Skip to main content

How Process Enactment Data Affects Product Defectiveness Prediction - A Case Study

  • Conference paper

Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI,volume 496)

Abstract

The quality of a software product is highly influenced by the software process used to develop it. However, abstract and dynamic nature of the software process makes its measurement difficult, and this difficulty has supported the assessment insight of indirectly measuring the performance of software process by using the characteristics of the developed product. In fact, enactment of the software process might have a significant effect on product characteristics and data, and therefore, on the use of measurement and analysis results. In this article, we report a case study that aimed to investigate the effect of process enactment data on product defectiveness in a small software organization. We carried out the study by defining and following a methodology that included the application of Goal-Question-Metric (GQM) approach to direct analysis, the utilization of a questionnaire to assess usability of metrics, and the application of machine learning methods to predict product defectiveness. The results of the case study showed that the accuracy of predictions varied according to the machine learning method used, but in the overall, about 3% accuracy improvement was achieved by including process enactment data in the analysis.

Keywords

  • software defect prediction
  • machine learning
  • process enactment
  • software measurement
  • defectiveness

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-00948-3_10
  • Chapter length: 16 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-00948-3
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Koru, A.G., Liu, H.: Building Effective Defect-Prediction Models in Practice. IEEE Software 22(6) (November/December 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lee, T., Nam, J., Han, D., Kim, S., In, H.P.: Micro Interaction Metrics for Defect Prediction. In: ESEC/FSE 2011 Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGSOFT Symposium and the 13th European Conference on Foundations of Software Engineering (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sivrioğlu, D., Tarhan, A.: Defectiveness Analysis According To Software Module Features: A Case Study (Yazılım Modül Özelliklerine Göre Hatalılık Analizi: Bir Durum Çalışması) Original is Turkish (February 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dhiauddin, M.: Defect Prediction Model For Testing Phase. Master Thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Computer Science and Information System (May 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Zeng, H., Rine, D.: Estimation of Software Defects Fix Effort Using Neural Networks. In: COMPSAC 2004 Proceedings of the 28th Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference - Workshops and Fast Abstracts, USA, vol. 02, pp. 20–21 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Weiss, C., Premraj, R., Zimmermann, T., Zeller, A.: How Long will it Take to Fix This Bug? In: MSR 2007 Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Mining Software Repositories, USA, p. 1 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hassouna, A., Tahvildari, T.: An Effort Prediction Framework for Software Defect Correction. Information and Software Technology 52, 197–209 (2010)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Hewett, R., Kijsanayothin, P.: On Modeling Software Defect Repair Time. Empir. Software Eng. 14, 165–186 (2008, 2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Runeson, P., Höst, M.: Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Eng. 14, 131–164 (2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Florac, A.W., Park, R.E., Carleton, A.D.: Practical Software Measurement: Measuring for Process Management and Improvement. Guidebook: CMU/SEI-97-HB-003 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Çatal, Ç., Diri, B.: A Systematic Review of Software Fault Prediction Studies. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 7346–7354 (2009)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. http://www.locmetrics.com/ (last access date: April 11, 2012)

  13. Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., Rombach, H.D.: Goal Question Metric Paradigm. In: Encyclopedia of Software Engineering – 2 Volume Set (1994) ISBN#1-54004-8

    Google Scholar 

  14. http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~ml/weka/ (last access date: April 11, 2012)

  15. Jalote, P., Dinesh, K., Raghavan, S., Bhashyam, R., Ramakrishnan, M.: Quantitative Quality Management through Defect Prediction and Statistical Process Control

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wahyudin, D., Schatten, A., Winkler, D., Tjoa, A.M., Biffl, S.: Defect Prediction using Combined Product and Project Metrics a Case Study from the Open Source “Apache” MyFaces Project Family. In: 34th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, SEAA 2008, September 3-5, pp. 207–215 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fenton, N., Krause, M., Neil, P.: A Probabilistic Model for Software Defect Prediction. For submission to IEEE Transactions in Software Engineering

    Google Scholar 

  18. Tarhan, A., Demirörs, O.: Apply Quantitative Management Now. IEEE Software 29(3), 77–85 (2012), doi:10.1109/MS.2011.91

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  19. Tarhan, A., Demirörs, O.: Investigating the Effect of Variations in Test Development Process: A Case from a Safety-Critical System. Software Quality Journal, doi:10.1007/s11219-011-9129-8

    Google Scholar 

  20. Boetticher, G.D.: Nearest Neighbor Sampling for Better Defect Prediction

    Google Scholar 

  21. Witten, I.H., Frank, E.: Data Mining Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques, 2nd edn. Elsevier (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  22. CMMI Product Team, CMMI for Development, Version 1.3, Technical Report, SEI (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sivrioğlu, D.: A Method for Product Defectiveness Prediction with Process Enactment Data in a Small Software Organization. Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Informatics Institute (June 2012)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Damla Aslan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Aslan, D., Tarhan, A., Demirörs, v.O. (2014). How Process Enactment Data Affects Product Defectiveness Prediction - A Case Study. In: Lee, R. (eds) Software Engineering Research, Management and Applications. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 496. Springer, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00948-3_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00948-3_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-00947-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-00948-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)