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

Dick Stevens

dblp:204/3565 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2018
—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
Empirical software engineering · 72% Software maintenance and evolution · 28%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution
log analysis
0.312017
Strong agile metrics: mining log data to determine predictive power of software metrics for continuous delivery teams · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2017
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.312017
Strong agile metrics: mining log data to determine predictive power of software metrics for continuous delivery teams · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2017
Empirical software engineering
software metrics
0.312017
Strong agile metrics: mining log data to determine predictive power of software metrics for continuous delivery teams · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2017
Empirical software engineering › developer studies › software teams
agile teams
0.112017
Strong agile metrics: mining log data to determine predictive power of software metrics for continuous delivery teams · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2017
Empirical software engineering
developer studies
0.112017
Strong agile metrics: mining log data to determine predictive power of software metrics for continuous delivery teams · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2017

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

predictive power analysis · 0.3exploratory case study · 0.3classification · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2018 Software analytics in continuous delivery: a case study on success factors
abstract
Background: During the period of one year, ING developed an approach for software analytics within an environment of a large number of software engineering teams working in a Continuous Delivery as a Service setting. Goal: Our objective is to examine what factors helped and hindered the implementation of software analytics in such an environment, in order to improve future software analytics activities. Method: We analyzed artifacts delivered by the software analytics project, and performed semi-structured interviews with 15 stakeholders. Results: We identified 16 factors that helped the implementation of software analytics, and 20 factors that hindered the project. Conclusions: Upfront defining and communicating the aims, standardization of data at an early stage, build efficient visualizations, and an empirical approach help companies to improve software analytics projects.
Hennie Huijgens, Davide Spadini, Dick Stevens, Niels Visser, Arie van Deursen
ESEM3
2017 Strong agile metrics: mining log data to determine predictive power of software metrics for continuous delivery teams
abstract
ING Bank, a large Netherlands-based internationally operating bank, implemented a fully automated continuous delivery pipeline for its software engineering activities in more than 300 teams, that perform more than 2500 deployments to production each month on more than 750 different applications. Our objective is to examine how strong metrics for agile (Scrum) DevOps teams can be set in an iterative fashion. We perform an exploratory case study that focuses on the classification based on predictive power of software metrics, in which we analyze log data derived from two initial sources within this pipeline. We analyzed a subset of 16 metrics from 59 squads. We identified two lagging metrics and assessed four leading metrics to be strong.
Hennie Huijgens, Robert Lamping, Dick Stevens, Hartger Rothengatter, Georgios Gousios, Daniele Romano
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE3