|
|
| [1] Monte-carlo Validation of Model Stability |
| Authors: |
Robillard P.N. and Labelle S. |
| Reference: |
NASTEC, Montréal |
| Page(s): |
x-x |
| Date/Year: |
Aug. 2008 |
| None available. |
|
| [2] A benchmark-based adaptable software process model |
| Authors: |
Yingxu Wang; Leung, H.K.N. |
| Reference: |
Euromicro Conference, 2001. Proceedings. 27th |
| Page(s): |
216-224 |
| Date/Year: |
2001 |
| Présentation d’un projet dont le but est de développer un modèle d’évaluation de processus de type « benchmark-based ». Présentation des dimensions de processus et de « capability ». |
|
| [3] A modular software process mini-assessment method |
| Authors: |
Wiegers, K.E.; Sturzenberger, D.C. |
| Reference: |
IEEE Software , Volume: 17 Issue: 1 |
| Page(s): |
62-69 |
| Date/Year: |
Jan.-Feb. 2000 |
| The article describes one approach for dealing with a common problem in software process assessment: some organizations want feedback on their processes, but they cannot devote three arduous weeks to an `official` CMM assessment. |
|
| [4] European experiences with software process improvement |
| Authors: |
Fran O'Hara |
| Reference: |
Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software engineering |
| Page(s): |
635-640 |
| Date/Year: |
June 2000 |
| Assessment models used include SPICE (ISO/IEC TR 15504) [1] and Software Engineering Institute's CMM1 [2] (one organisation also achieved ISO9001 certification). |
|
| [5] Measuring and assessing software test processes using test data |
| Authors: |
Yutao He; Hecht, H.; Paul, R.A. |
| Reference: |
High Assurance Systems Engineering, 2000, Fifth IEEE International Symposim on. HASE 2000 |
| Page(s): |
259-264 |
| Date/Year: |
2000 |
| Testing of large-scale software systems is a complex and expensive process that involves both technical and managerial issues. To improve its cost-effectiveness, the process should be continuously monitored, consistently measured and carefully assessed. This paper proposes an assessment methodology in this direction, called process-oriented metrics-based assessment (POMBA) |
|
| [6] Benchmarking Kappa: Interrater Agreement in Software Process Assessments |
| Authors: |
Khaled El Emam |
| Reference: |
Empirical Software Engineering 4(2) |
| Page(s): |
113-133 |
| Date/Year: |
Jun 1999 |
| Software process assessments are by now a prevalent tool for process improvement and contract risk assessment in the software industry. Given that scores are assigned to processes during an assessment, a process assessment can be considered a subjective measurement procedure. As with any subjective measurement procedure, the reliability of process assessments has important implications on the utility of assessment scores, and therefore the reliability of assessments can be taken as a criterion for evaluating an assessment‘s quality. The particular type of reliability of interest in this paper is interrater agreement. |
|
| [7] BOOTSTRAP 3.0—A SPICE1 Conformant Software Process Assessment Methodology |
| Authors: |
Pasi Kuvaja |
| Reference: |
Software Quality Journal 8(1) |
| Page(s): |
7-19 |
| Date/Year: |
Sep 1999 |
| BOOTSTRAP methodology version 3.0 was released in September 1997. It is compliant with the ISO/IEC software engineering standard number 15504, the emerging standard on software process assessment. The core of the methodology consists of an assessment model and method. ETC. |
|
| [8] Continuous Software Process Improvement Requires Organisational Learning: An Australian Case Study |
| Authors: |
Jennifer Gasston |
| Reference: |
Software Quality Journal 8(1) |
| Page(s): |
37-51 |
| Date/Year: |
Sep 1999 |
| The study reported in this paper suggests that in order to achieve optimal benefits from implementing process improvement programs, organisations must move towards becoming what is termed “a learning organisation.” Software process assessment “leads to the identification and selection of key activities for improvement and the continuous application of improvements to match business needs” (ISO/IEC 1996). |
|
| [9] An emerging international standard for software process assessment |
| Authors: |
Kitson, D.; Kitson, L. |
| Reference: |
Software Engineering Standards, 1999. Proceedings. Fourth IEEE International Symposium and Forum on |
| Page(s): |
256-256 |
| Date/Year: |
1999 |
| No Desc |
|
| [10] Assessing the process maturity utilized in software engineering team project courses |
| Authors: |
Collofello, J.S.; Chi Heng Ng |
| Reference: |
Frontiers in Education Conference, 1999. FIE '99. 29th Annual , Volume: 1 |
| Page(s): |
12A9/5-12A9/9 vol.1 |
| Date/Year: |
1999 |
| This questionnaire (CMM) was distributed to a sample of software engineering instructors in an effort to assess the maturity of academic software engineering course projects. The questionnaire and the survey results are presented and discussed. |
|
| [11] Competing by software development project standardization |
| Authors: |
Artmann, C. |
| Reference: |
Management of Engineering and Technology, 1999. Technology and Innovation Management. PICMET '99. Portland International Conference on |
| Page(s): |
565 vol.1 |
| Date/Year: |
1999 |
