skip to main content
Skip header Section
Software inspection processDecember 1993
Publisher:
  • McGraw-Hill, Inc.
  • Professional Book Group 11 West 19th Street New York, NY
  • United States
ISBN:978-0-07-062166-4
Published:01 December 1993
Pages:
362
Skip Bibliometrics Section
Bibliometrics
Abstract

No abstract available.

Cited By

  1. ACM
    Müller S and Fritz T Using (bio)metrics to predict code quality online Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, (452-463)
  2. Galinac Grbac T, Car Ž and Huljenić D (2015). A quality cost reduction model for large-scale software development, Software Quality Journal, 23:2, (363-390), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2015.
  3. Xiao J, Ao X and Tang Y (2013). Solving software project scheduling problems with ant colony optimization, Computers and Operations Research, 40:1, (33-46), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2013.
  4. Grbac T and Huljenić D Defect detection effectiveness and product quality in global software development Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Product-focused software process improvement, (113-127)
  5. Mishra D and Mishra A (2009). Simplified software inspection process in compliance with international standards, Computer Standards & Interfaces, 31:4, (763-771), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2009.
  6. ACM
    Rombach D, Ciolkowski M, Jeffery R, Laitenberger O, McGarry F and Shull F (2008). Impact of research on practice in the field of inspections, reviews and walkthroughs, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 33:6, (26-35), Online publication date: 31-Oct-2008.
  7. Motoyama T (2006). Improving Software Development through Three Stages, IEEE Software, 23:5, (81-87), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2006.
  8. Freimut B, Briand L and Vollei F (2005). Determining Inspection Cost-Effectiveness by Combining Project Data and Expert Opinion, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31:12, (1074-1092), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2005.
  9. Winkler D, Biffl S and Thurnher B Investigating the impact of active guidance on design inspection Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Product Focused Software Process Improvement, (458-473)
  10. Wong Y and Wilson D Does task training really affect group performance? Proceedings of the winter international synposium on Information and communication technologies, (1-6)
  11. Thelin T, Runeson P and Wohlin C (2003). An Experimental Comparison of Usage-Based and Checklist-Based Reading, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29:8, (687-704), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2003.
  12. Gantner T and Barth T Experiences on defining and evaluating an adapted review process Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Software Engineering, (506-511)
  13. Vitharana P and Ramamurthy K (2003). Computer-Mediated Group Support, Anonymity, and the Software Inspection Process, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 29:2, (167-180), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2003.
  14. Krause P, Freimut B and Suryn W New Directions in Measurement for Software Quality Control Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Software Technology and Engineering Practice
  15. ACM
    Tyran C and George J (2002). Improving software inspections with group process support, Communications of the ACM, 45:9, (87-92), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2002.
  16. Younessi H, Zeephongsekul P and Bodhisuwan W (2019). A General Model of Unit Testing Efficacy, Software Quality Journal, 10:1, (69-92), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2002.
  17. ACM
    Wong Y Use of software inspection inputs in practice Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering, (725-726)
  18. Cockram T (2019). Gaining Confidence in Software Inspection Using a Bayesian Belief Model, Software Quality Journal, 9:1, (31-42), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2001.
  19. Kikuchi N, Mizuno O and Kikuno T Identifying Key Attributes of Projects that Affect the Field Quality of Communication Software 24th International Computer Software and Applications Conference
  20. Briand L, Freimut B and Vollei F Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Inspections by Combining Project Data and Expert Opinion Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering
  21. Briand L, El Emam K, Freimut B and Laitenberger O (2000). A Comprehensive Evaluation of Capture-Recapture Models for Estimating Software Defect Content, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 26:6, (518-540), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2000.
  22. Land L, Sauer C and Jeffery R (2000). The Use of Procedural Roles in Code Inspections, Empirical Software Engineering, 5:1, (11-34), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2000.
  23. Sauer C, Jeffery D, Land L and Yetton P (2000). The Effectiveness of Software Development Technical Reviews, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 26:1, (1-14), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2000.
  24. MacDonald F and Miller J (1998). A Comparison of Tool-Based and Paper-Based Software Inspection, Empirical Software Engineering, 3:3, (233-253), Online publication date: 1-Sep-1998.
  25. Johnson P and Tjahjono D (1998). Does Every Inspection Really Need a Meeting?, Empirical Software Engineering, 3:1, (9-35), Online publication date: 1-Jul-1998.
  26. Miller J, Wood M and Roper M (1998). Further Experiences with Scenarios and Checklists, Empirical Software Engineering, 3:1, (37-64), Online publication date: 1-Jul-1998.
  27. ACM
    Land L, Sauer C and Jeffery R (1997). Validating the defect detection performance advantage of group designs for software reviews, ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 22:6, (294-309), Online publication date: 1-Nov-1997.
  28. Land L, Sauer C and Jeffery R Validating the defect detection performance advantage of group designs for software reviews Proceedings of the 6th European SOFTWARE ENGINEERING conference held jointly with the 5th ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Foundations of software engineering, (294-309)
  29. Land L, Jeffery R and Sauer C Validating the Defect Detection Performance Advantage of Group Designs for Software Reviews Proceedings of the Australian Software Engineering Conference
  30. Chernak Y (1996). A Statistical Approach to the Inspection Checklist Formal Synthesis and Improvement, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 22:12, (866-874), Online publication date: 1-Dec-1996.
  31. ACM
    Hilburn T (1996). Inspections of formal specifications, ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 28:1, (150-154), Online publication date: 1-Mar-1996.
  32. ACM
    Hilburn T Inspections of formal specifications Proceedings of the twenty-seventh SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, (150-154)
  33. Ramakrishnan S and Menzies T An Ongoing OO Software Engineering Measurement Experiment Proceedings of the 1996 International Conference on Software Engineering: Education and Practice (SE:EP '96)
Contributors
  • Nokia Bell Labs

