Are good code reviewers also good at design review?

Authors:
Hidetake Uwano;Akito Monden;Ken-ichi Matsumoto
Affiliations:
Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Ikoma, Japan;Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Ikoma, Japan;Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Ikoma, Japan
Venue:
Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement
Year:
2008

Citing 5
Cited 0

How Perspective-Based Reading Can Improve Requirements Inspections

Computer
Comparing Detection Methods for Software Requirements Inspections: A Replicated Experiment

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
An Industrial Case Study to examine a non-traditional Inspection Implementation for Requirements Specifications

METRICS '02 Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Software Metrics
An Experimental Comparison of Checklist-Based Reading and Perspective-Based Reading for UML Design Document Inspection

ISESE '02 Proceedings of the 2002 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering
An Experimental Comparison of Usage-Based and Checklist-Based Reading

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Software review is a necessity activity to build high reliability software in software development. In this paper, we experimentally analyze the difference in performance between two types of (checklist based) software reviews: design review and code review. If good code reviewers were also good at design review, then we should assign good code reviewers to the design review too. If not, that means these two reviews require different types of expertise. In our experiment, with ten review participants, we examined two hypotheses each related to the defect detection ratio and the required time to find a defect. As a result, we found that there was no correlation between two reviews, i.e. good code reviewers were not necessarily the good design reviewers. This suggests the need of a completely different training program for each review.