Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1109/ICSE.2009.5070552acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

How to avoid drastic software process change (using stochastic stability)

Published: 16 May 2009 Publication History

Abstract

Before performing drastic changes to a project, it is worthwhile to thoroughly explore the available options within the current structure of a project. An alternative to drastic change are internal changes that adjust current options within a software project. In this paper, we show that the effects of numerous internal changes can out-weigh the effects of drastic changes. That is, the benefits of drastic change can often be achieved without disrupting a project.

References

[1]
J. Andrews, F. Li, and T. Menzies. Nighthawk: A two-level genetic-random unit test data generator. In IEEE ASE'07, 2007. Available from http://menzies.us/ pdf/07ase-nighthawk.pdf.
[2]
D. Baker. A hybrid approach to expert and model-based effort estimation. Master's thesis, Lane Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, West Virginia University, 2007. Available from https://eidr.wvu.edu/etd/documentdata. eTD?documentid=5443.
[3]
B. Boehm and H. In. Conflict analysis and negotiation aids for cost-quality requirements. Software Quality Professional , 1(2):38-50, March 1999.
[4]
B. Boehm. Software Engineering Economics. Prentice Hall, 1981.
[5]
B. Boehm. Safe and simple software cost analysis. IEEE Software, pages 14-17, September/October 2000. Available from http://www.computer.org/ certification/beta/Boehm_Safe.pdf.
[6]
B. Boehm, C. Abts, and S. Chulani. Software development cost estimation approaches - a survey. Annals of Software Engineering, 10:177-205, 2000.
[7]
B. Boehm, E. Horowitz, R. Madachy, D. Reifer, B. K. Clark, B. Steece, A. W. Brown, S. Chulani, and C. Abts. Software Cost Estimation with Cocomo II. Prentice Hall, 2000.
[8]
Z. Chen, T. Menzies, and D. Port. Feature subset selection can improve software cost estimation. In PROMISE'05, 2005. Available from http://menzies.us/pdf/05/ fsscocomo.pdf.
[9]
J. Crawford and A. Baker. Experimental results on the application of satisfiability algorithms to scheduling problems. In AAAI '94, 1994.
[10]
N. E. Fenton and M. Neil. A critique of software defect prediction models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(5):675-689, 1999. Available from http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/ fenton99critique.html.
[11]
M. Harman and J. Wegener. Getting results from search-based approaches to software engineering. In ICSE '04: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 728-729, Washington, DC, USA, 2004. IEEE Computer Society.
[12]
O. Jalali, T. Menzies, and M. Feather. Optimizing requirements decisions with keys. In Proceedings of the PROMISE 2008 Workshop (ICSE), 2008. Available from http://menzies.us/pdf/08keys.pdf.
[13]
H. Kautz, B. Selman, and Y. Jiang. A general stochastic approach to solving problems with hard and soft constraints. In D. Gu, J. Du, and P. Pardalos, editors, The Satisfiability Problem: Theory and Applications, New York, NY, pages 573-586, 1997. Available on-line at http: //citeseer.ist.psu.edu/168907.html.
[14]
T. Menzies, Z. Chen, J. Hihn, and K. Lum. Selecting best practices for effort estimation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, November 2006. Available from http: //menzies.us/pdf/06coseekmo.pdf.
[15]
T. Menzies, O. Elrawas, D. Baker, J. Hihn, and K. Lum. On the value of stochastic abduction (if you fix everything, you lose fixes for everything else). In International Workshop on Living with Uncertainty (an ASE'07 co-located event), 2007. Available from http://menzies.us/ pdf/07fix.pdf.
[16]
T. Menzies, O. Elrawas, J. Hihn, M. Feathear, B. Boehm, and R. Madachy. The business case for automated software engineerng. In ASE '07: Proceedings of the twenty-second IEEE/ACM international conference on Automated software engineering, pages 303-312, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM. Available from http://menzies.us/ pdf/07casease-v0.pdf.
[17]
R. Motwani and P. Raghavan. Randomized Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, 1995. (reprinted 1997, 2000).
[18]
P. C. Pendharkar, G. H. Subramanian, and J. A. Rodger. A probabilistic model for predicting software development effort. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 31(7):615-624, 2005.
[19]
D. Raffo. Modeling software processes quantitatively and assessing the impact of potential process changes of process performance, May 1996. Ph.D. thesis, Manufacturing and Operations Systems.
[20]
D. Raffo and T. Menzies. Evaluating the impact of a new technology using simulation: The case for mining software repositories. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Software Process Simulation Modeling (ProSim'05), 2005.

Cited By

View all
  • (2018)Data-driven search-based software engineeringProceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories10.1145/3196398.3196442(341-352)Online publication date: 28-May-2018
  • (2014)A Hitchhiker's guide to statistical tests for assessing randomized algorithms in software engineeringSoftware Testing, Verification & Reliability10.1002/stvr.148624:3(219-250)Online publication date: 1-May-2014
  • (2014)Sharing Data and Models in Software EngineeringundefinedOnline publication date: 22-Dec-2014
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
ICSE '09: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering
May 2009
643 pages
ISBN:9781424434534

Sponsors

Publisher

IEEE Computer Society

United States

Publication History

Published: 16 May 2009

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Article

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 276 of 1,856 submissions, 15%

Upcoming Conference

ICSE 2025

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)1
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 25 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2018)Data-driven search-based software engineeringProceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories10.1145/3196398.3196442(341-352)Online publication date: 28-May-2018
  • (2014)A Hitchhiker's guide to statistical tests for assessing randomized algorithms in software engineeringSoftware Testing, Verification & Reliability10.1002/stvr.148624:3(219-250)Online publication date: 1-May-2014
  • (2014)Sharing Data and Models in Software EngineeringundefinedOnline publication date: 22-Dec-2014
  • (2013)Beyond data mining; towards "idea engineering"Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering10.1145/2499393.2499401(1-6)Online publication date: 9-Oct-2013
  • (2011)A practical guide for using statistical tests to assess randomized algorithms in software engineeringProceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering10.1145/1985793.1985795(1-10)Online publication date: 21-May-2011
  • (2010)Case-based reasoning vs parametric models for software quality optimizationProceedings of the 6th International Conference on Predictive Models in Software Engineering10.1145/1868328.1868333(1-10)Online publication date: 12-Sep-2010
  • (2009)Can we build software faster and better and cheaper?Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Predictor Models in Software Engineering10.1145/1540438.1540442(1-9)Online publication date: 18-May-2009

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media