Information Management Methods for Computer Software Development

Abstract

The present invention discloses a computer software development information management method, which relates to the technical field of computer software development information management. A data collection module is used to collect software development functions and user feedback information. A data evaluation calculation module is used to sequentially calculate and output a user experience feedback score UP, a software function optimization degree RG, and an iteration efficiency evaluation value DX. Based on the result of the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX, and using a visualization module, the iteration efficiency of the i-th function in software development is displayed, and corresponding management adjustments are made. The present invention can significantly improve user feedback processing efficiency, accurately evaluate function optimization, scientifically evaluate iteration efficiency, and establish an effective circular feedback mechanism, which helps software development information management better understand user needs, optimize software functions, and improve iteration efficiency, thereby providing users with higher quality software products and services.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of computer software development information management, in particular to a computer software development information management method. Background Art

[0002] Software development refers to the process of designing, writing, testing, and maintaining software systems and applications based on user needs through certain development technologies and methods. Its history can be traced back to the mid-20th century. With the development of computer technology, software has gradually become independent from hardware and has become an independent technical field. In the process of computer software development, information management plays a vital role. With the continuous expansion of software scale and the increase in complexity, how to efficiently collect, process, and analyze user feedback, and how to accurately evaluate software functions and iteration efficiency have become important challenges facing software development information management.

[0003] However, in the process of developing new functions, existing software ignores user needs, believing that it is in a dominant position and that users will accept the software it develops. This traditional idea ignores the user-dominated market reality, resulting in a deviation between software products and user expectations, and thus failing to meet users' personalized needs. Specifically, existing technologies lack quantitative evaluation methods and cannot accurately evaluate changes in user experience before and after the launch of new functions, as well as the impact of function optimization on the overall performance of the software. Existing technologies often only focus on iteration cycle time and function completion, ignoring the impact of user participation and iteration cycles on subsequent versions, resulting in inaccurate iteration efficiency evaluation results and unable to provide effective guidance for subsequent iteration plans and function optimization. In addition, existing technologies lack an effective loop feedback mechanism and cannot promptly feed back iteration efficiency evaluation results to software development to guide subsequent iteration plans and function optimization. Summary of the Invention

[0004] The purpose of the present invention is to provide a computer software development information management method to solve the problems raised in the above background technology.

[0005] To achieve the above objectives, the present invention provides the following technical solutions, and the specific implementation steps are as follows:

[0006] Step 1: Use the data collection module to collect software development functions and user feedback information;

[0007] Step 2: Use the data evaluation calculation module to calculate and output the user experience feedback score UP, software function optimization degree RG, and iteration efficiency evaluation value DX in sequence;

[0008] The data evaluation and calculation module includes a unit for comprehensively evaluating the user's overall experience of the software, a unit for evaluating the degree of software function optimization, and a unit for evaluating the software iteration efficiency.

[0009] The comprehensive evaluation unit for evaluating the overall software experience calculates user feedback on all functions of the software development. The unit for evaluating the degree of software function optimization and the unit for evaluating software iteration efficiency score UP based on user experience feedback and perform evaluation calculations on the i-th function in the software development.

[0010] Step 3: Based on the result of the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX, and using a visualization module, the iteration efficiency of the i-th function in software development is displayed, and corresponding management adjustments are made;

[0011] The equipment used by the data collection module includes user terminals, servers, and databases;

[0012] The equipment used by the data evaluation calculation module includes a computer;

[0013] The devices used by the visualization module include visualization devices.

[0014] Optionally, the calculation formula for comprehensively evaluating the user's overall software experience unit is as follows:

[0015] ;

[0016] HP avg =(HP1+HP2+HP3+......+HP PF ) / PF;

[0017] EP avg =(EP1+EP2+EP3+......+EP NF ) / NF;

[0018] in:

[0019] UP is the user experience feedback score;

[0020] PF is the number of positive feedback;

[0021] NF is the number of negative feedback;

[0022] TF is the total number of feedbacks;

[0023] HP avg Rate the average satisfaction level;

[0024] HP1 is the first satisfaction positive feedback score, HP2 is the second satisfaction positive feedback score, HP3 is the third satisfaction positive feedback score, HP PF Rating the positive feedback for PF satisfaction;

[0025] EP avg Score the average dissatisfaction score;

[0026] EP1 is the first dissatisfaction negative feedback score, EP2 is the second dissatisfaction negative feedback score, EP3 is the third dissatisfaction negative feedback score, EP NF Score the negative feedback for NF dissatisfaction.

[0027] Optionally, the calculation formula for the evaluation software function optimization degree unit is as follows:

[0028] ;

[0029] in:

[0030] RG is the degree of software function optimization;

[0031] UP old Rate the previous user experience feedback;

[0032] EP i，avg is the average dissatisfaction score of the i-th function, GL i Score the relevance of the i-th function, where the i-th function reflects the i-th function developed and tested by users during the computer software development process.

[0033] Optionally, the average dissatisfaction score EP of the i-th function i，avg The calculation formula is as follows:

[0034] EP i，avg =(EP i，1 +EP i，2 +EP i，3 +......+EP i，m ) / m;

[0035] m is the number of negative feedbacks for the i-th function;

[0036] EP i，1 Score the first negative feedback for the i-th function, EP i，2 Score the second negative feedback of the i-th function, EP i，3 Score the third negative feedback for the i-th function, EP i，m Score the mth negative feedback for the i-th feature;

[0037] The i-th function association score GL i The calculation formula is as follows:

[0038] GL i =[(EP i，avg +HP i，avg ) / (HP avg +EP avg )]×100%;

[0039] HP i，avg is the average satisfaction score for the i-th function.

[0040] Optionally, the calculation formula for the evaluation software iteration efficiency unit is as follows:

[0041] ;

[0042] ;

[0043] X=(B+F+Z) / UP old ;

[0044] in:

[0045] DX is the iteration efficiency evaluation value;

[0046] YH total It is the sum of functional optimization, reflecting the optimization of all functions of software development;

[0047] n is the total number of functions, YH i is the optimization degree of the i-th function;

[0048] DT is the iteration period, which reflects the interval between the previous and current iterations for the same function.

[0049] UC stands for user engagement;

[0050] X is the iteration impact factor, which reflects the impact of iteration on subsequent software development function versions;

[0051] B is the number of changes, F is the number of fixed issues, and Z is the number of new features.

[0052] Optionally, the calculation formula for the user engagement UC is as follows:

[0053] UC=(HU / ZU) / a+UP;

[0054] a=FX i / ZX;

[0055] HU is the number of active users;

[0056] ZU is the total number of users;

[0057] a is the user behavior weight;

[0058] FX i is the number of behaviors occurring for the i-th function, and ZX is the total number of behaviors occurring, where the number of behaviors occurring includes the statistical sum of clicks, browsing, purchases, and sharing.

[0059] Optionally, based on the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX and combined with the information management analysis of the line graph, the following is performed:

[0060] If the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX shows an upward trend on the line graph, it means that the software iteration efficiency is constantly improving, the problems reported by users are effectively managed and handled, and the i-th function of the current software development should be maintained and put into operation;

[0061] If the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX shows a downward trend on the line graph, it means that the software iteration efficiency is decreasing, there are problems with the management and processing measures, and the problems reported by users have not been resolved. The i-th function of the software development should be adjusted, and the total feedback quantity TF should be increased to promptly discover problems with the i-th function.

[0062] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects:

[0063] 1. The present invention calculates the UP score based on a comprehensive evaluation of the user's user experience feedback on the overall software experience unit, and can automatically collect and process user feedback data, improve processing efficiency, and ensure the accuracy and reliability of user feedback. Through quantitative evaluation, software development information management can more intuitively understand users' evaluation and requirements for the use of software development functions, providing a scientific basis for subsequent iteration plans and function optimization.

[0064] 2. The present invention is based on the calculation of the software function optimization degree RG of the software function optimization degree evaluation unit, and can quantitatively evaluate the changes in user experience before and after the launch of new functions, as well as the impact of function optimization on the overall performance of the software. This helps software development information management to accurately judge the effect of function optimization and provide effective guidance for subsequent iteration plans and function optimization.

[0065] 3. The present invention is based on the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX evaluation of the software iteration efficiency unit, and can comprehensively consider the iteration cycle DT, user participation UC, the impact of the iteration cycle on subsequent versions, and the user experience feedback score UP factor of the current version, providing scientific and objective evaluation results for software development information management, which helps software development information management to accurately judge the level of iteration efficiency and provide effective guidance for subsequent iteration planning and function optimization.

[0066] 4. The present invention uses a line graph to observe the trend of the software iteration efficiency evaluation value DX result value, and can establish an effective loop feedback mechanism. If the line graph trend is rising, it indicates that the management process is effective and the current management method and iteration strategy can continue to be used. If the trend is falling, it indicates that there are problems with the management process and adjustments are needed. Software development information management can timely adjust the iteration plan and function optimization strategy to improve iteration efficiency and user experience. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0067] Figure 1 A method flow chart of the information management method developed for this computer software;

[0068] Figure 2 Schematic diagram of the overall function of the i-th function in the software development process of the present invention;

[0069] Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of the data evaluation calculation module of the present invention;

[0070] Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram showing an upward trend of the iterative efficiency evaluation value DX on the linear graph in the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0071] The following will clearly and completely describe the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without making creative efforts are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0072] Regarding this computer software development information management method, it is different from the existing software development information management method. The existing software development information management method lacks quantitative evaluation methods for user function usage, ignores the impact of user participation and iteration cycle on subsequent versions, and lacks an effective loop feedback mechanism. This algorithm unit can significantly improve the efficiency of user feedback processing, accurately evaluate function optimization, scientifically evaluate iteration efficiency, and establish an effective loop feedback mechanism, which helps software development information management better understand user needs, optimize software functions, and improve iteration efficiency, thereby providing users with higher quality software products and services.

[0073] For example 1, please refer to Figures 1 to 4 , this implementation provides a computer software development information management method, the specific implementation steps are as follows:

[0074] Step 1: Use the data collection module to collect software development functions and user feedback information;

[0075] Step 2: Use the data evaluation calculation module to calculate and output the user experience feedback score UP, software function optimization degree RG, and iteration efficiency evaluation value DX in sequence;

[0076] The data evaluation and calculation module includes a unit for comprehensively evaluating the user's overall software experience, a unit for evaluating the degree of software function optimization, and a unit for evaluating software iteration efficiency.

[0077] The comprehensive evaluation unit evaluates user feedback on the overall software experience and calculates the scores for all functions of the software development. The unit for evaluating the degree of software function optimization and the unit for evaluating software iteration efficiency score UP based on user experience feedback and perform evaluation calculations for the i-th function in the software development.

[0078] Step 3: Based on the result of the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX, and using the visualization module, the iteration efficiency of the i-th function in software development is displayed and corresponding management adjustments are made;

[0079] The equipment used by the data collection module includes user terminals, servers, and databases;

[0080] The equipment used in the data evaluation and calculation module includes a computer;

[0081] The devices used by the visualization module include visualization devices.

[0082] In this embodiment, the system, through the mutual cooperation of three algorithm units, jointly forms the basis for evaluating user experience feedback, software function optimization degree and software iteration efficiency. Combining the three calculation results of UP, RG and DX, it provides strong support for the continuous optimization and iteration of software. Among them, UP is the user experience feedback score. This value can provide a comprehensive score reflecting the user experience. This score helps software development information management understand the actual user experience of the software, and thus guide subsequent function optimization and iteration plans. RG is the software function optimization degree. This value can clearly see which function optimization has the most significant improvement in user experience and which function optimization needs further improvement, thereby optimizing resource allocation and improving development efficiency. DX is the iteration efficiency evaluation value. This value can clearly see the efficiency of each iteration, which iteration cycle DT has the most significant improvement in user experience, and which iteration cycle DT needs further optimization and adjustment. This helps software development information management formulate more scientific and reasonable iteration plans to improve development efficiency and quality. The calculation results of DX can also affect the calculation of UP and RG. Therefore, the three algorithms of this system jointly provide a scientific and objective evaluation basis and guidance direction for computer software development information management methods.

[0083] See also Figures 1 to 4 ,The calculation formula for comprehensively evaluating the user's overall software experience unit is as follows:

[0084] ;

[0085] HP avg =(HP1+HP2+HP3+......+HP PF ) / PF;

[0086] EP avg=(EP1+EP2+EP3+......+EP NF ) / NF;

[0087] in:

[0088] UP is the user experience feedback score;

[0089] PF is the number of positive feedback;

[0090] NF is the number of negative feedback;

[0091] TF is the total number of feedbacks;

[0092] HP avg Rate the average satisfaction level;

[0093] HP1 is the first satisfaction positive feedback score, HP2 is the second satisfaction positive feedback score, HP3 is the third satisfaction positive feedback score, HP PF Rating the positive feedback for PF satisfaction;

[0094] EP avg Score the average dissatisfaction score;

[0095] EP1 is the first dissatisfaction negative feedback score, EP2 is the second dissatisfaction negative feedback score, EP3 is the third dissatisfaction negative feedback score, EP NF Score the negative feedback for NF dissatisfaction.

[0096] In this embodiment: First, in this algorithm unit, ”Calculation section calculates the average satisfaction score HP avg and the average dissatisfaction score EP avg The difference reflects the user's overall satisfaction with the software function, which is part of the calculation formula for comprehensively evaluating the user's overall software experience unit. The balance of the calculated partial feedback is multiplied together to determine the core part of the user experience feedback score UP, the average satisfaction score HP avg and the average dissatisfaction score EP avg The larger the difference, the more positive the user's evaluation of the software function;

[0097] This algorithm unit reflects the user's direct feelings about the software function through the number of positive feedback PF and the number of negative feedback NF, and the average satisfaction score HP avg and the average dissatisfaction score EP avg It provides users' subjective evaluation of the software's overall performance, interface design, and ease of use. By integrating information from these dimensions, the User Experience Feedback Score UP can more comprehensively assess the user's overall experience with the software.

[0098] Through quantitative evaluation, software development information management can quickly identify key information in user feedback, including frequently occurring negative feedback and low satisfaction scores, thereby accurately locating problems and improving the efficiency of feedback processing. The UP value of user experience feedback can serve as an important reference for function optimization. When the UP value of user experience feedback is low, software development information management can deeply analyze the specific reasons leading to the low UP value of user experience feedback, including functional defects and unfriendly interface, and formulate targeted optimization plans accordingly.

[0099] By continuously optimizing functions and improving user experience, the user experience feedback score UP value will also increase, forming a virtuous circle.

[0100] See also Figures 1 to 4 , the calculation formula for evaluating the software function optimization degree unit is as follows:

[0101] ;

[0102] in:

[0103] RG is the degree of software function optimization;

[0104] UP old Rate the previous user experience feedback;

[0105] EP i，avg is the average dissatisfaction score of the i-th function, GL i Score the relevance of the i-th function, where the i-th function reflects the i-th function developed and tested by users during the computer software development process;

[0106] The average dissatisfaction score EP of the i-th function i，avg The calculation formula is as follows:

[0107] EP i，avg =(EP i，1 +EP i，2 +EP i，3 +......+EP i，m ) / m;

[0108] m is the number of negative feedbacks for the i-th function;

[0109] EP i，1 Score the first negative feedback for the i-th function, EP i，2 Score the second negative feedback of the i-th function, EP i，3 Score the third negative feedback for the i-th function, EP i，m Score the mth negative feedback for the i-th feature;

[0110] The i-th function association score GL i The calculation formula is as follows:

[0111] GL i =[(EP i，avg +HP i，avg ) / (HP avg +EP avg )]×100%;

[0112] HP i，avg is the average satisfaction score for the i-th function.

[0113] In this embodiment, first, The calculation part calculates the user experience feedback score UP after the new function is launched and the user experience feedback score UP before. old The change between reflects the direct impact of the new function on the user experience, as the core calculation part of the function optimization degree, and "Multiplied together, they determine the contribution of the new function to the optimization of the software function. The greater the change, the more obvious the improvement of the new function to the user experience." The calculation part calculates the maintenance of the original function in terms of user experience, that is, the previous user experience feedback score UP before the new function is launched. old The correlation score GL with the i-th function i The product of , as a supplementary calculation of the function optimization degree, reflects the maintenance and improvement of the original function on the user experience during the iteration process. This helps to ensure that the user experience of the original function is not damaged when introducing new functions;

[0114] Specifically, in the process of calculating the software function optimization degree RG, the user experience feedback score UP and the previous user experience feedback score UP old Respectively represent the user experience feedback scores before and after the new function is launched, by comparing the user experience feedback score UP with the previous user experience feedback score UP old The difference between the two values can quantitatively evaluate the degree of improvement in user experience after the new function is launched. At the same time, combined with the average dissatisfaction score EP of the i-th function i，avg and the correlation score GL with the i-th function i , which can further reflect the impact of the function optimization on the overall performance of the software;

[0115] The software function optimization RG value can serve as an important reference for resource allocation. For functions with high software function optimization RG values, software development information management can prioritize resource optimization to improve development efficiency. At the same time, by regularly evaluating the software function optimization RG value, software development information management can dynamically adjust resource allocation strategies to ensure that resources are fully utilized.

[0116] While optimizing new functions, software development information management needs to focus on the stability of existing functions. Among them, the previous user experience feedback score of the unit that evaluates the degree of software function optimization is UP. old Multiply the i-th function correlation score GL i Part, can reflect the original function in terms of user experience maintenance, by ensuring the previous user experience feedback score UP old Multiply the i-th function correlation score GL i The value of is not lower than a certain threshold. Software development information management can optimize new functions without compromising the stability of existing functions, ensuring the consistency of user experience for the developed function, that is, the i-th developed and user-tried function.

[0117] See also Figures 1 to 4 , the calculation formula for evaluating the software iteration efficiency unit is as follows:

[0118] ;

[0119] ;

[0120] X=(B+F+Z) / UP old ;

[0121] in:

[0122] DX is the iteration efficiency evaluation value;

[0123] YH total It is the sum of functional optimization, reflecting the optimization of all functions of software development;

[0124] n is the total number of functions, YH i is the optimization degree of the i-th function;

[0125] DT is the iteration period, which reflects the interval between the previous and current iterations for the same function.

[0126] UC stands for user engagement;

[0127] X is the iteration impact factor, which reflects the impact of iteration on subsequent software development function versions;

[0128] B is the number of changes, F is the number of fixed issues, and Z is the number of new features;

[0129] The calculation formula for user engagement UC is as follows:

[0130] UC=(HU / ZU) / a+UP;

[0131] a=FX i / ZX;

[0132] HU is the number of active users;

[0133] ZU is the total number of users;

[0134] a is the user behavior weight;

[0135] FX i is the number of behaviors occurring for the i-th function, and ZX is the total number of behaviors occurring, where the number of behaviors occurring includes the statistical sum of clicks, browsing, purchases, and sharing.

[0136] In this embodiment, the algorithm unit first " The calculation part calculates the iteration cycle DT time and the sum of all function optimization degrees YH total The ratio reflects the efficiency of function optimization per unit time, which is the core calculation part of iterative efficiency evaluation. "Multiplied together, they determine the basic value of iteration efficiency. The smaller the ratio, the more functional optimizations are completed in the same time, and the higher the iteration efficiency.

[0137] “ The calculation part calculates the product of the impact of the iteration cycle on subsequent versions and the user experience feedback score UP of the current version. This reflects the potential impact of the current iteration cycle DT on the user experience of subsequent versions. As a supplementary calculation part of the iteration efficiency evaluation, the impact of the iteration cycle DT on future versions is considered. This helps to consider the potential contribution and risks of the current iteration cycle to the development of subsequent versions when evaluating the efficiency of the current iteration.

[0138] Specifically, in the process of calculating the iterative efficiency evaluation value DX, this algorithm unit The calculation part can calculate the total function optimization degree YH total The iteration cycle DT time reflects the time required for software development information management to complete one iteration. By comparing the total function optimization degree YH total The ratio of the time to the iteration cycle (DT) can quantitatively evaluate the efficiency of software development information management in each iteration. At the same time, combined with user engagement (UC) and subsequent impact coefficient, it can further reflect the impact of the iteration plan on user experience and subsequent versions.

[0139] The DX value of iteration efficiency evaluation can serve as an important reference for adjusting iteration plans. When the DX value of iteration efficiency evaluation is low, software development information management can deeply analyze the specific reasons leading to the low DX value, including excessively long iteration cycles and insufficient functional optimization, and formulate targeted adjustment plans accordingly.

[0140] By continuously optimizing the iteration plan and improving development quality, the iteration efficiency evaluation value (DX) will also increase, forming a virtuous cycle.

[0141] Among them, the " " section, emphasizing the impact of user engagement UC on iteration efficiency. By improving user engagement UC, software development information management can more accurately understand user needs and feedback, thereby formulating iteration plans that better meet user expectations. At the same time, users' active participation also helps to improve the user experience and satisfaction of the software.

[0142] For example 2, please refer to Figures 1 to 4 , based on the iterative efficiency evaluation value DX, and combined with the information management analysis of the line graph as follows:

[0143] If the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX shows an upward trend on the line graph, it means that the software iteration efficiency is constantly improving, the problems reported by users are effectively managed and handled, and the i-th function of the current software development should be maintained and put into operation;

[0144] If the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX shows a downward trend on the line graph, it means that the software iteration efficiency is decreasing, there are problems with the management and processing measures, and the problems reported by users have not been resolved. The i-th function of the software development should be adjusted, and the total feedback quantity TF should be increased to promptly discover problems with the i-th function.

