Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
Software inspection helps to improve the quality of software products early in the development process. For design inspection recent research showed that usage-based reading of documents is more effective and efficient than traditional checklists. Usage-based reading guides actively the inspector with pre-sorted use cases, while traditional checklists let the inspector figure out how best to proceed. This paper investigates the impact of active guidance on an inspection process: We introduced checklists that give the inspector a process to follow, which should be as flexible as traditional checklists but more efficient. We compared the performance of this approach in a controlled experiment in an academic environment with traditional checklist and usage-based reading. Main results of the investigation are (a) checklists with active guidance are significantly more efficient than traditional checklists for finding major defects and (b) usage-based reading is more effective and efficient than both types of checklists. These results suggest that active guidance improves the efficiency of inspectors while the upfront investment into usage-based reading pays off during inspection. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2005 | 10.1007/11497455_36 | PROFES |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
inspector figure,software product,design inspection recent research,software inspection,development process,inspection process,usage-based reading guide,active guidance,usage-based reading,traditional checklist,use case,empirical software engineering | Use case,Systems engineering,Service quality,Engineering management,Software,Engineering,Software inspection,Empirical process (process control model),Software quality,Operations management,Software development,New product development | Conference |
Volume | ISSN | ISBN |
3547 | 0302-9743 | 3-540-26200-8 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
5 | 0.43 | 20 |
Authors | ||
3 | ||
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dietmar Winkler | 1 | 82 | 8.81 |
| Stefan Biffl | 2 | 1305 | 134.26 |
| Bettina Thurnher | 3 | 57 | 7.54 |