跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.210.149.205) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/04/17 08:09
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:沈文祥
研究生(外文):Wen-Hsiang Shen
論文名稱:軟體流程塑模與軟體流程改善效能評估之研究
論文名稱(外文):The Research of Software Process Modeling and Assessment of Software Process Improvement Effect
指導教授:薛念林薛念林引用關係
指導教授(外文):Nien-Lin Hsueh
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:逢甲大學
系所名稱:資訊工程所
學門:工程學門
學類:電資工程學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2011
畢業學年度:99
語文別:英文
論文頁數:123
中文關鍵詞:規劃—追蹤—回顧 模型流程量測流程模擬流程塑模軟體流程改善個人軟體流程能力成熟度整合模式統一塑模語言
外文關鍵詞:Plan-Track-Review modelProcess measurementProcess simulationProcess modelingSoftware Process ImprovementUnified Modeling LanguagePersonal Software ProcessCapability Maturity Model Integration
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:400
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:93
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
軟體流程一直是軟體工程研究中一個重要的課題。而用來定義流程和分析流程的流程塑模語言,則在軟體流程的研究領域中扮演著重要角色。因此,不斷的有新的塑模語言的被提出來,藉以提升流程塑模的效率。然而,有些方法使用起來太過於複雜而難以實用;有些方法又過於簡單,不易處理複雜的流程分析。隨著統一塑模語言(UML)的普及與它的可擴展性,在本研究中,我們嘗試建立基於UML profile塑模語言的流程塑模方法。此方法同時可藉由物件限制語言(OCL)用來驗證流程,並透過流程模擬環境來確認流程的正確性。
對改善企業的軟體流程而言,能力成熟度整合模式(CMMI)是現今一個被廣泛應用的框架。CMMI的重要元素之一是在流程定義範疇中包含量測之量化管理基本概念。然而,目前並沒有流程塑模語言能直接提供此種量測的概念。本論文所提出的方法從兩方面來支援軟體流程改善機制:提出檢驗組織的流程是否可以滿足CMMI所定義的目標驗證方法與擴充支援量測塑模的架構。
相對於組織流程改善的CMMI方法論,個人軟體流程(PSP)是一個訓練軟體工程師改善個人流程的方法。它被廣泛的使用於訓練學生和企業的工程師。然而,在現有的文獻中缺乏系統化的PSP訓練成效評估機制。在此研究中,我們也提出了一個PSP訓練成效之評估模型,透過簡化程序,比較平均數和中位數的方法來評估PSP的訓練效果。並藉由統計分析了解PSP各量測參數之間的關係與評估結果。
簡言之,本研究提出一種新的流程塑模方法來分析、驗證與確認組織的流程,除了流程活動、流程角色與流程順序等基本流程元素外,本方法同時也將CMMI流程改善框架及流程量測概念融合在所提出的流程塑模方法中。因此本流程塑模方法特別適合運用於組織的流程改善。
Software processes have been recognized as an important topic since the early days of software engineering. Typically used to define and analyze complex processes, a number of new modeling languages have been invented to enhance the power of process modeling. However, some approaches are too complicated to apply while others are too simple to analyze a complex process. With the popularization of Unified Modeling Language (UML) and its extensibility, this research aimed to develop a UML-based profile as a process modeling language to verify the process design based on Object Constraint Language (OCL) under a process simulation environment.
In order to achieve software process improvement, process definition, verification, and validation are of critical importance by means of applying Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), a framework for improving an organization’s process. One of its important elements is quantitative management where process metrics is enclosed in the process definition. However, current process modeling language does not provide the measurement concept directly. Our approach was thus developed to support software process improvement from the following two aspects: a verification approach to examine if an organization’s process can meet the goals defined in CMMI practices and an extension approach to support the measurement modeling.
Aside from the critical role of CMMI played in UML-based profile, Personal Software Process (PSP) can be considered as its equivalent on an individual basis. As CMMI can be used to improve the software process in a large context, PSP can be an effective approach for individual use. However, a systematic mechanism to assess and interpret the effect of PSP is invisible in the existing literature. Therefore, an assessment model was also proposed to test against the PSP training effects. Both mean and median approaches along with a set of simplified procedures were used to assess the commonly accepted PSP training effects. A set of statistical analyses were conducted to explore the relationships among the PSP metrics and to interpret possible application results.
In summary, in this research a new process modeling approach was proposed to model, analyze, verify and validate an organization''s process. In addition to the basic process elements such as activities, roles, and sequence, the modeling approach also takes CMMI framework and software measurement into consideration. Therefore, the proposed approach is especially suitable for an organization''s process improvement.
誌謝 i
摘要 ii
Abstract iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation 1
1.2 Objective 6
1.2.1 Process modeling and support 7
1.2.2 Process improvement 7
1.3 Dissertation organization 8
Chapter 2 Background work 9
2.1 UML extension mechanism 9
2.2 Researches related to software processes 10
2.2.1 Process verification approaches 10
2.2.2 Process simulation 11
2.2.3 Process evaluation 11
2.3 Measurement framework 12
2.4 PSP effect assessment 13
2.4.1 Introduction to PSP life cycle 13
2.4.2 PSP and the industrial software engineering standards 15
2.4.3 PSP in a stage-wise view 16
Chapter 3 Applying UML and simulation for process definition, verification and validation 18
3.1 Process modeling approach overview 18
3.2 Process definition 19
3.2.1 Process structure 20
3.2.2 Process model profile 21
3.2.3 The practices of process definition 22
3.3 Process verification 27
3.3.1 Verification rule 27
3.3.1.1 Process rule 27
3.3.1.2 CMMI-related rule 28
3.3.2 The practices of process verification 30
3.4 Process validation 33
3.4.1 SimSE model 33
3.4.2 Model transformation 35
3.4.3 Refining the SimSE model 36
3.4.4 The practices of process validation 40
3.5 Conclusions for applying UML and simulation to software process modeling 44
Chapter 4 Measurement-based software process modeling 46
4.1 The management of software processes measurement 46
4.2 Exploring quantitative process management 47
4.3 Measurement-based modeling approach 48
4.4 A framework for measurement process definition 50
4.4.1 Conceptual architecture for integrating process measurement 51
4.4.2 Process profile definition 53
4.4.3 Process measurement 54
4.5 Process modeling with measurement 55
4.5.1 Process verification 56
4.5.1.1 Process-related rule 56
4.5.1.2 Measurement-related rule 57
4.6 A case study of measurement process modeling 58
4.6.1 Modeling static process structure with class diagram 59
4.6.2 Modeling behavior of process element with state-chart diagram 60
4.6.3 Modeling dynamic process sequence with activity diagram 61
4.6.4 The practices of process verification with measurement 63
4.7 Conclusions for measurement-based software process modeling 64
Chapter 5 Assessing PSP effect in training disciplined software development 65
5.1 Theoretical framework of assessing PSP effect 65
5.1.1 The Plan-Track-Review model 65
5.1.2 Pertinent PSP metrics 67
5.1.3 The assessment methodologies and the criteria reference 69
5.2 Methodology 71
5.2.1 Course setting and data collection 71
5.2.2 Initial improvement assessments 73
5.2.3 t-test and ANOVA 73
5.2.4 Exploring impacts among stages and PSP metrics 74
5.2.5 The assessment procedure 75
5.3 Result findings 76
5.3.1 Effect distribution and trend analysis result 76
5.3.2 ANOVA results with post-hoc tests 80
5.3.3 Regression analysis result 81
5.3.4 The path analysis diagram 83
5.3.5 Questionnaire results 84
5.3.6 PSP effect result summary 87
5.4 Discussion 89
5.4.1 Threats to validity 89
5.4.1.1 Threats to internal validity 89
5.4.1.2 Threats to external validity 90
5.4.2 Implications of the inconsistent estimation results 91
5.4.3 Observations from survey results 92
5.5 Conclusions for assessing PSP effect in training software development 93
Chapter 6 Conclusions and future work 94
References 100
Publication List 112
VITA 114
[1] P. Abrahamsson and K. Kautz, Personal software process: classroom experiences from Finland, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Quality (2002) pp. 175-185.
[2] P. Abrahamsson and K. Kautz, The personal software process: Experiences from Denmark, Proceedings of 28th Euromicro Conference (2002) pp. 367-374.
[3] L. Anneberg and R. Ferguson, Personal software process (PSP) concept applied to beginning engineers, Computers in Education Journal 10 (3) (2000) pp. 6-8.
[4] S. Bandinelli, A. Fuggetta, L. Lavazza, M. Loi and G. P. Picco, Modeling and improving an industrial software process, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21(5) (1995) pp. 440-454.
[5] V.R. Basili and D. Rombach, The TAME Project: Towards improvement-oriented software environments, IEEE Trans. on Software Engineering 14 (6) (1998) pp. 758-773.
[6] M.E.B. Gutiérrez, M. Barrio-Solórzano, C.E.C. Quintero and P.D.L. Fuente, UML automatic verification tool with formal methods, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 127 (4) (2005) pp. 3-16.
[7] A. Bobkowska, Quantitative and qualitative methods in process improvement and product quality assessment, Proceedings of the ESCOM (European Software Control and Metrics) (2001) pp. 347-356. From: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.19.486&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[8] B.W. Boehm, A spiral model of software development and enhancement, IEEE Computer 21 (5) (1988) pp. 61-72.
[9] B.W. Boehm, Software engineering economics, Prentice Hall, Reading (1981)
[10] J. Börstler, D. Carrington, G.W. Hislop, S. Lisack, K. Olson and L.Williams, Teaching PSP: challenges and lessons learned, IEEE Software 19 (5) (2002) pp. 42-48.
[11] T. Bouabana-Tebibel and M. Belmesk, An object-oriented approach to formally analyze the UML 2.0 activity partitions, Information and Software Technology 49 (9-10) (2007) pp. 999-1016.
[12] F.P. Brooks, No silver bullet — essence and accidents of software engineering, IEEE Computer 20 (4) (1987) pp. 10-19.
[13] W.I. Bullers, Personal software process in the database course, Proceedings of 6th Australasian Computing Education Conference (2004) pp. 25-31.
[14] G. Canfora, F. Garcia, M. Piattini, F. Ruiz and C.A. Visaggio, Applying a framework for the improvement of software process maturity, Software Practice and Experience, 36 (3) (2006) pp. 283-204.
[15] Z. Car, A method for teaching a software process based on the personal software process, Proceedings of the 21st IASTED International Multi-Conference on Applied Informatics (2003) pp. 1115-1120.
[16] D. Carrington, B. McEniery and D. Johnston, PSP in the large class, Proceedings of 14th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (2001) pp. 81-88.
[17] M.B. Chrissis, M. Konrad and S. Shrum, CMMI: Guidelines for process integration and product improvement (2nd edition), Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading, MA. (2003)
[18] A.M. Christie, Simulation in support of CMM-based process improvement, The Journal of Systems and Software 46 (2-3) (1999) pp. 107-112.
[19] J.E. Cook and A. L. Wolf, Software process validation: quantitatively measuring the correspondence of a process to a model, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 8 (2) (1999) pp. 147-176.
[20] J.C. Derniame, B.A. Kaba and D. Wastell, Software process: Principles, methodology and technology, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1500 Springer (1999) pp. 15-25.
[21] T. Dybå, V.B. Kampenes and D.I.K. Sjøberg, A systematic review of statistical power in software engineering experiments, Information and Software Technology 48 (8) (2006) pp. 745-755.
[22] I. Etxaniz, A tool to improve the software process quality in an R&D center using PSP, WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications 4 (4) (2007) pp. 763-770.
[23] A. Evans, R. France, K. Lano and B. Rumpe, The UML as a formal modeling notation, Computer Standards and Interfaces 19 (7) (1998) pp. 325-334.
[24] P. Feiler, and W.S. Humphrey, Software process development and enactment: concepts and definitions, (1992) Technical report CMU/SEI-92-TR-004. From: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/92tr004.pdf
[25] P. Ferguson, W.S. Humphrey, S. Khajenoori, S. Macke and A. Matvya, Results of applying the personal software process, IEEE Computer 30 (5) (1997) pp. 24-31.
[26] W.A. Florac and A.D. Carleton, Measuring the software process: statistical process control for software process improvement, Addison-Wesley, MA, (1999)
[27] A. Fuggetta, Software process: A roadmap, ICSE ''00 Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering (2000) pp. 25-34.
[28] D. Gotterbarn, Cleanroom, PSP, and the software development impact statement: developing the right attitude, Proceedings of 12th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (1999) pp. 80-99.
[29] G.C. Green, A.R. Hevner and R.W. Collins, The impacts of quality and productivity perceptions on the use of software process improvement innovations, Information and Software Technology 47 (8) (2005) pp. 543-553.
[30] G.C. Green, R.W. Collins and A.R. Hevner, Perceived control and the diffusion of software process innovations, The Journal of High Technology Management Research 15 (1) (2004) pp. 123-144.
[31] G.C. Green and A.R. Hevner, The successful diffusion of innovations: Guidance for software development organizations, IEEE Software 17 (6) (2000) pp. 96-103.
[32] C.A. Grojean, Microsoft''s IT organization uses PSP/TSP to achieve engineering excellence, Crosstalk (2005). From: http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2005/03/0503Grojean.html
[33] V. Gruhn, Process-centered software engineering environments, A brief history and future challenges, Annals of software engineering, 14(1-4) 2002 pp. 363-382.
[34] G. Grütter and S. Ferber, The personal software process in practice: Experience in two cases over five years, ECSQ ''02 Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Quality, pp. 165-174.
[35] J.A. Hamilton, Jr., Modeling command and control interoperability: cutting the Gordian knot, SCS Press, San Diego, Calif. (2004) pp. 33-57.
[36] W. Hayes, Using a personal software processSM to improve performance, Proceedings of 5th International Symposium on Software Metrics (1998) pp. 61-71.
[37] W. Hayes and J.W. Over, The personal software process (PSP): an empirical study of the impact of PSP on individual engineers, Technical Report CMU/SEI-97-TR-001, Software Engineering Institute/Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. (1997)
[38] W. Heaven and A. Finkelstein, UML profile to support requirements engineering with KAOS, Software, IEE Proceedings 151(1) (2004) pp. 10-27.
[39] T.B. Hilburn, PSP metrics in support of software engineering education, Proceedings of 12th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (1999) pp. 135-136.
[40] T.B. Hilburn and M. Towhidnejad, Doing quality work: the role of software process definition in the computer science curriculum, Proceedings of the 28th SIGCSE Symposium, Computer Science Education (1997) pp. 277-281.
[41] G.W. Hilsop, Teaching process improvement in a graduate software engineering course, FIE''99 Frontiers in Education, Proceedings of 29th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, Designing the Future of Science and Engineering Education (1999) pp. 12a9-21.
[42] W.L. Honig, Teaching successful "Real-World" software engineering to the "Net" generation: process and quality win!, Proceedings of 21st Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (2008) pp. 25-32.
[43] N.L. Hsueh, W.H. Shen, Z.W. Yang and D.L. Yang, Applying UML and software simulation for process definition, verification, and validation, Information and Software Technology 50 (9-10) (2008) pp. 897-911.
[44] N.L. Hsueh, D.L. Yang, L.M. Wang and P.H. Chu., Software process improvement at Feng Chia university - An experience report, Journal of Software Engineering Studies 1 (1) (2006) pp. 34-40.
[45] W.S. Humphrey, A self-improvement process for software engineers, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA. (2005)
[46] W.S. Humphrey, The personal software process: status and trends, IEEE Software 17 (6) (2000) pp. 71-75.
[47] W.S. Humphrey, The personal software processSM (PSPSM), Technical Report CMU/SEI-2000-TR-022, (2000)
[48] W.S. Humphrey, Software process improvement—A personal view: How it started and where it is going, IEEE Software 12 (3) (2007) pp. 223-227.
[49] W.S. Humphrey, Introduction to the Personal Software ProcessSM, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA. (1996)
[50] W.S. Humphrey, A discipline for software engineering, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA. (1995)
[51] W.S. Humphrey, T.R. Snyder and R.R. Willis, Software process improvement at Hughes aircraft, IEEE Software 8 (4) (1991) pp. 11-23.
[52] International Standard Organization, ISO/IEC 15939 Software Measurement Process Model (2002)
[53] J. Iversen and O. Ngwenyama, Problems in measuring effectiveness in software process improvement: A longitudinal study of organizational change at Danske data, International Journal of Information Management 26 (1) (2005) pp. 30-43.
[54] D. Jäger, A. Schleicher and B. Westfechtel, Using UML for software process modeling, Springer, Berlin (1999)
[55] P.M. Johnson, H. Kou, J. Agustin, C. Chan, C. Moore, J. Miglani, S. Zhen and W.E.J. Doane, Beyond the personal software process: metrics collection and analysis for the differently disciplined, Proceedings of 25th International Conference on Software Engineering (2003) pp. 641-646.
[56] P.M. Johnson and A.M. Disney, A critical analysis of PSP data quality: Results from a case study, Empirical Software Engineering 4 (4) (1999) pp. 317-349.
[57] J. Kamatar and W. Hayes, An experience report on the personal software process, IEEE Software 17 (6) (2000) pp. 85-89.
[58] C.F. Kemerer and M.C. Paulk, The impact of design and code reviews on software quality: an empirical study based on PSP data, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35 (4) (2009) pp. 534-550.
[59] J. Košturiak and M. Gregor, Simulation in production system life cycle, Computers in Industry 38 (2) (1999) pp.159-172.
[60] M.S. Krishnan and M.I. Kellner, Measuring process consistency: implications for reducing software defects, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25 (6) (1999) pp. 800-815.
[61] P. Kuvaja, Software process assessment and improvement: The bootstrap approach, Blackwell, Oxford, UK. (1994)
[62] A.M. Law and W.D. Kelton, Simulation modeling and analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York (1991)
[63] A.L. Lederer and J. Prasad, Software management and cost estimating error, The Journal of Systems and Software 50 (1) (2000) pp. 33-42.
[64] T. Lee, D. Baik and H.P. In, Cost benefit analysis of personal software process training program, Proceedings of IEEE 8th International Conference on Computer and Information Technology Workshops, IEEE Computer Society (2008) pp. 631-636.
[65] V.M.D. Linaa, Framwork for automatic verification on UML design models: Application to UML 2.0 interactions. Unpublished master thesis in the department of information systems engineering, Concordia University, Canada (2010)
[66] S.K. Lisack, The personal software process in the classroom: Student reactions (an experience report), Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training (2000) pp. 169-175.
[67] J.Y.C. Liu, V.J. Chen, C.L. Chan and T. Lie, The impacts of software process standardization on software flexibility and project management performance: control theory perspective, Information and Software Technology 50 (9-10) (2008) pp. 889-896.
[68] D. Liu, J. Wang, S.C.F. Chan, J. Sun and L. Zhang, Modeling workflow processes with colored Petri Nets, Computers in Industry 49 (2002) pp. 267-281.
[69] P.B. López, X. Franch-Gutiérrez and J.M. Ribó-Balust, Software process modeling languages based on UML, The European Journal for the Informatics Professional, 5(5) (2004) pp. 34-39
[70] J.I. Maletic, A. Howald and A. Marcus, Incorporating PSP into a traditional software engineering course: an experience report, Proceedings of 14th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (2001) pp. 89-97.
[71] P. Mangan and S. Sadiq, On building workflow models for flexible processes, Australian Computer Science Communications 18 (2002) pp. 103-109.
[72] M. Massink , D. Latella and S. Gnesi, On testing UML statecharts, Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming 69 (1-2) (2004) pp. 1-74.
[73] B. McFeeley, IDEAL: A user’s guide for software process improvement (CMU/SEI-96-HB-001), Software Engineering Institute/ Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. (1996)
[74] J. McGarry, D. Card, C. Jones, B. Layman, E. Clark, J. Dean and F. Hall, Practical software measurement: Objective information for decision makers, Addison Wesley Professional, Reading, (2002)
[75] M.J. Miller, F. Pulgar-Vidal and D.M. Ferrin, Achieving higher levels of CMMI maturity using simulation, Proceedings of the 34th conference on Winter simulation (2002) pp. 1473-1478.
[76] M. Morisio, Applying the PSP in industry, IEEE Software 17 (6) (2000) pp. 90-95.
[77] F. Mosteller and J.W. Turkey, Data analysis and regression, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA (1977)
[78] E.O. Navarro and A. van der Hoek, Software process modeling for an educational software engineering simulation game, Software Process: Improvement and Practice 10 (3) (2005) pp.311-325.
[79] M. Niazi, D. Wilson and D. Zowghi, A framework for assisting the design of effective software process improvement implementation strategies, The Journal of Systems and Software 78 (2) (2005) pp. 204-222.
[80] Object Management Group, UML 2.0 OCL specification (2003), from: http://www.uml.org.
[81] Object Management Group, OMG Unified Modeling Language: Superstructure (final adopted spec, version 2.0, 2003-08-02), Technical report (2003), from: http://www.omg.org
[82] Object Management Group, Software Process Engineering Metamodel Specification (2002), Version 1.0, Object Management Group, formal/02-11-14, from: http://www.omg.org/technology/documents/formal/spem.htm
[83] R.F. Paige, J.S. Ostroff and P.J. Brooke, Principles for modeling language design, Information and Software Technology 42 (10) (2000) pp. 665-675.
[84] M.C. Paulk, K.L. Needy and J. Rajgopal, Identify outliers, understand the process, ASQ Software Quality Professional 11 (2) (2009) pp. 28-37.
[85] M.C. Paulk, Factors affecting personal software quality, Crosstalk (2006), from: http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/CrossTalk/2006/03/0603Paulk.html
[86] M.C. Paulk, An empirical study of process discipline and software quality, PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh (2005)
[87] M.C. Paulk, How ISO 9001 compares with the CMM, IEEE Software 12 (1) (1995) pp. 74-83.
