Software inspection adoption: A mapping study

Abstract

In Software Engineering technical literature the references about the benefits of software inspections are abundant. In contrast, some authors raise the problem of low adoption of this process. From this issue a literature review is made to produce a map on most researched topics in the area, factors causing low adoption and possible solutions. Results showed a list of 64 articles selected using a search protocol, which were classified according to a defined taxonomy. The founded factors were codified and a list of solutions founded in the reviewed papers was made. The main conclusion was that most of the factors causing low adoption are related to developers perceptions about the process, lack of training and some characteristics of the process as the rigidity, complexity and the difficulty of connecting the effort made with the final product quality. These factors should be studied in future works. I. INTRODUCCIÓNSe estima que entre el 50% y el 60% del esfuerzo total de producir software se invierte en tareas de aseguramiento de calidad [1]. Por otra parte, de acuerdo a un estudio realizado en el 2002 por el NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) la entrega de software defectuoso le cuesta a los Estados Unidos $59.5 miles de millones por año, de los cuales $22.2 miles de millones podrían ahorrarse mejorando la infraestructura de testing, revisiones e inspecciones [2]. Humphrey dijo que la calidad de los productos de software depende directamente de la calidad del proceso que los genera [3]. Dentro de estos procesos, los de verificación y validación permiten evaluar si un software cumple con los requerimientos y con el uso previsto. También permiten detectar defectos en los artefactos de software lo que contribuye a aumentar la productividad y reducir el esfuerzo de retrabajo. Estos conceptos no solamente son aplicables al código, sino también a todo artefacto elaborado durante el proceso de desarrollo.Normalmente cuando se utiliza el término inspección de software se hace en referencia al método introducido por Michael Fagan [4], el cual puede verse en la Figura 1. Esto se debe a que la mayor parte de los métodos de inspección existentes son variantes del método de Fagan. Por ejemplo se quitan o agregan elementos del proceso como en el método de Gilb y Graham [5], se modifica la cantidad de participantes, como en el caso del método limited logging meeting, o la distribución en distintas locaciones físicas (virtual logging meeting) [6]. Figura 1. Proceso de inspección según IEEE-1028 2008.Existen distintos métodos manuales (o semi-automáticos) de detectar anomalías que complementan el testing, estandarizados por IEEE [7]. La inspección de software es el método más formal en cuanto a sus procedimientos y se realiza con el objetivo de producir resultados más repetibles [4]. Consiste en un proceso de revisión utilizado para mejorar la calidad del software, documentos relacionados y de todo artefacto que sea generado durante el proceso de desarrollo de software. Un método menos formal es el de las rev...

A simplified model for software inspection

“…In this section, we first discuss the motivations and guiding ideas that have inspired our proposal. Then, we will discuss the role and relevance of meeting in software inspection.Scarce implementation of inspection processes: We have performed an exhaustive literature survey, obviously supported by existing previous surveys and systematic literature reviews , especially the most recent ones . Macchi and Solari concluded that low adoption of the inspection process is induced by several factors including developers' perceptions about the process, lack of training, characteristics of the process – such as complexity and so on.…”

“…Then, we will discuss the role and relevance of meeting in software inspection.Scarce implementation of inspection processes: We have performed an exhaustive literature survey, obviously supported by existing previous surveys and systematic literature reviews , especially the most recent ones . Macchi and Solari concluded that low adoption of the inspection process is induced by several factors including developers' perceptions about the process, lack of training, characteristics of the process – such as complexity and so on. In the study of Kollanus and Koskinen , these authors suggested performing more empirical studies for better understanding of inspection process in different types of organisations and environments.We have identified and selected two major issues in SI‐related literature (on which we have worked).…”

“…This could be carried out by adopting a realistic approach for the process instead of forcing the adoption of an ‘ideal’ inspection process model, as requested in Ref. . The second issue to be progressed for this new process of inspection is the relevance of meetings during the process that we will discuss in details in the next paragraphs.Fagan's perception of meetings in the inspection process and evaluation of the inspection process: The idea of the inspection meeting was based on the synergy effects detected by Fagan.…”

“…Additionally, most of the experienced people in these organisations are overloaded with other assignments.It is common to have a low proportion of employees with a profile capable of coping with a multiple role assignment . Shortage of resources is especially intense when allocating dedicated staff and knowledge to launch quality initiatives .Most of the staff works heavy pressure to complete projects. SMEs often have few expert developers and they face severe difficulties in participating in inspection processes.…”

Software Defects: Stay Away from Them. Do Inspections!

“…For instance, Wheeler et al [54] presented interesting information regarding the use of inspections in the industry (Table I) in the 90´s. Surprisingly, software industry (in general) still does not make large use of software inspections despite all their benefits [12] [34].…”