@article {26330,
	title = {Status Quo in Requirements Engineering: A Theory and a Global Family of Surveys},
	journal = {ACM Transactions of Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)},
	volume = {28},
	number = {9},
	year = {2019},
	publisher = {ACM},
	abstract = {Requirements Engineering (RE) has established itself as a software engineering discipline during the past decades. While researchers have been investigating the RE discipline with a plethora of empirical studies, attempts to systematically derive an empirically-based theory in context of the RE discipline have just recently been started. However, such a theory is needed if we are to define and motivate guidance in performing high quality RE research and practice. We aim at providing an empirical and valid foundation for a theory of RE, which helps software engineers establish effective and efficient RE processes. We designed a survey instrument and theory that has now been replicated in 10 countries world-wide. We evaluate the propositions of the theory with bootstrapped confidence intervals and derive potential explanations for the propositions. We report on the underlying theory and the full results obtained from the replication studies with participants from 228 organisations. Our results represent a substantial step forward towards developing an empirically-based theory of RE giving insights into current practices with RE processes. The results reveal, for example, that there are no strong differences between organisations in different countries and regions, that interviews, facilitated meetings and prototyping are the most used elicitation techniques, that requirements are often documented textually, that traces between requirements and code or design documents is common, requirements specifications themselves are rarely changed and that requirements engineering (process) improvement endeavours are mostly intrinsically motivated. Our study establishes a theory that can be used as starting point for many further studies for more detailed investigations. Practitioners can use the results as theory-supported guidance on selecting suitable RE methods and techniques.},
	url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.07951},
	author = {Wagner, Stefan and Daniel Mendez {Fernandez} and Felderer, Michael and Vetr{\'o}, Antonio and Kalinowski, Marcos and Wieringa, Roel and Pfahl, Dietmar and Conte, Tayana and Christiansson, Marie-Therese and Greer, Desmond and Lassenius, Casper and M{\"a}nnist{\"o}, Tomi and Nayebi, Maleknaz and Oivo, Markku and Penzenstadler, Birgit and Prikladnicki, Rafael and Ruhe, Guenther and Schekelmann, Andr{\'e} and Sen, Sagar and Sp{\'\i}nola, Rodrigo and Tuzcu, Ahmed and Jose Luis {de la Vara} and Winkler, Dietmar}
}
@article {24656,
	title = {Are team personality and climate related to satisfaction and software quality? Aggregating results from a twice replicated experiment},
	journal = {Information and Software Technology},
	volume = {57},
	year = {2015},
	pages = {141{\textendash}156},
	publisher = {Elsevier},
	abstract = {ContextResearch into software engineering teams focuses on human and social team factors. Social psychology deals with the study of team formation and has found that personality factors and group processes such as team climate are related to team effectiveness. However, there are only a handful of empirical studies dealing with personality and team climate and their relationship to software development team effectiveness.ObjectiveWe present aggregate results of a twice replicated quasi-experiment that evaluates the relationships between personality, team climate, product quality and satisfaction in software development teams.MethodOur experimental study measures the personalities of team members based on the Big Five personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism) and team climate factors (participative safety, support for innovation, team vision and task orientation) preferences and perceptions. We aggregate the results of the three studies through a meta-analysis of correlations. The study was conducted with students.ResultsThe aggregation of results from the baseline experiment and two replications corroborates the following findings. There is a positive relationship between all four climate factors and satisfaction in software development teams. Teams whose members score highest for the agreeableness personality factor have the highest satisfaction levels. The results unveil a significant positive correlation between the extraversion personality factor and software product quality. High participative safety and task orientation climate perceptions are significantly related to quality.ConclusionsFirst, more efficient software development teams can be formed heeding personality factors like agreeableness and extraversion. Second, the team climate generated in software development teams should be monitored for team member satisfaction. Finally, aspects like people feeling safe giving their opinions or encouraging team members to work hard at their job can have an impact on software quality. Software project managers can take advantage of these factors to promote developer satisfaction and improve the resulting product.},
	author = {Silvia Teresita {Acu{\~n}a} and Marta N. {Gomez} and Jo Erskine {Hannay} and Pfahl, Dietmar}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.simula.386,
	title = {A Literature Review of Agile Practices and Their Effects in Scientific Software Development},
	journal = {Proceedings of SE-CSE11},
	year = {2011},
	pages = {1-9},
	type = {Workshop},
	abstract = {The nature of scientific research and the development of scientific software have similarities with processes that follow the agile manifesto: responsiveness to change and collaboration are of the utmost importance. But how well do current scientific software development processes match the practices found in agile development methods, and what are the effects of using agile practices in such processes? In order to investigate this, we conduct a literature review, focusing on evaluating the agility present in a selection of scientific software projects. Both projects with intentionally agile practices and projects with a certain degree of agile elements are taken into consideration. In the agility assessment, we define and utilize an agile mapping chart. The elements of the mapping chart are based on Scrum and XP, thus covering two of the most prominent agile reference models. We compared the findings of the literature review to results of a previously conducted survey. The comparison indicates that scientific software development projects adopting agile practices perceive their testing to be better than average. No difference to average projects was perceived regarding requirements-related activities. Future work includes an in-depth case study to further investigate the existence and impact of agility in three large scientific software projects, ultimately aiming at a better understanding of the particularities involved in developing scientific software.},
	author = {Magnus Thorstein {Sletholt} and Jo Erskine {Hannay} and Pfahl, Dietmar and Hans Christian {Benestad} and Hans Petter {Langtangen}},
	editor = {Carver, J.}
}
@article {Simula.simula.722,
	title = {What Do We Know About Agile Practices in Scientific Software Development?},
	journal = {Computing in Science \& Engineering},
	volume = {14},
	number = {2},
	year = {2011},
	month = {June},
	pages = {24-37},
	abstract = {The development of scientific software has similarities with processes that follow the software engineering Agile Manifesto: responsiveness to change and collaboration are of utmost importance. But how well do current scientific software development processes match the practices found in agile development methods, and what are the effects of using agile practices in such processes? To find out, the authors conducted a literature review of past projects and a multiple case study of three ongoing scientific software development projects.},
	author = {Magnus Thorstein {Sletholt} and Jo Erskine {Hannay} and Pfahl, Dietmar and Hans Petter {Langtangen}}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.simula.50,
	title = {Making Modern Scientific Software Development Explicitly Agile},
	journal = {The Changing Dynamics of Scientific Collaborations},
	year = {2010},
	type = {Workshop},
	abstract = {The nature of scientific research and the development of scientific software have similarities with processes that follow the agile manifesto: responsiveness to change and collaboration are of the utmost importance. But how well do current scientific software development processes match the practices found in agile development methods? As a representative for a modern scientific software project, we briefly outline the FEniCS project whose objective is to automate solution of differential equations. Based on initial investigations, we propose a casestudy where we investigate how the development process in FEniCS can be mapped to agile development methods, and whether SCRUM can be suitable to administer such a project. The case study will use another project, the more traditional Dalton project, as a contrast.},
	author = {Magnus Thorstein {Sletholt} and Jo Erskine {Hannay} and Hans Petter {Langtangen} and Pfahl, Dietmar}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.se.761,
	title = {Software Engineering Group Work - Personality, Patterns and Performance},
	journal = {Special Interest Group of the ACM on Management Information Systems and Special Interest Group of the ACM on Computer Personnel Research},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {43-47},
	publisher = {ACM},
	type = {Conference},
	abstract = {Software Engineering has been a fundamental part of many computing undergraduate courses for a number of years. Although many of the tools and techniques used to undertake software engineering have changed, the assessment has typically stayed the same. Students are commonly tasked with producing a number of software artefacts, for example designs using the Unified Modelling Language (UML). We recently attempted to extend the software engineering experience for a group of second year students with them participating in groups that attempt to replicate industrial practice. This paper reports our investigation into the correlation between the personality of group members, their approach with respect to using design patterns and their learning achievements.},
	isbn = {978-1-4503-0004-9},
	author = {Bell, David and Hall, Tracy and Jo Erskine {Hannay} and Pfahl, Dietmar and Silvia Teresita {Acu{\~n}a}},
	editor = {Downey, J. and Joseph, D.}
}
@article {Simula.se.763,
	title = {Studying the Impact of Uncertainty in Operational Release Planning - an Integrated Method and Its Initial Evaluation},
	journal = {Information and Software Technology},
	volume = {52},
	number = {4},
	year = {2010},
	month = {April},
	pages = {446-461},
	publisher = {Elsevier},
	abstract = {Context: Uncertainty is an unavoidable issue in software engineering and an important area of investigation. This paper studies the impact of uncertainty on total duration (i.e., make-span) for implementing all features in operational release planning. Objective: The uncertainty factors under investigation are: (1) the number of new features arriving during release construction, (2) the estimated effort needed to implement features, (3) the availability of developers, and (4) the productivity of developers. Method: An integrated method is presented combining Monte-Carlo simulation (to model uncertainty in the operational release planning (ORP) process) with process simulation (to model the ORP process steps and their dependencies as well as an associated optimization heuristic representing an organization-specific staffing policy for make-span minimization). The method allows for evaluating the impact of uncertainty on make-span. The impact of uncertainty factors both in isolation and in combination are studied in three different pessimism levels through comparison with a baseline plan. Initial evaluation of the method is done by an explorative case study at Chartwell Technology Inc. to demonstrate its applicability and its usefulness. Results: The impact of uncertainty on release make-span increases - both in terms of magnitude and variance - with an increase of pessimism level as well as with an increase of the number of uncertainty factors. Among the four uncertainty factors, we found that the strongest impact stems from the number of new features arriving during release construction. We have also demonstrated that for any combination of uncertainty factors their combined (i.e., simultaneous) impact is bigger than the addition of their individual impacts. Conclusion: The added value of the presented method is that managers are able to study the impact of uncertainty on existing (i.e., baseline) operational release plans pro-actively.},
	author = {Al-Emran, Ahmed and Kapur, Puneet and Pfahl, Dietmar and Ruhe, Guenther}
}
@article {Simula.SE.401,
	title = {A Customizable Pattern-Based Software Process Simulation Model: Design, Calibration and Application},
	journal = {Software Process: Improvement and Practice},
	volume = {14},
	number = {3},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {165-180},
	publisher = {John Wiley \& Sons},
	abstract = {Software process analysis and improvement relies heavily on empirical research. Em-pirical research requires measurement, experimentation, and modeling. However, what-ever evidence is gained via empirical research is strongly context dependent. Thus, it is hard to combine results and capitalize upon them for the purpose of improvement in evolving development environments. The process simulation model GENSIM 2.0, ad-dresses these challenges. GENSIM 2.0 is a generic process simulation tool representing V-model type software development processes. Compared to existing process simula-tion models in the literature, the novelty of GENSIM 2.0 is twofold. Firstly, its model structure is customizable to organization-specific processes. This is achieved by using a limited set of generic structures (macro-patterns). Secondly, its model parameters can be easily calibrated to available empirical data and expert knowledge. This is achieved by making the internal model structures explicit and by providing guidance on how to cali-brate model parameters. This article outlines the structure of GENSIM 2.0, gives exam-ples on how to calibrate the model to available empirical data, and demonstrates its use-fulness through two application scenarios The first scenario illustrates how GENSIM 2.0 helps finding effective combinations of verification and validation techniques under given time and effort constraints. The second scenario shows how the simulator sup-ports finding the best combination of alternative verification techniques.},
	doi = {10.1002/spip.411},
	author = {Garousi, Vahid and Khosrovian, Keyvan and Pfahl, Dietmar}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.425,
	title = {How Do Scientists Develop and Use Scientific Software?},
	journal = {Software Engineering for Computational Science and Engineering},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {1-8},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	type = {Workshop},
	abstract = {New knowledge in science and engineering relies increasingly on results produced by scientific software. Therefore, knowing how scientists develop and use software in their research is critical to assessing the necessity for improving current development practices and to making decisions about the future allocation of resources. To that end, this paper presents the results of a survey conducted online in October-December 2008 which received almost 2000 responses. Our main conclusions are that (1) the knowledge required to develop and use scientific software is primarily acquired from peers and through self-study, rather than from formal education and training; (2) the number of scientists using supercomputers is small compared to the number using desktop or intermediate computers; (3) most scientists rely primarily on software with a large user base; (4) while many scientists believe that software testing is important, a smaller number believe they have sufficient understanding about testing concepts; and (5) that there is a tendency for scientists to rank standard software engineering concepts higher if they work in large software development projects and teams, but that there is no uniform trend of association between rank of importance of software engineering concepts and project/team size.},
	isbn = {978-1-4244-3737-5},
	author = {Jo Erskine {Hannay} and Hans Petter {Langtangen} and MacLeod, Carolyn and Pfahl, Dietmar and Singer, Janice and Wilson, Greg},
	editor = {Carver, Jeff}
}
@techreport {25330,
	title = {A Review of Literature Reporting Attempts to Predict External Quality Attributes of Natural Language Software Documents via Text Analysis},
	year = {2009},
	publisher = {Simula Research Laboratory},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar}
}
@book {Simula.SE.601,
	title = {Trustworthy Software Development Processes - International Conference on Software Process, ICSP 2009, Vancouver, Canada, May 16-17, 2009, Proceedings},
	year = {2009},
	publisher = {Springer},
	isbn = {978-3-642-01679-0},
	author = {Wang, Qing and Garousi, Vahid and Madachy, Ray and Pfahl, Dietmar}
}
@techreport {Simula.SE.253,
	title = {Application Scenarios for a Customizable System Dynamics Simulation Model of Generic Software Development Processes},
	number = {University of Calgary SERG-2007-09 and Simula TR 2008-03},
	year = {2008},
	publisher = {University of Calgary and Simula Research Laboratory},
	abstract = {GENSIM 2.0 is a customizable system dynamics simulation model of generic software development processes which takes as input specifics of software development projects (e.g. size of the code document, headcount of the developer team and their skills) and generates as output a broad range of distinct variables (e.g. software product quality, total project effort) of interest to different users of the model. This technical report is dedicated to illustrate example scenarios of the application of GENSIM 2.0 to address software development process issues. Firstly, it is shown how GENSIM 2.0 could be used to find the most suitable combination of verification and validation techniques in order to achieve defined time, quality and cost goals in a given context. Secondly, it is used to figure out the most promising investments in a development project\&$\#$39;s workforce. These scenarios represent only a small subset of the numerous situations that GENSIM 2.0 can be applied to.},
	author = {Khosrovian, Keyvan and Pfahl, Dietmar and Garousi, Vahid}
}
@techreport {Simula.SE.249,
	title = {Calibrating a Customizable System Dynamics Simulation Model of Generic Software Development Processes},
	number = {University of Calgary SERG 2007-08 and Simula TR 2008-02},
	year = {2008},
	publisher = {University of Calgary and Simula Research Laboratory},
	abstract = {GENSIM 2.0 is a customizable system dynamics simulation model of generic software development processes which takes as input the specifics of software development projects (e.g. size of the code document, headcount of the developer team and their skills) and generates as output a broad range of distinct variables (e.g. software product quality, total project effort) of interest to different users of the model. This technical report is dedicated to elaborate on current calibration of GENSIM 2.0, its calibration parameters and the source from which they can be potentially calibrated.},
	author = {Khosrovian, Keyvan and Pfahl, Dietmar and Garousi, Vahid}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.209,
	title = {GENSIM 2.0: a Customizable Process Simulation Model for Software Process Evaluation},
	journal = {International Conference on Software Process (ICSP 2008)},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {294-306},
	publisher = {Springer},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {978-3-540-79587-2},
	author = {Khosrovian, Keyvan and Pfahl, Dietmar and Garousi, Vahid},
	editor = {Wang, Q. and Pfahl, D. and Raffo, D.}
}
@techreport {Simula.SE.237,
	title = {GENSIM 2.0: a Customizable Process Simulation Model for Software Process Evaluation},
	year = {2008},
	publisher = {University of Calgary and Simula Research Laboratory},
	abstract = {Software process analysis and improvement relies heavily on empirical research. Empirical research requires measurement, experimentation, and modeling. However, whatever evidence is gained via empirical research is strongly context dependent. Thus, it is hard to combine results and capitalize upon them in order to improve software development processes in evolving development environments. The process simulation model GENSIM 2.0 addresses the challenge mentioned above. Compared to existing process simulation models in the literature, the novelty of GENSIM 2.0 is twofold: (1) Model structure is customizable to organization-specific processes. This is achieved by using a limited set of generic structures (macro-patterns). (2) Model parameters can be easily calibrated to available empirical data and ex-pert knowledge. This is achieved by making the internal model structures explicit and by providing guidance on how to calibrate model parameters. This technical report explains the overall structure of GENSIM 2.0, its internal mechanisms, and its parameters.},
	author = {Khosrovian, Keyvan and Pfahl, Dietmar and Garousi, Vahid}
}
@book {Simula.SE.231,
	title = {Making Globally Distributed Software Development a Success Story - International Conference on Software Process, ICSP 2008, Leipzig, Germany, May 10-11, 2008, Proceedings},
	year = {2008},
	publisher = {Springer},
	isbn = {978-3-540-79587-2},
	author = {Wang, Qing and Pfahl, Dietmar and Raffo, David}
}
@misc {Simula.SE.415,
	title = {Meeting the Quality Goals - Better Software Products Through Accelerated Technology Evaluation in a Virtual Software Production Laboratory (VSPL)},
	howpublished = {Invited lecture at Laboratory for Internet Software Technologies (iTechs), Institute of Software Chinese Academy of Science (ISCAS), Beijing, 20 October},
	year = {2008},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar}
}
@article {Simula.SE.206,
	title = {A Method for Re-Planning of Software Releases Using Discrete-Event Simulation},
	journal = {Software Process: Improvement and Practice},
	volume = {13},
	number = {1},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {19-33},
	author = {Al-Emran, Ahmed and Pfahl, Dietmar and Ruhe, Guenther}
}
@article {Simula.SE.204,
	title = {Performing Operational Release Planning, Replanning and Risk Analysis Using a System Dynamics Simulation Model},
	journal = {Software Process: Improvement and Practice},
	volume = {13},
	number = {3},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {265-279},
	author = {Al-Emran, Ahmed and Pfahl, Dietmar}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.208,
	title = {Reflections on 10 Years of Software Process Simulation Modeling: a Systematic Review},
	journal = {International Conference on Software Process (ICSP 2008)},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {345-356},
	publisher = {Springer},
	type = {1},
	isbn = {978-3-540-79587-2},
	author = {Zhang, He and Kitchenham, Barbara and Pfahl, Dietmar},
	editor = {Wang, Q. and Pfahl, D. and Raffo, D.}
}
@inbook {Simula.SE.211,
	title = {Reporting Experiments in Software Engineering},
	booktitle = {Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {201-228},
	publisher = {Springer},
	organization = {Springer},
	chapter = {8},
	author = {Jedlitschka, Andreas and Ciolkowski, Marcus and Pfahl, Dietmar},
	editor = {Shull, Forrest and Singer, Janice and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.207,
	title = {Simulating Worst Case Scenarios and Analyzing Their Combined Effect in Operational Release Planning},
	journal = {International Conference on Software Process (ICSP 2008)},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {269-281},
	publisher = {Springer},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {978-3-540-79587-2},
	author = {Al-Emran, Ahmed and Kapur, Puneet and Pfahl, Dietmar and Ruhe, Guenther},
	editor = {Wang, Q. and Pfahl, D. and Raffo, D.}
}
@inbook {Simula.SE.210,
	title = {Simulation Methods},
	booktitle = {Guide to Advanced Empirical Software Engineering},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {117-152},
	publisher = {Springer},
	organization = {Springer},
	chapter = {5},
	author = {Mueller, Mark and Pfahl, Dietmar},
	editor = {Shull, Forrest and Singer, Janice and Sj{\o}berg, Dag Ingar Kondrup}
}
@misc {Simula.SE.417,
	title = {Simulation-Based Planning, Re-Planning and Stability Analysis for Operational Release Plans},
	howpublished = {Invited lecture at Institute of Software Chinese Academy of Science (ISCAS), Beijing, 23 October},
	year = {2008},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.291,
	title = {Software Process Simulation Modeling: Facts, Trends and Directions},
	journal = {Proceedings of the 15th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC 2008)},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {59-66},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {978-0-7695-3446-6},
	author = {Zhang, He and Kitchenham, Barbara and Pfahl, Dietmar},
	editor = {Lin et {al.}}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.285,
	title = {Software Process Simulation Over the Past Decade: Trends Discovery From a Systematic Review},
	journal = {ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement (ESEM 2008)},
	year = {2008},
	pages = {345-348},
	publisher = {ACM SIGSOFT \& IEEE CS},
	type = {Conference},
	abstract = {Software Process Simulation (SPS) research has increased since 1998 when the frst ProSim Workshop was held. Thispaper aims to reveal how SPS has evolved during the past 10 years based on the preliminary results from the systematic literature review of SPS publications from 1998 to 2007. Trends over the period showed that interest in continuous modelling was decreasing and interest in micro-processes was increasing. Hybrid models were based primarily on system dynamics and discrete event simulation and were all implemented by vertical integration.},
	isbn = {978-1-59593-971-5},
	author = {Zhang, He and Kitchenham, Barbara and Pfahl, Dietmar},
	editor = {Elbaum, S. and Muench, Juergen}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.551,
	title = {DynaReP - a Discrete Event Simulation Model for Re-Planning of Software Releases},
	journal = {Proceedings of International Conference on Software Process (ICSP 2007)},
	year = {2007},
	pages = {246-258},
	publisher = {Springer},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {978-3-540-72425-4},
	author = {Al-Emran, Ahmed and Pfahl, Dietmar and Ruhe, Guenther},
	editor = {Qing et al. {Wang}}
}
@book {Simula.SE.200,
	title = {Empirical Software Engineering Issues - Critical Assessment and Future Directions. International Workshop, Dagstuhl Castle, Germany, June 26-30, 2006, Revised Papers},
	volume = {LNCS 4336},
	year = {2007},
	month = {May},
	publisher = {Springer},
	abstract = {This book constitutes the thoroughly refereed post-proceedings of the International Dagstuhl-Seminar on Empirical Software Engineering, held in Dagstuhl Castle, Germany in June 2006. The purpose of this workshop was to identify the progress of empirical software engineering since 1992, to summarize the state-of-the-art in ESE, to summarize the state-of-the-practice in ESE in industry, and to develop an ESE roadmap for research, practice, education and training.},
	isbn = {978-3-540-71300-5},
	author = {Rombach, Dieter and Basili, Victor and Schneider, Kurt and Kitchenham, Barbara and Pfahl, Dietmar and Selby, Rick}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.547,
	title = {Operational Planning, Re-Planning and Risk Analysis for Software Releases},
	journal = {Proceedings of Int{\textquoteright}l Conference on Product-focused Process Improvement (PROFES 2007)},
	year = {2007},
	pages = {315-329},
	publisher = {Springer},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {9783540734598},
	author = {Al-Emran, Ahmed and Pfahl, Dietmar},
	editor = {M{\"u}nch, J. and Abrahamsson, P.}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.549,
	title = {Simulation-Based Uncertainty Analysis for Planning Parameters in Operational Product Management},
	journal = {Proceedings of the 10th Int. Conference on Integrated Design and Process Technology (IDPT 2007)},
	year = {2007},
	pages = {191-201},
	publisher = {Society for Design and Process Science},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {1090-9389},
	author = {Al-Emran, Ahmed and Keyvan, Khosrovian and Pfahl, Dietmar and Ruhe, Guenther},
	editor = {Ertas et {al.}}
}
@book {Simula.SE.199,
	title = {Software Process Dynamics and Agility. International Conference on Software Process, ICSP 2007, Minneapolis, MN, USA, May 19-20, 2007. Proceedings},
	volume = {LNCS 4470},
	year = {2007},
	month = {July},
	publisher = {Springer},
	abstract = {This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the First International Conference on Software Process, held in Minneapolis, MN, USA, in May 2007. The event emanated from the joint International Software Process Workshop and the International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling and was colocated with 29th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2007.},
	isbn = {978-3-540-72425-4},
	author = {Wang, Qing and Pfahl, Dietmar and Raffo, David}
}
@article {Simula.SE.213,
	title = {A System Dynamics Model for Analyzing the Stability of Software Release Plans},
	journal = {Software Process: Improvement and Practice},
	volume = {12},
	number = {5},
	year = {2007},
	pages = {475-490},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar and Al-Emran, Ahmed and Ruhe, Guenther}
}
@article {Simula.SE.214,
	title = {E-Learning in Project Management Using Simulation Models: a Case Study Based on the Replication of an Experiment},
	journal = {IEEE Transactions on Education},
	volume = {49},
	number = {4},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {451-463},
	author = {Rodriguez, Daniel and Miguel Angel {Sicilia} and Juan Jose {Cuadrado-Gallego} and Pfahl, Dietmar}
}
@book {Simula.SE.201,
	title = {Software Process Change. International Software Process Workshop and International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling, SPW/ProSim 2006, Shanghai, China, May 20-21, 2006, Proceedings},
	volume = {LNCS 3966},
	year = {2006},
	publisher = {Springer},
	abstract = {This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the First joint International Software Process Workshop and the International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling, SPW/ProSim 2006, held in Shanghai, China in May 2006. The 34 revised full papers presented together with 4 keynote addresses were carefully reviewed and selected from 225 initial submissions. The papers are organized in topical sections on process tailoring and decision-support, process tools and metrics, process management, process representation, analysis and modeling, process simulation modeling, process simulation applications, and experience report.},
	isbn = {978-3-540-34199-4},
	author = {Wang, Qing and Pfahl, Dietmar and Raffo, David and Wernick, Paul}
}
@inbook {Simula.SE.589,
	title = {Software Process Simulation With System Dynamics - a Tool for Learning and Decision Support},
	booktitle = {New Trends in Software Process Modelling},
	series = {Series on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering},
	volume = {Vol. 18},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {57-90},
	publisher = {World Scientific},
	organization = {World Scientific},
	chapter = {3},
	isbn = {981-256-619-8},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar and Ruhe, Guenther and Lebsanft, Karl and Stupperich, Michael},
	editor = {Silvia Teresita {Acu{\~n}a}}
}
@inbook {Simula.SE.591,
	title = {ProSim/RA - Software Process Simulation in Support of Risk Assessment},
	booktitle = {Value-based Software Engineering},
	year = {2005},
	pages = {263-286},
	publisher = {Springer},
	organization = {Springer},
	chapter = {13},
	isbn = {3-540-25993-7},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar},
	editor = {Biffl, S. and Aurum, A. and Boehm, Barry and Erdogmus, H. and Gr{\"u}nbacher, P.}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.553,
	title = {Reporting Guidelines for Controlled Experiments in Software Engineering.},
	journal = {Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE 2005)},
	year = {2005},
	pages = {94-104},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {0-7803-9508-5},
	author = {Jedlitschka, Andreas and Pfahl, Dietmar},
	editor = {Jeffery et {al.}}
}
@book {Simula.SE.202,
	title = {Sixths International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling, ProSim 2005. Proceedings (CD-ROM)},
	year = {2005},
	publisher = {Fraunhofer},
	isbn = {3-8167-6761-3},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar and Raffo, David and Rus, Ioana and Wernick, Paul}
}
@inbook {Simula.SE.595,
	title = {Software Process Modeling: Socio-Technical Perspectives},
	booktitle = {Software Process Modeling},
	series = {The Kluwer International Series in Software Engineering},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2005},
	pages = {111-139},
	publisher = {Springer},
	organization = {Springer},
	chapter = {5},
	isbn = {0-387-24261-9},
	author = {Waterson, Patrick and Weibelzahl, Stephan and Pfahl, Dietmar},
	editor = {Silvia Teresita {Acu{\~n}a}}
}
@inbook {Simula.SE.593,
	title = {System Dynamics and Goal-Oriented Measurement: a Hybrid Approach},
	booktitle = {Handbook of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering},
	volume = {Vol 3: Recent Advances},
	year = {2005},
	pages = {429-454},
	publisher = {World Scientific},
	organization = {World Scientific},
	chapter = {15},
	isbn = {981-256-273-7},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar and Ruhe, Guenther},
	editor = {S. K. {Chang}}
}
@article {Simula.SE.241,
	title = {Virtual Software Engineering Laboratories in Support of Trade-Off Analyses},
	journal = {Software Quality Journal},
	volume = {13},
	number = {4},
	year = {2005},
	pages = {407-428},
	author = {Muench, Juergen and Pfahl, Dietmar and Rus, Ioana}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.561,
	title = {Effective Software Project Management Education Through Simulation Models: an Externally Replicated Experiment},
	journal = {Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES 2004)},
	year = {2004},
	pages = {287-301},
	publisher = {Springer},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {3-540-21421-6},
	author = {Rodriguez, Daniel and Satpathy, Manoranjan and Pfahl, Dietmar},
	editor = {Hajimu Iida Frank {Bomarius}}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.557,
	title = {Erfolgsfaktoren F{\"u}r Effektives E-Learning - Ergebnisse Einer Empirischen Studie},
	journal = {Proceedings der 2. e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik (DelFI 2004)},
	year = {2004},
	pages = {295-306},
	publisher = {Gesellschaft fuer Informatik (GI)},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {3-88579-381-4},
	author = {Gruetzner, Ines and Hebestreit, Claudia and Pfahl, Dietmar and Vollmers, Carsten},
	editor = {Silke Seehusen G {Engels}}
}
@article {Simula.SE.255,
	title = {Evaluating the Learning Effectiveness of Using Simulations in Software Project Management Education: Results From a Twice Replicated Experiment},
	journal = {Information and Software Technology},
	volume = {46},
	number = {2004},
	year = {2004},
	pages = {127-147},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar and Laitenberger, Oliver and Ruhe, Guenther and Dorsch, Joerg and Krivobokova, Tatyana}
}
@book {Simula.SE.203,
	title = {Fifth International Workshop on Software Process Simulation and Modeling, ProSim 2004. Proceedings},
	year = {2004},
	publisher = {Stevenage: IEE Publishing},
	isbn = {0-86341-426-5},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar and Raffo, David and Rus, Ioana and Wernick, Paul}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.559,
	title = {A Framework for Experience-Based Decision Support for Software Engineering Technology Selection},
	journal = {Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2004)},
	year = {2004},
	pages = {342-345},
	publisher = {Knowledge Systems Institute},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {1-891706-14-4},
	author = {Jedlitschka, Andreas and Pfahl, Dietmar and Bomarius, Frank},
	editor = {G{\"u}nther Ruhe Frank {Maurer}}
}
@inbook {Simula.SE.597,
	title = {A Methodology-Driven Software Infrastructure for Work-Based Learning},
	booktitle = {Researching Technology for Tomorrow{\textquoteright}s Learning: Insights from the European research community},
	year = {2004},
	pages = {85-95},
	publisher = {CIBIT Consultants/Educators},
	organization = {CIBIT Consultants/Educators},
	chapter = {8},
	isbn = {90-75709-11-0},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar and Trapp, Sonja and Helic, Denis},
	editor = {Haldane M. {Kelleher} and Kruizinga, E.}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.555,
	title = {Towards Comprehensive Experience-Based Decision Support},
	journal = {Proceedings of Software Process Improvement: 11th European Conference (EuroSPI 2004)},
	year = {2004},
	pages = {34-45},
	publisher = {Springer},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {978-3-540-23725-9},
	author = {Jedlitschka, Andreas and Pfahl, Dietmar},
	editor = {Dings{\o}yr, T.}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.563,
	title = {Experience-Based Model-Driven Improvement Management With Combined Data Sources From Industry and Academia},
	journal = {Proceedings of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE 2003)},
	year = {2003},
	pages = {154-161},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {0-7695-2002-2},
	author = {Jedlitschka, Andreas and Pfahl, Dietmar},
	editor = {Lionel C. {Briand} and Cantone, Giovanni}
}
@article {Simula.SE.257,
	title = {An Externally Replicated Experiment for Evaluating the Learning Effectiveness of Using Simulations in Software Project Management Education},
	journal = {Empirical Software Engineering},
	volume = {8},
	number = {4},
	year = {2003},
	pages = {367-395},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar and Laitenberger, Oliver and Dorsch, Joerg and Ruhe, Guenther}
}
@inbook {Simula.SE.599,
	title = {Integrating Experience-Based Knowledge Management With Sustained Competence Development},
	booktitle = {Managing Software Engineering Knowledge},
	year = {2003},
	pages = {269-294},
	publisher = {Springer},
	organization = {Springer},
	chapter = {13},
	isbn = {3-540-00370-3},
	author = {Althoff, Klaus-Dieter and Pfahl, Dietmar},
	editor = {Aurum, A. and Jeffery, R. and Wohlin, C. and Handzic, M.}
}
@article {Simula.SE.259,
	title = {Trade-Off Analysis for Requirements Selection},
	journal = {International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering},
	volume = {13},
	number = {4},
	year = {2003},
	pages = {345-366},
	author = {Ruhe, Guenther and Eberlein, Armin and Pfahl, Dietmar}
}
@article {Simula.SE.261,
	title = {IMMoS - a Methodology for Integrated Measurement, Modelling, and Simulation},
	journal = {Software Process: Improvement and Practice},
	volume = {7},
	number = {2002},
	year = {2002},
	pages = {189-210},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar and Ruhe, Guenther}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.567,
	title = {Quantitative WinWin: a New Method for Decision Support in Requirements Negotiation},
	journal = {Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2002)},
	year = {2002},
	pages = {159-166},
	publisher = {ACM},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {1-58113-556-4},
	author = {Ruhe, Guenther and Eberlein, Armin and Pfahl, Dietmar},
	editor = {Shi-Kuo Chang Genn {Tortora}}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.569,
	title = {A Systematic Approach to Produce Small Courseware Modules for Combined Learning and Knowledge Management Environements},
	journal = {Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE 2002)},
	year = {2002},
	pages = {533-539},
	publisher = {ACM},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {1-58113-556-4},
	author = {Gruetzner, Ines and Angkasaputra, Niniek and Pfahl, Dietmar},
	editor = {Shi-Kuo Chang Genn {Tortora}}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.565,
	title = {A Systems Perspective on Software Process Improvement},
	journal = {Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES 2002)},
	year = {2002},
	pages = {88-102},
	publisher = {Springer},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {3-540-00234-0},
	author = {Birk, Andreas and Pfahl, Dietmar},
	editor = {Seija Komi-Sirvi {Oivo}}
}
@article {Simula.SE.263,
	title = {A CBT Module With Integrated Simulation Component for Software Project Management Education and Training},
	journal = {Journal of Systems and Software},
	volume = {59},
	number = {3},
	year = {2001},
	pages = {283-298},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar and Klemm, Marco and Ruhe, Guenther}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.571,
	title = {CORONET: an Australian Software Engineering Experience in Collaborative Research With the European Community},
	journal = {Proceedings of the 13th Australian Software Engineering Conference (ASWEC 2001)},
	year = {2001},
	pages = {255-261},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {0-7695-1254-2},
	author = {D{\textquoteright}Ambra, John and Jeffery, Ross and Pfahl, Dietmar},
	editor = {Graham Low et {al.}}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.575,
	title = {An Experiment for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Using a System Dynamics Simulation Model in Software Project Management Education},
	journal = {Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS 2001)},
	year = {2001},
	pages = {97-109},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {0-7695-1043-4},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar and Ruhe, Guenther and Koval, Nataliya},
	editor = {Frances M. {Titsworth}}
}
@phdthesis {Simula.SE.198,
	title = {An Integrated Approach to Simulation-Based Learning in Support of Strategic and Project Management in Software Organisations},
	year = {2001},
	month = {October},
	school = {TU Kaiserslautern},
	type = {phd},
	address = {Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, Stuttgart},
	abstract = {Industrial software development is a highly complex task. The management function plays a key role in both performance of software development projects and improvement of underlying development processes. Simulation models are tools that help managers better understand the effects of technology usage, human behaviour patterns and decision rules on development projects. This dissertation describes the development, application and validation of the methodology IMMoS (Integrated Measurement, Modelling, and Simulation). The main goal of IMMoS is the support of systematic development and usage of process simulation models. In order to fulfil this goal, IMMoS relies on the established process simulation method System Dynamics and combines it with static process modelling and goal-oriented measurement. The result is an integrated approach to simulation-based learning.},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.573,
	title = {A Method for Efficient Measurement-Based COTS Assessment and Selection - Method Description and Evaluation Results},
	journal = {Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS 2001)},
	year = {2001},
	pages = {285-296},
	publisher = {IEEE Computer Society},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {0-7695-1043-4},
	author = {Ochs, Michael and Pfahl, Dietmar and Chrobok-Diening, Gunther and Nothhelfer-Kolb, Beate},
	editor = {Frances M. {Titsworth}}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.577,
	title = {System Dynamics As an Enabling Technology for Learning in Software Organizations},
	journal = {Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Software Engineering \& Knowledge Engineering (SEKE{\textquoteright}2001)},
	year = {2001},
	pages = {355-362},
	publisher = {Knowledge Systems Institute},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {1-891706-06-3},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar and Ruhe, Guenther},
	editor = {Juristo, Natalia and Stephen J. {Mellor}}
}
@article {Simula.SE.269,
	title = {Knowledge Acquisition and Process Guidance for Building System Dynamics Simulation Models. an Experience Report From Software Industry},
	journal = {International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering},
	volume = {10},
	number = {4},
	year = {2000},
	pages = {487-510},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar and Lebsanft, Karl}
}
@article {Simula.SE.38,
	title = {Using Simulation for Assessing the Real Impact of Test Coverage on Defect Coverage},
	journal = {IEEE Transactions on Reliability},
	volume = {49},
	number = {1},
	year = {2000},
	author = {Briand, Lionel and Pfahl, Dietmar}
}
@article {Simula.SE.265,
	title = {Using Simulation for Assessing the Real Impact of Test-Coverage on Defect-Coverage},
	journal = {IEEE Transactions on Reliability},
	volume = {49},
	number = {1},
	year = {2000},
	pages = {60-70},
	author = {Briand, Lionel and Pfahl, Dietmar}
}
@article {Simula.SE.267,
	title = {Using Simulation to Analyse the Impact of Software Requirement Volatility on Project Performance},
	journal = {Information and Software Technology},
	volume = {42},
	number = {14},
	year = {2000},
	pages = {1001-1008},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar and Lebsanft, Karl}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.579,
	title = {Using Simulation to Visualise and Analyse Product-Process Dependencies in Software Development Projects},
	journal = {Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement},
	year = {2000},
	pages = {88-102},
	publisher = {Springer},
	type = {Conference},
	isbn = {3-540-67688-0},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar and Birk, Andreas},
	editor = {Markku Oivo Frank {Bomarius}}
}
@article {Simula.SE.273,
	title = {Integration of System Dynamics Modelling With Descriptive Process Modelling and Goal-Oriented Measurement},
	journal = {Journal of Systems and Software},
	volume = {46},
	number = {2/3},
	year = {1999},
	pages = {135-150},
	author = {Pfahl, Dietmar and Lebsanft, Karl}
}
@inproceedings {Simula.SE.77,
	title = {Using Simulation for Assessing the Real Impact of Test Coverage on Defect Coverage},
	journal = {IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE)},
	year = {1999},
	publisher = {Publisher},
	type = {Conference},
	abstract = {The use of test coverage measures (e.g., block coverage) to control the software test process has become an increasingly common practice. This is justified by the assumption that higher test coverage helps achieve higher defect coverage and therefore improves software quality. In practice, data often shows that defect coverage and test coverage grow over time, as additional testing is performed. However, it is unclear whether this phenomenon of concurrent growth can be attributed to a causal dependency, or if it is coincidental, simply due to the cumulative nature of both measures. Answering such a question is important as it determines whether a given test coverage measure should be monitored for quality control and used to drive testing. Although this is no general answer to the problem above, we propose a procedure to investigate whether any test coverage criterion has a genuine additional impact on defect coverage when compared to the impact of just running additional test cases. This procedure is applicable in typical testing conditions where the software is tested once, according to a given strategy, and where coverage measures are collected as well as defect data. We then test the procedure on published data and compare our results with the original findings. The study outcomes do not support the assumption of a causal dependency between test coverage and defect coverage, a result for which several plausible explanations are provided.},
	isbn = {0-7695-0443-4},
	author = {Briand, Lionel and Pfahl, Dietmar}
}
@article {Simula.SE.271,
	title = {System Dynamics Applied to the Modelling of Software Projects},
	journal = {Software Concepts and Tools},
	volume = {15},
	number = {4},
	year = {1994},
	pages = {162-176},
	author = {Waeselynck, H{\'e}l{\`e}ne and Pfahl, Dietmar}
}
