Engineering Process Improvement in Heterogeneous Multi-disciplinary Environments with Defect Causal Analysis

  • Olga Kovalenko
  • Dietmar Winkler
  • Marcos Kalinowski
  • Estefania Serral
  • Stefan Biffl
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 425)

Abstract

Multi-disciplinary engineering environments, e.g., in automation systems engineering, typically involve different stakeholder groups and engineering disciplines using a variety of specific tools and data models. Defects in individual disciplines can have a major impact on product and process quality in terms of additional cost and effort for defect repair and can lead to project delays. Early defects detection and avoidance in future projects are key challenges for project and quality managers to improve the product and process quality. In this paper we present an adaptation of the defect causal analysis (DCA) approach, which has been found effective and efficient to improve product quality in software engineering contexts. Applying DCA in multi-disciplinary engineering environments enables a systematic analysis of defects and candidate root causes, and can help providing countermeasures for product and process quality. The feasibility study of the adapted DCA has shown that the adaptation is useful and enables improving defect detection and prevention in multi-disciplinary engineering projects and fosters engineering process improvement.

Keywords

defect causal analysis automation systems multi-disciplinary project product improvement product quality process improvement 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Biffl, S., Schatten, A., Zoitl, A.: Integration of Heterogeneous Engineering Environments for the Automation Systems Lifecycle. In: Proc. of Industrial Informatics (Indin) (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biffl, S., Moser, T., Winkler, D.: Risk Assessment in Multi-Disciplinary (Software+) Engineering Projects. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (IJSEKE), Special Session on Risk Assessment 21(2), 211–236 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Campos, J.: Risk management and failure mode and effect analysis for product development. Rapid Innovation LLC (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Card, D.N.: Defect-causal analysis drives down error rates. IEEE Software 10(4), 98–99 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Card, D.N.: Defect Analysis: Basic Techniques for Management and Learning. In: Zelkowitz, M. (ed.) Advances in Computers, vol. 65, pp. 259–295. Elsevier (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chillarege, R.: Orthogonal Defect Classification. In: Lyu, M.R. (ed.) Handbook of Software Reliability Engineering. IEEE (1991)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chemuturi, M.: Mastering Software Quality Assurance: Best Practices, Tools and Techniques for Software Developers. J. Ross Publication Inc. (2010) ISBN: 978-1604270327Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grady, R.B.: Software Failure Analysis for High-Return Process Improvement Decisions. Hewlett Packard Journal 47, 15–24 (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huber, J.T.: A comparison of IBM’s orthogonal defect classification to Hewlett Packards defect origins, types, and modes. In: Proc. Conf. on Appl. of SW Measurement, pp. 1–17 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    IEEE: Classification for software anomalies, IEEE Std. 1044-2009 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ishikawa, K.: Guide to Quality Control. Asian Productivity Organization Press (1986)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalinowski, M., Card, D.N., Travassos, G.H.: Evidence-based guidelines to defect causal analysis. IEEE Software 29(4), 16–18 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kalinowski, M., Mendes, E., Travassos, G.H.: An Industry Ready Defect Causal Analysis approach exploring Bayesian Networks. In: Proc. 6th SW Quality Days, pp. 12–33 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kwak, Y.H., Anbari, F.T.: Benefits, obstacles, and future of six sigma approach. Technovation 26(5), 708–715 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shull, F.J.: Developing Techniques for using Software Documents: a Series of Empirical Studies. PhD Thesis, University of Maryland (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wagner, S.: Defect classification and defect types revisited. In: Proc. of the 2008 Workshop on Defects in Large Software Systems, pp. 39–40. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Winkler, D., Biffl, S.: Improving Quality Assurance in Automation Systems Development Projects. In: Quality Assurance and Management, pp. 379–398. INTEC (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Winkler, D., Moser, T., Mordinyi, R., Sunindyo, W.D., Biffl, S.: Engineering Object Change Management Process Observation in Distributed Automation Systems Projects. In: Proc. of the 18th EuroSPI Conference, Roskilde, Denmark (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olga Kovalenko
    • 1
  • Dietmar Winkler
    • 1
  • Marcos Kalinowski
    • 2
  • Estefania Serral
    • 3
  • Stefan Biffl
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Software Technology and Interactive Systems, CDL-FlexVienna University of TechnologyViennaAustria
  2. 2.Federal University of Juiz de ForaJuiz de ForaBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Decision Sciences and Information ManagementKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations