Empirical Software Engineering

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 289–302 | Cite as

Realizing quality improvement through test driven development: results and experiences of four industrial teams

  • Nachiappan Nagappan
  • E. Michael Maximilien
  • Thirumalesh Bhat
  • Laurie Williams
Article

Abstract

Test-driven development (TDD) is a software development practice that has been used sporadically for decades. With this practice, a software engineer cycles minute-by-minute between writing failing unit tests and writing implementation code to pass those tests. Test-driven development has recently re-emerged as a critical enabling practice of agile software development methodologies. However, little empirical evidence supports or refutes the utility of this practice in an industrial context. Case studies were conducted with three development teams at Microsoft and one at IBM that have adopted TDD. The results of the case studies indicate that the pre-release defect density of the four products decreased between 40% and 90% relative to similar projects that did not use the TDD practice. Subjectively, the teams experienced a 15–35% increase in initial development time after adopting TDD.

Keywords

Test driven development Empirical study Defects/faults Development time 

References

  1. IEEE (1988) IEEE Std 982.2-1988 IEEE guide for the use of IEEE standard dictionary of measures to produce reliable software. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Basili VR, Shull F et al (1999) Building knowledge through families of experiments. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 25(4):456–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck K (2001) Aim, fire. IEEE Softw 18:87–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck K (2003) Test driven development—by example. Addison-Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck K (2005) Extreme programming explained: embrace change. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck K, Fowler M (2001) Planning extreme programming. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhat T, Nagappan N (2006) Evaluating the efficacy of test-driven development: industrial case studies. International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  8. Cockburn A (2001) Agile software development. Addison-Wesley Longman, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Curtis B (1989) Three problems overcome with behavioral models of the software development process (panel). In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering, Pittsburgh, PA. ACM, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  10. Erdogmus H, Williams L (2003) The economics of software development by pair programmers. Eng Econ 48(4):283–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Erdogmus H, Morisio M, Torchiano M (2005) On the effectiveness of the test-first approach to programming. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 31(3):226–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fenton NE, Pfleeger SL (1998) Software metrics: a rigorous and practical approach. Cole Brooks, Pacific Grove, CAGoogle Scholar
  13. Fenton N, Pfleeger SL et al (1994) Science and substance: a challenge to software engineers. IEEE Softw 11(4):86–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fowler M (2000) UML Distilled. Addison Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  15. Gelperin D, Hetzel W (1987) Software quality engineering. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Software Testing, Washington, DC, JuneGoogle Scholar
  16. George B, Williams L (2003a) An initial investigation of test-driven development in industry. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Melbourne, FLGoogle Scholar
  17. George B, Williams L (2003b) A structured experiment of test-driven development. Inf Softw Technol (IST) 46(5):337–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrison W (1997) N = 1: an alternative for empirical software engineering research? Empir Software Eng 2(1):7–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrison W (2004) Propaganda and software development. IEEE Softw 21(5):5–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Humphrey WS (1989) Managing the software process. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  21. Janzen D, Saiedian H (2006) On the influence of test-driven development on software design. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, Turtle Bay, HIGoogle Scholar
  22. Kitchenham B, Pickard L et al (1995) Case studies for method and tool evaluation. IEEE Softw 12(4):52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Larman C, Basili V (2003) A history of iterative and incremental development. IEEE Comput 36(6):47–56Google Scholar
  24. Larus J, Ball T, Das M, Deline R, Fahndrich M, Pincus J, Rajamani S, Venkatapathy T (2004) Righting software. IEEE Softw 21(3):92–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Müller MM, Hagner O (2002) Experiment about test-first programming. IEEE Proc Softw 149(5):131–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Müller MM, Tichy WF (2001) Case study: extreme programming in a university environment. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE2001)Google Scholar
  27. Royce WW (1970) Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. IEEE WESTCON, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  28. Sjøberg D, Anda B et al. (2002) Conducting realistic experiments in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, Nara, Japan. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Srivastava A, Thiagarajan J, Schertz C (2005) Efficient integration testing using dependency analysis. Technical report: MSR-TR-2005-94. Microsoft Research, Redmond, WAGoogle Scholar
  30. Williams L, Maximilien EM et al. (2003) Test-driven development as a defect-reduction practice. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, Denver, CO. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Zelkowitz MV, Wallace DR (1998) Experimental models for validating technology. Computer 31(5):23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nachiappan Nagappan
    • 1
  • E. Michael Maximilien
    • 2
  • Thirumalesh Bhat
    • 1
  • Laurie Williams
    • 3
  1. 1.Microsoft ResearchRedmondUSA
  2. 2.IBM Almaden Research CenterSan JoseUSA
  3. 3.North Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations