MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013691730 · doi:10.1002/smr.379

Optimized staffing for product releases and its application at Chartwell Technology

2008· article· en· W3013691730 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

VenueJournal of Software Maintenance and Evolution Research and Practice · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStaffingHeuristicsComputer scienceQuality (philosophy)Feature (linguistics)Product (mathematics)Process (computing)Point (geometry)Genetic algorithmOperations researchResource (disambiguation)Mathematical optimizationMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.289 · 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