Assessing hybrid incremental processes for SISOS development

Software Process Improvement and Practice

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 461-473

  Madachy, Raymond ^a   Boehm, Barry ^a   Lane, Jo Ann ^a  

^a University of Southern California   (United States)

Author keywords

Agile processes; Hybrid processes; Incremental development; Plan driven processes; Software process modeling; Software intensive systems of systems; Spiral model; System dynamics

Indexed keywords

MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PROCESS PLANNING; PROJECT MANAGEMENT;

AGILE PROCESSES; HYBRID PROCESSES; SOFTWARE PROCESS MODELING; SYSTEM DYNAMICS;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 35348898329     PISSN: 10774866     EISSN: 10991670     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/spip.332     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Abdel-Hamid T, Madnick S. 1991. Software Project Dynamics. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
2. Boehm B. 2005. Some Future Trends and Implications for Systems and Software Engineering Processes, USC-CSE-TR-2005-507.
3. Boehm B, Turner R. 2004. Balancing Agility and Discipline. Addison Wesley: Boston, MA.
4. Boehm B, Brown A, Basili V, Turner R. 2004. Spiral acquisition of software-intensive systems of systems. CrossTalk, May 4-9.
5. Boehm B, Egyed A, Kwan J, Port D, Shah A, Madachy R. 1998. Using the Win Win spiral model: a case study. IEEE Computer 31: 33-44.
6. Boehm B, Abts C, Brown A, Chulani S, Clark B, Horowitz E, Madachy R, Reifer D, Steece B. 2000. Software Cost Estimation with COCOMO II. Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
7. th International Workshop on Process Modeling and Simulation. IEE: St Louis, MO.
8. Ferreira S. 2002. Measuring the effects of requirements volatility on software development projects. PhD Dissertation, Arizona State University.
9. Ferreira S, Collofello J, Shunk D, Mackulak G, Wolfe P. 2003. Utilization of process modeling and simulation in understanding the effects of requirements volatility in software development. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling, Portland, OR.
10. Ford D, Sterman J. 2003. Overcoming the 90% syndrome: Iteration management for reduced cycle time in concurrent development projects. Concurrent Engineering Research and Application (CERA) Journal, 11:177-186.
11. th International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling. IEE: St. Louis, MI.
12. Madachy R. 2007. Software Process Dynamics. Wiley /IEEE Computer Society Press: Hoboken, NJ.
13. Powell A. 2001. Right on time: measuring, modelling and managing time-constrained software development. PhD Dissertation, University of York.
14. Powell A, Mander K, Brown D. 1999. Strategies for life cycle concurrency and iteration: a system dynamics approach. Journal of Systems and Software 46(2-3): 151-161.
15. Repenning N. 2001. Understanding fire fighting in New product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 18: 285-200.
16. Sycamore D. 1996. S improving software project management through system dynamics modeling. MS Dissertation, Arizona State University.
17. Tvedt J. 1996. An extensible model for evaluating the impact of process improvements on software development cycle time. PhD Dissertation, Arizona State University.