Skip to main content

Defect Data Analysis as Input for Software Process Improvement

  • Conference paper
Product-Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES 2012)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 7343))

Abstract

In this paper, we present the results of defect data analysis done with three software companies’ defect databases. 11879 software defects were classified and analyzed in order to find out what the real world defect distributions are like and what are the most common defect types. The most common defects in every company were functional defects (65.5%), i.e. defects in computation and/or functional logic. The defect types that were most uncommon were defects due to misunderstood or poorly written requirements (0.2%) or documentation (0.4%).The results of the analysis offer practical data to be used to support Software Process Improvement (SPI).

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

Access this chapter

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. IEEE standard classification for software anomalies. IEEE Std 1044-2009 (Revision of IEEE Std 1044-1993) pp. C1 –C15 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Basili, V.R., Rombach, H.D.: Tailoring the software process to project goals and environments. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 1987, pp. 345–357. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1987), http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=41765.41804

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beizer, B.: Software Testing Techniques. International Thomson Computer Press (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bhandari, I., Halliday, M., Tarver, E., Brown, D., Chaar, J., Chillarege, R.: A case study of software process improvement during development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 19(12), 1157–1170 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bridge, N., Miller, C.: Orthogonal defect classification using defect data to improve software development. Software Quality 3(1), 1–8 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chillarege, R., Bhandari, I., Chaar, J., Halliday, M., Moebus, D., Ray, B., Wong, M.Y.: Orthogonal defect classification – a concept for in-process measurements. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 18(11), 943–956 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Clements, P.: From subroutines to subsystems: Component-based software development. American Programmer 8(11), 31–38 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cusumano, M.: The business of software: What every manager, programmer, and entrepreneur must know to thrive and survive in good times and bad. Free Press (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  10. El Emam, K., Wieczorek, I.: The repeatability of code defect classifications. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, pp. 322–333 (November 1998)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Freimut, B.: Developing and using defect classification schemes. Fraunhofer IESE IESE-Report No 72 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Grady, R.: Practical software metrics for project management and process improvement. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Humphrey, W.: A discipline for software engineering. Addison-Wesley (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kit, E., Finzi, S.: Software testing in the real world: improving the process. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mantyla, M., Lassenius, C.: What types of defects are really discovered in code reviews? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 35(3), 430–448 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vigder, M., Gentleman, W., Dean, J.: Cots software integration: State of the art (1996), http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?action=rtdoc&an=8914327&lang=en

  17. Vinter, O.: Using defect analysis to initiate the improvement process (1998), http://www.iscn.at/select_newspaper/measurement/bruelkjaer.html

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Raninen, A., Toroi, T., Vainio, H., Ahonen, J.J. (2012). Defect Data Analysis as Input for Software Process Improvement. In: Dieste, O., Jedlitschka, A., Juristo, N. (eds) Product-Focused Software Process Improvement. PROFES 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7343. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31063-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31063-8_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31062-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-31063-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics