2015 IEEE 7th International Workshop on Managing Technical Debt (MTD) 2015
DOI: 10.1109/mtd.2015.7332627
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Decision-making framework for refactoring

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We identified categories similar to the decision-making criteria presented by Riegel and Doerr [11] and Ribeiro et al [10]. Like Leppanen et al [7], we present a framework to decide on the payment of a technical debt item, but our model is based on the decision criteria of the respondents. The first and fourth findings presented in this discussion confirm the literature.…”
Section: Discussion Of the Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…We identified categories similar to the decision-making criteria presented by Riegel and Doerr [11] and Ribeiro et al [10]. Like Leppanen et al [7], we present a framework to decide on the payment of a technical debt item, but our model is based on the decision criteria of the respondents. The first and fourth findings presented in this discussion confirm the literature.…”
Section: Discussion Of the Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, researchers rarely seem to investigate how decisions are made in practice. Leppanen et al [7] interviewed professionals and developed a framework for refactoring (one way to pay off technical debt). They found that static and dynamic code analysis can contribute to perceiving the need to pay off technical debt.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Conceptual /Introductory (Gomes et al, 2011), (Seaman, Yuepu Guo, et al, 2012), (Morgenthaler et al, 2012), (Falessi, Shaw, et al, 2013), (Daneva et al, 2013), (Ernst et al, 2015), (Martini and Bosch, 2015a), (Martini and Bosch, 2015b), (Leppanen et al, 2015), (Fernández-Sánchez, Garbajosa, et al, 2015), (Martini, Bosch, and Chaudron, 2015), (Riegel and Doerr, 2015), (Martini and Bosch, 2016), (Garousi and Mäntylä, 2016), (Brauer et al, 2017), (Martini and Bosch, 2017), (Hormann et al, 2017), (Becker et al, 2018), (R. d. Almeida et al, 2018), (Pina, Seaman, et al, 2022), (S. Freire, Rios, Pérez, Torres, et al, 2021), (Mandic et al, 2021), (M. Stochel et al, 2022), (Albuquerque et al, 2022), (Wiese et al, 2022), , (S. Freire, Rios, Pérez, Castellanos, et al, 2023), (Alfayez, Winn, et al, 2023(Costa et al, 2022, (Tsintzira et al, 2020), (De Toledo et al, 2022) Mathematical /Statistical (Schmid, 2013), (Fontana et al, 2015), (Skourletopoulos, Chatzimisios, et al, 2015), (Akbarinasaji, 2015), (Mohan et al, 2016), (Codabux and Williams, 2016) Code Metrics (Zazworka, Seaman, and Shull, 2011), (Snipes et al, 2012), (Falessi and Voegele, 2015), (Chatzigeorgiou et al, 2015),…”
Section: Classification Papersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several theoretical surveys and discussions based on interviews, questionnaires, and observations were carried out to identify the elements related to the prioritization and decision-making process (Ernst et al, 2015;Martini and Bosch, 2015b;Leppanen et al, 2015;S. Freire, Rios, Gutierrez, et al, 2020;Pina, Seaman, et al, 2022;S.…”
Section: Classification Papersmentioning
confidence: 99%