outperforming, under-performing and fledglings. Finally, results are analyzed to determine future action. Maintenance and bug fixes are prioritized according to feature value. Product enhancements are prioritized according to sensitivity with special attention to fledglings. Under-performing features are either put on "life-support", terminated or overhauled.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby Avi Latner.en_US
dc.format.extent47 p.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMassachusetts Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.rightsM.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582en_US
dc.subjectEngineering Systems Division.en_US
dc.subjectSystem Design and Management Program.en_US
dc.titleFeature performance metrics in a service as a software offeringen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreeS.M.in Engineering and Managementen_US
dc.contributor.departmentSystem Design and Management Program.en_US
dc.contributor.departmentMassachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems Division
dc.identifier.oclc761702455en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record