Software Development Performance Index (SDPI) for measuring Agile Teams performance.
The concept and principle is described in this whitepaper of "The impact of Agile Quantified" (from the Software Engineering Institute, the organization managing the CMMI model:
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta paper. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta paper. Mostrar todas as mensagens
terça-feira, 3 de setembro de 2019
quinta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2017
Books on Requirements?
For everything in life, there's a book. I even found some book for good friends of mine who ride the bicycle (that went something like "how to not ruin your sex life riding bikes"). Unfortunately a search for it in the Amazon store today does not yield results.
And then, there are good books on writing good requirements.
Some of them are pretty much old but they are still good books on the subject (this is an "old" art):
And then, there are good books on writing good requirements.
Some of them are pretty much old but they are still good books on the subject (this is an "old" art):
- https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mastering-Requirements-Process-Suzanne-Robertson/dp/0201360462/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8
- https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mastering-Requirements-Process-2nd-second/dp/B008IT2WJW/ref=sr_1_3 (the 2nd Edition)
- https://www.amazon.co.uk/Managing-Software-Requirements-Approach-Technology/dp/0201615932/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8
- https://www.amazon.co.uk/Managing-Software-Requirements-Addison-Wesley-Technology/dp/032112247X/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8
- Writing Better Requirements: Amazon.co.uk: Ian Alexander, Richard Stevens: 9780321131638: Books
Additional references (sources for the INTERNAL QMS ENG02 Process)
The main conceptual references for the process description, back in 2003, were:
Guide to the user requirements definition phase, ESA PSS-05-02 Issue 1 Revision 1 (1995).
Guide to the software requirements definition phase, ESA PSS-05-03 Issue 1 Revision 1 (1995).
Space engineering – Software, ESA ECSS-E-40B Draft 1 (2002)
Some additional references used were:
Managing Software Requirements: a unified approach, Dean Leffingwell, Don Widrig, 2000, Addison-Wesley
Mastering the Requirements Process, Suzanne and James Robertson, 1999, Addison-Wesley
Modelling for requirement engineering, Dr. Eric Conquet, 2002, ESA / ESTEC TOS- EME
Specifying Good Requirements, Donald Firesmith, in Journal of Object Technology, vol. 2, no. 4, July-August 2003, pp. 77-87. http://www.jot.fm/issues/issue_2003_07/column7
@2017-11, additional sources for QMS PCS.
quinta-feira, 4 de agosto de 2016
IEEE Xplore Abstract - Lessons learned from 25 years of process improvement: the rise and fall of the NASA-SEL
Interesting article on NASA Software Engineering Laboratory (NASA-SEL):
IEEE Xplore Abstract - Lessons learned from 25 years of process improvement: the rise and fall of the NASA software enginee...
Abstract:
"Lessons learned from 25 years of process improvement: The Rise and Fall of the NASA Software Engineering Laboratory. For 25 years the NASA/GSFC Software Engineering Laboratory (SEL) has been a major resource in software process improvement activities. But due to a changing climate at NASA, agency reorganization, and budget cuts, the SEL has lost much of its impact. In this paper we describe the history of the SEL and give some lessons learned on what we did right, what we did wrong, and what others can learn from our experiences. We briefly describe the research that was conducted by the SEL, describe how we evolved our understanding of software process improvement, and provide a set of lessons learned and hypotheses that should enable future groups to learn from and improve on our quarter century of experiences."
PDF: https://www.cs.umd.edu/~basili/publications/proceedings/P94.pdf
IEEE Xplore Abstract - Lessons learned from 25 years of process improvement: the rise and fall of the NASA software enginee...
Abstract:
"Lessons learned from 25 years of process improvement: The Rise and Fall of the NASA Software Engineering Laboratory. For 25 years the NASA/GSFC Software Engineering Laboratory (SEL) has been a major resource in software process improvement activities. But due to a changing climate at NASA, agency reorganization, and budget cuts, the SEL has lost much of its impact. In this paper we describe the history of the SEL and give some lessons learned on what we did right, what we did wrong, and what others can learn from our experiences. We briefly describe the research that was conducted by the SEL, describe how we evolved our understanding of software process improvement, and provide a set of lessons learned and hypotheses that should enable future groups to learn from and improve on our quarter century of experiences."
PDF: https://www.cs.umd.edu/~basili/publications/proceedings/P94.pdf
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)