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

Minoru Aizawa

dblp:73/2355 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2

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 maintenance and evolution · 50% Empirical software engineering · 50%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering › software engineering research methodology
industrial case study
0.011998
Software Quality Analysis & Measurement Service Activity in the Company · ICSE 1998
Software maintenance and evolution
software quality assurance
0.011998
Software Quality Analysis & Measurement Service Activity in the Company · ICSE 1998

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

program static analysis · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 Proposal and practice of software process improvement framework - Toshiba's software process improvement history since 2000
abstract
SUMMARY For the effective promotion of software process improvement (SPI) activities in a large organization, it is necessary to establish an organizational structure and a deployment method for promotion and to develop training courses, support tools, and other materials. Even if an organizational promotion system is established, the SPI activities of each development department cannot be promoted effectively without an SPI community. To promote SPI activities throughout Toshiba Group, we organized a Corporate Software Engineering Process Group in April 2000. We also proposed an SPI framework. This framework extracts the features of organizations in which improvement activities were successful in the 1990s and combines them systematically. For over 10 years, we have been constructing Toshiba's SPI framework based on the SPI framework that we proposed and promoting process improvement activities using it. As a result, maturity levels were improved in many development departments, and the applicability of the SPI framework has been confirmed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Hideto Ogasawara, Takumi Kusanagi, Minoru Aizawa
J. Softw. Evol. Process.3
1998 Software Quality Analysis & Measurement Service Activity in the Company
abstract
It is very important to improve software quality using program analysis and measurement tools and the SQA (Software Quality Assurance) method at the appropriate points during the process of development. In many development departments, there is often not enough time to evaluate and use the tools and the SQA method or to accumulate the know-how for effective use. This paper describes the support activity of a software quality analysis and measurement service which is performed by our laboratory team within the company as a third-party independent staff group. We call this activity HQC (High Quality software creation support virtual Center). The purpose of this activity is as follows. First we improve the software quality engineering process in the development department, for example, we help them to increase efficiency of review or testing. To accomplish this, we use program static analysis tools to detect fault-prone software components. Next we assist in starting their own self-improvement process. In addition, we provide service activity to many development departments concurrently. We have been making progress with these activities, and some development departments have begun to establish improvement processes themselves.
Takeshi Tanaka, Minoru Aizawa, Hideto Ogasawara, Atsushi Yamada
ICSE2