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

Does every inspection need a meeting?

Published: 01 December 1993 Publication History

Abstract

At each step in large software development, reviewers carry out inspections to detect faults. These inspections are usually followed by a meeting to collect the faults that have been discovered. However, we have found that these inspection meetings are not as beneficial as managers and developers think they are. Even worse, they cost much more in terms of products development interval and developer's time than anyone realizes.Analysis of the inspection and collection process leads us to make the following suggestions. First, at the least, the number of participants required at each inspection meeting should be minimized. Second, we propose two alternative fault collection methods, either of which would eliminate the inspection meetings altogether: (a) collect faults by deposition (small face-to-face meetings of two or three persons), or (b) collect faults using verbal or written media (telephone, electronic mail, or notes).We believe that such a change in procedure would increase efficiency by reducing production times without sacrificing product quality.

References

[1]
M. G. Bradac, D. E. Perry, L. G. Votta, "Prototyping a Process Experiment," Fifteenth International Conference on Software Engineering, Baltimore, May 1993.
[2]
W .S. Humphery, Managing the Software Process, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1989.
[3]
G. Stalk, Jr. and T. M. Hout, Competing Against Time: How Time-Based Competition Is Reshaping Global Markets, Free Press, New York, 1990.
[4]
G. Weinberg, The Psychology of Computer Programming, Van Nostrand, 1971.
[5]
W. E. Dernming, Ouf of the Crisis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, Mass., 1982.
[6]
P. J. Fowler, "In-Process Inspections of Workproducts at AT&T," AT&T Technical Journal, Volume 65, Issue 2, March/April 1986.
[7]
J.F. Keane, M. Keane, and M. Teagan, Productivity Management in the Development of Computer Applications, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1984.
[8]
M.E. Fagan, "Design and Code Inspections to Reduce Errors in Program Development," IBM Syst. J., vol. 15, no. 3, 1976, pp. 182-211.
[9]
E. Yourdon, Structured Walkthroughs, Second Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979.
[10]
D, L. Pamas and D. M. Weiss, "Active Design Reviews: Principles and Practices," Eighth International Conference on Software Engineering, London, August 1985.
[11]
IEEE Standard for Software Reviews and Audits, IEEE Std 1028-1988, Soft. Eng. Tech. Comm. of the IEEE Computer Society, June 1989.
[12]
C. Lafferty, The Subarctic Survival Situation, Human Synergistic, Plymouth, Michigan, June 1975.
[13]
S. G. Eick, C. R. Loader, M. D. Long, L. G. Votta, and S. Vander Weil, "Estimating Software Design Faults," Fourteenth International Conference on Software Engineering, Melbourne, May 1992.
[14]
B.Y. Auger, How to Run Better Business Meetings, Amacom Visual Products, 1972.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Are the Perspectives Really Different?: Further Experimentation on Scenario-Based Reading of RequirementsExperimentation in Software Engineering10.1007/978-3-662-69306-3_14(209-234)Online publication date: 8-May-2024
  • (2022)A Metric for Questions and Discussions Identifying Concerns in Software ReviewsSoftware10.3390/software10300161:3(364-380)Online publication date: 5-Sep-2022
  • (2022)Understanding why we cannot model how long a code review will take: an industrial case studyProceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3540250.3558945(1314-1319)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2022
  • Show More Cited By

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 18, Issue 5
Dec. 1993
199 pages
ISSN:0163-5948
DOI:10.1145/167049
Issue’s Table of Contents
  • cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGSOFT '93: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering
    December 1993
    199 pages
    ISBN:0897916255
    DOI:10.1145/256428
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 December 1993
Published in SIGSOFT Volume 18, Issue 5

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)184
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)19
Reflects downloads up to 02 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Are the Perspectives Really Different?: Further Experimentation on Scenario-Based Reading of RequirementsExperimentation in Software Engineering10.1007/978-3-662-69306-3_14(209-234)Online publication date: 8-May-2024
  • (2022)A Metric for Questions and Discussions Identifying Concerns in Software ReviewsSoftware10.3390/software10300161:3(364-380)Online publication date: 5-Sep-2022
  • (2022)Understanding why we cannot model how long a code review will take: an industrial case studyProceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3540250.3558945(1314-1319)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2022
  • (2022)Using nudges to accelerate code reviews at scaleProceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering10.1145/3540250.3549104(472-482)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2022
  • (2022)Towards a taxonomy of code review smellsInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2021.106737142:COnline publication date: 1-Feb-2022
  • (2020)Large-Scale Intent Analysis for Identifying Large-Review-Effort Code ChangesInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2020.106408(106408)Online publication date: Sep-2020
  • (2020)Do code review measures explain the incidence of post-release defects?Empirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-020-09837-425:5(3323-3356)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2020
  • (2019)An Empirical Study of the Effectiveness of Software Architecture Evaluation MeetingsIEEE Access10.1109/ACCESS.2019.29222657(79069-79084)Online publication date: 2019
  • (2019)Does every formal peer review really need to take place? An industrial case studyProcedia Computer Science10.1016/j.procs.2019.05.054153(45-54)Online publication date: 2019
  • (2018)Early prediction of merged code changes to prioritize reviewing tasksEmpirical Software Engineering10.1007/s10664-018-9602-023:6(3346-3393)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2018
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media