Abstract
In 1978, Lientz, Swanson, and Tompkins published the results of a survey on software maintenance. They found that 17.4% of maintenance effort was categorized as corrective in nature, 18.2% as adaptive, 60.3% as perfective, and 4.1% was categorized as other. We refer to this as the “LST” result. We contrast this survey-based result with our empirical results from the analysis of data for the repeated maintenance of three software products: a commercial real-time product, the Linux kernel, and GCC. For all three products and at both levels of granularity we considered, our observed distributions of maintenance categories were statistically very highly significantly different from LST. In particular, corrective maintenance was always more than twice the LST value. For the summed data, the percentage of corrective maintenance was more than three times the LST value. We suggest various explanations for the observed differences, including inaccuracies on the part of the maintenance managers who responded to the LST survey.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psych. Meas. 20: 37-46.
El Emam, K. 1998. Benchmarking Kappa for Software Process Assessment Reliability Studies. International Software Engineering Research Network Technical Report ISERN-98-02.
GCC Home Page-GNU Project-Free Software Foundation (FSF), http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/ gcc.html, October 12, 2001.
Graves, T. L., and Mockus, A. 1998. Inferring change effort from configuration management data. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Software Metrics, Bethesda, MD, 267-273.
Lientz, B. P., Swanson, E. B., and Tompkins, G. E. 1978. Characteristics of application software maintenance. Communications of the ACM 21(6): 466-471.
Linux Online-About the Linux operating system, http://www.linux.org/info/index.html, March 6, 2000.
Mockus, A., and Votta, L. 2000. Identifying reasons for software changes using historic databases. Proceedings of the 2000 International Conference on Software Maintenance, San Jose, CA, 120-130.
Nosek, J. T., and Palvia, P. 1990. Software maintenance management: Changes in the last decade. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice 2(3): 157-174.
Pressman, R. S. 2001. Software Engineering, A Practitioner's Approach, 5th edition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 805.
Schach, S. R. 2002. Object-Oriented and Classical Software Engineering, 5th edition. Boston, MA: WCB/ McGraw-Hill, 10, 52, 181-189, 426.
Schach, S. R., Jin, B., Wright, D. R., Heller, G. Z., and Offutt, A. J. 2002. Maintainability of the Linux kernel. IEE Proceedings-Software 149(1): 18-23.
Sommerville, I. 2001. Software Engineering, 6th edition. Harlow, UK: Addison-Wesley, 606.
Swanson, E. B. 1976. The dimension of maintenance. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Software Engineering, San Francisco, CA, 492-497.
Wang, S., Schach, S. R., and Heller, G. Z. 2001. A case study in repeated maintenance. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution: Research and Practice 13(2): 127-141.
Weiss, N. A. 1995. Introductory Statistics, 4th edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schach, S.R., Jin, B., Yu, L. et al. Determining the Distribution of Maintenance Categories: Survey versus Measurement. Empirical Software Engineering 8, 351–365 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025368318006
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025368318006