Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Painless improvements to the review process

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although the review process is defined in an extremely formal way, each company normally has its own way of tailoring it, because staff tend to see formal reviews as too heavy a method for practical software development. These tailored versions differ in type and in the grade of formality. This paper introduces some easy ways to improve the review process. The goal is to find steps which are simple enough for the management and staff to accept and efficient enough to improve the review process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M. E. Fagan. Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development, IBM Systems Journal 15 (1976) 182–211.

    Google Scholar 

  2. T. Gilb and D. Graham. Software Inspection (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  3. E. F. Weller. Lessons from three years of inspection data, IEEE Software, 10 (1993) 38–45.

    Google Scholar 

  4. S. H. Kan. Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  5. A. F. Ackerman, L. Buchwald and F. H. Lewski. Software inspections: an effective verification process, IEEE Software, 6 (1989) 31–36.

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. G. Ebenau and S. H. Strauss. Software Inspection Process (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  7. R. B. Grady. Practical Software Metrics for Project Management and Process Improvement (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  8. A. A. Porter, L. G. Votta and V. R. Basili. Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: a replicated experiment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21 (1995) 563–575.

    Google Scholar 

  9. C. Jones. Applied Software Measurement (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  10. R. L. Mack and J. Nielsen. Executive summary, in J. Nielsen and R.L. Mack (eds) Usability Inspection Methods, (John Wiley & Sons, 1994).

  11. I. Tervonen and H. Oinas-Kukkonen. Reorganizing the inspection process: problems encountered and resolved. Software Process - Improvement and Practice, 2 (1996) 97–110.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Borrajo Iniesta, A tool and a set of metrics to support technical reviews, in M. Ross, C.A. Brebbia, G. Staples and J. Stapleton (eds) Software Quality Management II Vol 2: Building Quality into Software Computational Mechanics Publication, Southampton, (1994) pp. 579–594.

    Google Scholar 

  13. L. G. Votta. Does every inspection need a meeting? Proceedings of 1st ACM SIGSOFT Symposium of Foundations of Software Engineering. Published in ACM Software Engineering Notes, 18 (1993) 107–114.

    Google Scholar 

  14. W. S. Humphrey. A Discipline for Software Engineering (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu, FIN-90570, Oulu, Finland

    Juha Iisakka & Ilkka Tervonen

Authors
  1. Juha Iisakka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ilkka Tervonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Iisakka, J., Tervonen, I. Painless improvements to the review process. Software Quality Journal 7, 11–20 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SQJO.0000042056.11319.bb

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SQJO.0000042056.11319.bb

Search

Navigation