[88] M.C. Paulk, B. Curtis, M.B. Chrissis and C.V. Weber, Capability maturity model, Version 1.1, IEEE Software 10 (4) (1993) pp. 18-27.
[89] M. C. Paulk, C.V. Weber, S.M. Garcia, M.B. Chrissis and M. Bush, Key Practices of the capability maturity model, Version 1.1, Technical Report, CMU/SEI-93-TR-025, ESC-TR-93-178, Pittsburgh, PA. USA (1993)
[90] D.M. Petty, Application of process modeling - An industrial view, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 60 (1-4) (1996) pp. 421-426.
[91] G. Phipps, Comparing observed bug and productivity rates for Java and C++, Software Practice and Experience 29 (4) (1999) pp. 345-58.
[92] L. Prechelt and B. Unger, An experiment measuring the effects of personal software process (PSP) training, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27 (5) (2001) pp. 465-472.
[93] J.D. Procaccino, J.M. Verner, K.M. Shelfer and D. Gefen, What do software practitioners really think about project success: an exploratory study, The Journal of Systems and Software 78 (2) (2005) pp. 194-203.
[94] G. Reiner, Customer-oriented improvement and evaluation of supply chain processes supported by simulation models, International Journal of Production Economics 96 (3) (2005) pp. 381-395.
[95] D. Rombach, J. Münch, A. Ocampo, W.S. Humphrey and D. Burton, Teaching disciplined software development, The Journal of Systems and Software 81 (5) (2008) pp. 747-763.
[96] P. Runeson, Experiences from teaching PSP for freshmen, Proceedings of 14th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (2001) pp. 98-107.
[97] K. Salimifard and M. Wright, Petri net-based modeling of workflow systems: An overview, European Journal of Operational Research 134 (3) (2001) pp. 664-676.
[98] W. H. Shen, N.L. Hsueh and W.M. Lee, Assessing PSP effect in training disciplined software development: A Plan-Track-Review model, Information and Software Technology 53 (2) (2011) pp. 137-148.
[99] W.H. Shen, N.L. Hsueh and P.H. Chu, Measurement-based software process modeling, accepted to Journal of Software Engineering (2011)
[100] W.H. Shen, N.L. Hsueh and P.H. Chu, An experience report of applying the personal software process methodology, SERP''06 Proceedings of 2006 International Conference on Software Engineering Research & Practice, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA (2006) pp. 184-190.
[101] J.A. Stark and R. Crocker, Trends in software process: the PSP and agile methods, IEEE Software 20 (3) (2003) pp. 89-91.
[102] H. Störrle, Semantics and verification of data flow in UML 2.0 activities, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 127 (4) (2005) pp. 35-52.
[103] G.H. Subramanian, J.J. Jiang and G. Klein, Software quality and IS project performance improvements from software development process maturity and IS implementation strategies, The Journal of Systems and Software 80 (4) (2007), pp. 616-627.
[104] H.van Loon, Process Assessment and ISO 15504, Springer ISBN 9780387300481 (2007)
[105] H.van Loon, Process Assessment and Improvement, Springer ISBN 9780387300443 (2007)
[106] K. Venkatasubramanian, S.B.T. Roy and M.V. Dasari, Teaching and using PSP in a software engineering course: An experience report, Proceedings of 14th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (2001) pp. 1-4.
[107] A. Wesslén, A replicated empirical study of the impact of the methods in the PSP on individual engineers, Empirical Software Engineering 5 (2) (2000) pp. 93-123.
[108] C. Wohlin, Are individual differences in software development performance possible to capture using a quantitative survey, Empirical Software Engineering 9 (3) (2004) pp. 211-228.
[109] C. Wohlin, M. Höst and A. Wesslén, Can the personal software process be used for empirical studies?, ICSE’99 Proceedings of workshop on Empirical Studies of Software (1999) pp. 1-5.
[110] C. Wohlin and A. Wesslèn, Understanding software defect detection in the personal software process, Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium. Software Reliability (1998) pp. 49-58.
[111] X. Yuan, P. Vega, H. Yu and Y. Li, A personal software process tool for Eclipse environment (2003), from: http://abner.ncat.edu/yaohang/publications/eclipsepsp2.pdf
[112] K.Z. Zamli, Process modeling languages: a literature review, Malaysian Journal of Computer Science, 14 (2) (2001) pp. 26-37.
[113] X. Zhong, N.H. Madhavji and K. El Emam, Critical factors affecting personal software processes, IEEE Software 17 (6) (2000) pp. 76-83.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top