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

Cem Sürücü

dblp:278/0407 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author

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 1 heaviest of 1, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design › software process
software process measurement
0.412020
Establishing key performance indicators for measuring software-development processes at a large organization · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2020

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

practitioner experience report · 0.4case study · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 Establishing key performance indicators for measuring software-development processes at a large organization
abstract
Developing software systems in large organizations requires the cooperation of various organizational units and stakeholders. As software-development processes are distributed among such organizational units; and are constantly transformed to fulfill new domain regulations, address changing customer requirements, or adopt new software-engineering methods; it is challenging to ensure, measure, and steer—essentially monitor—the quality of the resulting systems. One means to facilitate such monitoring throughout whole software-development processes are key performance indicators, which provide a consolidated analysis of an organizations’ performance. However, it is also challenging to introduce key performance indicators for the software development of a large organization, as they must be implemented at and accepted by all relevant organizational units. In this paper, we report our experiences of introducing new key performance indicators for software-development processes at Volkswagen Financial Services AG, a large organization in the financial sector. We describe i) our methodology; ii) how we customized and use key performance indicators; iii) benefits achieved, namely improved monitoring and comparability, which help to define quality-improving actions; iv) and six lessons learned. These insights are helpful for other practitioners, providing an overview of a methodology they can adopt to assess the feasibility of key performance indicators as well as their benefits. Moreover, we hope to motivate research to investigate methods for introducing and monitoring key performance indicators to facilitate their adoption.
Cem Sürücü, Bianying Song, Jacob Krüger, Gunter Saake, Thomas Leich
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE1