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

Petri Myllyperkiö

dblp:67/2738 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering › software analytics
process data analysis
0.112007
Product integration improvement based on analysis of build statistics · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2007
Software maintenance and evolution
software process improvement
0.112007
Product integration improvement based on analysis of build statistics · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2007
YearPublicationVenuePosition
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
REFSQ3
2007 Product integration improvement based on analysis of build statistics
abstract
Process 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 FSE2