Optimized staffing for product releases and its application at Chartwell Technology
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Release planning for incremental software development assigns features to releases such that technical, resource, risk and budget constraints are met. Each feature offers a piece of functionality. A feature can be offered as part of a release only if all its necessary tasks are done before the given release date. These tasks require different skills. Staffing for product releases as considered in this paper is the process of assigning human resources from a given pool of developers who might have varying levels of skill to perform different tasks. In addition to that, we consider time windows of absence of the developers. The primary goal of staffing is to provide product releases of best quality where quality means offering the most attractive features to customers in a timely manner. We call the problem STAFF‐PRO. The problem is known to be NP‐complete. Consequently, we have to be satisfied with solutions that are sufficiently good, but not necessarily optimal in the case of mid‐sized or large problems. Search‐based methods relying on meta‐heuristics have been proven to be successful in similar contexts. In this research, a focused search (FS) method is presented. This refers to a two‐phased solution approach where Phase 1 applies integer linear programming to a relaxed version of the full problem. Its solution is used as a starting point to perform FS in a reduced search space in Phase 2. The search itself is conducted by a genetic algorithm. It generates a solution that fulfills all the stated resource and scheduling constraints and is of a proven degree of optimality. We performed an empirical analysis of the proposed solution approach by comparing FS and unfocused search (UFS) (without Phase 1) for a series of 200 test examples. On average, FS performs about 15% better than UFS. The whole method was applied as an industrial case study performed at Chartwell Technology. The case study demonstrates that application of the FS method to STAFF‐PRO (i) allows a reduction in the time needed for generating acceptable staffing plans, (ii) generates plans of proven quality that are better than manual plans and (iii) supports the various types of re‐planning necessary for varying parameters, budgets and resource. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle