MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039584808 · doi:10.1109/ms.2005.159

Managing Change in Software Process Improvement

2005· article· en· W2039584808 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Software · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess managementChange management (ITSM)NegotiationProcess (computing)Context (archaeology)Software qualityKnowledge managementComputer scienceTeam software processSoftware development processQuality managementBest practiceSoftwareSoftware developmentBusinessEngineeringOperations managementMarketingManagementManagement system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software process improvement has become the primary approach to improving software quality and reliability, employee and customer satisfaction, and return on investment. Although the literature acknowledges that SPI implementation faces various problems, most published cases report success, detailing dramatic improvements. Such best-practice cases are a great benefit when learning how to effectively implement SPI. On the basis of experiences from SPI initiatives and insights into organizational-change management, we offer the following advice for successful SPI implementation: software managers must appreciate that each SPI initiative is unique and carefully negotiate the context of change. Managers must also understand the elements of change involved. SPI can't succeed without managerial commitment and a mastery of appropriate change tactics.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it