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

Lesley Pickard

dblp:89/3344 · also Lesley M. Pickard · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
5ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2005
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 5 · 2 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
3 papers
Empirical software engineering · 100%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computational finance and economics · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering
software effort estimation
0.122003
Modeling Software Bidding Risks · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2003
Comments on: Evaluating Alternative Software Production Functions · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1999
Computational finance and economics › economics
software economics
0.011999
Comments on: Evaluating Alternative Software Production Functions · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1999
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
uncertainty modeling
0.012003
Modeling Software Bidding Risks · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2003
Empirical software engineering
evidence-based software engineering
0.012002
Preliminary Guidelines for Empirical Research in Software Engineering · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2002
Empirical software engineering › software economics
software cost modeling
0.011999
Comments on: Evaluating Alternative Software Production Functions · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1999

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

probabilistic modeling · 0.1model validation · 0.1translog model · 0.0quadratic model · 0.0p-test · 0.0cobb-douglas model · 0.0systematic guideline development · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2005 A framework for evaluating a software bidding model
abstract
This paper discusses the issues involved in evaluating a software bidding model. We found it difficult to assess the appropriateness of any model evaluation activities without a baseline or standard against which to assess them. This paper describes our attempt to construct such a baseline. We reviewed evaluation criteria used to assess cost models and an evaluation framework that was intended to assess the quality of requirements models. We developed an extended evaluation framework and an associated evaluation process that will be used to evaluate our bidding model. Furthermore, we suggest the evaluation framework might be suitable for evaluating other models derived from expert-opinion based influence diagrams.
Barbara A. Kitchenham, Lesley Pickard, Stephen G. Linkman, Peter Jones 0002
Inf. Softw. Technol.2
2003 Modeling Software Bidding Risks
abstract
We discuss a method of developing a software bidding model that allows users to visualize the uncertainty involved in pricing decisions and make appropriate bid/no bid decisions. We present a generic bidding model developed using the modeling method. The model elements were identified after a review of bidding research in software and other industries. We describe the method we developed to validate our model and report the main results of our model validation, including the results of applying the model to four bidding scenarios.
Barbara A. Kitchenham, Lesley Pickard, Stephen G. Linkman, Peter Jones 0002
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.2
2002 Preliminary Guidelines for Empirical Research in Software Engineering
abstract
Empirical software engineering research needs research guidelines to improve the research and reporting processes. We propose a preliminary set of research guidelines aimed at stimulating discussion among software researchers. They are based on a review of research guidelines developed for medical researchers and on our own experience in doing and reviewing software engineering research. The guidelines are intended to assist researchers, reviewers, and meta-analysts in designing, conducting, and evaluating empirical studies. Editorial boards of software engineering journals may wish to use our recommendations as a basis for developing guidelines for reviewers and for framing policies for dealing with the design, data collection, and analysis and reporting of empirical studies.
Barbara A. Kitchenham, Shari Lawrence Pfleeger, Lesley Pickard, Peter Jones 0002, David C. Hoaglin, Khaled El Emam, Jarrett Rosenberg
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.3
1999 Comments on: Evaluating Alternative Software Production Functions
abstract
Software development projects are notorious for cost overruns and schedule delays. While dozens of software cost models have been proposed, few of them seem to have any degree of consistent accuracy. One major factor contributing to this persistent and widespread problem is an inadequate understanding of the real behavior of software development processes. We believe that software development could be studied as an economic production process and that established economic theories and methods could be used to develop and validate software production and cost models. We present the results of evaluating four alternative software production models using the P-test, a statistical procedure developed specifically for testing the truth of a hypothesis in the presence of alternatives in econometric studies. We found that the truth of the widely used Cobb-Douglas type of software production and cost models (e.g., COCOMO) cannot be maintained in the presence of quadratic or translog models. Overall, the quadratic software production function is shown to be the most plausible model for representing software production processes. Limitations of this study and future directions are also discussed.
Lesley Pickard, Barbara A. Kitchenham, Peter Jones 0002
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1
1998 Combining empirical results in software engineering
abstract
In this paper we investigate the techniques used in medical research to combine results from independent empirical studies of a particular phenomenon: meta-analysis and vote-counting. We use an example to illustrate the benefits and limitations of each technique and to indicate the criteria that should be used to guide your choice of technique. Meta-analysis is appropriate for homogeneous studies when raw data or quantitative summary information, e.g. correlation coefficient, are available. It can also be used for heterogeneous studies where the cause of the heterogeneity is due to well-understood partitions in the subject population. In other circumstances, meta-analysis is usually invalid. Although intuitively appealing, vote-counting has a number of serious limitations and should usually be avoided. We suggest that combining study results is unlikely to solve all the problems encountered in empirical software engineering studies, but some of the infrastructure and controls used by medical researchers to improve the quality of their empirical studies would be useful in the field of software engineering.
Lesley Pickard, Barbara A. Kitchenham, Peter Jones 0002
Inf. Softw. Technol.1