Learning Software Maintenance Organizations

  • Kleiber D. de Sousa
  • Nicolas Anquetil
  • Káthia M. de Oliveira
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3096)


Developing and maintaining software systems is a knowledge intensive task. One needs knowledge of the application domain of the software, the problem the system solves, the requirements for this problem, the architecture of the system and how the different parts fit together, how the system interacts with its environment, etc. More often than not, this knowledge is not documented and lives only in the head of the software engineers. It is, therefore, volatile and an organization may repeatedly pay professionals to rediscover a knowledge it previously acquired and lost. In recognition of this fact, knowledge management techniques such as Postmortem Analysis are being used to help salvage this knowledge. Traditionally, Postmortem Analysis has been applied at the end of software development projects with a focus on organizational aspects such as how to improve the execution of a process. In this paper, we present the application of Postmortem Analysis in a new context: for software maintenance projects. We also apply it, not only for process improvement, but to discover knowledge on the software maintained itself.


Software Engineer Application Domain Software Maintenance Requirement Elicitation Maintenance Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ISO/IEC 12207. Information technology — Software life cycle processes. ISO/IEC (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Dieter Rombach, H.: The Experience Factory. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 469–476. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Birk, A., Dingsøyr, T., Stålhane, T.: Postmortem: Never leave a project without it. IEEE Software 19(3), 43–45 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collier, B., DeMarco, T., Fearey, P.: A defined process for postmortem review. IEEE Software 13(4), 65–72 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deridder, D.: Facilitating software maintenance and reuse activities with a concept-oriented approach. Technical report, Programming Technology Lab - Vrije Universiteit Brussel (may 2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dias, M.G.B., Anquetil, N., de Oliveira, K.M.: Organizing the knowledge used in software maintenance. In: Reimer, U., Abecker, A., Staab, S., Stumme, G. (eds.) WM2003: Professionnelles Wissensmanagement – Erfahrungen und Visionen, Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn, April 3, 2003. Lecture Notes in Informatics, pp. 65–72 (2003) (presented at the Learning Software Organizations Workshop) ISBN 3-88579-357-1Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dias, M.G.B., Anquetil, N., de Oliveira, K.M.: Organizing the knowledge used in software maintenance. Journal of Universal Computer Science 9(7), 641–658 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dingsøyr, T., Moe, N.B., Øystein, N.: Augmenting experience reports with lightweight postmortem reviews. In: Bomarius, F., Komi-Sirviö, S. (eds.) PROFES 2001. LNCS, vol. 2188, pp. 167–181. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Humphrey, W.S.: Introduction to the Team Software Process. SEI Series in Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc., Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jørgensen, M., Sjøberg, D.I.K.: Impact of experience on maintnenance skills. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice 14(2), 123–146 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kerth, N.L.: An approach to postmorta, postparta & post project review, On Lione
  12. 12.
    Lehman, M.M.: Programs, life cycles and the laws of software evolution. Proceedings of the IEEE 68(9), 1060–1076 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pfleeger, S.L.: What software engineering can learn from soccer. IEEE Software 19(6), 64–65 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pigoski, T.M.: Practical Software Maintenance. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rising, L.: Patterns in postmortems. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference, October 25–26, 1999, pp. 314–315. IEEE, IEEE Comp. Soc. Press (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stålhane, T., Dingsøyr, T., Hanssen, G.K., Moe, N.B.: Post mortem – an assessement of two approaches. In: Proceedings of the European Software Process Improvement 2001 (EuroSPI 2001) (October 10-12, 2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yourdon, E.: Minipostmortems. COMPUTERWORLD (March 19, 2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kleiber D. de Sousa
    • 1
  • Nicolas Anquetil
    • 1
  • Káthia M. de Oliveira
    • 1
  1. 1.UCB – Catholic University of BrasiliaBrasiliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations