[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
column

Impact of research on practice in the field of inspections, reviews and walkthroughs: learning from successful industrial uses

Published: 31 October 2008 Publication History

Abstract

Software inspections, reviews, and walkthroughs have become a standard process component in many software development domains. Maturity level 3 of the CMM-I requires establishment of peer reviews [12] and substantial sustained improvements in quality and productivity have been reported as a result of using reviews ([16], [21], [22], [27]). The NSF Impact project identifies the degree to which these industrial success cases have been instigated and improved by research in software engineering.
This research identifies that there is widespread adoption of inspections, reviews or walkthroughs but that companies do not generally exploit their full potential. However there exist sustained industrial success cases with respect to the wide-spread and measurably successful application of them. It also identifies research in software engineering that can be credibly documented as having influenced the industrial success cases. Credible documentation may exist in the form of publications or documented reports by witnesses. Due to the semi-formal nature of inspections, reviews, and walkthroughs, a specific focus is given to empirical research results as motivators for adoption. Through the examination of one detailed case study, it is shown that software engineering research has had a significant impact on practice and that the impact can be traced in this case from research to that practice. The case study chosen provides evidence of both success and failure regarding sustained application in practice.
Thus the analysis of historic impact chains of research reveals a clear impact of software engineering research on sustained industrial success for inspections, reviews and walkthroughs. More importantly, in impact chains where the empirical results have not been established, we conclude that success has not been achieved or has not been sustained.
The paper closes with (1) lessons learned for creating the sustained use and impact of semi-formal software engineering processes, (2) a request for researchers and practitioners to further consider how their work can improve the effectiveness of research and practice, and (3) a request to contribute additional success cases and impact factors to the authors database for future enhancements of this paper.

References

[1]
Aurum, A. and Petersson, H. and Wohlin, C., State-of-the-art: software inspections after 25 years, Journal of Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, 12(3), Sept. 2002, pp. 133--54.
[2]
Beck: Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. Addison Wesley 1999.
[3]
Basili, V.R.: Evolving and Packaging Reading Technologies, J. Systems and Software, vol. 38, no. 1, July 1997, pp. 3--12.
[4]
Basili, V.R., Caldiera, G., and Rombach, H.D., "Goal Question Metric Paradigm," in Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, vol. 1, J.J. Marciniak, Ed., 1994, pp. 528--532.
[5]
Basili, V., Green, S., Laitenberger, O., Lanubile, F., Shull, F., Sorumgard, S., and Zelkowitz, M., 1996. The Empirical Investigation of Perspective-based Reading. Journal of Empirical Software Engineering, 2(1):133164.
[6]
Basili, V.R., McGarry, F.E., Pajerski, R., and Zelkowitz, M.V., Lessons learned from 25 years of process improvement, In proceedings of International Conference on Software Engineering, Orlando, Florida, May 2002, pp. 69--79.
[7]
Basili, V.R. and Selby, R.W. Comparing the effectiveness of software testing techniques. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 13(12):12781296, 1987.
[8]
Boehm, B., and V.R. Basili, Software Defect Reduction Top 10 List, Computer, vol. 34, no. 1, Jan. 2001, pp. 135--137.
[9]
L. Briand et al., Quality Assurance Technologies for the EURO Conversion--Industrial Experience at Allianz Life Assurance, Proc. 2nd Int'l Software Quality Week Europe, Software Research Inc., 1998, pp. 1--23.
[10]
Ciolkowski, M., Shull, F., and Biffl, S.: Practical Experiences in the Design and Conduct of Surveys in Empirical Software Engineering, ESERNET Method and Experience, R. Conradi, ed., LNCS, Springer-Verlag, 2003, Volume 2765 / 2003, August 2003, pp. 104--128.
[11]
Ciolkowski, Laitenberger, Biffl. Software Reviews: The state of the practice, IEEE Software Special Issue on the State of the Practice in Software Engineering, December 2003, pp. 46--51.
[12]
CMMI Product Team, Software Engineering Institute, Capability Maturity Model® Integration (CMMISM), Version 1.1, CMU/SEI-2002-TR-012.
[13]
Deming, W.: Out of the crisis, SPC Press, 1982.
[14]
Endres, A., Rombach, H.D., A Handbook of Software and Systems Engineering - Empirical Observations, Laws and Theories, Edison-Wesley, 2003.
[15]
Estublier, J., Leblang, D., Hoek, A., Conradi, R., Clemm, G., Tichy, W., and Wiborg-Weber, D. 2005. Impact of software engineering research on the practice of software configuration management. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 14, 4 (Oct. 2005), 383--430.
[16]
Fagan, M.E.: Design and Code Inspections to Reduce Errors in Program Development, IBM Systems J., vol. 15, no. 3, 1976, pp. 182--211.
[17]
Gilb, T. and Graham, D., Software Inspection, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1993.
[18]
Hetzel, W.C., 1976. An Experimental Analysis of Program Verification Methods. PhD thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Computer Science.
[19]
IEEE Std. 1028-1997 (1998): Standard for Software Reviews, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Inc. ISBN 1-55937-987-1
[20]
Kohli, Robert, O., and Radice, R.A., Low Level Design Inspection Specification, TR 21.629, IBM System Communications Division, Kingston NY 12401.
[21]
Laitenberger, O. and DeBaud, J.: An Encompassing Life-Cycle Centric Survey of Software Review, In Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 50, no. 1, Jan. 2000, pp. 5--31.
[22]
Laitenberger, O., Leszak, M., Stoll, D., El Emam, K., Quantitative Modeling of Software Reviews in an Industrial Setting, in Proceedings of the 6th International Software Metrics Symposium.
[23]
O. Laitenberger, S. Vegas, and M. Ciolkowski, The State of the Practice of Review and Review Technologies in Germany, VISEK technical report 011.02, 2002.
[24]
Linger, R.C., Mills, H.D., and Witt, B.I., 1979. Structured Programming: Theory and Practice. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
[25]
Lott, C.M. and Rombach, H.D., "Repeatable Software Engineering Experiments for Comparing Defect-Detection Techniques," 1996.
[26]
Marciniak, J.J., 1994. Reviews and Audits. In: Marciniak, J.J., editor, Encyclopedia of Software Engineering, volume 2, pages 10841090. John Wiley and Sons.
[27]
McGarry, F., Decker, B., Attaining Level 5 in CMM process maturity, IEEE Computer 19(6), Nov/Dec 2002, 27-29 Nov. 2001 Page(s):83--90.
[28]
H.D. Mills, "Stepwise Refinement and Verification in Boxstructured systems," IEEE Computer, 1988.
[29]
Mills, H: "Cleanroom Engineering", American Programmer, Pages 31--37, May 1991.
[30]
Myers, G.J., 1978. A controlled experiment in program testing and code walkthroughs/inspections. Communications of the ACM, 21(9):760768.
[31]
National Institute of Standards and Technology, The Economic Impact of Inadequate Infrastructure for Software Testing, http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/n02-10.htm, May 2002
[32]
Osterweil et al., The Impact Project: Determining the Impact of Software Engineering Research upon Practice, Software Eng. Notes, vol. 25, no. 6, Nov. 2000, pp. 108--109.
[33]
Ryder, B.G., Soffa, M.L., and Burnett, M. 2005. The impact of software engineering research on modern progamming languages. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 14, 4 (Oct. 2005), 431--477.
[34]
Selby, R.W., Basili, V.R., and Baker, F.T., "Cleanroom Software Development: An Empirical Evaluation," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. SE-13, pp. 1027--1037, 1987.
[35]
Solingen, R. van, Berghout, E., The Goal/Question/Metric Method. A Practical Guide for Quality Improvement of Software Development, London: McGraw-Hill, 1999, ISBN: 0-07-709553-7.
[36]
Strauss, S.H. and Ebenau, R.G.: Software Inspection Process. McGraw Hill Systems Design & Implementation Series.
[37]
Votta, L.G.: Does Every Inspection Need a Meeting? ACM Software Eng Notes, vol. 18, no. 5, December 1993, pp. 107--114.
[38]
Weinberg, G.M. and Freedman, D.P., 1984. Reviews, Walkthroughs, and Inspections. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 12(1):6872.
[39]
Wiegers, K.: Peer Reviews in Software--A Practical Guide, Addison-Wesley, 2002.
[40]
Yourdon, E.: Structured Walkthroughs, N.Y.: Prentice Hall, 4th edition, 1989.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Impact of Software Engineering Research in Practice: A Patent and Author Survey AnalysisIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2022.320821049:4(2020-2038)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2023
  • (2023)Automated Reusable Tests for Mitigating Secure Pattern Interpretation ErrorsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3279823(1-1)Online publication date: 2023
  • (2022)Successful combination of database search and snowballing for identification of primary studies in systematic literature studiesInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2022.106908147(106908)Online publication date: Jul-2022
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Impact of research on practice in the field of inspections, reviews and walkthroughs: learning from successful industrial uses

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes
    ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes  Volume 33, Issue 6
    November 2008
    64 pages
    ISSN:0163-5948
    DOI:10.1145/1449603
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 31 October 2008
    Published in SIGSOFT Volume 33, Issue 6

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. cause-effects for successful innovation
    2. empirical evidence
    3. innovation
    4. inspections
    5. research
    6. reviews
    7. technology transfer
    8. walkthroughs

    Qualifiers

    • Column

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)9
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
    Reflects downloads up to 13 Dec 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2023)Impact of Software Engineering Research in Practice: A Patent and Author Survey AnalysisIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2022.320821049:4(2020-2038)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2023
    • (2023)Automated Reusable Tests for Mitigating Secure Pattern Interpretation ErrorsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3279823(1-1)Online publication date: 2023
    • (2022)Successful combination of database search and snowballing for identification of primary studies in systematic literature studiesInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2022.106908147(106908)Online publication date: Jul-2022
    • (2022)Model-Based Inspections of Software Product LinesUML-Based Software Product Line Engineering with SMarty10.1007/978-3-031-18556-4_7(121-153)Online publication date: 28-Sep-2022
    • (2020)Practical relevance of software engineering research: synthesizing the community’s voiceEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-020-09803-025:3(1687-1754)Online publication date: 1-May-2020
    • (2019)A replication study on code comprehension and expertise using lightweight biometric sensorsProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Program Comprehension10.1109/ICPC.2019.00050(311-322)Online publication date: 25-May-2019
    • (2019)Characterizing industry-academia collaborations in software engineeringEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-019-09711-y24:4(2540-2602)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2019
    • (2019)On the search for industry-relevant regression testing researchEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-018-9670-124:4(2020-2055)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2019
    • (2017)What do software engineers care about? gaps between research and practiceProceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3106237.3117778(890-895)Online publication date: 21-Aug-2017
    • (2017)Process Aspects and Social Dynamics of Contemporary Code ReviewIEEE Transactions on Software Engineering10.1109/TSE.2016.257645143:1(56-75)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2017
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media