EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Per Rovegard
dblp:65/1450
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2008
—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 |
Software maintenance and evolution · 56% Empirical software engineering · 44% |
Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Software maintenance and evolution
change impact analysis |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | An Empirical Study on Views of Importance of Change Impact Analysis Issues · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2008 |
Empirical software engineering
developer studies |
0.1 | 1 | 2008 | An Empirical Study on Views of Importance of Change Impact Analysis Issues · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2008 |
Software maintenance and evolution
change management |
0.0 | 1 | 2008 | An Empirical Study on Views of Importance of Change Impact Analysis Issues · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2008 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
statistical analysis · 0.1qualitative analysis · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | An Empirical Study on Views of Importance of Change Impact Analysis IssuesabstractChange impact analysis is a change management activity that previously has been studied much from a technical perspective. For example, much work focuses on methods for determining the impact of a change. In this paper, we present results from a study on the role of impact analysis in the change management process. In the study, impact analysis issues were prioritised with respect to criticality by software professionals from an organisational perspective and a self-perspective. The software professionals belonged to three organisational levels: operative, tactical and strategic. Qualitative and statistical analyses with respect to differences between perspectives as well as levels are presented. The results show that important issues for a particular level are tightly related to how the level is defined. Similarly, issues important from an organisational perspective are more holistic than those important from a self-perspective. However, our data indicate that the self-perspective colours the organisational perspective, meaning that personal opinions and attitudes cannot easily be disregarded. In comparing the perspectives and the levels, we visualise the differences in a way that allow us to discuss two classes of issues: high-priority and medium-priority. The most important issues from this point of view concern fundamental aspects of impact analysis and its execution. Per Rovegard, Lefteris Angelis, Claes Wohlin |
IEEE Trans. Software Eng. | 1 |