Wroclaw University of Science and Technology

Faculty of Computer Science and Management

Introduction to the Special Issue on Software Engineering Methods, Tools and Products Improvement and Evaluation

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><italic>Context:</italic> Software measurement is crucial to stay competitive and deliver quality software products.<italic>Problem:</italic> While much research has been done on measurement in large companies in developed countries, there is limited research on measurement in start-ups. So far there are no studies on whether these results apply to nascent ecosystems, such as those in East Africa.<italic>Goal:</italic> The aim of this study is to understand the use and perceived benefits of measurement in software start-ups in East Africa.<italic>Method:</italic> We performed a multi-case study on 19 software start-ups in hubs in Uganda and Kenya, through conducting semi-structured interviews. We transcribed and analyzed them using the content analysis technique.<italic>Results:</italic> We identified that start-ups are using a number of business and product-oriented metrics. Furthermore, we found no evidence on the use of design-oriented metrics. Nonetheless, start-ups have considerable expectations on the benefits of measuring. Finally, metrics found in this study partially differ from metrics used in start-ups in developed countries.<italic>Conclusion:</italic> There is a need to create a more inclusive characterization for measurement as early start-ups in East Africa cannot yet be represented with known models.</abstract>

Measurements in the Early Stage Software Start-ups: A Multiple Case Study in a Nascent Ecosystem

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Continuous integration and continuous software deployment depend on the mix of automated and manual activities. The automated build and test processes are often intertwined with manual reviews and bug-fixing activities. In this paper, we set o to study how these manual and automated activities influence the speed of reviews and integration. We conduct a case study of two companies developing embedded software, measure the time required for reviewing and integrating software code (alias speed), and conduct a workshop to identify factors which explain the quantitative results. Our results show that the measurement of speed is a good alias for calendar time and triggers improvements better than using measures for velocity. We have also found that the distribution of code repositories, frequent reminders and team proximity decrease the time needed to deploy the software. Our findings are that there is a difference in the structure of code repositories between the fast and slow integration cases, which contributes to the debate on the pros and cons of different repository structures in modern companies.</abstract>

Measurement and Impact Factors of Speed of Reviews and Integration in Continuous Software Engineering

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">We apply a mixed research method to improve the user stories estimation process in a German company following agile software development. We combine software project data analytics with elicitation of teams’ feedback, identify root causes for wrong estimates and propose an improved version of the estimation process. Three major changes are adopted in the new process: a shorter non numerical scale for story points, an analogy-based estimation process, and retrospectives analyses on the accuracy of previous sprints estimates. The new estimation process is applied on a new project, and an improvement of estimates accuracy from 10% to 45% is observed.</abstract>

Combining Data Analytics with Team Feedback to Improve the Estimation Process in Agile Software Development

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">User satisfaction is an important feature of software quality. However, it was rarely studied in software engineering literature. By enhancing earlier research this paper focuses on predicting user satisfaction with machine learning techniques using software development data from an extended ISBSG dataset. This study involved building, evaluating and comparing a total of 15,600 prediction schemes. Each scheme consists of a different combination of its components: manual feature preselection, handling missing values, outlier elimination, value normalization, automated feature selection, and a classifier. The research procedure involved a 10-fold cross-validation and separate testing, both repeated 10 times, to train and to evaluate each prediction scheme. Achieved level of accuracy for best performing schemes expressed by Matthews correlation coefficient was about 0.5 in the cross-validation and about 0.5–0.6 in the testing stage. The study identified the most accurate settings for components of prediction schemes.</abstract>

Predicting Aggregated User Satisfaction in Software Projects

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Software maintainability is one of the most important aspects when evaluating the quality of a software product. It is defined as the ease with which the existing software can be modified. In the literature, several researchers have proposed a large number of models to measure and predict maintainability throughout different phases of the Software Development Life Cycle. However, only a few attempts have been made for conducting a comparative study of the existent proposed prediction models. In this paper, we present a detailed classification and conduct a comparative analysis of Object-Oriented software maintainability prediction models. Furthermore, we considered the aforementioned proposed models from three perspectives, which are architecture, design and code levels. To the best of our knowledge, such an analysis that comprises the three levels has not been conducted in previous research. Moreover, this study hints at certain fundamental basics concerning the way of how measure the maintainability knowing that at each level the maintainability will be measured differently. In addition, we will focus on the strengths and weaknesses of these models. Consequently, the comparative study yields that several statistical and machine learning techniques have been employed for software maintainability prediction at code level during the last decade, and each technique possesses its specific characteristic to develop an accurate prediction model. At the design level, the majority of the prediction models measured maintainability according to the characteristics of the quality models. Whereas at the architectural level, the techniques adopted are still limited and only a few of studies have been conducted in this regard.</abstract>

Comparative Analysis of Object-Oriented Software Maintainability Prediction Models

