Augmenting Experience Reports with Lightweight Postmortem Reviews

  • Torgeir Dingsøyr
  • Nils Brede Moe
  • Ø;ystein Nytrø
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2188)


Many small and medium-sized companies that develop software experience the same problems repeatedly, and have few systems in place to learn from their own mistakes as well as their own successes. Here, we propose a lightweight method to collect experience from completed software projects, and compare the results of this method to more widely applied experience reports. We find that the new method captures more information about core processes related to software development in contrast to experience reports that focus more on management processes.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    K. M. Wiig, Knowledge Management Methods: Schema Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    V. R. Basili, G. Caldiera, and H. D. Rombach, “The Experience Factory,” in Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, vol. 1, J. J. Marciniak, Ed.: John Wiley, 1994, pp. 469–476.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. Polanyi, Personal Knowledge-Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    PERFECT Consortium, “PIA Experience Factory, The PEF Model,,” ESPRIT Project 9090 D-BL-PEF-2-PERFECT9090, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. [5]P
    . Novins and R. Armstrong, “Choosing your Spots for Knowledge Management,” Perspectives on Business Innovation, vol. 1, pp. 45–54, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    B. Collier, T. DeMarco, and P. Fearey, “A Defined Process For Project Postmortem Review,” IEEE Software, vol. 13, pp. 65–72, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. A. Cusomano and R. W. Selby, Microsoft Secrets-How the World’s Most Powerful Software Company Creates Technology, Shapes Markets, and Manages People: The Free Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    W. S. Humphrey, “The Postmortem,” in Introduction to the Team Software Process, SEI Series in Software Engineering. Reading, Massachusets: Addison Wesley Longman, 1999, pp. 185–196.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    K. Schneider, “LIDs: A Light-Weight Approach to Experience Elicitation and Reuse,” presented at Second International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement, PROFES 2000, Oulu, Finland, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Conradi and T. Dingsøyr, “Software experience bases: a consolidated evaluation and status report,” presented at Second International Conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement, PROFES 2000, Oulu, Finland, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    D. J. Greenwood and M. Levin, Introduction to Action Research: Sage Publications, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    D. Avison, F. Lau, M. Myers, and P. A. Nielsen, “Action Research,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 42, pp. 94–97, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    R. Scupin, “The KJ Method: A Technique for Analyzing Data Derived from Japanese ethnology,” Human Organization, vol. 56, pp. 233–237, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    T. Stålhane, T. Dingsøyr, N. B. Moe, and G. K. Hanssen, “Post Mortem-An Assessment of Two Approaches,” submitted to European Conference on Software Process Improvement, EuroSPI, Limerick, Ireland, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    C. W. Choo, The Knowing Organization: How Organizations Use Information to Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Make Decisions: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    R. S. Taylor, “Information Use Environments,” presented at Progress in Communication Science, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Torgeir Dingsøyr
    • 1
  • Nils Brede Moe
    • 2
  • Ø;ystein Nytrø
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyNorway
  2. 2.SINTEF Telecom and InformaticsTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations