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

Lisandra V. Manzoni

dblp:91/1117 · 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 · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design
software process
0.012003
Identifying Extensions Required by RUP (Rational Unified Process) to Comply with CMM (Capability Maturity Model) Levels 2 and 3 · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2003
Requirements engineering and software design › software process
software process assessment
0.012003
Identifying Extensions Required by RUP (Rational Unified Process) to Comply with CMM (Capability Maturity Model) Levels 2 and 3 · IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 2003

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

process assessment · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2003 Identifying Extensions Required by RUP (Rational Unified Process) to Comply with CMM (Capability Maturity Model) Levels 2 and 3
abstract
This paper describes an assessment of the rational unified process (RUP) based on the capability maturity model (CMM). For each key practice (KP) identified in each key process area (KPA) of CMM levels 2 and 3, the Rational Unified Process was assessed to determine whether it satisfied the KP or not. For each KPA, the percentage of the key practices supported was calculated, and the results were tabulated. The report includes considerations about the coverage of each key process area, describing the highlights of the RUP regarding its support for CMM levels 2 and 3, and suggests where an organization using it will need to complement it to conform to CMM. The assessment resulted in the elaboration of proposals to enhance the RUP in order to satisfy the key process areas of CMM. Some of these are briefly described in this article.
Lisandra V. Manzoni, R. Tom Price
IEEE Trans. Software Eng.1