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
Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert

Mike Moore

dblp:66/5576 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2003
—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
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 › software architecture › architectural design
architectural decision making		 0.012003
Quantifying the Value of Architecture Design Decisions: Lessons from the Field · ICSE 2003
Empirical software engineering › software economics
cost-benefit analysis		 0.012003
Quantifying the Value of Architecture Design Decisions: Lessons from the Field · ICSE 2003
Requirements engineering and software design
software architecture		 0.012003
Quantifying the Value of Architecture Design Decisions: Lessons from the Field · ICSE 2003

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

cost benefit analysis method · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2003 Quantifying the Value of Architecture Design Decisions: Lessons from the Field
abstract
This paper outlines experiences with using economic criteria to make architecture design decisions. It briefly describes the CBAM (Cost Benefit Analysis Method) framework applied to estimate the value of architectural strategies in a NASA project, the ECS. This paper describes the practical difficulties and experiences in applying the method to a large realworld system. It concludes with some lessons learned from the experience.
Mike Moore, Rick Kazman, Mark Klein 0003, Jai Asundi
 ICSE1