<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Domain ontologies are valuable knowledge assets with many potential applications, e.g. in software engineering. Their content is often a subject of bi-directional transformations. Unfortunately, a centralized transformation service which can be easily extended with new mappers is not available for ontology users. In consequence, they have to deal with many different translation programs, which have to be installed and learned separately. The paper presents a framework for universal ontology processing, dedicated to ontologies expressed in OWL2. The framework usefulness was verified by a proof-of-concept implementation, for which an existing OWL2 to Groovy translator was adapted. During the integration process, the translator functionality was enhanced with ontology individuals mapping. The exemplary implementation confirmed that the framework with plug-in architecture is flexible and easy for customization. The ontology stakeholders should benefit from the reduced cognitive load and more satisfying transformation process.</abstract>

Universal Framework for OWL2 Ontology Transformations

AHEAD OF PRINT

Volume 49 (2024): Issue 1 (February 2024)

Volume 48 (2023): Issue 4 (December 2023)

Volume 48 (2023): Issue 3 (September 2023)

Volume 48 (2023): Issue 2 (June 2023)

Volume 48 (2023): Issue 1 (March 2023)

Volume 47 (2022): Issue 4 (December 2022) Special issue: “Recent advances on supply chain network design”

Volume 47 (2022): Issue 3 (September 2022)

Volume 47 (2022): Issue 2 (June 2022)

Volume 47 (2022): Issue 1 (February 2022)

Volume 46 (2021): Issue 4 (December 2021)

Volume 46 (2021): Issue 3 (September 2021)

Volume 46 (2021): Issue 2 (June 2021)

Volume 46 (2021): Issue 1 (March 2021)

Volume 45 (2020): Issue 4 (December 2020)

Volume 45 (2020): Issue 3 (September 2020)

Volume 45 (2020): Issue 2 (June 2020)

Volume 45 (2020): Issue 1 (March 2020)

Volume 44 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019)

Volume 44 (2019): Issue 3 (September 2019)

Volume 44 (2019): Issue 2 (June 2019)

Volume 44 (2019): Issue 1 (March 2019)

Volume 43 (2018): Issue 4 (December 2018)

Volume 43 (2018): Issue 3 (September 2018)

Volume 43 (2018): Issue 2 (June 2018)

Volume 43 (2018): Issue 1 (March 2018)

Volume 42 (2017): Issue 4 (December 2017)

Volume 42 (2017): Issue 3 (September 2017)

Volume 42 (2017): Issue 2 (June 2017)

Volume 42 (2017): Issue 1 (February 2017)

Volume 41 (2016): Issue 4 (November 2016)

Volume 41 (2016): Issue 3 (September 2016)

Volume 41 (2016): Issue 2 (June 2016)

Volume 41 (2016): Issue 1 (March 2016)

Volume 40 (2015): Issue 4 (December 2015)

Volume 40 (2015): Issue 3 (September 2015)

Volume 40 (2015): Issue 2 (June 2015)

Volume 40 (2015): Issue 1 (March 2015)

Volume 39 (2014): Issue 4 (December 2014)

Volume 39 (2014): Issue 3 (September 2014)

Volume 39 (2014): Issue 2 (June 2014)

Volume 39 (2014): Issue 1 (February 2014)

Volume 38 (2013): Issue 4 (December 2013)

Volume 38 (2013): Issue 3 (September 2013)

Volume 38 (2013): Issue 2 (June 2013)

Volume 38 (2013): Issue 1 (March 2013)

Volume 37 (2012): Issue 4 (December 2012)

Volume 37 (2012): Issue 3 (September 2012)

Volume 37 (2012): Issue 2 (June 2012)

Volume 37 (2012): Issue 1 (March 2012)

Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences

ISSN: 0867-6356 (print version)  Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences (until 1990 Foundations of Control Engineering) is a quarterly peer-reviewed international journal published since 1975. One of its main aims is its focus on the links between Computing (understood in the sense defined in the report of the ACM Task Force on the Core of Computer Science chaired by Peter J. Denning: Computing as a Discipline, CACM, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1989) and broadly understood Decision Sciences.  Scope of topics  The journal provides a forum for exchange of ideas for researchers in the fields of computing and decision sciences. The scope of the journal covers various areas of computing and decision sciences, particularly:    approximate reasoning,  artificial intelligence,  combinatorial optimization,  computational complexity theory,  databases and data warehouses,  intelligent decision support,  knowledge engineering,  machine learning and data mining,  metaheuristics,  multiple criteria decision analysis,  networking and distributed systems,  parallel computing and concurrency,  production and project scheduling,  scheduling theory,  soft and granular computing,  software engineering.     Why submit   International editorial board composed of distinguished scholars highly representative of the field of computing and decision sciences,  Quick turnaround,  Comprehensive peer review with at least two highly competent referees assessing each manuscript,  Promotion of published papers in the vast scientific community of researchers working in the field.   Rejection Rate   ca. 60%   Archiving  Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in Portico - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections.  Plagiarism policy  The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process (iThenticate, https://www.ithenticate.com/ ). 