Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Petri Myllyperkiö
dblp:67/2738
· DBLP profile ↗
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2009
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 3
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 · 56% Software maintenance and evolution · 44% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Empirical software engineering › software analytics
process data analysis |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Product integration improvement based on analysis of build statistics · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2007 |
Software maintenance and evolution
software process improvement |
0.1 | 1 | 2007 | Product integration improvement based on analysis of build statistics · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2007 |
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | Software product integration: A case study-based synthesis of reference models
Stig Larsson 0002, Petri Myllyperkiö, Fredrik Ekdahl, Ivica Crnkovic |
Inf. Softw. Technol. | 2 |
| 2007 | Handshaking Between Software Projects and Stakeholders Using Implementation Proposals
Samuel Fricker, Tony Gorschek, Petri Myllyperkiö |
REFSQ | 3 |
| 2007 | Product integration improvement based on analysis of build statisticsabstractProcess improvement efforts based on best practices and standards such as the CMMI use appraisal results as input and focus on implementing processes as described in reference models. Since these models are of a general character the conclusions from the assessments could easily overlook problems experienced in the daily work. In addition, process improvement programs often fail to engage practitioners. To improve this, data that can be related to the daily work can help. This paper reports on the results from a study performed to understand how process data can complement project appraisals in finding improvement possibilities. A method for mapping process data to different practices and combining this with project appraisals to form a basis for focused performance improvement is proposed and a study including four projects from three organizations is presented. Stig Larsson 0002, Petri Myllyperkiö, Fredrik Ekdahl |
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE | 2 |