Peer Reviews in Real Life - Motivators and Demotivators

Authors:
Lasse Harjumaa;Ilkka Tervonen;Anna Huttunen
Affiliations:
University of Oulu, Finland;University of Oulu, Finland;University of Oulu, Finland
Venue:
QSIC '05 Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Quality Software
Year:
2005

Citing 18
Cited 0

Does every inspection need a meeting?

SIGSOFT '93 Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGSOFT symposium on Foundations of software engineering
Managing Code Inspection Information

IEEE Software
Key Lessons in Achieving Widespread Inspection Use

IEEE Software
Reengineering inspection

Communications of the ACM
Practical programmer: inspections—some surprising findings

Communications of the ACM
Overcoming the NAH syndrome for inspection deployment

Proceedings of the 20th international conference on Software engineering
How to do inspections when there is no time

ICSE '01 Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering
Peer reviews in software: a practical guide

Peer reviews in software: a practical guide
Software Inspection

Software Inspection
Software Engineering: Facts and Fallacies

Software Engineering: Facts and Fallacies
Software Defect Reduction Top 10 List

Computer
Issues in Software Inspection

IEEE Software
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
Practical Code Inspection Techniques for Object-Oriented Systems: An Experimental Comparison

IEEE Software
Software Reviews: The State of the Practice

IEEE Software
Using multiple adaptive regression splines to support decision making in code inspections

Journal of Systems and Software - Special issue: Applications of statistics in software engineering
Design and code inspections to reduce errors in program development

IBM Systems Journal

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

Peer reviews are an efficient quality assurance method in software development. Several reviewing methods exist to match the needs of different organizations and situations. Still, peer reviews are not practiced as commonly as one would suppose. This study aims at finding out what types of reviewing methods are in use in software companies, surveying the most important benefits of peer reviews and investigating reasons for not utilizing reviews. The study is carried out in companies locating in the Oulu region, but the results can be generalized to all small software companies. The results show that companies that use reviews have adjusted the process for their own needs. The main motivator for arranging reviews is the decreased amount of defects in products while the other aspects of reviews, such as process improvement or knowledge sharing are not considered as important. The main demotivator for reviews is lack of time and people resources.