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

Carl W. Doerflinger

dblp:97/349 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1985
—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 · 62% Empirical software engineering · 38%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design › software process
software process measurement
0.011985
Monitoring Software Development Through Dynamic Variables · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1985
Empirical software engineering
software metrics
0.011985
Monitoring Software Development Through Dynamic Variables · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1985
Empirical software engineering
software project management
0.011985
Monitoring Software Development Through Dynamic Variables · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1985

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

dynamic variables · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1985 Monitoring Software Development Through Dynamic Variables
abstract
This paper describes research conducted by the Software Engineering Laboratory (SEL) on the use of dynamic variables as a tool to monitor software development. The intent of the project is to identify project independent measures which may be used in a management tool for monitoring software development. This study examines several Fortran projects with similar profiles. The staff was experienced in developing these types of projects. The projects developed serve similar functions. Because these projects are similar we believe some underlying relationships exist that are invariant between the projects. These relationships, once well defined, may be used to compare the development of different projects to determine whether they are evolving the same way previous projects in this environment evolved.
Carl W. Doerflinger, Victor R. Basili
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1