Carleton, A. D., Park, R. E., Goethert, W. B., Florac, W. A., Bailey, E. K., and Pfleeger, S. L. (1992). "Software Measurement for DoD Systems: Recommendations for Initial Core Measures." SEI-92-TR-19, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....Keywords: Metrics, software process improvement, software development 1. Introduction Metrics programs are a vital part of every serious software process improvement endeavor. Despite the reports on successful metrics implementation (Fenton Pfleeger, 1997; Dekkers, 1999; Weinberg, 1993; Carleton, 1992), most companies experience great difficulties when trying to implement a metrics program as part of their software process improvement activities. Does this mean that the many experts that write the books and recommendations are wrong Likely not. The truth seems to lie in the complexity and ....

Carleton, A. D., Park, R. E., Goethert, W. B., Florac, W. A., Bailey, E. K., and Pfleeger, S. L. (1992). "Software Measurement for DoD Systems: Recommendations for Initial Core Measures." SEI-92-TR-19, Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

....results from several quantitative analyses of the archival data from the APACHE project. The measures we derive from these data are well suited to address our research questions [2] however, they may be unfamiliar to many readers since they are not software metrics that are in wide use, e.g. [4,7]. For this reason, we provide data from several commercial projects, to give the reader some sense of what kinds of results might be expected. Although we picked several commercial projects that are reasonably close to APACHE, none is a perfect match, and the reader should not infer that the ....

Anita D. Carleton, et al., "Software Measurement for DoD Systems: Recommendations for Initial Core Measures," Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, CMU/SEI-92TR -19, 1992.

....research. Product Development Dimension Software estimation models depend on software product size and some measure of complexity to derive development effort. The general form of estimation models is expressed in Equation 1. Effort is measured in work weeks, work months, or workhours (Boehm 1981; Carleton and others 1992). Size is measured in units such as LOC or functionality (Boehm 1981; Albrecht 1979) Complexity would therefore be measured in unit of effort per unit of size indicating that the multiplier is an average of the entire product. This effort equation is based on the notion that productivity is ....

....across the world. A better approach to the work month or work week is to consider time as a progression of days or hours with exceptions for those periods when effort is not charged to the project. The DoD has determined that work hours are preferred over the work month measure for effort (Carleton and others 1992; U.S. Department of the Army 1996) 55 Independent Variables Technical disciplines having an architectural drawing or blueprint approach to conceptually represent the final product use standard measures with the graphical description to infer size of the object to be produced. A software ....

Carleton, Anita D., Robert E. Park, Wolfhart B. Goethert, William A. Florac, Elizabeth K. Bailey, and Shari Lawrence Pfleeger. 1992. Software measurement for DOD systems: Recommendations for initial core measures. Pittsburgh: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University. CMU/SEI-92-TR-19.

.... between them [11] To ease the data collection task, it is possible to create a unified parameter set which provides inputs for both PRICE and SEER [12] It is also possible to devise a checklist which ensures that structured measurement descriptions and reporting specifications are used [13, 14]. Unfortunately, these approaches do not allow use of the extensive on line help built into the latest versions of the programs, and require a significant effort to implement and update. Therefore, at present, data collected by the RASSP benchmark team is in a form which allows the commercial ....

Carleton, Park, Goethert, Florac, Bailey and Pfleeger, "Software Measurement for DoD Systems: Recommendations for Initial Core Measures," Carnegie-Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute Technical Report CMU/SEI-92-TR-19, Pittsburgh PA, Sept. 1992, DTIC AD-A258 305.

..... There may be masked tradeoffs in the data we present. It is generally possible to improve one measure, e.g. productivity, by sacrificing another, e.g. quality. We generally did not receive a complete set of core measures (e.g. effort, size, calendar time, and quality, see [Carleton 92] from each organization. So we are unable to determine the extent to which gains in one measure, reported to us, were offset by declines in others, which were not reported. All of the organizations are doing things other than CMM based software process improvement, e.g. gaining experience ....

....amount of calendar time to execute the process, Park 92] and [IFPUG 90] for measuring the size of software products, and [Florac 92] for measuring the quality of products produced. Information about measures related to the CMM is provided in [Baumert 92] A set of core measures is recommended in [Carleton 92] Business value. Often the result of most interest to managers is the business value, or ratio of benefits to costs, of the software process improvement effort. Costs of the improvement activities are considered as either nonrecurring costs or recurring costs. Nonrecurring costs are those ....

Carleton, Anita D.; Park, Robert E.; Goethert, Wolfhart B.; Florac, William A.; Bailey, Elizabeth K.; Pfleeger, Shari L. Software Measurement for DoD Systems: Recommendations for Initial Core Measures (CMU/SEI-92-TR-19, ADA258305). Pittsburgh, Pa.: Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 1992.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC