Your browser does not support JavaScript!
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com
1887

Investigating the influence of software inspection process parameters on inspection meeting performance

Investigating the influence of software inspection process parameters on inspection meeting performance

For access to this article, please select a purchase option:

Buy article PDF
£12.50
(plus tax if applicable)
Buy Knowledge Pack
10 articles for £75.00
(plus taxes if applicable)

IET members benefit from discounts to all IET publications and free access to E&T Magazine. If you are an IET member, log in to your account and the discounts will automatically be applied.

Learn more about IET membership 

Recommend Title Publication to library

You must fill out fields marked with: *

Librarian details
Name:*
Email:*
Your details
Name:*
Email:*
Department:*
Why are you recommending this title?
Select reason:
 
 
 
 
 
IEE Proceedings - Software — Recommend this title to your library

Thank you

Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

The question of whether inspection meetings justify their cost has been discussed in several studies. However, it is still open as to how modern defect detection techniques and team size influence meeting performance, particularly with respect to different classes of defect severity. The influence of software inspection process parameters (defect detection technique, team size, meeting effort) on defect detection effectiveness is investigated, i.e. the number of defects found for 31 teams which inspected a requirements document, to shed light on the performance of inspection meetings. The sets of defects reported by each team after the individual preparation phase (nominal-team performance) and after the team meeting (real-team performance) are compared. The main findings are that nominal teams perform significantly more effectively than real teams for all defect classes. This implies that meeting losses are on average higher than meeting gains. Meeting effort was positively correlated with meeting gains, indicating that synergy effects can only be realised if enough time is available. With regard to meeting losses, existing reports are confirmed that for a given defect, the probability of being lost in a meeting decreases with an increase in the number of inspectors who detected this defect during individual preparation.

References

    1. 1)
      • O. Laitenberger , J.M. DeBaud . An encompassing life cycle centric survey of software inspection. J. Syst. Softw. , 1 , 5 - 31
    2. 2)
      • Bianchi, A., Lanubile, F., Visaggio, G.: `A controlled experiment to assess the effectiveness of inspection meetings', Presented at Metrics 01, April 2001, London.
    3. 3)
      • A. Diehl , W. Stroebe . Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle. J. Pers. Social Psychol. , 3 , 497 - 509
    4. 4)
      • C.B. Seaman , V.R. Basili . Communication and organization: an empirical study of discussion in inspection meetings. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. , 6 , 559 - 572
    5. 5)
      • C. Wohlin , P. Runenson , M. Hst , M. Ohlsson , B. Regnell , A. Wessln . (2000) Experimentation in software engineering – an introduction.
    6. 6)
      • W. Tichy . Hints for reviewing empirical work in software engineering. Empir. Softw. Eng. , 309 - 312
    7. 7)
      • P.W. Yetton , P.C. Bottger . Individual versus group problem solving: an empirical test of a best-member strategy. Org. Behav. Human Perform. , 307 - 321
    8. 8)
      • C. Sauer , D. Jeffery , L. Land , P. Yetton . The effectiveness of software development technical reviews: a behaviorally motivated program of research. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. , 1 , 11 - 14
    9. 9)
      • P.W. Yetton , P.C. Bottger . The relationship among Group Size, Member Ability, Social Decision Schemes, and Performance. Org. Behav. Human Perform.
    10. 10)
      • J. Miller , M. Wood , M. Roper . Further experiences with scenarios and checklists. Empir. Softw. Eng. , 37 - 64
    11. 11)
      • M. Höst , B. Regnell , C. Wohlin . Using Students as Subjects – A comparative study of students and professionals in lead-time impact assessment. Empir. Softw. Eng. , 201 - 214
    12. 12)
      • Johnson, P.M., Tjahjono, D.: `Assessing software review meetings: a controlled experimental study using CSRS', Presented at ICSE 97, 1997, Boston.
    13. 13)
      • L. Votta . Does every inspection need a meeting?. ACM Softw. Eng. Notes , 5 , 107 - 114
    14. 14)
      • M.V. Genuchten , C.V. Dijk , H. Scholten , D. Vogel . Using group support systems for software inspection. IEEE Softw. , 60 - 65
    15. 15)
      • M. Fagan . Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development. IBM Syst. J. , 3 , 182 - 211
    16. 16)
      • Parnas, D.L., Weiss, D.M.: `Active design review: principles and practices', Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software engineering, 1985, p. 215–222.
    17. 17)
      • Biffl, St., Halling, M.: `Software product improvement with inspection', Proceedings of Euromicro 2000 Workshop on Software Product and Process Improvement, Maastricht, Sept. 2000, IEEE Comp. Soc. Press.
    18. 18)
      • Land, L.P.W., Jeffery, R., Sauer, C.: `Validating the defect detection performance advantage of group designs for software reviews', Proc. ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE, 1997.
    19. 19)
      • A. Porter , L. Votta . Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspection: a replication using professional subjects. Empir. Softw. Eng. , 4 , 355 - 380
    20. 20)
      • P.M. Johnson , D. Tjahjono . Does every inspection really need a meeting. Empir. Softw. Eng. , 9 - 35
    21. 21)
      • A.A. Porter , P.M. Johnson . Assessing software review meetings: results of a comparative analysis of two experimental studies. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. , 3 , 129 - 145
    22. 22)
      • T. Gilb , D. Graham . (1993) Software inspection.
    23. 23)
      • V.R. Basili , S. Green , O. Laitenberger , F. Lanubile , F. Shull , S. Soerumgaard , M. Zelkowitz . The empirical investigation of perspective-based reading. Empir. Softw. Eng. 1, 2 , 133 - 164
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/ip-sen_20020719
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/ip-sen_20020719
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address