The impact of UML documentation on software maintenance: An experimental evaluation

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 365-381

  Arisholm, Erik ^a   Briand, Lionel C ^a   Hove, Siw Elisabeth ^a   Labiche, Yvan ^b  

^a SIMULA RESEARCH LABORATORY   (Norway)

^b CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Experiment; Maintenance; UML

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER SOFTWARE;

DOCUMENTATION; SOFTWARE ANALYSIS; SOFTWARE ORGANIZATIONS; UNIFIED MODELING LANGUAGE (UML);

COMPUTER SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE;

EID: 33746897301     PISSN: 00985589     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1109/TSE.2006.59     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. B. Anda, K. Hansen, I. Gullesen, and H.K. Thorsen, "Experiences from Using a UML-Based Development Method in a Large Organization," Empirical Software Eng. J., to appear.
2. E. Arisholm, L.C. Briand, S.E. Hove, and Y. Labiche, "The Impact of UML Documentation on Software Maintenance: An Experimental Evaluation," Technical Report 2005-14, Simula Research Laboratory, 2005.
3. E. Arisholm and D. Sjøberg, "Evaluating the Effect of a Delegated versus Centralized Control Style on the Maintainability of Object-Oriented Software," IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 521-534, Aug. 2004.
4. E. Arisholm, D. Sjøberg, G.J. Carelius, and Y. Lindsjørn, "A Web-Based Support Environment for Software Engineering Experiments," Nordic J. Computing, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 231-247, 2002.
5. V. Basili, "The Role of Experimentation in Software Engineering: Past, Current, and Future," Proc. IEEE Int'l Conf. Software Eng., pp. 442-449, 1996.
6. V. Basili, F. Shull, and F. Lanubile, "Building Knowledge through Families of Experiments," IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 456-473, July/Aug. 1999.
7. K. Beck, Extreme Programming Explained. Addison Wesley, 2001.
8. G. Booch, J. Rumbaugh, and I. Jacobson, The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison Wesley, 1999.
9. Borland: Together, 2003, www.borland.com/together.
10. L.C. Briand, "Software Documentation: How Much Is Enough?" Proc. IEEE European Conf. Software Maintenance and Reng., Invited Keynote Address, pp. 13-15, 2003.
11. L.C. Briand, Y. Labiche, M. Di Penta, and H.-D. Yan-Bondoc, "An Experimental Investigation of Formality in UML-Based Development," IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 833-849, Oct. 2005.
12. B. Bruegge and A.H. Dutoit, Object-Oriented Software Engineering Using UML, Patterns, and Java, second ed. Prentice Hall, 2004.
13. J.L. Devore and N. Farnum, Applied Statistics for Engineers and Scientists. Duxbury, 1999.
14. S.E. Hove and B. Anda, "Experiences from Conducting Semi-Structured Interviews in Empirical Software Engineering Research," Proc. IEEE Int'l Symp. Software Metrics, pp. 23-32, 2005.
15. C.M. Judd, E.R. Smith, and L.H. Kidder, Research Methods in Social Relations, sixth ed. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1991.
16. A. Karahasanovic, B. Anda, E. Arisholm, S.E. Hove, M. Jørgensen, D. Sjøberg, and R. Welland, "Collecting Feedback during Software Engineering Experiments," Empirical Software Eng. - An Int'l J., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 113-147, 2005.
17. A. Kleppe, J. Warmer, and W. Bast, MDA Explained - The Model Driven Architecture: Practice and Promise. Addison-Wesley, 2003.
18. M. Kutar, C. Britton, and T. Barker, "A Comparison of Empirical Study and Cognitive Dimensions Analysis in the Evaluation of UML Diagrams," Proc. 14th Psychology of Programming Interest Group, 2002.
19. L. Kuzniarz, M. Staron, and C. Wohlin, "An Empirical Study on Using Stereotypes to Improve Understanding of UML Models," Proc. 12th IEEE Intl Workshop Program Comprehension, 2004.
20. Microsoft: Visio, Version 2002, 2003, www.microsoft.com.
21. OMG, "UML 1.5 Specification," Object Management Group, Complete Specification formal/03-03-01, 2003.
22. A.N. Oppenheim, Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. Pinter Publishers, 1992.
23. T.J. Ostrand and M.J. Balcer, "The Category-Partition Method for Specifying and Generating Functional Test," Comm. ACM, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 676-686, 1988.
24. M.C. Otero and J.J. Dolado, "An Empirical Comparison of the Dynamic Modeling in OML and UML," J. Systems and Software, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 91-102, 2005.
25. T. Pender, UML Bible. Wiley, 2003.
26. R.S. Pressman, Software Engineering - A Practitioner's Approach, seventh ed. McGraw Hill, 2005.
27. H.C. Purchase, L. Colpoys, M. McGill, and D. Carrington, "UML Collaboration Diagram Syntax: An Empirical Study of Comprehension," Proc. First Int'l Workshop Visualizing Software for Understanding and Analysis, 2002.
28. H.C. Purchase, L. Colpoys, M. McGill, D. Carrington, and C. Britton, "UML Class Diagram Syntax: An Empirical Study of Comprehension," Proc. Australian Symp. Information Visualisation, 2001.
29. QSR: N6, 2004, http://www.gsrinternational.com/.
30. I. Reinhartz-Berger and D. Dori, "OPM vs. UML-Experimenting with Comprehension and Construction of Web Application Models," Empirical Software Engineering - An Int'l J., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 57-79, 2005.
31. C.B. Seaman, "Qualitative Methods in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering," IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 557-572, July/Aug. 1999.
32. E. Soloway, R. Lampert, S. Letowski, D. Littman, and J. Pinto, "Designing Documentation to Compensate for Delocalized Plans," Comm. ACM, vol. 31, no. 11, pp. 1259-1267, 1988.
33. Telelogic: TAU, 2003, http://www.telelogic.com/products/tau.
34. S. Tilley and S. Huang, "A Qualitative Assessment of the Efficacy of UML Diagrams as a Form of Graphical Documentation in Aiding Program Understanding," Proc. 21st Ann. Int'l Conf. Systems Documentation, pp. 184-191, 2003.
35. E. Tryggeseth, "Report from an Experiment: Impact of Documentation on Maintenance," Empirical Software Eng.: An Int'l J., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 201-207, 1997.
36. J. Warmer and A. Kleppe, The Object Constraint Language, second ed. Addison Wesley, 2003.