1981
DOI: 10.1109/tse.1981.234534
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Software Maintainability Evaluation Methodology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0
1

Year Published

1985
1985
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
5
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Peercy et al, defined a model to signify structure of maintainability of software depending on modularity, descriptiveness, reliability, ease, expandability and instrumentation sub-factors [5].…”
Section: Iterature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Peercy et al, defined a model to signify structure of maintainability of software depending on modularity, descriptiveness, reliability, ease, expandability and instrumentation sub-factors [5].…”
Section: Iterature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Maintainability is a function of modularity, descriptiveness, consistency, simplicity, expandability and instrumentation (Peercy, 1981). When we maintain software, it grows in size and complexity with a decrease in understandability and adaptability (Pfleeger and Bohner, 1990).…”
Section: Maintenance Risksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dave: The culmination of the work with AFOTEC was the development of a Risk Assessment Methodology for Software Supportability (RAMSS). As the tasks progressed from defining a software (product) maintainability evaluation methodology (Peercy, 1981) to a methodology for evaluating a software support environment (Peercy and Swinson, 1983), it became apparent that there should be some overall framework that covered product, environment AND process. Furthermore, this framework should be validated using 'real data' as a basis.…”
Section: Interviewmentioning
confidence: 99%