[0145] In this embodiment, a line graph is used to observe the trend of the software iteration efficiency evaluation value DX result value. Software development information management can establish an effective loop feedback mechanism. If the line graph trend is rising, it indicates that the management process is effective and the user experience is improved. Otherwise, the management strategy needs to be adjusted.

[0146] Through this circular feedback mechanism, software development information management can continuously optimize user experience and improve software competitiveness. As iterations progress, the user experience feedback score UP after the new function is launched will be continuously updated. By observing the changing trend of the user experience feedback score UP, software development information management can dynamically adjust the weights and parameters in the user experience evaluation method to improve the accuracy of the evaluation. At the same time, by continuously optimizing the evaluation method, software development information management can more accurately understand the user's true feelings and needs for the software;

[0147] The result value of the software iteration efficiency unit, the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX, can serve as a feedback signal to guide subsequent iteration plans and function optimization directions. By comparing the contribution of the optimization degree of different functions to the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX, software development information management can determine which functions need further optimization or adjustment. By prioritizing the optimization of functions that contribute most to the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX, software development information management can improve iteration efficiency and ensure that each iteration can bring a significant improvement in user experience.

[0148] On the one hand, when the line graph of the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX result value shows an upward trend, it usually means that the software iteration efficiency is constantly improving and the management and treatment measures are effective. Specifically, as the iteration progresses, the software functions are continuously optimized and the user experience feedback score UP is improved. This is because the new functions meet the user's expectations after they are launched, and the original functions are improved, reducing user dissatisfaction, that is, reducing the average dissatisfaction score EP. avg This improvement is reflected in the unit evaluating the degree of software function optimization, and in turn affects the software function optimization value RG in the unit evaluating software iteration efficiency. The increase in user participation UC will also lead to an increase in the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX. Users are more actively involved in software use and feedback, which helps software development information management to more accurately understand user needs and thus carry out targeted function optimization. This increase in participation is due to the active user community, the smooth user feedback channels, and the user's recognition of the software's value.

[0149] If the iteration impact factor X shows a positive trend, it will also drive up the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX. This means that each iteration lays a good foundation for subsequent versions and reduces potential problems and risks. In this case, the management measures are effective because they successfully promote the improvement of software iteration efficiency. Software development information management can continue to use the current management methods and iteration strategies, while paying attention to user feedback and changes in market demand to continuously optimize software functions and improve user experience.

[0150] On the other hand, when the line graph of the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX result value shows a downward trend, this usually means that the software iteration efficiency is decreasing, there are problems with the management and handling measures, and adjustments are needed. Specifically, if the new function fails to significantly improve the user experience feedback score UP after it is launched, and the problems with the original function are not solved in a timely manner, then the software function optimization degree RG_ value will decrease. This is due to the function design not meeting user needs, defects in the development process, and insufficient testing. The decline in user participation UC will also lead to a decrease in the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX. This is due to users losing interest in the product, poor feedback channels, and users believing that their opinions are not valued. The decline in user participation UC will weaken the ability of software development information management to understand user needs, thereby affecting the accuracy and effectiveness of function optimization.

[0151] If the iteration impact factor X has a negative impact, the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX will also decrease accordingly. This is because new problems are introduced during the iteration process, new problems are created after fixing old problems, and the iteration cycle is too long, resulting in long user waiting times. In this case, the management and handling measures are problematic and need to be adjusted. Software development information management needs to deeply analyze the reasons for the decline in the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX and take corresponding measures to improve it, including strengthening user research and demand analysis, optimizing development processes and testing strategies, and improving user engagement UC.

[0152] To sum up, observing the trend of the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX result value to evaluate whether the software iteration efficiency unit is effective in the circular feedback of the comprehensive evaluation user's overall software experience unit is an effective method. Software development information management can judge the effectiveness of management and treatment measures based on changes in trends, and make corresponding adjustments and optimizations accordingly.

[0153] While embodiments of the present invention have been shown and described, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that various changes, modifications, substitutions and variations can be made to these embodiments without departing from the principles and spirit of the invention, and that the scope of the invention is defined by the appended claims and their equivalents.

Claims

1. A computer software development information management method, characterized in that: The specific implementation steps are as follows: Step 1: Use the data collection module to collect software development functions and user feedback information; Step 2: Use the data evaluation calculation module to calculate and output the user experience feedback score UP, software function optimization degree RG, and iteration efficiency evaluation value DX in sequence; The data evaluation and calculation module includes a unit for comprehensively evaluating the user's overall experience of the software, a unit for evaluating the degree of software function optimization, and a unit for evaluating the software iteration efficiency. The comprehensive evaluation unit for evaluating the overall software experience calculates user feedback on all functions of the software development. The unit for evaluating the degree of software function optimization and the unit for evaluating software iteration efficiency score UP based on user experience feedback and perform evaluation calculations on the i-th function in the software development. Step 3: Based on the result of the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX, and using a visualization module, the iteration efficiency of the i-th function in software development is displayed, and corresponding management adjustments are made; The calculation formula for comprehensively evaluating the user's overall software experience unit is as follows: ； HP avg =(HP1+HP2+HP3+......+HP PF ) / PF; EP avg =(EP1+EP2+EP3+......+EP NF ) / NF; in: UP is the user experience feedback score; PF is the number of positive feedback; NF is the number of negative feedback; TF is the total number of feedbacks; HP avg Rate the average satisfaction level; HP1 is the first satisfaction positive feedback score, HP2 is the second satisfaction positive feedback score, HP3 is the third satisfaction positive feedback score, HP PF Rating the positive feedback for PF satisfaction; EP avg Score the average dissatisfaction score; EP1 is the first dissatisfaction negative feedback score, EP2 is the second dissatisfaction negative feedback score, EP3 is the third dissatisfaction negative feedback score, EP NF Score the negative feedback for NF dissatisfaction; The calculation formula for the evaluation software function optimization degree unit is as follows: ； in: RG is the degree of software function optimization; UP old Rate the previous user experience feedback; EP i，avg is the average dissatisfaction score of the i-th function, GL i Score the relevance of the i-th function, where the i-th function reflects the i-th function developed and tested by users during the computer software development process; The calculation formula of the evaluation software iteration efficiency unit is as follows: ； ； X=(B+F+Z) / UP old ; in: DX is the iteration efficiency evaluation value; YH total It is the sum of functional optimization, reflecting the optimization of all functions of software development; n is the total number of functions, YH i is the optimization degree of the i-th function; DT is the iteration period, which reflects the interval between the previous and current iterations for the same function. UC stands for user engagement; X is the iteration impact factor, which reflects the impact of iteration on subsequent software development function versions; B is the number of changes, F is the number of fixed issues, and Z is the number of new features; The information management analysis based on the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX and combined with the line graph is as follows: If the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX shows an upward trend on the line graph, it means that the software iteration efficiency is constantly improving, the problems reported by users are effectively managed and handled, and the i-th function of the current software development should be maintained and put into operation; If the iteration efficiency evaluation value DX shows a downward trend on the line graph, it means that the software iteration efficiency is decreasing, there are problems with the management and processing measures, and the problems reported by users have not been resolved. The i-th function of the software development should be adjusted, and the total feedback quantity TF should be increased to promptly discover problems with the i-th function.

2. The computer software development information management method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The equipment used by the data collection module includes user terminals, servers, and databases; The equipment used by the data evaluation calculation module includes a computer; The devices used by the visualization module include visualization devices.

3. The computer software development information management method according to claim 2, wherein: The average dissatisfaction score EP of the i-th function i，avg The calculation formula is as follows: EP i，avg =(EP i，1 +EP i，2 +EP i，3 +......+EP i，m ) / m; m is the number of negative feedbacks for the i-th function; EP i，1 Score the first negative feedback of the i-th function, EP i，2 Score the second negative feedback of the i-th function, EP i，3 Score the third negative feedback for the i-th function, EP i，m Score the mth negative feedback for the i-th feature; The i-th function association score GL i The calculation formula is as follows: GL i =[(EP i，avg +HP i，avg ) / (HP avg +EP avg )]×100%; HP i，avg is the average satisfaction score for the i-th function.

4. The computer software development information management method according to claim 3, wherein: The calculation formula of the user engagement UC is as follows: UC=(HU / ZU) / a+UP; a=FX i / ZX; HU is the number of active users; ZU is the total number of users; a is the user behavior weight; FX i is the number of behaviors occurring for the i-th function, and ZX is the total number of behaviors occurring, where the number of behaviors occurring includes the statistical sum of clicks, browsing, purchases, and sharing.

Images