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

A. K. M. Moinul Islam

dblp:68/11152 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 2

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 · 50% Empirical software engineering · 50%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution
software process improvement
0.112012
Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process Improvement - A Systematic Literature Review · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2012
Empirical software engineering
systematic literature review
0.112012
Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process Improvement - A Systematic Literature Review · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2012

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

systematic literature review · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 A conceptual framework for SPI evaluation
abstract
SUMMARY Software Process Improvement (SPI) encompasses the analysis and modification of the processes within software development, aimed at improving key areas that contribute to the organizations' goals. The task of evaluating whether the selected improvement path meets these goals is challenging. On the basis of the results of a systematic literature review on SPI measurement and evaluation practices, we developed a framework (SPI Measurement and Evaluation Framework (SPI‐MEF)) that supports the planning and implementation of SPI evaluations. SPI‐MEF guides the practitioner in scoping the evaluation, determining measures, and performing the assessment. SPI‐MEF does not assume a specific approach to process improvement and can be integrated in existing measurement programs, refocusing the assessment on evaluating the improvement initiative's outcome. Sixteen industry and academic experts evaluated the framework's usability and capability to support practitioners, providing additional insights that were integrated in the application guidelines of the framework. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Michael Unterkalmsteiner, Tony Gorschek, A. K. M. Moinul Islam, Chow Kian Cheng, Rahadian Bayu Permadi, Robert Feldt
J. Softw. Evol. Process.3
2012 Evaluation and Measurement of Software Process Improvement - A Systematic Literature Review
abstract
BACKGROUND—Software Process Improvement (SPI) is a systematic approach to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of a software development organization and to enhance software products. OBJECTIVE—This paper aims to identify and characterize evaluation strategies and measurements used to assess the impact of different SPI initiatives. METHOD—The systematic literature review includes 148 papers published between 1991 and 2008. The selected papers were classified according to SPI initiative, applied evaluation strategies, and measurement perspectives. Potential confounding factors interfering with the evaluation of the improvement effort were assessed. RESULTS—Seven distinct evaluation strategies were identified, wherein the most common one, “Pre-Post Comparison,” was applied in 49 percent of the inspected papers. Quality was the most measured attribute (62 percent), followed by Cost (41 percent), and Schedule (18 percent). Looking at measurement perspectives, “Project” represents the majority with 66 percent. CONCLUSION—The evaluation validity of SPI initiatives is challenged by the scarce consideration of potential confounding factors, particularly given that “Pre-Post Comparison” was identified as the most common evaluation strategy, and the inaccurate descriptions of the evaluation context. Measurements to assess the short and mid-term impact of SPI initiatives prevail, whereas long-term measurements in terms of customer satisfaction and return on investment tend to be less used.
Michael Unterkalmsteiner, Tony Gorschek, A. K. M. Moinul Islam, Chow Kian Cheng, Rahadian Bayu Permadi, Robert Feldt
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.3