Empirical analysis in software process simulation modeling

Journal of Systems and Software

Volumn 53, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 31-41

  Raffo, David M ^a   Kellner, Marc I ^b  

^a PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA REDUCTION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MONTE CARLO METHODS;

DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS (DEA); EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV); SOFTWARE PROCESS SIMULATION;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 0034230264     PISSN: 01641212     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0164-1212(00)00006-6     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Abdel-Hamid T., Madnick S. Software Project Dynamics: An Integrated Approach. 1991;1991 Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
2. Banker, R.D., Datar, S.M., Kemerer, C.F., 1987. Factors affecting software maintenance productivity: an exploratory study. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 6-9 December, pp. 160-175.
3. Banker, R.D., Kemerer, C.F., 1989. Scale economies in new software development. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. 15 (10).
4. Banker, R.D., Datar, S.M., Kemerer, C.F., 1991. A model to evaluate variables impacting the productivity of software maintenance projects. Management Science 37 (1).
5. Banker R.D., Chang H., Kemerer C.F. Evidence on economies of scale in software development. Inform. Software Technol. 36(5):1994;275-282.
6. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Lewin, A.Y., Seiford, L.M. (Eds.), 1994. Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1994.
7. DeGroot, M.H., 1989. Probability and Statistics, second ed. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989.
8. Drappa A., Ludewig J. Quantitative modeling for the interactive simulation of software projects. J. Syst. Software. 46(2/3):1999;113-122.
9. Edgington, 1995. Randomization Tests, third ed. Marcel Dekker, New York.
10. Good, 1994. Permutation Tests. Springer, Berlin.
11. Ji, S., 1999. Assessing multiple software process changes using simulation and DEA. Capstone Project Report, Engineering Management Program, Portland State University.
12. Kellner, M.I., 1989. Software process modeling: value and experience. In: SEI Technical Review. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, pp. 23-54.
13. Kellner, M.I., 1991. Software process modeling support for management planning and control. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Software Process: Manufacturing Complex Systems, Redondo Beach, California, 21-22 October 1991, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California, pp. 8-28.
14. Kellner M.I., Madachy R.J., Raffo D.M. Software process simulation modeling: why? what? how? J. Syst. Software. 46(2/3):1999;91-105.
15. Kellner, M.I., Raffo, D.M., 1997. Measurement issues in quantitative simulations of process models. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Process Modelling and Empirical Studies of Software Evolution, Boston, Massachusetts, 18 May 1997, pp. 33-37 (in conjunction with the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering).
16. Kitchenham, B., 1998. A procedure for analyzing unbalanced datasets. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. 24 (4).
17. Madachy, R.J., 1994. A software project dynamics model for process cost, schedule and risk assessment. PhD Dissertation, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
18. Pelosi, M.K., Sandifer, T.M., 2000. Doing Statistics for Business: Data, Inference, and Decision Making with Excel. Wiley, New York.
19. Raffo, D.M., 1996. Modeling software processes quantitatively and assessing the impact of potential process changes on process performance. PhD Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
20. Raffo, D.M., Kellner, M.I., 1999. Modeling software processes quantitatively and evaluating the performance of process alternatives. In: El Emam, K., Madhavji, N. (Eds.), Elements of Software Process Assessment and Improvement. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, California, pp. 297-341 (Chapter 16).
21. Schoner, B., Wedley, W.C., 1989. Ambiguous criteria weights in AHP: consequences and solutions. Decision Sci. 20, 462-475.
22. Saaty T.L., Vargas L.G. Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 32(1):1987;107-117.
23. Tvedt, J., 1995. A system dynamics model of the software inspection process. Technical Report TR-95-007, Computer Science and Engineering Department, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
24. Williford J., Chang A. Modeling the FedEx IT division: a system dynamics approach to strategic IT planning. J. Syst. Software. 46(2/3):1999;203-211.