Building an Experience Base for Software Engineering: A Report on the First CeBASE eWorkshop

  • Victor Basili
  • Roseanne Tesoriero
  • Patricia Costa
  • Mikael Lindvall
  • Ioana Rus
  • Forrest Shull
  • Marvin Zelkowitz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2188)

Abstract

New information is obtained by research and disseminated by papers in conferences and journals. The synthesis of knowledge depends upon social discourse among the experts in a given domain to discuss the impact of this new information. Meetings among such experts are, however, expensive and time consuming. In this paper we discuss the organization of CeBASE, a center whose goal is the collection and dissemination of empirically-based software engineering knowledge, and the concept of the online workshop or eWorkshop as a way to use the Internet to minimize the needs of face-to-face meetings. We discuss the design of our eWorkshop and give the results of one eWorkshop that discussed the impact of defect reduction strategies.

We want to thank Barry Boehm, Scott Henninger, Rayford Vaughn, Winsor Brown, Dan Port and Michael Frey as well as all participants for their contribution to the success of the eWorkshop. We also want to thank students at USC and UMD for their contribution in testing the system and Jennifer Dix for proof reading this paper.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Basili, Victor R and Green, Scott, “Software Process Evolution at the SEL,” IEEE Software, pp 58–66, July 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boehm, Barry and Basili, Victor, “Top 10 Defect Reduction Techniques,” IEEE Computer, January 2001. (Also available at http://www.cebase.org/defectreduction/top10/.)
  3. 3.
    Chillarege, Ram, Bhandari, Inderpal, Chaar, Jarir, Halliday, Michael, Moebus, Diane, Ray, Bonnie and Wong, Man-Yuen, "Orthogonal defect classification-a concept for in-process measurements," IEEE Trans on Software Engineering, 18(11), November 1992: 943–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clark, Bradford, “The Effects of Process Maturity on Software Development Effort,” Ph.D. Dissertation, USC, 1997. (http://sunset.usc.edu/reports)
  5. 5.
    Jones, Capers, Applied Software Measurement, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lindner, Richard J. & Tudahl, D. "Software Development at a Baldrige Winner," Proceedings of ELECTRO’ 94, Boston, Massachusetts, May 12, 1994, pp. 167–180.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McGibbon, Thomas, Software Reliability Data Summary, DACS, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Royce Walker, Software Project Management: A Unified Framework, The Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series, 1998, Appendix D.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seaman C. B. and Basili V.R., “Communication and Organization: An Empirical Study of Discussion in Inspection Meetings,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(6), June 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Don O’Neill, “Peer reviews and software inspections,” Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, Wiley Publishing. To be published. Draft can be found at http://members.aol.com/ONeillDon2/peer-reviews.html.
  11. 11.
    “Fundamental Skills Course” http://GroupSystems.com, 1999

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor Basili
    • 1
  • Roseanne Tesoriero
    • 1
  • Patricia Costa
    • 1
  • Mikael Lindvall
    • 1
  • Ioana Rus
    • 1
  • Forrest Shull
    • 1
  • Marvin Zelkowitz
    • 1
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Center for Experimental Software Engineering MarylandUSA

Personalised recommendations