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

T. Sunazuka

dblp:19/5986 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1999
—ORCID · none

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

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2 · 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 maintenance and evolution · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution › software quality assurance
software quality assessment
0.011985
Software Quality Assessment Technology · ICSE 1985
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1999 Prioritisation of System Changes using Cost-Benefit and Risk Assessments
abstract
This paper proposes an approach to the prioritisation of system changes that takes account of the relative costs and benefits of those changes and the risks that they reduce or introduce. This is part of the SERUM methodology (Software Engineering Risk: Understanding and Management), which is being developed to help identify effective ways of using risk analysis and control in software production. SERUM introduces risk management at the initial business analysis stage of requirements investigation, and assumes an evolutionary approach to software delivery. Prioritisation is determined from five factors: benefits, costs and risk exposure in the current system, target system, and development process. The relative importance of these factors is adjustable. Results from a case study at NEC illustrate the prioritisation process and a supporting software tool is also described.
Des Greer, David W. Bustard, T. Sunazuka
RE3
1985 Software Quality Assessment Technology
T. Sunazuka, Motoei Azuma, Noriko Yamagishi
ICSE1