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

Francesco Maccari

dblp:45/2059 · 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 · 67% Empirical software engineering · 33%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design
computer-aided software engineering
0.012002
On CASE Tool Usage at Nokia · ASE 2002
Empirical software engineering
developer studies
0.012002
On CASE Tool Usage at Nokia · ASE 2002
Requirements engineering and software design
software design tools
0.012002
On CASE Tool Usage at Nokia · ASE 2002

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

survey · 0.0statistical analysis · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2002 On CASE Tool Usage at Nokia
abstract
We present the results of a research work targeted to understanding CASE tools usage in Nokia. By means of a survey questionnaire, we collected data aimed to identify what features are most useful and best implemented in current CASE tools according to senior developers and managers. With the aid of both descriptive and inferential statistical data analysis methods, we found out that the features that are rated most useful belong to the graphical editing, version management and document generation categories. The statistical methods we use allow us to extend the results to the whole population with a certain degree of confidence. The analysis of the data seems to give the indication that there is a general level of dissatisfaction on the quality of currently available CASE tools. Also, there is evidence that some of the most advanced features (reverse engineering, code generation) are not deemed as useful as others. Further research should focus on extending the survey to other types of industries, and attempt generalization of the results. This may constitute precious feedback for the software tools industry in order to develop products that correspond more to industry needs.
Alessandro Maccari, Claudio Riva, Francesco Maccari
ASE3