skip to main content
column

A paradigm for metric based inspection process for enhancing defect management

Published: 11 May 2010 Publication History

Abstract

Inspection process in software development plays a vital role in effective defect management. In order to have an appropriate measurement of the inspection process, we depend on a process metric called the Depth of Inspection (DI). DI enables the manager within the software community to identify and compare the level of inspection performed in various projects. An empirical study of several projects facilitated the evaluation of a set of process coefficients which are capable of predicting the DI values using multiple regression models. The industry observed DI value based on defect count and the DI value produced by the model are strongly matching. This supports the predictive capability of DI through process coefficients without depending on the prior estimation of the defect count.

References

[1]
Fagan, M (2002): Reviews and Inspections. In sd&m Conference on Software, Pioneers Software Pioneers and Their Contributions to Software Engineering., New York, Software Pioneers, Springer, ISBN-10: 3540430814, ISBN-13: 978-3540430810, pp. 562--573.
[2]
Jeff Tian (2005): Software Quality Engineering: Testing, Quality Assurance and Quantifiable Improvement. February 2005, Wiley John & Sons publisher, ISBN-13: 9780471713456.
[3]
Sami Kollanus and Jussi Koskinen, 2007: A Survey of Software Inspection Technologies Research: 1991-2005. Working Papers WP-40, ISBN 978-951-39-2776-9, ISSN 0359-8489, 39 p, March 2007, Department of Computer Science and Information Systems University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
[4]
Caper Jones (2008): Measuring Defect Potentials and Defect Removal Efficiency. CROSSTALK, The journal of Defense Software Engineering, June 2008 issue, Vol 21, No 6.
[5]
Spiewak, R., and K. McRitchie (2008): Using Software Quality Methods to Reduce Costs and Prevent Defects. CROSSTALK, the Journal of Defense Software Engineering 21(12).
[6]
Biffl, S. (2000): Analysis of the Impact of Reading Technique and Inspector Capability on Individual Inspection Performance. Seventh Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference APSEC 2000, IEEE Computer Society publisher, ISBN 0-7695-0915-0, December 2000, Singapore.
[7]
Schofield, J (2007): Beyond defect removal: Latent Defect Estimation with Capture Recapture Method (CRM). IT Metrics and Productivity Journal, August 21.
[8]
Biffl, S., M. Halling, and S. Koszegi (2003): Investigating the Accuracy of Defect Estimation Models for Individuals and Teams Based on Inspection Data. In ISESE'03- proceedings of International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, Rome, Italy, 30 September - 1 October 2003, IEEE Computer Society ISBN 0-7695-2002-2/03, pp.232--243.
[9]
Halling, M., and S. Biffl (2002): Investigating the Influence of Software Inspec-tion Process Parameters on Inspection Meeting Performance. In EASE *** IEEE Proceedings of International Conference on Empirical Assessment of Software Engineering, Keele, United Kingdom, October 2002, The Institution of Engineer-ing and Technology, ISSN: 1462-5970 Volume 149, Issue 5, pp. 115--121.
[10]
Stefen Biffl, and Michael Halling (2003): Investingating the Defect Detection Effectiveness and Cost Benefit of Nominal Inspection Teams. In ISESE 2003- International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, Rome, Italy, 30 September - 1 October 2003, IEEE Computer Society publisher, ISBN 0-7695-2002-2. Also appears in IEEE Transactions On Software Engineering, Vol 29, No.5, pp 385--397.
[11]
Denger, C., and Shull, F (2007): A Practical Approach for Quality-Driven Inspections. IEEE Software Journal, Vol 24, Issue 2, pp. 79--86.
[12]
Suma, V., and T.R. Gopalakrishnan Nair (2010): Defect Management Strategies in Software Development (Accepted), Book Chapter in Recent Advances in Technologies, ISBN 978-953-307-017-9, Intechweb, Vienna, Austria.
[13]
Suma, V., and T. R. Gopalakrishnan Nair (2008): Effective Defect Prevention Approach in Software Process for Achieving Better Quality Levels. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Software Engineering, Singapore, August 2008, ISSN 2070-3740, Volume 32, pp. 2070--3740.
[14]
Suma, V., and T.R. Gopalakrishnan Nair (2008): Enhanced Approaches in Defect Detection and Prevention Strategies in Small and Medium Scale Industries. In ICSEA apos'08 - The Third International Conference on Software Engineering Advances, Malta, Europe, 26-31 October 2008, pp. 389--393.
[15]
Gopalakrishnan Nair, T.R., and V. Suma: Software Defect Pattern Spanning Across Size Complexity (Accepted), International Journal of Software Engineering (IJSE).
[16]
Suma, V., and T.R. Gopalakrishnan Nair (2010). Better Defect Detection and Prevention through Improved Inspection and Testing Approach in Small and Me-dium Scale Software Industry (Accepted) International Journal of Productivity and Quality Journal (IJPQM), 5(4).
[17]
Gopalakrishnan Nair, T.R., and V. Suma: Impact Analysis of Inspection process for Effective Defect Management in Software Development*** (Accepted) Software Quality Professional Journal (SQP), ASQ, V12 I2.
[18]
Stephen H. Kan (2003): Metrics and Models in Software Quality Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Second edition, Boston, MA, USA, ISBN 0201729156, 9780201729153.
[19]
Karl. E. Wiegers (2007): A Software Metrics Primer, Practical Project Initiation: A Handbook with Tools, Microsoft Press.
[20]
Gerard O Regan (2002): A Practical Approach to Software Quality, Springer Science and Media publisher.

Cited By

View all
  • (2019)Relative risk proneness in phases of software development: metric based approach with Cox modelInternational Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management10.1007/s13198-019-00904-8Online publication date: 23-Oct-2019
  • (2017)Reusability of open source software across domainsJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2017.09.009134:C(211-227)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2017
  • (2015)A methodology to evaluate the maintainability of enterprise application integration frameworksInternational Journal of Web Engineering and Technology10.1504/IJWET.2015.07395110:4(334-354)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2015
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes
ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes  Volume 35, Issue 3
May 2010
151 pages
ISSN:0163-5948
DOI:10.1145/1764810
Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 11 May 2010
Published in SIGSOFT Volume 35, Issue 3

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. software defect management
  2. software inspection
  3. software process
  4. software quality metrics

Qualifiers

  • Column

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 15 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2019)Relative risk proneness in phases of software development: metric based approach with Cox modelInternational Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management10.1007/s13198-019-00904-8Online publication date: 23-Oct-2019
  • (2017)Reusability of open source software across domainsJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2017.09.009134:C(211-227)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2017
  • (2015)A methodology to evaluate the maintainability of enterprise application integration frameworksInternational Journal of Web Engineering and Technology10.1504/IJWET.2015.07395110:4(334-354)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2015
  • (2015)An Impact of Linear Regression Models for Improving the Software Quality with Estimated CostProcedia Computer Science10.1016/j.procs.2015.06.03954(335-342)Online publication date: 2015
  • (2015)Comprehension of Defect Pattern at Code Construction Phase during Software Development ProcessProceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Frontiers of Intelligent Computing: Theory and Applications (FICTA) 201410.1007/978-3-319-12012-6_73(659-666)Online publication date: 2015

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media