Advertisement

Experience Reports

Chapter
  • 115 Downloads

Abstract

Seven PIEs were selected for presentation in this chapter. They were chosen for the range of interesting and important aspects of Metrics for Improvements in Software Organisations.

Keywords

Experience Report Business Goal Configuration Management Baseline Project Reuse 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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [Basili92]
    Victor R. Basili, Software modelling and measurement: The Goal/Question/Metric paradigm, Technical Report CS-TR-2956, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, September 1992.Google Scholar
  2. [Basili94a]
    Victor R. Basili, Gianluigi Caldiera, and H. Dieter Rombach. Experience Factory, Encyclopaedia of Software Engineering, volume 1, pages 469–476. John Wiley & Sons, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. [Basili94b]
    Victor R. Basili, Gianluigi Caldiera, and H. Dieter Rombach. Goal Question Metric Paradigm, Encyclopaedia of Software Engineering, volume 1, pages 528–532. John Wiley & Sons, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. [Basili94c]
    Victor R. Basili, Gianluigi Caldiera, and H. Dieter Rombach. Measurement, Encyclopaedia of Software Engineering, volume 1, pages 646–661. John Wiley & Sons, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. [Basili86]
    Victor R. Basili, Richard W. Selby, and David H. Hutchens. Experimentation in software engineering, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-12(7):733–743, July 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [Basili84]
    Victor R. Basili and David M. Weiss. A methodology for collecting valid software engineering data. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-10(6):728–738, November 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [CEMP95a]
    The CEMP Consortium. Customised establishment of measurement programs. Midterm Report, ESSI Project Nr. 10358, Germany,1995.Google Scholar
  8. [CEMP95b]
    The CEMP Consortium. Cost of Introducing GQM-Based Measurement. ESSI Project Nr. 10358, Germany,1995.Google Scholar
  9. [CEMP95C]
    The CEMP Consortium. Benefits of Introducing GQM-Based Measurement. ESSI Project Nr. 10358, Germany,1995.Google Scholar
  10. [Fuggetta]
    Alfonso Fuggetta, Luigi Lavazza, Sandro Morasca, Stefano Cinti, Giandomenico Oldano and Elena Orazi. Applying GQM in an industrial software factory, (submitted to the IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering).Google Scholar
  11. [Grigoletti96]
    Marco Grigoletti and Cristiano Gusmeroli. Software metrics, il paradigma GQM (in Italian). Informatica Oggi, January 1996.Google Scholar
  12. [Gresse95]
    Christiane Gresse, Barbara Hoisl and Jürgen Wüst. A Process Model for GQMBased Measurement. Technical Report STTI-95-04-E, Software Technology Transfer Initiative, University of Kaiserslautern, Department of Computer Science, D-67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany, October 1995.Google Scholar
  13. [ISERN95]
    The ISERN Group. International Software Engineering Research Network, Annual Meeting October 1995. University of Maryland, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. [Hoisl94]
    Barbara Hoisl. A process model for planning GQM-based measurement. Technical Report STTI-94-06-E, Software Technology Transfer Initiative, University of Kaiserslautern, Department of Computer Science, D-67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany, April 1994.Google Scholar
  15. [Gresse96]
    Christiane Gresse, Barbara Hoisl, H. Dieter Rombach and Günther Ruhe. Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse von GQM-basiertem Messen und Bewerten: Eine replizierte Fallstudie (in German), Conference on Empirical Research in Business Informatics, Linz, March 1996.Google Scholar
  16. [IEEE91]
    IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology (Std 610.12-1990). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. USA, 1991Google Scholar
  17. [Latum a]
    Frank van Latum, Markku Oivo, Barbara Hoisl and Günther Ruhe. No Improvement without Feedback: Experiences from goal-oriented measurement at Schlumberger. (to be submitted).Google Scholar
  18. [Latum b]
    Frank van Latum, Markku Oivo, Barbara Hoisl, Dieter Rombach and Günther Ruhe. Shifting towards goal-oriented measurement: Experience of Schlumberger (in preparation).Google Scholar
  19. [NASA94]
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Software measurement guidebook. Technical Report SEL-84-101, NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre, Greenbelt MD 20771, July 1994.Google Scholar
  20. [Rombach91]
    H. D. Rombach. Practical Benefits of Goal-Oriented Measurement. Software Reliability and Metrics, Elsevier Applied Science, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. [Solingen95a]
    R. van Solingen, F. van Latum, M. Oivo, E. Berghout. Application of software measurement at Schlumberger RPS: Towards enhancing GQM. Proceedings of the sixth European Software Cost Modelling Conference (ESCOM), May 1995.Google Scholar
  22. [Solingen95b]
    R. van Solingen. Goal-oriented software measurement in practice: Introducing software measurement in Schlumberger Retail Petroleum Systems. Master Thesis Report, Schlumberger, 1995.Google Scholar

References

  1. [Beizer90]
    B. Beizer, Software Testing Techniques, USA, 1990Google Scholar
  2. [Humphrey90]
    W.S. Humphrey, Managing the Software Process, USA, 1990Google Scholar
  3. [Salvatore97]
    C. Salvatore R. Barbati “Process Improvement through metrics and standards” Proc. of CQS’ 97 Conference on Exploiting Excellence in European Information and Communication Industry pp. 177–179 Roma Italy April 7–10 199Google Scholar
  4. [Barbati98]
    R. Barbati, 4th International Conference on Achieving Quality in Software, pp. 301–307, Venice, Italy, March 30—April 2, 1998Google Scholar

References

  1. [Parallax]
    Parallax Solutions Ltd.: http://www.parallax.co.uk/Google Scholar
  2. [ESSI]
    European Systems and Software Initiative: http://www.esi.es/ESSI/Google Scholar
  3. [ForeSight]
    Foresight Estimation Tool by Price Systems: http://www.buyfs.com/Google Scholar
  4. [CCCC]
    CCCC Metric Tool by Tim Littlefair: http://www.fste.ac.cowan.edu.au/∼tlittlef/Google Scholar
  5. [KnowledgePlan]
    KnowledgePlan Estimation Tool by SPR: http://www.spr.com/Google Scholar
  6. [Minkiewicz]
    Arlene F. Minkiewicz, “Cost Estimation Using Predictive Object Points”, The Tenth Annual Software Technology Conference “Knowledge Sharing — Global Information Networks” conference proceedings, Salt Lake City, Utah, 19–23 April 1998.Google Scholar

References

  1. [Annex95]
    Annex I (Project Program) to project Contract No. 21476, Management By Metrics (MBM) version 3, November 21st, 1995Google Scholar
  2. [MBM/M96]
    Dissemination Plan, MBM/MANAGEMENT_REPORT/ALENIA Issue 1, May 30th, 1996Google Scholar
  3. [MTReport96]
    ESSI MBM Mid-Term Report Issue 1, December 20th, 1996Google Scholar
  4. [MBM/T96a]
    Business Goals, MBM/TECHNICAL_REPORT/ALENIA, Issue 1, June 30th, 1996Google Scholar
  5. [MBM/T96b]
    Dash-Board Definition, MBM/TECHNICAL_REPORT/ALENIA/2 Issue 1, July 30th, 1996Google Scholar
  6. [MIFDD96]
    Metrics Interchange File Definition Document, November 21st, 1996Google Scholar
  7. [SPICE98]
    Assessment SPICE Report (Rev. 0), January 22nd, 1998Google Scholar
  8. [ISO/IEC97]
    ISO/IEC TR 15504 (SPICE) — Software Process Assessment Standard„ Vers. 3.02, Nov. 1997Google Scholar

References

  1. [Basili88]
    V.R. Basili, and H.D. Rombach, The TAME project. Towards improvementorientated software environments, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 14(6), pp 758–773, 1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [Humphrey89]
    W.S. Humphrey, Managing the Software Process, New York, NY, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. 1989.Google Scholar
  3. [Chillarege92]
    R. Chillarege, I.S. Bhandari, J.K. Chaar, M.J. Halliday, D.S. Moebus, B.K. Ray, and M-Y. Wong, Orthogonal Defect Classification-A Concept for In-Process Measurements, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 18(11), pp 943–956, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

  1. [Basili94]
    Basili, Victor R.; Caldiera, Gianluigi; Rombach, Dieter H.: The Experience Factory, Encyclopaedia of Software Engineering — 2 Volume Set, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1994.Google Scholar
  2. [Bröckers96]
    Bröckers, Alfred; Differding, Christiane; Threin, Günter: The Role of Software Process Modelling in Planning Industrial Measurement Programs, Proceedings of the 3rd International Metrics Symposium, Berlin; IEEE, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. [Crosby80]
    Crosby, Philip B.: Quality is free — The Art of making quality certain, Mentor (Penguin Books), USA, 1980.Google Scholar
  4. [Dumke94]
    Dumke, Reiner; Zuse, Horst (Ed.): Theorie und Praxis der Softwaremessung, Deutscher Universitäts Verlag, Germany, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. [Fenton95]
    Fenton, Norman; Whitty, Robin; Iizuka, Yoshinori (Ed.): Software Quality — Assurance and Measurement, International Thomson Publishing Company, UK, 1995.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [Humphrey89]
    Humphrey, Watt S.: Managing the Software Process, SEI series in software engineering, Addison-Wesley, USA, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. [Jones97a]
    Jones, Capers, course papers and slides: becoming best in class (1997), held in Munich 1997Google Scholar
  8. [Jones97b]
    Jones, Capers, The Impact of Project Management Tools on Software Failures and Successes, Article of Software Productivity Research Inc., March 23, 1997Google Scholar
  9. [Jones91]
    Jones, Capers, Applied Software Measurement, McGraw Hill 1991Google Scholar
  10. [Melton96]
    Melton, Austin: Software Measurement, International Thomson Computer Press, UK, 1996.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [Pulford96]
    Pulford, Kevin; Kuntzmann-Combelles, Annie; Shirlaw, Stephen: A quantitative approach to Software Management — The ami Handbook, Addison-Wesley, UK, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SISUKista
  2. 2.Robert Bosch GmbHGermany
  3. 3.Schlumberger RPSNetherlands
  4. 4.Digital Equipment SPAItaly
  5. 5.UKL/STTI-KLGermany
  6. 6.Schlumberger SMRFrance
  7. 7.CEFRIELItaly
  8. 8.Dataspazio S.p.A.Rome
  9. 9.Parallax Solutions LtdCoventry
  10. 10.Intecs SistemiPisa
  11. 11.Sysdeco GIS ASKongsberg
  12. 12.The Norwegian Technical UniversityTrondheim
  13. 13.Rolls-Royce University Technology Centre/University of YorkYork
  14. 14.Rolls-Royce plcDerby
  15. 15.KoDa GmbHWürzburg

Personalised recommendations