K
Kai Petersen
Researcher at Blekinge Institute of Technology
Publications - 130
Citations - 8510
Kai Petersen is an academic researcher from Blekinge Institute of Technology. The author has contributed to research in topics: Agile software development & Context (language use). The author has an hindex of 35, co-authored 123 publications receiving 6694 citations. Previous affiliations of Kai Petersen include Fachhochschule Flensburg & Ericsson.
Papers
More filters
Proceedings ArticleDOI
Systematic mapping studies in software engineering
TL;DR: This work describes how to conduct a systematic mapping study in software engineering and provides guidelines for conducting systematic maps, and compares systematic maps with systematic reviews by systematically analyzing existing systematic reviews.
Journal ArticleDOI
Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering : An update
TL;DR: There was a need to provide an update of how to conduct systematic mapping studies and how the guidelines should be updated based on the lessons learned from the existing systematic maps and SLR guidelines.
Proceedings ArticleDOI
Context in industrial software engineering research
Kai Petersen,Claes Wohlin +1 more
TL;DR: This paper structures the context for empirical industrial studies and provides a checklist to aid researchers in making informed decisions concerning which parts of the context to include in the descriptions.
Journal ArticleDOI
A comparison of issues and advantages in agile and incremental development between state of the art and an industrial case
Kai Petersen,Claes Wohlin +1 more
TL;DR: The principle results are that the case study and literature agree on the benefits while new issues arise when using agile in large-scale and an empirical research framework is needed to make agile studies comparable.
Proceedings ArticleDOI
Benefits and limitations of automated software testing: systematic literature review and practitioner survey
TL;DR: The survey showed that benefits of test automation were related to test reusability, repeatability, test coverage and effort saved in test executions, and 80% of the practitioners disagreed with the vision that automated testing would fully replace manual testing.