Assessing Productivity of UML-based Systems Analysis and Design: A DEA Approach

10th Americas Conference on Information Systems, AMCIS 2004

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 1652-1660

  Cao, Qing ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI KANSAS CITY   (United States)

Author keywords

DEA; OOSAD; Project Productivity; Software engineering; UML

Indexed keywords

EFFICIENCY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SOFTWARE DESIGN; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

'CURRENT; CRITICAL ISSUES; DEA; OOSAD; PROJECT PRODUCTIVITY; SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS; SOFTWARE PROJECT; SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN; UML; UNCERTAINTY;

PRODUCTIVITY;

EID: 84870215543     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. Albrecht, A., 1979, “Measuring Application Development Productivity”, Proc. IBM Develop. Symposium, Monterey, CA, Oct. 14-17, pp 83.
2. Albrecht, A. J. & Gaffney, J. E., Jr. 1983. Software Function, Source Lines of Code, and Development Effort Prediction: A Software Science Validation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE 9(6): 639-648.
3. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. 1981. Evaluating Program and Managerial Efficiency: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis to Program Follow Through. Management Science, 27(6): 668-697.
4. Chatzoglou, P. D. & Soteriou, A. C. 1999. A DEA framework to assess the efficiency of the software requirements capture and analysis process. Decision Sciences, 30(2): 503-531.
5. Banker, R. D. D., Srikant M.; Kemerer, Chris F. 1991. A Model to Evaluate Variables Impacting the Productivity of software maintenance projects. Management Science, 37(1): 1-18.
6. Banker, R. D. & Slaughter, S. A. 1997. A field study of scale economies in software maintenance. Management Science, 43(12): 1709-1725.
7. Basili, V. R., Briand, L.C., Melo, W. L. 1996. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 22(10): 751-761.
8. Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., and Jacobson, I. 1999, The Unified Modeling Language User Guide, MA: Addison-Wesley.
9. Fenton, N. and Pfleeger, S., 1997, Software Metrics A Rigorous and Practical Approach, PWS Publishing, pp. 243-278.
10. Halstead, M., 1977, Elements of Software Science, Elsevier, New York.
11. Henderson-Sellers, B. 2002. The use of subtypes and stereotypes in the UML model. Journal of Database Management, 13(2): 43-50.
12. Joro, T., Korhonen, P., & Wallenius, J. 1998. Structural comparison of data envelopment analysis and multiple objective linear programming. Management Science, 44(7): 962-970.
13. Mahmood, M. A., Pettingell, K. J., & Shaskevich, A. I. 1996. Measuring productivity of software projects: A data envelopment analysis approach. Decision Sciences, 27(1): 57-80.
14. Rossi, M. and Brinkkemper, S., 1996. “Complexity Metrics for Systems Development Methods and Techniques,” Information Systems, Vol. 21, No. 2 pp. 209-227.
15. Siau, K. & Cao, Q. 2001. Unified Modeling Language (UML)-a complexity analysis. Journal of Database Management, 12(1): 26-34.
16. Standish Group CHAOS Report (2003) – http://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research/index.php
17. Selonen, P., Koskimies, K., & Sakkinen, M. 2003. Transformations between UML diagrams. Journal of Database Management, 14(3): 37-55.
18. Weyuker, E. J. 1988. Evaluating Software Complexity Measures. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 14(9): 1357-1365.
19. Zhu, J., 2003, Quantitative Models for Performance Evaluation and Benchmarking: DEA with Spreadsheets and DEA Excel Solver, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.