Identifying Process Problems with the SAWO Functional Defect Classification Scheme

  • Tanja Toroi
  • Anu Raninen
  • Hannu Vainio
  • Lauri Väätäinen
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 364)

Abstract

In this paper we present the first official version of SAWO, a functional defect classification scheme developed to enable the usage of defect data for Software Process Improvement (SPI) purposes. Defect data is one of the most important, although nowadays perhaps least discussed management information sources for SPI decisions. Applying our scheme, defects can be classified with accuracy needed to generate practical and targeted process improvement suggestions. The SAWO scheme classifies defects on three levels. On the first level, the focus is on software defects in general. The second level focuses on functional defects and the third level brings more detail to the functional level. Further, we present the validation results of SAWO with three software companies’ defect data consisting of 6363 defects.

Keywords

SAWO defect classification scheme defect data analysis process improvement 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fredericks, M., Basili, V.: Using Defect Tracking and Analysis to Improve Software Quality. In: DoD Data & Analysis Center for Software, DACS (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vinter, O.: Experience-Based Approaches to Process Improvement. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Software Quality Week, San Francisco, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grady, R.B.: Practical software metrics for project management and process improvement. Prentice Hall, New Jersey (1992)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhandari, I., Halliday, M.J., Chaar, J., Chillarege, R., Jones, K., Atkinson, J.S., Lepori-Costello, C., Jasper, P.Y., Tarver, E.D., Lewis, C.C., Yonezawa, M.: In-process improvement through defect data interpretation. IBM Systems Journal 33(1), 182–214 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freimut, B.: Developing and using defect classification schemes. Fraunhofer IESE IESE-Report No, 72 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raninen, A., Toroi, T., Vainio, H., Ahonen, J.J.: Defect Data Analysis as Input for Software Process Improvement. In: Dieste, O., Jedlitschka, A., Juristo, N. (eds.) PROFES 2012. LNCS, vol. 7343, pp. 3–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Toroi, T., Raninen, A., Vainio, H.: Using Functional Defect Analysis as an Input for Software Process Improvement: Initial Results. Communications in Computer and Information Science 301, 181–192 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beizer, B.: Software Testing Techniques. International Thomson Computer Press (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Humphrey, W.: A discipline for software engineering. Addison-Wesley (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yin, R.K.: Case study research: Design and methods. Sage publications, INC. (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cockburn, A.: Williams. L.: The Costs and Benefits of Pair Programming. In: Succi, G., Marchesi, M. (eds.) Extreme Programming Examined, pp. 223–243 (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zahran, S.: Software process improvement: practical guidelines for business success. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tanja Toroi
    • 1
  • Anu Raninen
    • 1
  • Hannu Vainio
    • 1
  • Lauri Väätäinen
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ComputingUniversity of Eastern FinlandKuopioFinland

Personalised recommendations