The Moderating Effects of Structure on Volatility and Complexity in Software Enhancement

References

• Albrecht A., Gaffney J. Software function, source lines of code, and development effort prediction: A software science validation. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. (1983) SE-9(6):639–648Crossref, Google Scholar
• Al-Janabi A., Aspinwall E. An evaluation of software design using the Demeter tool. Software Eng. J. (1993) 8(6):319–324Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bækgaard L.Designing adaptable software: Parameterization of volatile properties (1990) Conference on Software Maintenance(San Diego, CA)Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banker R., Datar S., Kemerer C. A model to evaluate variables impacting productivity on software maintenance projects. Management Sci. (1991) 37(1):1–88Link, Google Scholar
• Banker R., Datar S., Kemerer C., Zweig D. Software complexity and software maintenance costs. Comm. ACM (1993) 36(11):81–94Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banker R., Davis G., Slaughter S. Software development practices, software complexity, and software maintenance performance: A field study. Management Sci. (1998) 44(4):433–450Link, Google Scholar
• Banker R., Kemerer C. Performance evaluation metrics for information systems development: A principal-agent model. Inform. Systems Res. (1992) 3(4):379–400Link, Google Scholar
• Banker R., Slaughter S. A field study of scale economies in software maintenance. Management Sci. (1997) 43(12):1709–1725Link, Google Scholar
• Basili V., Perricone B. Software errors and complexity: An empirical investigation. Comm. ACM (1984) 27(1):42–52Crossref, Google Scholar
• Basili V., Selby R., Phillips T. Metric analysis and data validation across Fortran projects. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. (1983) 9(7):652–663Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belady L., Lehman M. A model of large program development. IBM Systems J. (1976) 15(3):225–252Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belsley D., Kuh E., Welsch R.Regression Diagnostics (1980) (John Wiley and Sons, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benander B., Gorla N., Benander A. An empirical study of the use of the goto statement. J. Systems and Software (1990) 11(3):217–223Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bergantz D., Hassell J. Information relationships in prolog programs: How do programmers comprehend functionality. Internat. J. Man-Machine Stud. (1991) 35(3):313–328Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bitman W. Balancing software composition and inheritance to improve reusability, cost, and error rate. Johns Hopkins APL Techn. Digest (1997) 18(4):485–500Google Scholar
• Boehm B.Software Engineering Economics (1981) (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Booch G.Object Oriented Design with Applications (1991) (Benjamin Cummings, Redwood City, CA) Google Scholar
• Bowen J. Module size: A standard or heuristic?. J. Systems and Software (1984) 4:327–332Crossref, Google Scholar
• Butcher G.Addressing software volatility in the system life cycle (1997) . Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado Technical University, UMI#9815557Google Scholar
• Cant S., Jeffery D., Henderson-Sellers B. A conceptual model of cognitive complexity of elements of the programming process. Inform. Software Tech. (1995) 37(7):351–362Crossref, Google Scholar
• Card D., Glass R.Measuring Software Design Quality (1990) (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Chapin N., Lau T. Effective size: An example of use from legacy systems. J. Software Maintenance: Res. Practice (1996) 8(2):101–116Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chidamber S., Kemerer C. A metrics suite for object-oriented design. IEEE Trans. on Software Eng. (1994) 20(6):476–493Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen J., Cohen P.Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (1983) 2nd ed.(Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ) Google Scholar
• Conte S., Dunsmore H., Shen V.Software Engineering Metrics and Models (1986) (Benjamin-Cummings, Reading, MA) Google Scholar
• Davis G., Olson M.Management Information Systems: Conceptual Foundations, Structure and Development (1985) 2nd ed.(McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Dekleva S., Zvegintzov N. Real maintenance statistics. Software Maintenance News (1991) 9(2):6–9Google Scholar
• Gibson V., Senn J. System structure and software maintenance performance. Comm. ACM (1989) 32(3):347–358Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glesjer H. A new test for heteroscedasticity. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (1969) 64:316–323Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gode D., Barua A., Mukhopadhyay T.On the economics of the software replacement problem (1990) Proc. 11th Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems(Copenhagen, Denmark) Google Scholar
• Gorry G., Scott-Morton M. A framework for management information systems. Sloan Management Rev. (1971) 13(1):55–70Google Scholar
• Greene W.Econometric Analysis (1997) 3rd ed.(Macmillan Publishing Company, New York) Google Scholar
• Gremillion L. Determinants of program repair maintenance requirements. Comm. ACM (1984) 27(8):826–832Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guinan P., Cooprider J., Sawyer S. The effective use of automated application development tools. IBM Systems J. (1997) 36(1):124–139Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hager J. Software cost reduction methods in practice: A postmortem analysis. J. Systems and Software (1991) 14(2):67–79Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halstead M.Elements of Software Science (1977) (Elsevier, North-Holland, NY) Google Scholar
• Harkness W., Kettinger W., Segars A. Sustaining process improvement and innovation in the information services function: Lessons learned at the Bose corporation. MIS Quart. (1996) 20(3):349–368Crossref, Google Scholar
• Head R. Management information systems: A critical appraisal. Datamation (1967) 13(5):23Google Scholar
• Hogarth R., Gibbs B., McKenzie C., Marquis M. Learning from feedback: Exactingness and incentives. J. Experiment. Psych.: Learning, Memory, and Cognition (1991) 17:734–752Crossref, Google Scholar
• Honiden S., Kotaka N., Kishimoto Y. Formalizing specification modeling in OOA. IEEE Software (1993) 10(1):54–66Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsia P., Gupta A., King C., Peng J., Liu S.A study on the effect of architecture on maintainability of object-oriented systems (1995) Proc. Internat. Conf. Software Maintenance(Opio, France) 4–11Crossref, Google Scholar