Recommendations

Agnes Marguerite Decroix

According to the authors, this textbook can be used as a handbook for in-process inspection in a project, and for teaching and consultancy. Chapter 1 is an introduction to the benefits and limitations of in-process inspections. The authors show that such inspections fit quality management, as defined by Fagan, when used consistently and correctly throughout the project by all relevant members of the team. Data showing the economic effects on live projects are given. This chapter also contains a guide to reading the book. Chapter 2 explains the use of inspections during software development. The authors stress the project and the quality process, then present the development model and the EEVVA (education, evaluation, verification, validation, and assurance) model, then show how to find defects. Chapter 3 discusses the inspection procedures. The in-process inspection is divided into six stages, which are carried out by a team in which each member plays a recognized role. Planning, preparation, meeting, reworking, and followup are taken into account. Chapter 4 covers defining an inspection implementation process. The authors give all the details required for an inspection process to run effectively. They stress that commitment is the key value for success and that commitment should make the first implementation go smoothly. Chapter 5 is about managing inspections during development. This is a continuous task from which the company will learn. While managers should not attend inspection meetings, they should estimate, plan, staff, direct, and evaluate the outcome of the inspection process. Chapter 6 addresses analysis of and feedback from inspection data. Management should require recording and analysis of all inspection-related data, so inspectors can learn from experience. The gathering of data may benefit from statistical process control, which can lead to a true knowledge of product quality, the inspection process, and the development process. This knowledge is the objective of the in-process inspection. Chapter 7 explains that education and support for staff and management are needed. The authors remind the reader of the characteristics of an efficient support program and a comprehensive education program. As no two projects are ever identical, it is important that staff and management be able to devise a proper approach for each new project. The authors thoroughly cover the tools and media one may use to ensure a sound education and support program. Chapter 8 is a collection of inspection template forms and checklists. Extensive samples of manuals, procedures, and layouts are given. This chapter is printed in a tiny font to save space. It is a template giving roles and responsibilities for 11 inspection types and all relevant checklists, enabling fast production for a specific project. According to chapter 9, it is possible to export the concept and tools of in-process inspections to other development processes. The authors present procedures for documentation, hardware development, and training development. Chapter 10 highlights differences and similarities between inspection and review techniques to help the reader make the best use of both techniques. The material in this brief chapter is necessary for full control of a quality system. The process of identifying and resolving quality issues is mandatory. Yet this process must be outside the inspection process. The appendix is devoted to gathering inspection data. An inspection database management system for tailoring the proper database needed by a specific project is proposed. The system depicted will run on a PC-compatible system. This book could be used as a handbook by any technical person interested in quality. It can also supply material for teaching or serve as a reminder for busy consultants. Human life involves continuous learning. Companies need to make a profit, and everyone in the company contributes. These messages are presented clearly throughout the book. While the messages are certainly not new, this is the first time I have found solid quality messages given kindly and simply, oriented not to the quality god but to the actual companies in which the readers may work. The style is simple. Sentences are short; the text is well structured; the tables are readable; and the figures are plain. References are given at the end of each chapter, which is handy. Also, an annotated and classified bibliography dealing exclusively with inspection is appended. The classification (copyrighted by the Institute of Defense Analyses) contains references focusing on software inspection, references focusing on software reviews and walkthroughs, and references to textbooks that include chapters on inspection techniques. The references date from the mid 1970s to 1992. Maintenance aspects are not discussed, which may lead newcomers to the field to forget that a piece of software will undergo at least one evolution during its lifetime, requiring inspection. I enjoyed the elegance with which the authors demonstrate that software engineering is fully an engineering discipline, which should yield money to help the firm stay in business.

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.