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

Ping Zhang 0013

dblp:13/4682-13 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2005
—ORCID · conflict

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
3 papers
Empirical software engineering · 59% Operating systems · 16% Requirements engineering and software design · 14%

Topics — the 7 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering
mining software repositories
0.112005
Predictors of customer perceived software quality · ICSE 2005
Operating systems › resource management
resource allocation
0.012003
Understanding and Predicting Effort in Software Projects · ICSE 2003
Empirical software engineering
software effort estimation
0.012003
Understanding and Predicting Effort in Software Projects · ICSE 2003
Empirical software engineering
software project management
0.012003
Understanding and Predicting Effort in Software Projects · ICSE 2003
Requirements engineering and software design › software process
software process assessment
0.012002
Goal-oriented software assessment · ICSE 2002
Software maintenance and evolution › software configuration management › software release management
software deployment
0.012005
Predictors of customer perceived software quality · ICSE 2005
Empirical software engineering › mining software repositories
defect prediction
0.012003
Understanding and Predicting Effort in Software Projects · ICSE 2003

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

non-intrusive data gathering · 0.1interview study · 0.0change data analysis · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2005 Predictors of customer perceived software quality
abstract
Predicting software quality as perceived by a customer may allow an organization to adjust deployment to meet the quality expectations of its customers, to allocate the appropriate amount of maintenance resources, and to direct quality improvement efforts to maximize the return on investment. However, customer perceived quality may be affected not simply by the software content and the development process, but also by a number of other factors including deployment issues, amount of usage, software platform, and hardware configurations. We predict customer perceived quality as measured by various service interactions, including software defect reports, requests for assistance, and field technician dispatches using the afore mentioned and other factors for a large telecommunications software system. We employ the non-intrusive data gathering technique of using existing data captured in automated project monitoring and tracking systems as well as customer support and tracking systems. We find that the effects of deployment schedule, hardware configurations, and software platform can increase the probability of observing a software failure by more than 20 times. Furthermore, we find that the factors affect all quality measures in a similar fashion. Our approach can be applied at other organizations, and we suggest methods to independently validate and replicate our results.
Audris Mockus, Ping Zhang 0013, Paul Luo Li
ICSE2
2003 Understanding and Predicting Effort in Software Projects
abstract
We set out to answer a question we were asked by software project management: how much effort remains to be spent on a specific software project and how will that effort be distributed over time? To answer this question we propose a model based on the concept that each modification to software may cause repairs at some later time and investigate its theoretical properties and application to several projects in Avaya to predict and plan development resource allocation. Our model presents a novel unified framework to investigate and predict effort, schedule, and defects of a software project. The results of applying the model confirm a fundamental relationship between the new feature and defect repair changes and demonstrate its predictive properties.
Audris Mockus, David M. Weiss 0001, Ping Zhang 0013
ICSE3
2002 Goal-oriented software assessment
abstract
Companies that engage in multi-site, multi-project software development continually face the problem of how to understand and improve their software development capabilities. We have defined and applied a goal-oriented process that enables such a company to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those capabilities. Our goals are to help a) to decrease the time and cost to develop software, b)to decrease the time needed to make changes to existing software, c) to improve software quality, d) to attract and retain a talented engineering staff, and e) to facilitate more predictable management of software projects. In response to the variety of product requirements, market needs, and development environments, we selected a goal-oriented process, rather than a criteria-oriented process, to advance our strategy and ensure relevance of the results. We describe the design of the process, discuss results achieved, and present vulnerabilities of the methodology. The process includes both interviews with projects' personnel and analysis of change data. Several common issues have emerged from the assessments across multiple projects, enabling strategic investments in software technology. Teams report satisfaction with the outcome in that they act on the recommendations, ask for additional future assessments, and recommend the process to sibling organizations.
David M. Weiss 0001, David Bennett, John Y. Payseur, Patrick Tendick, Ping Zhang 0013
ICSE5