Such models are essential to properly manage the major software development outcomes (e.g., cost, schedule, quality) and to build up organizational knowledge.
Some categorizations are orthogonal, i.e., they address different dimensions of interest (e.g., severity vs. technical cause), so combining them results in categories that are not mutually exclusive.
So instead one must choose a set of discrete categories and devise mapping rules to convert the data consistently and coherently into the new categories.
So instead one must choose a set of discrete categories and devise mapping rules to convert the data consistently and coherently into the new categories.
Thus, some sort of mapping must be done to convert the data into a common format
that still preserves as much of the meaning of the original data as possible.
In this area, the need to derive tractable measurements that are reasonable to undertake and intuitively plausible cannot be understated.
Intuitively, if there are many bugs reported in the last x days with a higher severity level than BR, BR is likely not assigned a high priority level since there are many higher severity bug reports in the bug tracking system that need to be resolved too.
Compared to functional bugs, performance bugs are substantially more difficult to handle because they often manifest themselves only with large inputs and specific execution environments.
Excluding them from any automatic software engineering techniques could substantially distort the results.
One's online social footprint is arguably easier to ascertain and gather than one's technical contributions.
presumably
The communication activities that follow the initiation time would presumably be less cohesive, and more connected to individual preferences and styles of work.
![[PukiWiki]](image/wadanyan.png "[PukiWiki]")
