Advertisement

Empirical Software Engineering

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 327–354 | Cite as

An Extended Replication of an Experiment for Assessing Methods for Software Requirements Inspections

  • Kristian Sandahl
  • Ola Blomkvist
  • Joachim Karlsson
  • Christian Krysander
  • Mikael Lindvall
  • Niclas Ohlsson
Article

Abstract

We have performed an extended replication of the Porter-Votta-Basili experiment comparing the Scenario method and the Checklist method for inspecting requirements specifications using identical instruments. The experiment has been conducted in our educational context represented by a more general definition of a defect compared to the original defect list. Our study involving 24 undergraduate students manipulated three independent variables: detection method, requirements specification, and the order of the inspections. The dependent variable measured is the defect detection rate. We found the requirements specification inspected and not the detection method to be the most probable explanation for the variance in defect detection rate. This suggests that it is important to gather knowledge of how a requirements specification can convey an understandable view of the product and to adapt inspection methods accordingly. Contrary to the original experiment, we can not significantly support the superiority of the Scenario method. This is in accordance with a replication conducted by Fusaro, Lanubile and Visaggio, and might be explained by the lack of individual defect detection skill of our less experienced subjects.

Controlled experiments inspections replicated study method evaluation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barton, R. R. 1998. Design-plots for factorial and fractional-factorial designs. Journal of Quality Technology 30(1): 40–54.Google Scholar
  2. Bisgaard, S., and Fuller, H. T. 1994. Analysis of factorial experiments with defects or defectives as the response. Quality Engineering 7(2): 429–443.Google Scholar
  3. Boehm, B. W. 1987. Industrial software metrics top 10 list. IEEE Software 4: 84–85.Google Scholar
  4. Box G. E. P., Hunter W. G., and Hunter J. S. 1978. Statistics for Experimenters. An Introduction to Design, Data Analysis, and Model Building. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Fusaro, P. F., Lanubile, F., and Visaggio, G. 1997. A replicated experiment to assess requirements inspection techniques. Empirical Software Engineering 2: 39–57.Google Scholar
  6. Heninger, K. L. 1980. Specifying software requirements for complex systems: New techniques and their application. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-6: 2–13.Google Scholar
  7. IEEE Std. 830. 1984. IEEE Guide to Software Requirements Specifications. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.Google Scholar
  8. Porter, A. A., and Votta, L. G. 1994. An experiment to assess different defect detection methods for software requirements inspections. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Software Engineering. Sorrento, Italy, 103–112.Google Scholar
  9. Porter A. A., Votta L. G., and Basili V. R. 1995. Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: A replicated experiment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21: 563–575.Google Scholar
  10. Sauer, C., Jeffery, R., Lau, L., and Yetton, P. 1996. A behaviourally motivated programme for empirical research into software development technical reviews. Centre for Advanced Empirical Software Research, The University of New South Wales, Technical report 96/5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristian Sandahl
    • 1
  • Ola Blomkvist
    • 2
  • Joachim Karlsson
    • 3
  • Christian Krysander
    • 4
  • Mikael Lindvall
    • 4
  • Niclas Ohlsson
    • 4
  1. 1.ZeLabEricsson Radio Systems ABLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.Quality Technology and Management, Department of Mechanical EngineeringLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  3. 3.Focal Point ABLinköpingSweden
  4. 4.Department of Computer and Information ScienceLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations