Advertisement

An Empirical Study of the Impact of Asynchronous Discussions on Remote Synchronous Requirements Meetings

  • Daniela Damian
  • Filippo Lanubile
  • Teresa Mallardo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3922)

Abstract

Our research explores the combination of synchronous and asynchronous collaboration tools for global software development. In this paper we assess the impact of tool-mediated inspections to improve requirements negotiation meetings with stakeholders spread over different continents. We present the design of our investigation in an educational environment, in a course where the clients and developers in a software project were in geographically distributed locations. In particular, we studied the usefulness of asynchronous discussions in IBIS tool in enabling more effective requirements negotiations meetings. Our findings indicate that the requirements negotiations were more effective when the groups conducted asynchronous discussions prior to the synchronous negotiation meetings.

Keywords

Open Issue Software Project Requirement Elicitation Requirement Document Global Software Development 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. [Bas96]
    Basili, V.R., Green, S., Laitenberger, O., Lanubile, F., Shull, F., Sørumgård, S., Zelkowitz, M.: The empirical investigation of Perspective-Based Reading. Empirical Software Engineering: An International Journal 1(2), 133–164 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [Bas99]
    Basili, V., Shull, F., Lanubile, F.: Building Knowledge through Families of Experiments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 25(4), 456–473 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [Bif03]
    Biffl, S., Halling, M.: Investigating the Defect Detection Effectiveness and Cost Benefit of Nominal Inspection Teams. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 29(5), 385–397 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [Boe81]
    Boehm, B.W.: Software Engineering Economics. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1981)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [Boe98]
    Boehm, B.W., Egyed, A., Kwan, J., Port, D., Shah, A., Madachy, R.: Using the WinWin Spiral Model: A Case Study. Computer 31(7), 33–44 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [Dam03]
    Damian, D., Zowghi, D.: Requirements Engineering challenges in multi-site software development organizations. Requirements Engineering Journal 8, 149–160 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [Fag76]
    Fagan, M.E.: Design and code inspection to reduce errors in program development. IBM Systems Journal 15(3), 182–211 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [Gen01]
    van Genuchten, M., van Dijk, C., Scholten, H., Vogel, D.: Using Group Support Systems for Software Inspections. IEEE Software 18(3), 60–65 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [Grü04]
    Grünbacher, P., Halling, M., Biffl, S., Kitapci, H., Boehm, B.W.: Integrating Collaborative Processes and Quality Assurance Techniques: Experiences from Requirements Negotiation. Journal of Management Information Systems 20(4), 9–29 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [Hal03]
    Halling, M., Biffl, S., Grünbacher, P.: An economic approach for improving requirements negotiation models with inspection. Requirements Engineering Journal 8, 236–247 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [Her03]
    Herbsleb, J.D., Mockus, A.: An Empirical Study of Speed and Communication in Globally-Distributed Software Development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 29(3), 1–14 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. [Lai00]
    Laitenberger, O., De Baud, J.M.: An encompassing life cycle centric survey of software inspection. The Journal of Systems and Software 50(1), 5–31 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [Lai02]
    Laitenberger, O., Beil, T., Schwinn, T.: An Industrial Case Study to Examine a Non-Traditional Inspection Implementation for Requirements Specifications. Empirical Software Engineering 7(4), 345–374 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [Lan98]
    Lanubile, F., Shull, F., Basili, V.: Experimenting with error abstraction in requirements documents. In: 5th Int. Symposium on Software Metrics (METRICS 1998), pp. 114–121 (1998)Google Scholar
  15. [Lan03]
    Lanubile, F., Mallardo, T., Calefato, F.: Tool Support for Geographically Dispersed Inspection Teams. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 8(4), 217–231 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [Lan04]
    Lanubile, F., Mallardo, T.: A Preliminary Study On Asynchronous Discussions For Distributed Software Inspections. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Cooperative Support for Distributed Software Engineering Processes (CSSE 2004) (September 2004)Google Scholar
  17. [Per02]
    Perry, D.E., Porter, A.A., Wade, M.W., Votta, L.G., Perpich, J.: Reducing Inspection Interval in Large-Scale Software Development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 28(7), 695–705 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [Por95]
    Porter, A.A., Votta, L.G., Basili, V.R.: Comparing detection methods for software requirements inspections: A replicated experiment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 21(6), 563–575 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [Sch92]
    Schneider, G.M., Martin, J., Tsai, W.: An experimental study of fault detection in user requirements documents. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 1(2), 188–204 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [The03]
    Thelin, T., Runeson, P., Wohlin, C.: An Experimental Comparison of Usage-Based and Checklist-Based Reading. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 29(8), 687–704 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniela Damian
    • 1
  • Filippo Lanubile
    • 2
  • Teresa Mallardo
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Engineering DepartmentUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  2. 2.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversity of BariBariItaly

Personalised recommendations