A collaborative approach for product line scoping: a case study in collaboration engineering
SE'07 Proceedings of the 25th conference on IASTED International Multi-Conference: Software Engineering
Simplified software inspection process in compliance with international standards
Computer Standards & Interfaces
Automatic assessment of software documentation quality
ASE '11 Proceedings of the 2011 26th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering
Impact of experience and team size on the quality of scenarios for architecture evaluation
EASE'08 Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering
Hi-index | 0.00 |
It is widely accepted that the inspection of software artifacts can find defects early in the development process and gather information on the quality of the evolving product. However, the inspection process is resource-intensive and involves tedious tasks, such as searching, sorting, and checking. Tool support for inspections can help accelerating these tasks and allows inspectors to concentrate on tasks particularly needing human attention. Only few tools are available for inspections. We have thus developed a set of groupware tools for both individual defect detection and inspection meetings to lower the effort of inspections and to increase their efficiency. This paper presents the Groupware-supported Inspection Process (GrIP) and describes tools for inspecting software requirements. As only little empirical work exists that directly compares paper-based and tool-based software inspection, we conducted a family of experiments in an academic environment to empirically investigate the effect of tool support regarding defect detection and inspection meetings. The main results of our family of experiments regarding individual defect detection are promising: The effectiveness of inspectors and teams is comparable to paper-based inspection without tool support; the inspection effort and defect overlap decreases significantly with tool support, while the efficiency of inspection teams increases considerably. Regarding tool support for inspection meetings the main findings of the experiments are that tool support considerably lowers the meeting effort, supports inspectors in identifying false positives, and reduces the number of true defects lost during a meeting. The number of unidentified false positives is still quite high.