• IEEE Standard for Software Maintenance (1993) (IEEE, New York) Google Scholar
• Iman R., Conover W. The use of the rank transform in regression. Technometrics (1979) 21(4):499–509Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jones C. Year 2000: What's the real cost?. Datamation (1997a) 43(3):88–909293Google Scholar
• Jones C.Software Quality: Analysis and Guidelines for Success (1997b) (International Thompson Computer Press, London, U.K.) Google Scholar
• Jones C.Applied Software Measurement: Assuring Productivity and Quality (1991) (McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Jones C. Software enhancement modeling. Software Maintenance: Res. Practice (1989) 1:91–100Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kada S., Woods D., Cole R. Design methods and code structure: A comparative case study. Software Quality J. (1993) 2(3):163–176Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D., Tversky A.Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1982) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kemerer C. Reliability of function points measurement. Comm. ACM (1993) 36:85–97Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kemerer C. Software complexity and software maintenance: A survey of empirical research. Ann. Software Engrg. (1995) 1:1–22Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kemerer C., Slaughter S. Determinants of software maintenance profiles: An empirical investigation. Software Maintenance: Res. Practice (1997) 9:235–251Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kennedy P.A Guide to Econometrics (1992) 3rd ed.(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Khoshgoftaar T., Munson J. Predicting software development errors using software complexity metrics. IEEE J. Selected Areas in Comm. (1990) 8(2):253–261Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krishnan M.Cost and quality considerations in software product management (1996) (GSIA, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA) . Ph.D. dissertationGoogle Scholar
• Laudon K., Laudon J.Essentials of Management Information Systems: Organization and Technology (1997) 2nd ed.(Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ) Google Scholar
• Li H., Cheung W. An empirical study of software metrics. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. (1987) SE-13(6):697–708Crossref, Google Scholar
• Littlewood B., Strigini L. The risks of software. Sci. Amer. (1992) 267(5):62Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martin J., McClure C.Software Maintenance: The Problem and Its Solutions (1983) (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Mata-Toledo R., Gustafson D. A factor analysis of software complexity measures. J. Systems and Software (1992) 17:267–273Crossref, Google Scholar
• McCabe T. Cyclomatic complexity and the year 2000. IEEE Software (1996) 13(3):115–117Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nadler D., Lawler E., Hackman J., Lawler E., Porter L. Motivation: A diagnostic approach. Perspectives on Behavior in Organizations (1977) (McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Neter J., Wasserman W., Kutner M.Applied Linear Statistical Models (1990) 3rd ed.(Irwin, Homewood, IL) Google Scholar
• Nosek J., Palvia P. Software maintenance management: Changes in the last decade. J. Software Maintenance (1990) 2(3):157–174Crossref, Google Scholar
• Page-Jones M.The Practical Guide to Structured Systems Design (1980) (Yourdon Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Paich M., Sterman J. Boom, bust, and failures to learn in experimental markets. Management Sci. (1993) 39(12):1439–1458Link, Google Scholar
• Parnas D. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Comm. ACM (1972) 15(12):1053–1058Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parnas D. Designing for ease of extension and contraction. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. (1979) SE-5(2):129–137Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfleeger S.Software Engineering: Theory and Practice (1998) (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ) Google Scholar
• Putnam L., Myers W.Industrial Strength Software: Effective Management Using Measurement (1997) (IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamos, CA) Google Scholar
• Rombach H. A controlled experiment on the impact of software structure on maintainability. IEEE Trans Software Eng. (1987) SE-13(3):344–354Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapiro S., Wilk M. An analysis of variance test for normality. Biometrika (1965) 52:591–612Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shen V., Yu T., Thebaut S., Paulsen L. Identifying error-prone software—An empirical study. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. (1985) SE-11(4):317–323Crossref, Google Scholar
• Snyder R.The role of local program information in software maintenance productivity (1994) (Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN) . Ph.D. dissertationGoogle Scholar
• Software Economics LetterThe cost benefits of COBOL (1998) 7(8):4–6Google Scholar
• Sterman J. Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making environment. Management Sci. (1989) 35(3):321–339Link, Google Scholar
• Swanson E., Beath C.Maintaining Information Systems in Organizations (1989) (John Wiley and Sons, New York) Google Scholar
• Takahashi R., Nakamura Y. A software maintainability evaluation model based on re-use ratio and interface complexities between modified parts and unmodified parts. Trans. Inst. Electr., Inform. Comm. Eng. (1997) J80D-I(5):441–449Google Scholar
• Vessey I., Weber R. Some factors affecting program repair maintenance: An empirical study. Comm. ACM (1983) 26(2):128–134Crossref, Google Scholar
• Warnier J., Flanagan B.Logical Construction of Programs (1976) 3rd ed.(Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York) Google Scholar
• White H. A heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroscedasticity. Econometrica (1980) 48:817–838Crossref, Google Scholar
• Whitten J., Bentley L.Systems Analysis and Design Methods (1997) 4th ed.(Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA) Google Scholar
• Wilde N., Matthews P., Huitt R. Maintaining object-oriented software. IEEE Software (1993) 10(1):75–80Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yourdon E., Constantine L.Structured Design (1979) (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar