Forestry as an Alternative Metaphor for Software Development: Applying Multiobjective Impact Analysis

  • Gregory K. Shea
  • Clement L. McGowan


Metaphors draw parallels between dissimilar situations. Metaphors help us understand and “see” one situation in terms of another. For example, the “evening of life” from the metaphor “a life is like a day” suggests a life, mostly completed, moving inexorably to its end. Metaphors sometimes have the power of poetry to change how we feel about and see something familiar.


Software Development Markov Decision Process Verification Method Machine Cost Error Density 
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]
    Anderson, A. et al. “Systems Analysis for the Forest Sector,” TIMS Studies in Management Sciences 21 (1986): 1–23Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Boehm, B. and P. Papaccio, “Understanding and Controlling Costs,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-14 (1988): 1462–1477.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bollinger, T. and C. McGowan, “A Critical Look at Software Capability Evaluations,” IEEE Software 8,4 (1991): 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Deming, W.E., Out of the Crisis, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Gomide, F. and Y. Haimes, “The Multiobjective Multistage Impact Analysis Method: Theoretical Basis,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-14 (1984):88–98.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Harrison, T. and R. Rosenthal “A Multiobjective Optimization Approach for Scheduling Timber Harvests on Nonindustrial Private Forest Lands,” TIMS Studies in Management Sciences 21 (1986),:269–283.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Howard, R., Dynamic Programming and Markov Processes, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1964.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Juran, J.M., Juran on Planning for Quality, New York: Macmillan, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Kellner, M., “Representation Formalisms for Software Process Modeling,” Proceedings of the 4th International Software Process Workshop, Devon, UK, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Kennedy, J., Dynamic Programming: Applications to Agriculture and Natural Resources, Essex, England: Elsevier Publishers, 1986.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Lakoff, G., Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Lembersky, M. and K. Johnson, “Optimal Polices for Managed Strands: An Infinite Horizon Markov Decision Process Approach,” Forest Science 21, 2 (1975):107–122.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Luenberger, D., Linear and Nonlinear Programming, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley, 1984.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Morgan, G., Images of Organization, London: Sage Publications, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Rombach, H.,“A Specification Framework for Software Process: Formal Specification and Derivation of Information Base Requirements,” Proceedings of the 4th International Software Process Workshop, Devon, UK, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Virginia Department of Forestry. Management Plan for Appomattox- Buckingham State Forest (Revised, 1986). By S. F. Warner. Charlottesville, Virginia, 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory K. Shea
    • 1
  • Clement L. McGowan
    • 2
  1. 1.The Software Productivity ConsortiumHerndonUSA
  2. 2.The MITRE CorporationMcLeanUSA

Personalised recommendations