| The capability maturity model (CMM) of the Software Engineering Institute (SEI) is said to provide a well-defined framework for the evaluation of software process maturity. This model is briefly described and compared with the project management standards developed by the Project Management Institute. The impact of these models on project driven software companies is discussed and the issues, trends and timeline of the current research are identified. |
|
| [12] Database implementation for a software process assessment model |
| Authors: |
Makinen, T.; Varkoi, T.; Jaakkola, H. |
| Reference: |
Management of Engineering and Technology, 1999. Technology and Innovation Management. PICMET '99. Portland International Conference on |
| Page(s): |
148 vol.1 |
| Date/Year: |
1999 |
| In this paper we present a conceptual model of the reference model (part 2) and its compatible assessment model (part 5) of the technical report ISO/IEC 15504. We also show how the model can be implemented as a relational database. |
|
| [13] Process maturity and inspector proficiency: feedback mechanisms for software inspections |
| Authors: |
Rodgers, T.L.; Dean, D.L. |
| Reference: |
Systems Sciences, 1999. HICSS-32. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on |
| Page(s): |
13 pp. |
| Date/Year: |
1999 |
| This paper examines the impact of two feedback mechanisms (process maturity and inspector proficiency) on square inspections. Results of a survey of thirty-one experienced software developers and follow-up interviews are presented. |
|
| [14] An experimental study of individual subjective effort estimations and combinations of the estimates |
| Authors: |
Host, M.; Wohlin, C. |
| Reference: |
Software Engineering, 1998. Proceedings of the 1998 International Conference on |
| Page(s): |
332-339 |
| Date/Year: |
1998 |
| Interview techniques dealing with which type of questions to ask are evaluated and techniques for combining estimates from individuals into one estimate are compared in an experiment. The result shows that the interview technique is not as important as the combination technique. |
|
| [15] Cost implications of interrater agreement for software process assessments |
| Authors: |
El Emam, K.; Simon, J.-M.; Rousseau, S.; Jacquet, E. |
| Reference: |
Software Metrics Symposium, 1998. Metrics 1998. Proceedings. Fifth International |
| Page(s): |
38-51 |
| Date/Year: |
1998 |
| We report on a study that evaluates the relationship between interrater agreement and the cost of the consolidation activity in assessments. The study was conducted in the context of two assessments using the emerging international standard ISO/IEC 15504. |
|
| [16] Formalising the software evaluation process |
| Authors: |
Ares Casal, J.M.; Dieste Tubio, O.; Garcia Vazquez, R.; Lopez Fernandez, M.; Rodriguez Yanez, S. |
| Reference: |
Computer Science, 1998. SCCC '98. XVIII International Conference of the Chilean Society of |
| Page(s): |
15-24 |
| Date/Year: |
1998 |
| Actually there is a need for a formalised method of evaluation that encompasses all the factors that affect software production. A formalised method of evaluation is presented that jointly assesses the three essential factors in software production: processes, technology and human resources. The aim behind this is to provide a solution to the main shortcomings of current software process evaluation methods: partiality of the evaluated factors and non-formalisation of the evaluation processes. |
|
| [17] The internal consistency of the ISO/IEC 15504 software process capability scale |
| Authors: |
El Emam, K. |
| Reference: |
Software Metrics Symposium, 1998. Metrics 1998. Proceedings. Fifth International |
| Page(s): |
72-81 |
| Date/Year: |
1998 |
| The objective of this paper is to present a follow up evaluation of the internal consistency of this process capability scale. |
|
| [18] An analysis of SEI software process assessment results: 1987–1991 |
| Authors: |
David H. Kitson , Stephen M. Masters |
| Reference: |
Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Software Engineering |
| Page(s): |
68-77 |
| Date/Year: |
May 1997 |
| This paper focuses on the results of SEI software process assessments conducted over a four-year period beginning in 1987. |
|
| [19] Applying software process to Virtual Instrument based test program set development |
| Authors: |
Rabe, D.; Miller, J. |
| Reference: |
AUTOTESTCON, 97. 1997 IEEE Autotestcon Proceedings |
| Page(s): |
194-197 |
| Date/Year: |
1997 |
| This paper provides recommended practices to address the Key Practice Areas (KPAs) defined in the Software Engineering Institute's (SEI) Capability Maturity Model (CMM) in the context of TPS development in LabVIEW. Repository management procedures such as check-in check-out and change tracking and documentation are described. |
|
| [20] BOOTSTRAP: five years of assessment experience |
| Authors: |
Stienen, H.; Engelmann, F.; Lebsanft, E. |
| Reference: |
Software Technology and Engineering Practice, 1997. Proceedings., Eighth IEEE International Workshop on [incorporating Computer Aided Software Engineering] |
| Page(s): |
371-379 |
| Date/Year: |
1997 |
| The main characteristics of the BOOTSTRAP method are briefly described, i.e. the reference framework, the assessment procedure, the structure of the questionnaires and the rating and scoring mechanisms used. |
|
|
|
