The Community for Technology Leaders
RSS Icon
Subscribe
Issue No.04 - July/August (2008 vol.34)
pp: 516-530
Per Rovegård , Ericsson AB, Karlskrona
Lefteris Angelis , Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki
Claes Wohlin , Blekinge Institute of Technology, Ronneby
ABSTRACT
Change impact analysis is a change management activity that previously has been studied much from a technical perspective. For example, much work focuses on methods for determining the impact of a change. In this paper, we present results from a study on the role of impact analysis in the change management process. In the study, impact analysis issues were prioritised with respect to criticality by software professionals from an organisational perspective and a self-perspective. The software professionals belonged to three organisational levels: operative, tactical and strategic. Qualitative and statistical analyses with respect to differences between perspectives as well as levels are presented. The results show that important issues for a particular level are tightly related to how the level is defined. Similarly, issues important from an organisational perspective are more holistic than those important from a self-perspective. However, our data indicate that the self-perspective colours the organisational perspective, meaning that personal opinions and attitudes cannot easily be disregarded. In comparing the perspectives and the levels, we visualise the differences in a way that allow us to discuss two classes of issues: high-priority and medium-priority. The most important issues from this point of view concern fundamental aspects of impact analysis and its execution.
INDEX TERMS
General, Configuration management process, Qualitative process analysis
CITATION
Per Rovegård, Lefteris Angelis, Claes Wohlin, "An Empirical Study on Views of Importance of Change Impact Analysis Issues", IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol.34, no. 4, pp. 516-530, July/August 2008, doi:10.1109/TSE.2008.32
REFERENCES
[1] S.A. Bohner and R.S. Arnold, Software Change Impact Analysis. IEEE CS Press, 1996.
[2] A. Aurum and C. Wohlin, “The Fundamental Nature of Requirements Engineering Activities as a Decision-Making Process,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 45, no. 14, pp.945-954, 2003.
[3] A. Ngo-The and G. Ruhe, “Decision Support in Requirements Engineering,” Eng. and Managing Software Requirements, chap. 12, A. Aurum and C. Wohlin, eds., pp. 267-286, Springer, 2005.
[4] R.N. Anthony, Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Harvard Univ. Press, 1965.
[5] P. Jönsson and C. Wohlin, “Understanding Impact Analysis: An Empirical Study to Capture Knowledge on Different Organisational Levels,” Proc. 17th Int'l Conf. Software Eng. and Knowledge Eng., pp. 707-712, July 2005.
[6] P. Jönsson and C. Wohlin, “A Study on Prioritisation of Impact Analysis Issues: A Comparison between Perspectives,” Proc. Fifth Conf. Software Eng. Research and Practice in Sweden, pp. 11-19, Oct. 2005.
[7] T. Hall and D. Wilson, “Views of Software Quality: A Field Report,” IEE Proc. Software Eng., vol. 144, no. 2, pp. 111-118, 1997.
[8] R. Conradi and T. Dybå, “An Empirical Study on the Utility of Formal Routines to Transfer Knowledge and Experience,” Proc. European Software Eng. Conf. and ACM SIGSOFT Int'l Symp. Foundations of Software Eng., pp. 268-276, Sept. 2001.
[9] D. Karlström, P. Runeson, and C. Wohlin, “Aggregating Viewpoints for Strategic Software Process Improvement—A Method and a Case Study,” IEE Proc. Software, vol. 149, no. 5, pp. 143-152, 2002.
[10] V.R. Basili, S. Green, O. Laitenberger, F. Lanubile, F. Shull, S. Sørumgård, and M.V. Zelkowitz, “The Empirical Investigation of Perspective-Based Reading,” Empirical Software Eng.: An Int'l J., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 133-164, 1996.
[11] B. Regnell, P. Runeson, and T. Thelin, “Are the Perspectives Really Different?—Further Experimentation on Scenario-Based Reading of Requirements,” Empirical Software Eng., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 331-356, 2000.
[12] A. Finkelstein and I. Sommerville, “The Viewpoints FAQ,” Software Eng. J., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 2-4, 1996.
[13] S. Zahran, Software Process Improvement: Practical Guidelines for Business Success. Addison-Wesley Professional, 1998.
[14] J. Karlsson and K. Ryan, “A Cost-Value Approach for Prioritizing Requirements,” IEEE Software, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 67-74, 1997.
[15] C. Robson, Real World Research. Blackwell, 2002.
[16] D. Leffingwell and D. Widrig, Managing Software Requirements—A Unified Approach. Addison-Wesley Professional, 1999.
[17] D.J. Sheskin, Handbook of Parametric and Non-Parametric Statistical Procedures. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2004.
[18] B. Regnell, M. Höst, J. Natt och Dag, P. Beremark, and T. Hjelm, “Visualization of Agreement and Satisfaction in Distributed Prioritization of Market Requirements,” Proc. Sixth Int'l Workshop Requirements Eng.: Foundation for Software Quality, June 2000.
[19] N. Mantel, “The Detection of Disease Clustering and a Generalized Regression Approach,” Cancer Research, vol. 27, pp. 209-220, 1967.
[20] J. Reynolds, Mantel Test Code, http://www.biostat.wustl.edu/archives/html/ s-news/2001-03msg00154.html, 2001.
[21] C. Wohlin, P. Runeson, M. Höst, M.C. Ohlsson, B. Regnell, and A. Wesslén, Experimentation in Software Engineering: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic, 2000.
16 ms
(Ver 2.0)

Marketing Automation Platform Marketing Automation Tool