Performing operational release planning, replanning and risk analysis using a system dynamics simulation model
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Software release planning takes place on strategic and operational levels. Strategic release planning aims at assigning features to subsequent releases such that technical, resource, risk and budget constraints are met. Operational release planning focuses on the development of a single software release. Its purpose is to assign resources to feature development tasks such that total release duration is minimized under given process and project constraints. Replanning becomes necessary on the operational level because of addition or deletion of features during release development, due to changes in the workforce, or due to changes in process and project constraints. The allocation of resources to feature development tasks depends on the accurate estimation of planning parameters like task size, developer productivity or dependencies between task types. Risk analysis can help assess the reliability of a chosen release plan due to variation in these dependencies. In this article, we present elements of a simulation‐based methodology to planning, replanning and risk analysis of software releases on an operational level. Even though there exist approaches addressing these three aspects individually, our proposed approach combines all of them into one single package and, hence, offers stronger support to decision makers. The core element of the methodology is the process simulation model REPSIM‐2 (Release Plan Simulator, Version 2). We describe the functionality of REPSIM‐2 and illustrate its usefulness for planning, replanning and risk analysis through application scenarios. 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it