ICICLE: groupware for code inspection
CSCW '90 Proceedings of the 1990 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work
An improved inspection technique
Communications of the ACM
Does every inspection need a meeting?
SIGSOFT '93 Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering
Coordination in software development
Communications of the ACM
Assessing software review meetings: a controlled experimental study using CSRS
ICSE '97 Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Software engineering
Understanding the effects of developer activities on inspection interval
ICSE '97 Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Software engineering
An Experiment to Assess the Cost-Benefits of Code Inspections in Large Scale Software Development
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Understanding the sources of variation in software inspections
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM)
Readings in GroupWare and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: Assisting Human-Human Collaboration
Readings in GroupWare and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: Assisting Human-Human Collaboration
Distributed, Collaborative Software Inspection
IEEE Software
Comparing Detection Methods for Software Requirements Inspections: A Replicated Experiment
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
Scrutiny: A Collaborative Inspection and Review System
ESEC '93 Proceedings of the 4th European Software Engineering Conference on Software Engineering
Design Process Improvement Case Study Using Process Waiver Data
Proceedings of the 5th European Software Engineering Conference
Identifying the mechanisms driving code inspection costs and benefits
Identifying the mechanisms driving code inspection costs and benefits
A design for evidence - based soft research
REBSE '05 Proceedings of the 2005 workshop on Realising evidence-based software engineering
Towards a distributed software architecture evaluation process: a preliminary assessment
Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Software engineering
An empirical study of groupware support for distributed software architecture evaluation process
Journal of Systems and Software - Special issue: Selected papers from the 11th Asia Pacific software engineering conference (APSEC 2004)
Distributed versus face-to-face meetings for architecture evalution: a controlled experiment
Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering
Open source software peer review practices: a case study of the apache server
Proceedings of the 30th international conference on Software engineering
FASE'06 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering
Hi-index | 0.00 |
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 rote 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.