International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS)
IJMECS Vol. 5, No. 2, 8 Feb. 2013
Cover page and Table of Contents: PDF (size: 305KB)
An Improved, Efficient and Cost Effective Software Inspection Meeting Process
Full Text (PDF, 305KB), PP.48-54
Views: 0 Downloads: 0
Author(s)
Dilawar Ali
1,*
Engr Ali Javed
1
Awais Tanveer
1
Shahroon Saleem
1
Index Terms
Software, Inspection, Inspection Meeting, Follow-Up, Defect Detection, Over the shoulder reviews, Quality in under developed Countries
Abstract
Normally, the inspection process is seemed to be just finding defects in software during software development process lifecycle. Software inspection is considered as a most cost effective technique, but if these defects are not properly corrected or handled it would cost you more than double later in the project. This paper focus on the last phase of inspection meeting process showing the importance of Follow-Up Stage in software inspection meeting process. This paper also suggests a set of activities that should be performed during the Rework and Follow-Up Stages so to get inspection meeting results productive and efficient. In this paper we focus on the over the shoulder reviews so to ensure the software quality having less impact on the total software cost.
Cite This Paper
Dilawar Ali, Ali Javed, Awais Tanveer, Shahroon Saleem, "An Improved, Efficient and Cost Effective Software Inspection Meeting Process", International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science (IJMECS), vol.5, no.2, pp.48-54, 2013. DOI:10.5815/ijmecs.2013.02.07
Reference
[1]Ronald Kirk Kand, ‘A Software Defect Detection Methodology’, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.
[2]Louis A. Franz, Jonathan C. Shih, ‘Estimating the value of inspection and early Testing for Software Projects’, Dec 1994, Hewlett-Packard Journal, Page 60 – 67
[3]Carolyn B. Seaman, Victor R. Basili, ‘Communication and Organization: An Empirical Study of Discussion in Inspection Meetings’, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1998
[4]Victor Szalvay, co-founder Danube Technologies, Inc, ‘An introduction to Agile Software Development’, Nov 2004
[5]Craig Murphy, ‘Improving Application Quality Using Test-Driven Development (TDD)’ Methods and Tools, Global knowledge source for software development professionals ISSN 1023-4918, Spring 2005 (Volume 13 - number 1)
[6]Meagan Parrott. 2011. Self-Inspection, Validation and Follow-Up: A cyclic process for continuous improvement in Lab Saftety, ABSA Conference, November 1, 2011
[7]Kollanus S. 2009. Experiences from using ICMM ininspection process assessment, Software Quality Journal, published online 10 January 2009
[8]Henrik Hedberg, Lasse Harjumaa. Virtual Software Inspections for Distributed Software Engineering Projects. Department of Information Processing Science. University of Oulu. Finland. International Workshop on. Global Software Development ICSE 2002
[9]Thomas Lee Rodgers, Douglas L. Dean. Process Maturity and Inspector Proficiency: Feedback Mechanisms for Software Inspections. University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
[10]Sami Kollanus, Jussi Koskinen. Survey of Software Inspection Research, Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, P.O. Box 35 (Agora), FI-40014 University of Jyväskylä, Finland
[11]Magne Jørgensen, Martin Shepperd. A Systematic Review of Software Development. Cost Estimation Studies. Brunel University.
[12]Thomas Schulz, Łukasz Radliński, Thomas Gorges, Wolfgang Rosenstiel. Defect Cost Flow Model – A Bayesian Network for Predicting Defect Correction Effort