Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Michael Deutsch 0002

dblp:15/3754-2 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2001
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Requirements engineering and software design · 100%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design › inconsistency management
conflict resolution
0.012001
Applying WinWin to Quality Requirements: A Case Study · ICSE 2001
Requirements engineering and software design › non-functional requirements
quality requirements
0.012001
Applying WinWin to Quality Requirements: A Case Study · ICSE 2001
Requirements engineering and software design
requirements elicitation
0.012001
Applying WinWin to Quality Requirements: A Case Study · ICSE 2001
Requirements engineering and software design › requirements elicitation
stakeholder analysis
0.012001
Applying WinWin to Quality Requirements: A Case Study · ICSE 2001

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

statistical analysis · 0.0case study · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2001 Applying WinWin to Quality Requirements: A Case Study
abstract
Describes the application of the WinWin paradigm to identify and resolve conflicts in a series of real-client, student-developer digital library projects. The paper is based on a case study of the statistical analysis of 15 projects and an in-depth analysis of one representative project. These analyses focus on the conflict resolution process, stakeholders' roles and their relationships to quality artifacts, and tool effectiveness. We show that stakeholders tend to accept satisfactory rather than optimal resolutions. Users and customers are more proactive in stating win conditions, whereas developers are more active in working toward resolutions. Further, we suggest that knowledge-based automated aids have potential to significantly enhance process effectiveness and efficiency. Finally, we conclude that such processes and tools have theoretical and practical implications in the quest for better software requirements elicitation.
Hoh Peter In, Barry W. Boehm, Thomas Lee Rodgers, Michael Deutsch 0002
ICSE4