Assessing the maintenance processes of a software organization: an empirical analysis of a large industrial project

Lucia, Andrea De; Pompella, Eugenio; Stefanucci, Silvio

doi:10.1016/s0164-1212(02)00051-1

Cited by 20 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The correlation matrix in Table 5 evidences high correlation between the effort of subsequent activities. This suggests that it is possible to have a significant distribution of the effort among the activities and this corresponds the findings of other research on correlation among activity effort [12]. This finding also indicates that estimating activity effort on the basis of the effort of the last activity can lead to more accurate estimation.…”

Section: Figure 1 Activity Effort Distributionsupporting

confidence: 87%

An empirical analysis on distribution patterns of software maintenance effort

Yang

et al. 2008

2008 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Figure 1 Activity Effort Distributionsupporting

confidence: 87%

An empirical analysis on distribution patterns of software maintenance effort

Yang

et al. 2008

2008 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much research in software maintenance has been focused on traditional software engineering techniques such as modelling techniques and UML, (Arisholm et al 2006;Dzidek et al 2008), estimation, (Buchmann et al 2011;De Lucia et al 2003;Nguyen et al 2011), risk management, (Charette et al 1997;Sherer 1997), statistical process control (De Lucia et al 2003;Popovic et al 2001;Ware et al 2007;Zanker and Gordea 2006), quality, (Ghods andNelson 1998), metrics, (Hall andLineham 1997;Popovic et al 2001;Ware et al 2007), post mortem, (De Sousa et al 2004) and testing, (Sukumaran and Sreenivas 2005). The major thrust of this research -in line with standard textbooks such as Pigoski (1996) and Grubb & Takang (2003) -is directed towards increasing discipline (Boehm and Turner 2003) in the maintenance operation, rather than agility.…”

Section: Software: Maintenance Is Not Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimising agile development practices for the maintenance operation: nine heuristics

Heeager

Rose

2014

Empir Software Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agile methods are widely used and successful in many development situations and beginning to attract attention amongst the software maintenance community -both researchers and practitioners. However, it should not be assumed that implementing a well-known agile method for a maintenance department is therefore a trivial endeavour -the maintenance operation differs in some, important respects from development work. Classical accounts of software maintenance emphasise more traditional software engineering processes, whereas recent research accounts of agile maintenance efforts uncritically focus on benefits. In an action research project at Aveva in Denmark we assisted with the optimisation of SCRUM, tailoring the standard process to the immediate needs of the developers. We draw on both theoretical and empirical learning to formulate seven heuristics for maintenance practitioners wishing to go agile.

show abstract

“…The coding activity was found to account for the largest proportion of effort (42.8%) while the requirements and design activities consume only 10.2% and 14.5%, respectively. In addition to analyzing the correlation between maintenance size and productivity metrics and deriving effort estimation models for maintenance projects, De Lucia et al [13] describe an empirical study on the effort distribution among five phases, namely inventory, analysis, design, implementation, and testing. The analyses were based on data obtained from a large Y2K project following the maintenance processes at a software organization.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%