Advertisement

Results and Experiences from an Empirical Study of Fault Reports in Industrial Projects

  • Jon Arvid Børretzen
  • Reidar Conradi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4034)

Abstract

Faults introduced into systems during development are costly to fix, and especially so for business-critical systems. These systems are developed using common development practices, but have high requirements for dependability. This paper reports on an ongoing investigation of fault reports from Norwegian IT companies, where the aim is to seek a better understanding on faults that have been found during development and how this may affect the quality of the system. Our objective in this paper is to investigate the fault profiles of four business-critical commercial projects to explore if there are differences in the way faults appear in different systems. We have conducted an empirical study by collecting fault reports from several industrial projects, comparing findings from projects where components and reuse have been core strategies with more traditional development projects. Findings show that some specific fault types are generally dominant across reports from all projects, and that some fault types are rated as more severe than others.

Keywords

Fault Type Software Quality Software Reliability Industrial Project Functional Logic 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Børretzen, J.A., Stålhane, T., Lauritsen, T., Myhrer, P.T.: Safety activities during early software project phases. In: Proceedings of the Norwegian Informatics Conference (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Littlewood, B., Strigini, L.: Software reliability and dependability: a roadmap. In: Proceedings of the Conference on The Future of Software Engineering, Limerick, Ireland, pp. 175–188 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leveson, N.: Safeware: System safety and computers. Addison-Wesley, Boston (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    IEEE Standard Classification for Software Anomalies, IEEE Std 1044-1993, December 2 (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bassin, K., Santhanam, P.: Managing the maintenance of ported, outsourced, and legacy software via orthogonal defect classification. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, November 7-9 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    El Emam, K., Wieczorek, I.: The repeatability of code defect classifications. In: Proceedings of the The Ninth International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, November 4-7, pp. 322–333 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chillarege, R., Bhandari, I.S., Chaar, J.K., Halliday, M.J., Moebus, D.S., Ray, B.K., Wong, M.-Y.: Orthogonal defect classification-a concept for in-process measurements. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 18(11), 943–956 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lutz, R.R., Mikulski, I.C.: Empirical analysis of safety-critical anomalies during operations. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 30(3), 172–180 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hamlet, D.: What is software reliability? In: Reggio, G., Astesiano, E., Tarlecki, A. (eds.) Abstract Data Types 1994 and COMPASS 1994. LNCS, vol. 906, pp. 169–170. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Avizienis, A., Laprie, J.-C., Randell, B., Landwehr, C.: Basic Concepts and Taxonomy of Dependable and Secure Computing. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 1(1) (January-March 2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon Arvid Børretzen
    • 1
  • Reidar Conradi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations