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

Ruth Malan

dblp:84/4563 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 1995
—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
Empirical software engineering · 56% Requirements engineering and software design · 44%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering › software engineering research methodology
industrial case study		 0.011995
Lessons from the Experiences of Leading-Edge Object Technology Projects in Hewlett Packard · OOPSLA 1995
Requirements engineering and software design
object-oriented analysis and design		 0.011995
Lessons from the Experiences of Leading-Edge Object Technology Projects in Hewlett Packard · OOPSLA 1995
Empirical software engineering
software engineering practice		 0.011995
Lessons from the Experiences of Leading-Edge Object Technology Projects in Hewlett Packard · OOPSLA 1995
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1995 Lessons from the Experiences of Leading-Edge Object Technology Projects in Hewlett Packard
abstract
A study of leading-edge HP object technology projects was conducted to understand the current state of object-oriented practice, and projects' object-oriented analysis and design method needs. In this paper, we distill general best practices and pitfalls from the lessons learned in these projects. We also consider how the OOA/D methods support what the businesses have set out to accomplish, where they are deficient, and how they are being modified to better support project needs. We draw upon these lessons to point out areas where OOA/D methods and CASE tools require improvement.
Ruth Malan, Derek Coleman, Reed Letsinger
 OOPSLA1