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

James C. Widmaier

dblp:36/3579 · also Jim Widmaier · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2002
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3 · 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
Software testing · 61% Requirements engineering and software design · 30% Compilers and program optimization · 9%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software testing › non-functional testing
reliability testing
0.012000
Producing more reliable software: mature software engineering process vs. state-of-the-art technology? · ICSE 2000
Requirements engineering and software design
software process
0.012000
Producing more reliable software: mature software engineering process vs. state-of-the-art technology? · ICSE 2000
Software testing
statistical testing
0.012000
Producing more reliable software: mature software engineering process vs. state-of-the-art technology? · ICSE 2000
Compilers and program optimization
code generation
0.012000
Producing more reliable software: mature software engineering process vs. state-of-the-art technology? · ICSE 2000

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

statistical testing · 0.0process metrics · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2002 Producing reliable software: an experiment
Carol S. Smidts, James C. Widmaier
J. Syst. Softw.3
2000 Producing more reliable software: mature software engineering process vs. state-of-the-art technology?
abstract
A customer of high assurance software recently sponsored a software engineering experiment in which a real-time software system was developed concurrently by two popular software development methodologies. One company specialized in the state-of-the-practice waterfall method rated at a Capability Maturity Model Level 4. A second developer employed his mathematically based formal method with automatic code generation. As specified in separate contracts, C++ code plus development documentation and process and product metrics (errors) were to be delivered. Both companies were given identical functional specs and agreed to a generous and equal cost, schedule, and explicit functional reliability objectives. At conclusion of the experiment an independent third party determined through extensive statistical testing that neither methodology was able to meet the user's reliability objectives within cost and schedule constraints. The metrics collected revealed the strengths and weaknesses of each methodology and why they were not able to reach customer reliability objectives. This paper will explore the specification for the system under development, the two competing development processes, the products and metrics captured during development, the analysis tools and testing techniques by the third party, and the results of a reliability and process analysis.
James C. Widmaier
ICSE1
1996 Panel: Deploying SRE in Your Organization or Company
abstract
The introduction of some new practices into software organizations can be trying, arduous tasks. Software Reliability is a practice that fits in this category. A well thought out strategy needs to be used to successjidly and rapidly install Software Reliability Engineering (SRE) in a software organization. The successfid practitioner must be prepared to sell SRE, retain consultants, train project personnel, demonstrate it's effectiveness, provide measurements of the results, and advertise them. This panel, composed of four members with practical industry experience, will examine all of these areas as it explores the question: "What are the steps for bringing SRE into my organization or company?"
Adrian A. Dolinsky, Dave Rentschler, Sue Steele, John A. Teresinski, James C. Widmaier
ISSRE5