This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Reducing Inspection Interval in Large-Scale Software Development
July 2002 (vol. 28 no. 7)
pp. 695-705

We have found that, when software is developed by multiple, geographically separated teams, the cost-benefit trade-offs of software inspection change. In particular, this situation can significantly lengthen the inspection interval (calendar time needed to complete an inspection). Our research goal was to find a way to reduce the inspection interval without reducing inspection effectiveness. We believed that Internet technology offered some potential solutions, but we were not sure which technology to use nor what effects it would have on effectiveness. To conduct this research, we drew on the results of several empirical studies we had previously performed. These results clarified the role that meetings and individuals play in inspection effectiveness and interval. We conducted further studies showing that manual inspections without meetings were just as effective as manual inspections with them. On the basis of these and other findings and our understanding of Internet technology, we built an economical and effective tool that reduced the interval without reducing effectiveness. This tool, Hypercode, supports meetingless software inspections with geographically distributed reviewers. HyperCode is a platform independent tool, developed on top of an Internet browser, that integrates seamlessly into the current development process. By seamless, we mean the tool produces a paper flow that is almost identical to the current inspection process. HyperCode's acceptance by its user community has been excellent. Moreover, we estimate that using HyperCode has reduced the inspection interval by 20 to 25 percent. We believe that, had we focused solely on technology (without considering the information our studies had uncovered), we would have created a more complex, but not necessarily more effective tool. We probably would have supported group meetings, restricted each participant's access to review comments, and supported a wider variety of inspection methods. In other words, the principles derived from our empirical studies dramatically and successfully directed our search for a technological solution.

[1] R.M. Baecker, Readings in Groupware and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. San Mateo, Calif.: Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.
[2] K. Ballman and L.G. Votta, "Organizational Congestion in Large Scale Software Development," Third Int'l Conf. Software Process, pp. 123-134, Oct. 1994.
[3] G.E.P. Box, W.G. Hunter, and J.S. Hunter, Statistics for Experimenters. New York: John Wiley&Sons, 1978.
[4] L. Brothers, V. Sembugamoorthy, M. Muller, “Icicle; Groupware for Code Inspection,” Proc. Conf. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 169–181, Oct. 1990.
[5] A.R. Dennis and J.S. Valacich, “Computer Brainstorms: More Heads Are Better than One,” J. Applied Psychology, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 531–537, Apr. 1993.
[6] M.E. Fagan, “Design and Code Inspections to Reduce Errors in Program Development,” IBM Systems J., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 182–211, 1976.
[7] J. Gintell, J. Arnold, M. Houde, J.K. McKenney, R. McKenney, and G. Memmi, “Scrutiny: A Collaborative Inpection and Review System,” Proc. Fourth European Software Eng. Conf., Sept. 1993.
[8] P.M. Johnson and D. Tjahjono, “Assessing Software Review Meetings: A Controlled Experimental Study Using CSRs,” Proc. 1997 Int'l Conf. Software Eng., pp. 118–127, May 1997.
[9] J. Knight and E.A. Myers, "An Improved Inspection Technique," Comm. ACM, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 51-61, Nov. 1993.
[10] R.E. Kraut and L.A. Streeter, "Coordination in Software Development," Comm. ACM, Vol. 38, No. 3, 1995, pp. 69-81.
[11] F. Macdonald and J. Miller, “A Comparison of Tool-Based and Paper-Based Software Inspection,” technical report, Dept. of Computing Science, Univ. of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, 1997.
[12] V. Mashayekhi, J. Drake, W.-T. Tsai, and J. Riedl, “Distributed Collaborative Software Inpection,” IEEE Software, vol. 10, no. 5, Sept. 1993.
[13] D.E. Perry, N.A. Staudenmayer, and L.G. Votta, “Understanding and Improving Time Usage in Software Development,” Trends in Software: Software Process, A. Wolf and A. Fuggetta, eds., vol. 5, John Wiley&Sons., 1995.
[14] A. Porter and L. Votta, ”Understanding the Sources of Variation in Software Inspections,” ACM Trans. Software Eng. and Methodology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 41–79, Jan. 1998.
[15] A.A. Porter, H. Siy, and L. Votta, “Understanding the Effects of Developer Activities on Inspection Interval,” Proc. 20th Int'l Conf. Software Eng., May 1997.
[16] A.A. Porter, L.G. Votta, and V.R. Basili, “Comparing Detection Methods for Software Requirements Inspections: A Replicated Experiment,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 563-575, June 1995.
[17] A. Porter, H. Siy, C. Toman, and L. Votta, “An Experiment to Assess the Cost-Benefits of Code Inspections in Large Scale Software Development,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 329–346, June 1997.
[18] H. Siy, “Identifying the Mechanisms Driving Code Inspection Costs and Benefits,” PhD thesis, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, June 1996.
[19] L.G. Votta, “Comparing One Formal to One Informal Process Description,” Proc. Eighth Int'l Software Process Workshop, pp. 145–147, Mar. 1993.
[20] L.G. Votta, "Does Every Inspection Need a Meeting?" ACM Software Eng. Notes, vol. 18, no. 5, Dec. 1993, pp. 107-114.
[21] L.G. Votta and M.L. Zajac, "Design Process Improvement Case Study Using Process Waiver Data," Proc. Fifth European Software Eng. Conf., ESEC'95, pp. 44-58. Springer-Verlag, Sept. 1995.

Index Terms:
Code inspections: web-based, meetingless, asynchronous; natural occurring inspection experiment; automated support for inspections; work, paper and information flow.
Citation:
Dewayne E. Perry, Adam Porter, Michael W. Wade, Lawrence G. Votta, James Perpich, "Reducing Inspection Interval in Large-Scale Software Development," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 695-705, July 2002, doi:10.1109/TSE.2002.1019483
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.