CN110825626A - Method for evaluating autonomous controllability of software product - Google Patents
Method for evaluating autonomous controllability of software product Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CN110825626A CN110825626A CN201911028541.4A CN201911028541A CN110825626A CN 110825626 A CN110825626 A CN 110825626A CN 201911028541 A CN201911028541 A CN 201911028541A CN 110825626 A CN110825626 A CN 110825626A
- Authority
- CN
- China
- Prior art keywords
- autonomous
- controllability
- evaluation
- controllable
- software
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Pending
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F11/00—Error detection; Error correction; Monitoring
- G06F11/36—Preventing errors by testing or debugging software
- G06F11/3604—Software analysis for verifying properties of programs
- G06F11/3608—Software analysis for verifying properties of programs using formal methods, e.g. model checking, abstract interpretation
Landscapes
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Software Systems (AREA)
- Computer Hardware Design (AREA)
- Quality & Reliability (AREA)
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- General Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Stored Programmes (AREA)
Abstract
The invention discloses a method for evaluating the autonomous controllability of a software product, which comprises the following steps: establishing a software autonomous controllability evaluation model and selecting evaluation indexes; collecting evidence and collecting measurement index; and (5) a comprehensive evaluation stage. And setting an autonomous controllability evaluation model, an autonomous controllable characteristic, an autonomous controllable sub-characteristic and an autonomous controllability evaluation index, obtaining evaluation values of the autonomous controllability evaluation indexes through testing and measurement, and calculating the evaluation values of the autonomous controllable sub-characteristic and the autonomous controllable characteristic so as to obtain a total autonomous controllability result value. The technical scheme of the invention can accurately and comprehensively calculate the autonomous controllability degree of the software product, and is a quantifiable software product autonomous controllability evaluation method. The method can be used for guiding software research and development organization to self-evaluate the autonomous controllability of the researched software; meanwhile, the method can also be used for guiding a third-party software evaluation mechanism to evaluate the autonomous controllability of the product.
Description
Technical Field
The invention relates to the technical field of software product autonomous controllability assessment, in particular to a method for assessing software product autonomous controllability.
Background
The autonomous controllability of the software means that the software product is organized/personally designed, developed, produced and maintained by China continental region, the key technology is not limited by other countries and regions, the safety and the supply stability of the product can be ensured, and the effective exertion of the equipment efficiency is ensured. The core characteristic of autonomous control is autonomous, namely products and services are provided autonomously, and the autonomous guarantee is realized by mastering the core and key technology. The main objective of autonomous control is controllable, that is, organization, product, technology, intellectual property risk and development of developing, producing and maintaining products are controllable, and the primary objective of autonomous control is to ensure the trustiness and guarantee of software. The GJB-5234 divides the key level of the software into key software, important software and general software, wherein the key software is software which influences the use safety of equipment and endangers the safety of personnel or influences the completion of key tasks; the important software is software which does not affect the use safety of equipment but affects the completion of tasks; software generally refers to software that does not affect equipment safety in use and task completion. Different key levels of software represent different levels of risk control required and thus different requirements for autonomous controllability, so it is necessary to perform autonomous controllable hierarchical classification according to different key levels.
In order to realize the autonomous controllable grading, the problem of software autonomous controllability measurement is solved, and a method for measuring and quantitatively analyzing the autonomous controllability of a software product does not exist at present.
Disclosure of Invention
In order to solve the technical problem that an effective measurement and quantitative analysis method is lacked in the software autonomous controllability measurement process, the invention provides a method for evaluating the autonomous controllability of a software product, and measurement and quantitative analysis of the autonomous controllability of the software product are realized.
In order to solve the problem, the invention adopts the following technical scheme:
a method for evaluating the autonomous controllability of a software product, comprising the steps of:
establishing a software autonomous controllability evaluation model and selecting evaluation indexes; collecting evidence and collecting measurement index; and (5) a comprehensive evaluation stage.
Particularly, the software autonomous controllability assessment model comprises a three-layer architecture, wherein the first layer is an autonomous controllable characteristic and describes basic attribute dimensions influencing autonomous controllability; the second layer is an autonomous controllable sub-characteristic and is a refined decomposition of each attribute dimension; the third layer is an autonomous controllability evaluation index based on the respective main controllable sub-characteristics.
In particular, the evaluation index selection comprises: determining an evaluation target according to the autonomous controllable characteristic, the autonomous controllable sub-characteristic and the autonomous controllability evaluation index of the software product to be evaluated, and determining the type characteristic and the evaluation context environment of the software product; and selecting a proper method to determine the respective main controllable characteristic index weight, the independent controllable sub characteristic index weight and the independent controllability evaluation index weight.
In particular, the stage of collecting evidence and collecting metrics includes: determining a measurement, test and evaluation method of the autonomous controllability evaluation index; and carrying out measurement, test and evaluation activities to obtain evaluation index values of the respective master controllability evaluation indexes.
In particular, the comprehensive assessment phase comprises: the evaluation index value and the evaluation index weight of each master controllability evaluation index are synthesized to be a master controllable sub-characteristic result value; synthesizing the result value of the main controllable characteristic by the result value of the autonomous controllable sub-characteristic and the weight value of the index of the autonomous controllable sub-characteristic; and synthesizing the autonomous controllable degree result value of the software by the autonomous controllable characteristic result value and the autonomous controllable characteristic index weight value.
In particular, the autonomously controllable features comprise: 5 autonomous controllable characteristics of technology, products, intellectual property rights, organization and management and continuous development are influenced; the technical characteristics comprise 3 independent controllable sub-characteristics of a technical mastery level, a technical standard compliance level and an independent intellectual property level; the product characteristics comprise 6 autonomous controllable sub-characteristics of design, coding, construction, operation, maintenance and quality assurance; the intellectual property characteristics comprise 3 autonomous controllable sub-characteristics of copyright risk level, patent risk level and trademark risk level; the organization management characteristics comprise 3 autonomous controllable sub-characteristics of qualification controllability, team controllability and management system soundness; the continuous development characteristics comprise 4 autonomous controllable sub characteristics of software application level, service guarantee level, ecological environment level and continuous innovation level.
The method for evaluating the autonomous controllability of the software product can quantify the autonomous controllability degree of the software product and provide a unified measurement standard for the autonomous controllable level and the autonomous controllable development of the software. And calculating the autonomous controllability indexes of the software at different key levels, providing basis for the autonomous controllable grading of the software, and providing help for the risk control and management of the software at each key level.
Drawings
Fig. 1 is a flowchart of a process of evaluating autonomous controllability of software according to an embodiment of the present invention.
Detailed Description
The invention is further illustrated by the following figures and examples. It is to be understood that the specific embodiments described herein are merely illustrative of the invention and are not limiting of the invention. It is also to be noted that, for the convenience of description, only a part of the contents, not all of the contents, which are related to the present invention, are shown in the drawings, and unless otherwise defined, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which the present invention belongs. The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of the invention.
Referring to fig. 1, fig. 1 is a flowchart illustrating a software autonomous controllability assessment method according to an embodiment of the present invention.
The method for evaluating the autonomous controllability of the software product in the embodiment specifically comprises the following steps:
s110: establishing a software autonomous controllability evaluation model and selecting evaluation indexes;
s120: collecting evidence and collecting measurement index;
s130: and (5) a comprehensive evaluation stage.
Specifically, the step S110: the stage of establishing the software autonomous controllability evaluation model and selecting evaluation indexes comprises the following steps:
s111: establishing a software autonomous controllability evaluation model and S112: and selecting an evaluation index.
The software autonomous controllability assessment model comprises three layers of architectures, wherein the first layer is an autonomous controllable characteristic and describes basic attribute dimensions influencing autonomous controllability; the second layer is an autonomous controllable sub-characteristic and is a refined decomposition of each attribute dimension; the third layer is an autonomous controllability evaluation index based on the respective main controllable sub-characteristics.
The evaluation index selection includes: determining an evaluation target according to the autonomous controllable characteristic, the autonomous controllable sub-characteristic and the autonomous controllability evaluation index of the software product to be evaluated, and determining the type characteristic and the evaluation context environment of the software product; and selecting a proper method to determine the respective main controllable characteristic index weight, the independent controllable sub characteristic index weight and the independent controllability evaluation index weight.
Specifically, the step S120: the stage of collecting evidence and collecting measurement indexes comprises:
s121: determining a measurement, test and evaluation method of the autonomous controllability evaluation index;
s122: and carrying out measurement, test and evaluation activities to obtain evaluation index values of the respective master controllability evaluation indexes.
Specifically, the S130: the comprehensive evaluation stage comprises the following steps:
s131: the evaluation index value and the evaluation index weight of each master controllability evaluation index are synthesized to be a master controllable sub-characteristic result value;
s132: synthesizing the result value of the main controllable characteristic by the result value of the autonomous controllable sub-characteristic and the weight value of the index of the autonomous controllable sub-characteristic;
s133: and synthesizing the autonomous controllable degree result value of the software by the autonomous controllable characteristic result value and the autonomous controllable characteristic index weight value.
In particular, the autonomously controllable features include: 5 independently controllable characteristics are influenced on independently controllable technology, products, intellectual property rights, organization management and continuous development.
The technical characteristics comprise 3 independent controllable sub-characteristics of technical mastery level, technical standard compliance level and independent intellectual property level.
The technical mastery level sub-feature mainly evaluates the mastery level and the innovation level of the core key technology used by the software. The main evaluation indexes include technical control degree, original innovation technical ratio, re-innovation technical ratio and the like.
The technical standard compliance level sub-feature primarily evaluates the level of autonomy of software compliance standards. The main evaluation indexes comprise a dominant established core standard ratio, an introduced established core standard ratio, a dominant established standard level, an introduced established standard level, a foreign core standard level, a foreign standard level and the like.
The independent intellectual property level sub-characteristic mainly evaluates the acquisition condition of intellectual property achievements such as copyright, patents and the like. The main evaluation indexes comprise an autonomous core patent level, an autonomous core computer software copyright certificate level, an autonomous patent level, an autonomous computer software copyright certificate level and the like.
The product characteristics comprise 6 autonomous controllable sub-characteristics of design, coding, construction, operation, maintenance and quality assurance.
The design sub-feature mainly evaluates the level of autonomously developing software requirement analysis and design. The main evaluation indexes include the customization of the requirement, the mastery level of forward design, the innovation level of design, the completeness of design documents, the control level of technical risk and the like.
The coding sub-characteristic mainly evaluates the autonomous development level of software source codes. The main evaluation indexes comprise self-research code ratio, self-research core code ratio, code similarity, core code similarity, code control degree, code normalization, code security guarantee level and the like.
The constructor characteristics primarily evaluate the level of autonomous generation of software binaries. The main evaluation indexes comprise compiler autonomous controllability and static library autonomous controllability.
The run sub-feature mainly evaluates the autonomy level of the software running environment. The main evaluation indexes comprise dynamic library autonomous controllability, third-party service autonomous controllability, operating system autonomous controllability, database management system autonomous controllability, office software autonomous controllability, hardware environment autonomous controllability and the like.
The maintenance sub-feature primarily assesses the level of autonomously developing software product maintenance. The main evaluation indexes comprise software release autonomy, product upgrading capability, function changing capability, defect processing capability and the like.
The quality assurance sub-feature mainly evaluates the level of autonomously developing software product quality assurance. The main evaluation indexes comprise process normalization, process controllability, third-party testing and the like.
The intellectual property characteristics comprise 3 independently controllable sub-characteristics of copyright risk level, patent risk level and trademark risk level.
The copyright risk level sub-feature mainly evaluates copyright risk brought by software integrating a third-party plug-in or using third-party codes. The main evaluation indexes include commercial copyright license compliance, open source license compliance, commercial copyright license termination risk, open source license change risk, and the like.
The patent risk level sub-feature mainly evaluates the potential patent risks of software architecture design and algorithm design. The main evaluation indexes comprise patent dependence, patent conflict degree and the like.
The trademark risk level sub-feature primarily assesses trademark risk of software with software produced by other market entities. The main evaluation indexes include trademark conflict degree and the like.
The organization management characteristics comprise 3 autonomous controllable sub-characteristics of qualification controllability, team controllability and management system soundness.
The qualification controllability sub-characteristic mainly evaluates whether a design, development, integration and maintenance organization of a software product has software development capability or not, and whether an organization attribute meets the security and confidentiality requirement of equipment development or not. The main evaluation indexes comprise the design, development, integration and equipment underwriting qualification of maintenance organization, confidentiality qualification, CMMI qualification, ISO certification index, internal qualification index, registration place and the like of the software product.
The team controllability sub-characteristic is mainly used for evaluating whether a software product has a research qualification suitable for the key level of software or not by a design, development, integration and maintenance team so as to meet the security and confidentiality requirements of software development; whether the structure of the software product is good or not is designed, developed, integrated and maintained, and the software product has the capability of sustainable development. The main evaluation indexes comprise organization legal persons, organization personnel structural factors, team personnel stability, team core personnel qualification, controllability of external engaging personnel and the like of the design, development, integration and maintenance organization of software products.
The health sub-characteristic of the management system mainly evaluates the health of various systems for ensuring the autonomous and controllable development of the software product in the processes of design, development, integration and maintenance of the software product. The main evaluation indexes comprise the soundness of a product quality assurance system, the soundness of an intellectual property protection system, the soundness of a continuous development system and the like.
The continuous development characteristics comprise 4 autonomous controllable sub characteristics of software application level, service guarantee level, ecological environment level and continuous innovation level.
The software application level sub-characteristic is mainly used for evaluating the application potential of the software according to the application condition of the software. The main evaluation indexes comprise an application growth level, an application field breakthrough level, the number of installed sets and the like.
The service assurance level sub-characteristic mainly evaluates the capability level of autonomously developing software product technical services. The main evaluation indexes comprise user satisfaction, technical training ability, technical consultation ability, technical support ability and the like.
The ecological environment level sub-characteristic is mainly used for evaluating the supporting capacity level of upstream and downstream industrial chains in software sustainable development. The main evaluation indexes include policy environment level, upstream enterprise relationship, downstream enterprise relationship, and the like.
The persistent innovation level sub-feature primarily assesses the potential for development of software organization innovation capability. The main evaluation indexes comprise research and development input level, obstetric and research combination level, talent team construction level and the like.
The technical scheme of the invention comprises three steps of establishing a software autonomous controllability evaluation model, selecting evaluation indexes, collecting evidences, collecting measurement indexes and comprehensively evaluating, and specifically comprises 5 autonomous controllable characteristics, 19 autonomous controllable sub-characteristics and a plurality of evaluation indexes, so that quantitative evaluation of software autonomous controllability can be realized. The technical scheme of the invention can accurately and comprehensively calculate the autonomous controllability degree of the software product, and is a quantifiable software product autonomous controllability evaluation method. The method can be used for guiding software research and development organization to self-evaluate the autonomous controllability of the researched software, and promoting the continuous improvement of the autonomous controllability level of the product; meanwhile, the method can also be used for guiding a third-party software evaluation mechanism to evaluate the autonomous controllability of the product, and providing an operation basis for the third-party software evaluation mechanism.
It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that various modifications may be made to the above-described method without departing from the spirit of the invention, and it is within the scope of the invention.
Claims (6)
1. A method for evaluating the autonomous controllability of a software product, comprising the steps of: establishing a software autonomous controllability evaluation model and selecting evaluation indexes; collecting evidence and collecting measurement index; and (5) a comprehensive evaluation stage.
2. The method for evaluating the autonomic controllability of a software product according to claim 1, wherein the software autonomic controllability evaluation model comprises a three-layer architecture, a first layer being an autonomic controllable feature describing fundamental attribute dimensions affecting autonomic controllability; the second layer is an autonomous controllable sub-characteristic and is a refined decomposition of each attribute dimension; the third layer is an autonomous controllability evaluation index based on the respective main controllable sub-characteristics.
3. The method of assessing autonomic controllability of a software product of claim 2, wherein said assessing metrics selection comprises: determining an evaluation target according to the autonomous controllable characteristic, the autonomous controllable sub-characteristic and the autonomous controllability evaluation index of the software product to be evaluated, and determining the type characteristic and the evaluation context environment of the software product; and selecting a proper method to determine the respective main controllable characteristic index weight, the independent controllable sub characteristic index weight and the independent controllability evaluation index weight.
4. The method of assessing autonomic controllability of a software product as claimed in claim 3, wherein said stage of gathering evidence and collecting metrics indicators comprises: determining a measurement, test and evaluation method of the autonomous controllability evaluation index; and carrying out measurement, test and evaluation activities to obtain evaluation index values of the respective master controllability evaluation indexes.
5. The method of assessing autonomic controllability of a software product according to claim 3, wherein the comprehensive assessment phase comprises: the evaluation index value and the evaluation index weight of each master controllability evaluation index are synthesized to be a master controllable sub-characteristic result value; synthesizing the result value of the main controllable characteristic by the result value of the autonomous controllable sub-characteristic and the weight value of the index of the autonomous controllable sub-characteristic; and synthesizing the autonomous controllable degree result value of the software by the autonomous controllable characteristic result value and the autonomous controllable characteristic index weight value.
6. The method of assessing autonomic controllability of a software product of claim 2, wherein the autonomic controllable features comprise: 5 autonomous controllable characteristics of technology, products, intellectual property rights, organization and management and continuous development are influenced; the technical characteristics comprise 3 independent controllable sub-characteristics of a technical mastery level, a technical standard compliance level and an independent intellectual property level; the product characteristics comprise 6 autonomous controllable sub-characteristics of design, coding, construction, operation, maintenance and quality assurance; the intellectual property characteristics comprise 3 autonomous controllable sub-characteristics of copyright risk level, patent risk level and trademark risk level; the organization management characteristics comprise 3 autonomous controllable sub-characteristics of qualification controllability, team controllability and management system soundness; the continuous development characteristics comprise 4 autonomous controllable sub characteristics of software application level, service guarantee level, ecological environment level and continuous innovation level.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201911028541.4A CN110825626A (en) | 2019-10-25 | 2019-10-25 | Method for evaluating autonomous controllability of software product |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201911028541.4A CN110825626A (en) | 2019-10-25 | 2019-10-25 | Method for evaluating autonomous controllability of software product |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| CN110825626A true CN110825626A (en) | 2020-02-21 |
Family
ID=69550700
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| CN201911028541.4A Pending CN110825626A (en) | 2019-10-25 | 2019-10-25 | Method for evaluating autonomous controllability of software product |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| CN (1) | CN110825626A (en) |
Cited By (3)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN111695831A (en) * | 2020-06-18 | 2020-09-22 | 中国信息安全测评中心 | Open source code use risk assessment method and device and electronic equipment |
| CN113377642A (en) * | 2021-06-28 | 2021-09-10 | 中国西安卫星测控中心 | Software quality evaluation method based on product line development |
| CN114564415A (en) * | 2022-04-29 | 2022-05-31 | 中国电子产品可靠性与环境试验研究所（（工业和信息化部电子第五研究所）（中国赛宝实验室）） | Software autonomy evaluation method, device, equipment, medium and program product |
Citations (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN107766246A (en) * | 2017-10-18 | 2018-03-06 | 无锡江南计算技术研究所 | A kind of autonomous degree of controllability appraisal procedure of software product |
| CN109086607A (en) * | 2018-07-16 | 2018-12-25 | 无锡江南计算技术研究所 | A kind of autonomous degree of controllability appraisal procedure of Network Security Device |
| US20190073862A1 (en) * | 2017-09-05 | 2019-03-07 | Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited | Gaming Machine Having Independent Controls and Displays for Single and Multi-Player Play |
| CN109918294A (en) * | 2019-01-29 | 2019-06-21 | 刘建鹏 | A kind of autonomous controllability detection method of mixed source software and system |
-
2019
- 2019-10-25 CN CN201911028541.4A patent/CN110825626A/en active Pending
Patent Citations (4)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US20190073862A1 (en) * | 2017-09-05 | 2019-03-07 | Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited | Gaming Machine Having Independent Controls and Displays for Single and Multi-Player Play |
| CN107766246A (en) * | 2017-10-18 | 2018-03-06 | 无锡江南计算技术研究所 | A kind of autonomous degree of controllability appraisal procedure of software product |
| CN109086607A (en) * | 2018-07-16 | 2018-12-25 | 无锡江南计算技术研究所 | A kind of autonomous degree of controllability appraisal procedure of Network Security Device |
