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

Tobias Barth

dblp:25/4545 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as 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

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 · 77% Requirements engineering and software design · 23%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Software maintenance and evolution
software quality management
0.012003
Experiences on Defining and Evaluating an Adapted Review Process · ICSE 2003

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

empirical study · 0.0defect data analysis · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2003 Experiences on Defining and Evaluating an Adapted Review Process
abstract
This paper presents our experiences with the introduction of a review process for software requirements documents in a development project of the Passenger Car Development business unit (PCD) of DaimlerChrylser AG. As software quality management and quality assurance must be carefully integrated into existing company processes or business cultures, we had to substantially adapt the review process to the specific needs of the above project and its context characteristics. The chief difference to the traditional procedure for conducting reviews as, for example, set out in [1] or [2] is that our review process has a strong workshop character with an emphasis on one of the most crucial success factors for reviews: sufficient time for the individual preparation of the reviewers. We also describe the phase of analyzing the effort and defect data captured with respect to cost benefit aspects and the quality of the reviewed documents in relation to each other.
Thomas Gantner, Tobias Barth
ICSE2