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.

John Y. Payseur

dblp:07/6628 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as 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 · 1

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 · 77% Software maintenance and evolution · 23%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design › software process
software process assessment
0.012002
Goal-oriented software assessment · ICSE 2002

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

interview study · 0.0change data analysis · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2002 Goal-oriented software assessment
abstract
Companies that engage in multi-site, multi-project software development continually face the problem of how to understand and improve their software development capabilities. We have defined and applied a goal-oriented process that enables such a company to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those capabilities. Our goals are to help a) to decrease the time and cost to develop software, b)to decrease the time needed to make changes to existing software, c) to improve software quality, d) to attract and retain a talented engineering staff, and e) to facilitate more predictable management of software projects. In response to the variety of product requirements, market needs, and development environments, we selected a goal-oriented process, rather than a criteria-oriented process, to advance our strategy and ensure relevance of the results. We describe the design of the process, discuss results achieved, and present vulnerabilities of the methodology. The process includes both interviews with projects' personnel and analysis of change data. Several common issues have emerged from the assessments across multiple projects, enabling strategic investments in software technology. Teams report satisfaction with the outcome in that they act on the recommendations, ask for additional future assessments, and recommend the process to sibling organizations.
David M. Weiss 0001, David Bennett, John Y. Payseur, Patrick Tendick, Ping Zhang 0013
ICSE3