| CN109918294A (en) * | 2019-01-29 | 2019-06-21 | 刘建鹏 | A kind of autonomous controllability detection method of mixed source software and system |
Non-Patent Citations (2)
| Title |
|---|
| 孟凡生等: "我国军工企业科技项目自主可控程度评价", 《科技管理研究》 * |
| 陈佳琳: "北斗卫星导航系统自主可控能力评价", 《中国优秀硕士学位论文全文数据库 信息科技辑》 * |
Cited By (6)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN111695831A (en) * | 2020-06-18 | 2020-09-22 | 中国信息安全测评中心 | Open source code use risk assessment method and device and electronic equipment |
| CN111695831B (en) * | 2020-06-18 | 2024-05-28 | 中国信息安全测评中心 | Open source code use risk assessment method and device and electronic equipment |
| CN113377642A (en) * | 2021-06-28 | 2021-09-10 | 中国西安卫星测控中心 | Software quality evaluation method based on product line development |
| CN113377642B (en) * | 2021-06-28 | 2023-03-24 | 中国西安卫星测控中心 | Software quality evaluation method based on product line development |
| CN114564415A (en) * | 2022-04-29 | 2022-05-31 | 中国电子产品可靠性与环境试验研究所（（工业和信息化部电子第五研究所）（中国赛宝实验室）） | Software autonomy evaluation method, device, equipment, medium and program product |
| CN114564415B (en) * | 2022-04-29 | 2022-08-16 | 中国电子产品可靠性与环境试验研究所（（工业和信息化部电子第五研究所）（中国赛宝实验室）） | Software autonomy evaluation method, device, equipment, medium and program product |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Husain | An analysis of modeling audit quality measurement based on decision support systems (DSS) | |
| Winge et al. | A comparative analysis of safety management and safety performance in twelve construction projects | |
| Hettiarachchi et al. | Risk-based test case prioritization using a fuzzy expert system | |
| Calabrese et al. | A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method to support materiality assessment in sustainability reporting | |
| Letouzey et al. | Managing technical debt with the sqale method | |
| Wong et al. | Environmental management systems, practices and outcomes: Differences in resource allocation between small and large firms | |
| CN110825626A (en) | Method for evaluating autonomous controllability of software product | |
| Bevilacqua et al. | Industrial and occupational ergonomics in the petrochemical process industry: A regression trees approach | |
| Beaussier et al. | Steering by their own lights: Why regulators across Europe use different indicators to measure healthcare quality | |
| Tavakkoli-Moghaddam et al. | A fuzzy comprehensive approach for risk identification and prioritization simultaneously in EPC projects | |
| Mouras et al. | Survey of the risk management methods, techniques and software used most frequently in occupational health and safety | |
| Azeem et al. | Exploring the impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on risks faced by infrastructure projects in Pakistan | |
| Knodel et al. | Software architecture evaluation in practice: Retrospective on more than 50 architecture evaluations in industry | |
| Baskarada | Information quality management capability maturity model | |
| Zheng et al. | An activity-based defect management framework for product development | |
| Mahoney et al. | AI fairness | |
| da Cunha Barbosa et al. | A risk-based framework with Design Structure Matrix to select alternatives of product modernisation | |
| Massacci et al. | Technical leverage in a software ecosystem: Development opportunities and security risks | |
| Hannouf et al. | Cause-effect chains in S-LCA based on DPSIR framework using Markov healthcare model: an application to “working hours” in Canada | |
| Miller | Artificial intelligence project success factors—beyond the ethical principles | |
| Zhan et al. | Human reliability study on the door operation from the view of Deep Machine Learning | |
| Waqar et al. | Evaluation of success factors of utilizing AI in digital transformation of health and safety management systems in modern construction projects | |
| Li et al. | A two-stage model for monitoring the green supplier performance considering dual-role and undesirable factors | |
| Zheng et al. | A hybrid approach for evaluating faulty behavior risk of high‐risk operations using ANP and evidence theory | |
| Rodriguez-Lopez et al. | Cross-classified Multilevel Analysis of Individual Heterogeneity and Discriminatory Accuracy (MAIHDA) to evaluate hospital performance: the case of hospital differences in patient survival after acute myocardial infarction |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| PB01 | Publication | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| SE01 | Entry into force of request for substantive examination | ||
| WD01 | Invention patent application deemed withdrawn after publication |
Application publication date: 20200221 |
|
| WD01 | Invention patent application deemed withdrawn after publication |