A global software inspection process for distributed software development

Journal of Universal Computer Science

Volumn 18, Issue 19, 2012, Pages 2731-2746

  Mishra, Deepti ^a   Mishra, Alok ^a  

^a ATILIM UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Distributed software development; Global software development; Software inspection; Software quality; Tool

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873561971     PISSN: 0948695X     EISSN: 09486968     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Aurum, A., Petersson, H., Wohlin, C.: 'State-of-the-art: software inspections after 25 years', Softw. Test. Verif. Reliab., 2002, 12, (3), pp. 133-154
2. Benbunan-Fich R., Hiltz, S.R. and Turoff, M.: A comparative content analysis of face-to-face vs. asynchronous group decision making, Decision Support Systems, 34(2002), pp. 457-469.
3. G. Booch and A.W. Brown: Collaborative Development Environments, Advances in Computers, vol. 59, 2003, pp. 2-29.
4. Brothers, L.R., Sembugamoorthy, V., Muller, M.: 'ICICLE: Groupware for code inspections'. Proc. 1990 ACM Conf. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1990, pp. 169-181.
5. Bull. Inspection Process Assistant: User Guide, 1997
6. Caivano, D., Lanubile, F., Visaggio, G.: Scaling up Distributed Software Inspection Proceedings of the ICSE Workshop on Software Engineering over the Internet, available at http://sern.ucalgary.ca/maurer/icse2001ws/submiss
7. Calefato, F. and Lanubile, F.: Using frameworks to develop a distributed conferencing system: an experience report. Softw. Pract. Exper. 39, 15 (Oct. 2009), pp. 1293-1311.
8. Ciolkowski, M., O. Laitenberger, & S. Biffl,: Software reviews, the state of the practice, IEEE Software, (20:6), pp. 46-51.
9. CMMI Product Team: Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMISM) Version 1.1, Software Engineering Institute, CMU/SEI2002- TR-012. Pittsburg, PA.
10. Damian, D., Lanubile, F., Mallardo, T.: On the need for mixed media in distributed requirements negotiations, IEEE Trans. Softw. Engng., 2008, 34, (1), pp. 116-132
11. Gintell, J.W., Arnold, J., Houde, M., Kruszelnicki, J., McKenney, R., Memmi, G.: 'Scrutiny: a collaborative inspection and review system'. Proc. European Conf. Software Engineering, 1993, pp. 344-360.
12. David P. Hale, Joanne E. Hale, and Randy K. Smith: Evaluation of work product defects during corrective & enhancive software evolution: a field study comparison. SIGMIS Database 42, 1 (February 2011), pp. 59-73.
13. Harjumaa, L., Hedberg, H., and Tervonen, I.: A Path to Virtual Software Inspection. In Proceedings of the Second Asia-Pacific Conference on Quality Software (December 10 - 11, 2001). APAQS. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 283.
14. Hedberg, H.: Introducing the Next Generation of Software Inspection Tools, Proceedings of 5th International Conference of Product Focused Software Process Improvement (PROFES 2004), Springer Verlag, 234-247.
15. Hedberg, H. and Harjumma, L.: Virtual Software Inspections for Distributed Software Engineering Projects, Proceedings of ICSE International Workshop on Global Software Development, available at http://www.tol.oulu.fi/i3/2002/hedberg_icse_2002.pdf
16. Hedberg, H. and Lappalainen, J.: A Preliminary Evaluation of Software Inspection Tools, with the DESMET Method, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Quality Software (QSIC'05), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 45-54.
17. Herbsleb, J. D. and Mockus, A.: An Empirical Study of Speed and Communication in Globally Distributed Software Development. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 29, 6 (Jun. 2003), 481-494. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2003.1205177
18. Iniesta, J.B.: 'A tool and a set of metrics to support technical reviews', in Ross, M., et al. (ed.): 'Software Quality Management II, Volume II: Building Quality into Software' (Computational Mechanics, Southampton, UK, 1994), pp. 579-594.
19. Johnson, P.M.: 'An instrumented approach to improving software quality through formal technical review'. Proc. Int. Conf. Software Engineering, 1994, pp. 113-122.
20. Johnson, P. M. and Tjahjono, D.: Does Every Inspection Really Need a Meeting?. Empirical Softw. Engg. 3, 1 (Jul. 1998), 9-35. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009787822215
21. Knight, J.C., Meyers, E.A.: 'Phased inspections and their implementation', Softw. Engng. Notes, 1991, 16, (3), pp. 29-35.
22. Knight, J.C., Meyers, E.A.: 'An improved inspection technique', Commun. ACM, 1993, 36, (11), pp. 51-61.
23. Laitenberger, O. and Dreyer, H. M.: Evaluating the Usefulness and the Ease of Use of a Web-based Inspection Data Collection Tool. In Proceedings of the 5th international Symposium on Software Metrics (March 20 - 21, 1998). METRICS. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, 122.
24. Filippo Lanubile, Christof Ebert, Rafael Prikladnicki, Aurora Vizcaíno: Collaboration Tools for Global Software Engineering, IEEE Software, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 52-55, March-April 2010.
25. De Lucia, A., Fasano, F., Scanniello, G., Tortora, G.: Improving artefact quality management in advanced artefact management system with distributed inspection. IET Software 5(6): pp. 510-527.
26. MacDonald, F.: Computer Supported Software Inspection. Department of Computer Science, University of Strathclyde, UK (1998).
27. Macdonald, F., Miller, J., Brooks, A., Roper, M, and Wood, M.: A Review of Tool Support for Software Inspection. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE '95). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 340-349.
28. Mashayekhi, V., Drake, J. M., Tsai, W., and Riedl, J.: Distributed, Collaborative Software Inspection. IEEE Softw. 10, 5 (Sep. 1993), pp. 66-75.
29. Meyer, B.: 'Design and code reviews in the age of the internet', Commun. ACM, 2008, 51, (9), pp. 67-71.
30. Miller, J., Wood, M., Roper, M.: 'Further experiences with scenarios and checklists', Empirical Softw. Engng., 1998, 3, (1), pp. 37-64.
31. Mishra, D. and Mishra, A.: A review of non-technical issues in global software development. International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, 2011 Vol.40, No.3, pp. 216-224
32. Mishra, D. and Mishra, A.: A software inspection process for globally distributed teams. In Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on On the move to meaningful internet systems (OTM'10), Robert Meersman, Tharam Dillon, and Pilar Herrero (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 289-296.
33. Mishra, D., Mishra, A.: Software Process Improvement in SMEs: A Comparative View. Computer Science and Information Systems, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 111-140.
34. Mishra, D. and Mishra, A.: Simplified software inspection process in compliance with international standards. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 31, 4 (Jun. 2009), pp. 763-771.
35. Mishra, D., and Mishra, A.: An efficient software review process for small and medium enterprises. IET Software, 1(4), pp. 132-142
36. Nunamaker, J., Dennis, A., Valacich, J., Vogel, D., & George, J.: Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Communications of the ACM, 34 (7), pp. 41-61.
37. Perpich, J.M., Perry, D.E., Porter, A.A., Votta, L.G., Wade, M.W.: 'Anywhere, anytime code inspections: using the web to remove inspection bottlenecks in large-scale software development'. Proc. Int. Conf. Software Engineering, 1997, pp. 14-21.
38. Pesola, Jukka-Pekka, Tanner, Hannu, Eskeli, Juho, Parviainen, Päivi, Bendas, Dan: Integrating Early V&V Support to a GSE Tool Integration Platform, icgse-w, pp.95-101, 2011 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Global Software Engineering Workshop, 2011
39. Porter, A.A., Johnson, P.M.: 'Assessing software review meetings: results of a comparative analysis of two experimental studies', IEEE Trans. Softw. Engng., 1997, 23, (3), pp. 129-145.
40. Sabaliauskaite, G., Kusumoto, S., Inoue, K.K.: 'Assessing defect detection performance of interacting teams in object-oriented design inspection', Inf. Softw. Technol., 2004, 46, (13), pp. 875-886.
41. Sapsomboon, B.: Shared defect detection: The Effects of Annotations in Asynchronous Software Inspection, Faculty of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh (2000).
42. Sauer, C., D.R. Jeffery, L. Land, & P. Yetton: "The effectiveness of software development technical reviews: a behaviorally motivated program of research," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, (26:1), pp. 1-14.
43. Stein, M., Riedl, J., Harner, S. J., and Mashayekhi, V.: A case study of distributed, asynchronous software inspection. In Proceedings of the 19th international Conference on Software Engineering (Boston, Massachusetts, United States, May 17 - 23, 1997). ICSE '97. ACM, New York, NY, 107-117
44. Tenhunen V. and Sajaniemi, J. An Evaluation of Inspection Automation Tools. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Software Quality (ECSQ '02), Jyrki Kontio and Reidar Conradi (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, London, UK, UK, pp. 351-362.
45. Tervonen, I., Iisakka, J., Harjumma, L. (1998) Software Inspection-a blend of discipline and flexibility, Proceedings of ESCOM-ENCRESS conference, pp. 157-166.
46. Votta, L.G.: "Does every inspection need a meeting?," First ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, ACM, Los Angeles, pp. 107-114.
47. Yamashita, T.: 'Evaluation of Jupiter: a lightweight code review framework'. MS thesis, University of Hawaii, 2006, drafted from csdl.ics.hawaii.edu/techreports/06-09/06-09.pdf
48. Yu, L. and Mishra, A.: Risk Analysis of Global Software Development and Proposed Solutions, AUTOMATIKA 51(2010) 1, pp. 89-98.