scispace - formally typeset
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

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

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.