1999
DOI: 10.21236/ada371804
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Software Process Improvement Works

Abstract: vii

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Software process maturity is "the extent to which a specific software process is explicitly defined, managed, measured, controlled and effective" [3], with higher levels of process maturity being associated with higher product quality, reduced production costs [4], and with increased predictability of the process results [5], [6]. Although process maturity reference frameworks can deliver benefits to any type of software development organisation, evidence from earlier studies suggests their adoption would appear to be mostly concentrated in large organisations [7], [8].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Software process maturity is "the extent to which a specific software process is explicitly defined, managed, measured, controlled and effective" [3], with higher levels of process maturity being associated with higher product quality, reduced production costs [4], and with increased predictability of the process results [5], [6]. Although process maturity reference frameworks can deliver benefits to any type of software development organisation, evidence from earlier studies suggests their adoption would appear to be mostly concentrated in large organisations [7], [8].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If we subtract the time spent learning Java platform APIs (including the JavaSound API), working around bugs in the Java platform, and refactoring our implementation from the total time, our overall productivity increases to 20.4 NCSS/hour, which represents an optimistic estimate of future productivity. Our actual productivity of 16.5 NCSS/hour lies at the lower end of the results reported for considerably smaller and simpler projects [Prechelt 2000], but is almost twice as large as the long-term results reported for a commercial company [Ferguson et al 1999]. Based on this, we extrapolate that programming for change does not decrease overall programmer productivity and conclude that it is not significantly harder than more conventional programming styles.…”
Section: Complexitymentioning
confidence: 42%
“…Reference Article ID Reference [1] ( Abran & Buglione, 2003) [35] (Martinsons, et al, 1999) [2] (Asosheh, Nalchigar, & Jamporazmey, 2010) [38] (Meyerson, 2001) [3] (Atkinson, 2004) [39] (Milis & Mercken, 2004) [4] (Kasiri, et al, 2012) [43] (Rosemann, 2001) [5] (Györy, et al, 2012) [45] (Rosemann & Wiese, 1999) [10] (Cram, 2007) [46] (Saull, 2000) [13] (Eickelmann, 2001) [48] (Sedera, et al, 2001) [14] (Erek, 2011) [49] (Simon, 2005) [15] (Ferguson, Leman, Perini, Renner, & Seshagiri, 1999) [50] (Son, Weitzel, & Laurent, 2005) [17] (Hagood & Friedman, 2002) [52] (Stewart & Mohamed, 2001) [18] (Hu & Huang, 2005) [53] (Stewart & Mohamed, 2003) [19] (Huang & Hu, 2004) [54] (Van der Zee & Jong, 1999) [20] (Ibáñez, 1998) [55] (Van Grembergen, 1997) [22] (Jain, Benbunan-Fich, & Mohan, 2011) [56] (Van Grembergen, 2000) [24] (Kaplan & Norton, 1992) [57] (Van Grembergen, 2003) [25] (Kaplan & Norton, 1993) [58] (Van Grembergen & Amelinckx, 2002) [26] (Kaplan & Norton, 1996a) [59] (Van Grembergen & Haes, 2005) [27] (Kaplan & Norton, 1996b) [60] (Van Grembergen & Saull, 2001a) [28] (Keyes, 2005) [61] (Van Grembergen & Saull, 2001b)…”
Section: Article Idmentioning
confidence: 99%