调查第二个软件检查周期的效果。从重新检查软件需求文档的大规模实验中获得的成本效益数据

S. Biffl, M. Halling, M. Köhle
{"title":"调查第二个软件检查周期的效果。从重新检查软件需求文档的大规模实验中获得的成本效益数据","authors":"S. Biffl, M. Halling, M. Köhle","doi":"10.1109/APAQ.2000.883793","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The goal of software inspection is to identify defects and to measure the product and inspection process quality. Software development products that are suspected to contain a substantial number of defects after inspection may be subject to a second inspection cycle (re-inspection). So far, very few empirical results can be found on re-inspections. This paper reports on a controlled experiment that compares the effect of two inspection cycles. A software requirements document was re-inspected by 31 teams, after defects found during the initial inspection had been removed. We present data on the effectiveness, efficiency, net gain and return-on-investment from a second inspection cycle, and compare these results with data from the initial inspection. Models in the literature suggest decision criteria with regard to when to re-inspect, based on assumptions on the relationships of variables between the two inspection cycles. With experimental data, we evaluate these assumptions and the correctness of their decision criteria. The results of the experiment strongly support considering re-inspection as an option to improve product quality.","PeriodicalId":432680,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings First Asia-Pacific Conference on Quality Software","volume":"100 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating the effect of a second software inspection cycle. Cost-benefit data from a large-scale experiment on reinspection of a software requirements document\",\"authors\":\"S. Biffl, M. Halling, M. Köhle\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/APAQ.2000.883793\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The goal of software inspection is to identify defects and to measure the product and inspection process quality. Software development products that are suspected to contain a substantial number of defects after inspection may be subject to a second inspection cycle (re-inspection). So far, very few empirical results can be found on re-inspections. This paper reports on a controlled experiment that compares the effect of two inspection cycles. A software requirements document was re-inspected by 31 teams, after defects found during the initial inspection had been removed. We present data on the effectiveness, efficiency, net gain and return-on-investment from a second inspection cycle, and compare these results with data from the initial inspection. Models in the literature suggest decision criteria with regard to when to re-inspect, based on assumptions on the relationships of variables between the two inspection cycles. With experimental data, we evaluate these assumptions and the correctness of their decision criteria. The results of the experiment strongly support considering re-inspection as an option to improve product quality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":432680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings First Asia-Pacific Conference on Quality Software\",\"volume\":\"100 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings First Asia-Pacific Conference on Quality Software\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/APAQ.2000.883793\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings First Asia-Pacific Conference on Quality Software","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/APAQ.2000.883793","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

软件检查的目标是识别缺陷,测量产品和检查过程的质量。在检查之后怀疑包含大量缺陷的软件开发产品可能受制于第二个检查周期(重新检查)。到目前为止,对复检的实证结果还很少。本文报道了一个对照实验,比较了两种检测周期的效果。一个软件需求文档被31个团队重新检查,在最初检查中发现的缺陷被移除之后。我们给出了第二次检查周期的有效性、效率、净收益和投资回报率的数据,并将这些结果与第一次检查的数据进行了比较。文献中的模型提出了关于何时重新检查的决策标准,基于对两个检查周期之间变量关系的假设。通过实验数据,我们评估了这些假设及其决策标准的正确性。实验结果强烈支持考虑复验作为提高产品质量的一种选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Investigating the effect of a second software inspection cycle. Cost-benefit data from a large-scale experiment on reinspection of a software requirements document
The goal of software inspection is to identify defects and to measure the product and inspection process quality. Software development products that are suspected to contain a substantial number of defects after inspection may be subject to a second inspection cycle (re-inspection). So far, very few empirical results can be found on re-inspections. This paper reports on a controlled experiment that compares the effect of two inspection cycles. A software requirements document was re-inspected by 31 teams, after defects found during the initial inspection had been removed. We present data on the effectiveness, efficiency, net gain and return-on-investment from a second inspection cycle, and compare these results with data from the initial inspection. Models in the literature suggest decision criteria with regard to when to re-inspect, based on assumptions on the relationships of variables between the two inspection cycles. With experimental data, we evaluate these assumptions and the correctness of their decision criteria. The results of the experiment strongly support considering re-inspection as an option to improve product quality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信