Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Different Approaches in Inspection Process Improvement

  • Conference paper
Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 32))

Abstract

There is a need to better understand improvement of software inspection practices. Typically process improvement is driven by different reference models like CMMI. In the previous work we found that such model based approach alone didn’t provide sufficient support for inspection process improvement. This paper outlines an overall picture of inspection process improvement and four different approaches for it. These approaches are seen as complementary and the focus of the paper is on describing their role in the improvement process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Fagan, M.: Design and code inspection to reduce errors in program development. IBM Systems Journal 15(3), 182–211 (1976)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Doolan, E.: Experience with Fagan’s Inspection Method. Software - Practice and Experience 22(2), 173–182 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fagan, M.: Advances in Software Inspections. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 12(7), 744–751 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Grady, R.B., Van Slack, T.: Key lessons in achieving widespread inspection use. IEEE Software 11(4), 46–57 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Russell, G.: Experience with inspection in ultra large-scale developments. IEEE Software 8(1), 25–31 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Johnson, P.M.: Reengineering Inspection. Communications of the ACM 41(2), 49–52 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ciolkowski, M., Laitenberger, O., Biffl, S.: Software reviews, the state of the practice. IEEE Software 20(6), 46–51 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kollanus, S., Koskinen, J.: Software inspections in practice: six case studies. In: Münch, J., Vierimaa, M. (eds.) PROFES 2006. LNCS, vol. 4034, pp. 377–382. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Kollanus, S., Koskinen, J.: Survey of software inspection research: 1991-2005. Computer Science and Information Systems Reports, Working Papers WP-40, Jyväskylä University Printing House, Jyväskylä, Finland, 39 p (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Paulk, M., Curtis, B., Averill, E., Bamberger, J., Kasse, T., Konrad, M., Perdue, J., Weber, C., Withey, J.: Capability Maturity Model for Software. CMU/SEI-91-TR-24. Software Engineering Institute. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  11. SEI. Capability Maturity Model Integration version 1.2. Software Engineering Institute (2006), http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmmi/

  12. ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 15504 - Information Technology Process Assessment Parts 1-5 (2003-2006)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Burnstein, I., Homeyen, A., Suwanassart, T., Saxena, G., Grom, R.: A testing maturity model for software test process assessment and improvement. Software Quality Professional 1(4), 8–21 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kerzner, H.: Strategic planning for project management using a project management maturity model. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  15. April, A., Abran, A., Dumke, R.: SMcmm model to evaluate and improve the quality of the software maintenance process. In: 8th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Re-Engineering, Tampere, Finland, pp. 243–248 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kollanus, S.: ICMM – Inspection Capability Maturity Model. In: IASTED International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 372–377 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kollanus, S.: Experiences from Using ICMM in Inspection Process Assessment. Software Quality Journal 17(2), 177–187 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gilb, T., Graham, D.: Software Inspection. McGraw-Hill, New York (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Harjumaa, L.: A pattern approach to software inspection process improvement. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 10(4), 455–465 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jalote, P., Haragopal, M.: Overcoming the NAH syndrome for inspection deployment. In: 20th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 371–378. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Wiegers, K.: Peer Reviews in Software: A Practical Guide. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  22. SEI: IDEAL: A User’s Guide for Software Process Improvement. CMU/SEI-96-HB-001. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Dybå, T.: An empirical investigation of the key factors for success in software process improvement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(5), 410–424 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Goldenson, D., Herbsleb, J.: After the Appraisal: A Systematic Survey of Process Improvement, Its Benefits and Factors that Influence Success. SEI: CMU/SEI-95-TR-009. Software Engineering Institute (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hall, T., Rainer, A., Baddoo, N.: Implementing software process improvement: an empirical study. Software Process Improvement and Practice 7(1), 3–15 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Niazi, M., Wilson, D., Zowghi, D.: Critical success factors for software process improvement implementation: an empirical study. Software Process Improvement and Practice 11(2), 193–211 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Stelzer, D., Mellis, W.: Success factors of organizational change in software process improvement. Software Process - Improvement and Practice 4(4), 227–250 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ericson, T., Subotec, A., Ursing, S.: TIM – A test improvement model. Software Testing, Verification and Reliability 7(4), 229–246 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tervonen, I., Iisakka, J., Harjumaa, L.: Looking for inspection improvements through the base practices. In: Workshop on Inspection in Software Engineering, Paris (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Harjumaa, L., Tervonen, I., Vuorio, P.: Using software inspection as a catalyst for SPI in a small company. In: Bomarius, F., Iida, H. (eds.) PROFES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3009, pp. 62–75. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Kollanus, S.: Issues in software inspection practices. In: Bomarius, F., Komi-Sirviö, S. (eds.) PROFES 2005. LNCS, vol. 3547, pp. 429–442. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Beecham, S., Hall, T., Rainer, A.: Software process improvement problems in twelve software companies: An Empirical Analysis. Empirical Software Engineering 8(1), 7–42 (2003)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns –Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Coplien, J.: A Generative Development-Process Pattern Language, Pattern Languages of Program Design. Addison-Wesley, New York (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Harjumaa, L.: Improving the Software Inspection Process with Patterns. Dissertation, University of Oulu, Finland (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Knight, J.C., Myers, E.A.: An improved inspection technique. Communications of the ACM 36(11), 51–61 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Porter, A.A., Siy, H.P., Toman, C.A., Votta, L.G.: An experiment to assess the cost-benefits of code inspections in large scale software development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 23(6), 329–346 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sauer, C., Jeffery, D.R., Land, L., Yetton, P.: The effectiveness of software development technical reviews: a behaviorally motivated program of research. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 26(1), 1–14 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Christenson, D.A., Huang, S.T., Lamperez, A.J.: Statistical quality control applied to code inspections. IEEE Journal of Selected Areas of Communication 8(2), 196–200 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 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)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Porter, A.A., Johnson, P.M.: Assessing software review meetings: results of a comparative analysis of two experimental studies. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 23(3), 129–145 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sabaliauskaite, G., Kusumoto, S., Inoue, K.: Assessing defect detection performance of interacting teams in object-oriented design inspection. Information and Software Technology 46(13), 875–886 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Votta, L.: Does every inspection need a meeting? ACM Software Engineering Notes 18(5), 107–114 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. d’Astous, P., Robillard, P.N.: Characterizing implicit information during peer review meetings. In: 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 460–466. ACM Press, New York (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Johnson, P., Tjahjono, D.: Assessing software review meetings: A controlled experimental study using CSRS. In: 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 118–127. ACM Press, New York (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Dunsmore, A., Roper, M., Wood, M.: The role of comprehension in software inspection. Journal of Systems and Software 52(2-3), 121–129 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Basili, V.R., Green, S., Laitenberger, O., Lanubile, F., Shull, F., Soerumgaard, S., Zelkowitz, M.: The empirical investigation of perspective-based reading. Empirical Software Engineering 1(2), 133–164 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Dunsmore, A., Roper, M., Wood, M.: The development and evaluation of three diverse techniques for object-oriented code inspection. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 29(8), 677–686 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Laitenberger, O., Atkinson, C., Schlich, M., El Emam, K.: An experimental comparison of reading techniques for defect detection in UML design documents. Journal of Systems and Software 53(2), 183–204 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Porter, A., Votta, L.G.: An experiment to assess different defect detection methods for software requirements inspections. In: 16th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 103–112. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Thelin, T., Runeson, P., Regnell, B.: Usage-based reading — an experiment to guide reviewers with use cases. Information and Software Technology 43(15), 925–938 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ebert, C., Parro, C.H., Suttels, R., Kolarczyk, H.: Improving validation activities in a global software development. In: 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 545–554. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Rifkin, S., Deimel, L.: Applying program comprehension techniques to improve software inspections. In: 19th Annual NASA Software Engineering Workshop, pp. 115–126 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Porter, A., Siy, H., Mockus, A., Votta, L.: Understanding the sources of variation in software inspections. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 7(1), 41–79 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Biffl, S., Freimut, B., Laitenberger, O.: Investigating the cost-effectiveness of reinspections in software development. In: 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 155–164. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Boehm, B.W.: Software Engineering Economics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1981)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, University of Jyväskylä, P.O. Box 35, (Agora), FI-40014, Finland

    Sami Kollanus

Authors
  1. Sami Kollanus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fraunhofer IIESE, Fraunhoferplatz 1, 67663, Kaiserslautern, Germany

    Frank Bomarius

  2. Department of Information Processing Science, University of Oulu, P.O.Box 3000, 90014, Finland

    Markku Oivo

  3. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Tietotie 3, 02150, Espoo, Finland

    Päivi Jaring

  4. Department of Computer Science, University of Helsinki, P.O.Box 68, 00014, Helsinki, Finland

    Pekka Abrahamsson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Kollanus, S. (2009). The Role of Different Approaches in Inspection Process Improvement. In: Bomarius, F., Oivo, M., Jaring, P., Abrahamsson, P. (eds) Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES 2009. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 32. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02152-7_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02152-7_18

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-02151-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-02152-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation